Search

The article addresses Mihai Iovănel's 2021 History of Contemporary Romanian Literature: 1990-2020, the first history of Romanian literature that presents the development of Romanian post-communist prose and poetry. Iovănel's book sparked a heated debate among literary critics, historians and writers, because it discusses and redefines prevalent concepts in Romanian literary theory and criticism, focusing on the extraliterary (political, social, economic) conditioning of literary production and inscribing Romanian literature into the system of transnational literary interactions. The paper shows thus the most important assumptions of Iovănel's work and discusses the critical reception of the volume among Romanian intellectuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the question of literature represented as a system made of institutions such as writers, critics, literary generations, canonical battles and so on, functioning as a self-regulating mechanism. To put this question into perspective, two literary works are used which both have a metaliterary dimension and both borrow (for fiction) the form of a "serious" scholarly work: the bibliography and the monograph. In Mircea Horia Simionescu's "General Bibliography", the seemingly anarchistic representation of an infinite productivity of literature meets its boundaries when confronted with the actual writers making up the Romanian (Cantemir, Caragiale, Odobescu, Urmuz and especially G. Călinescu) or the European literary canon (Goethe, Ariosto, Dostoievski). Simionescu describes therefore not the apocalyptic disappearance of values and criteria for judging literature, but a necessary regeneration of stale old literary formulas by means of an ingenious and highly competent readership. In the Chilean Roberto Bolano's "Nazi Literature in the Americas", the idea of a "Nazi literature" serves as a metaphor for literature itself as a form of spiritual investigation of the darker inner regions of the human being. Bolano's representation of literature is also that of a "closed" literary system, not because of its alleged secrecy or "danger", but because it defines itself as an activity of thought, resorting to similar patterns in its search for originality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studii de Ştiintă şi Cultură is the property of Studii de Stiinta si Cultura and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper discusses the ways in which concepts elaborated in the interwar period by critics like E. Lovinescu, G. Ibrăileanu and G. Călinescu were utilized by post-war Romanian critics. They took over these concepts, partially changed their meanings, and included in them the particularities of a wholly new historical and cultural context than their original one, thus making them functional. The paper comments the points of view on the nature and functions of literary criticism emitted by Eugen Simion, Nicolae Manolescu, Adrian Marino, Matei Călinescu, Nicolae Balotă, Virgil Ardeleanu, Mircea Martin, Cornel Regman, Toma Pavel and Mihai Ungheanu. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a parallel insight into two key concepts of two pre-eminent, though antagonised Romanian literary critics from the first half of the 20th century: the literary selection, used by G. Ibrăileanu, and E. Lovinescu's theory concerning the mutation of aesthetic values. Both derived from post-Darwinian biology, the concepts mentioned above imply different yet complementary coherent methodological approaches, whose systemic similarities and differences have been currently missed or misinterpreted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the paper Reading, Re-reading G. Ibrăileanu's Adela in a Postmodernist Mirror we aim to follow this challenge opened by a reading which would start from postmodernity towards the text, taking into account the limits of interpretation imposed by our position as text lecturers, set between the freedom to interpret the text and the need to observe it. In the novel we will identify several aspects that approach Ibrăileanu's text to the condition of postmodern literature, despite the patterns of perception that place it in the traditional area of Romanian literature. This opens a new discussion that focuses on the issues generated by the reception of a literary text over time. As to the author's intention, who happens to be a literary critic as well, how much of it comes to the posterity's reader just like the author himself initiated it and how much metamorphoses over time? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A scholarly writer, with good knowledge of ancient philosophy and literature, of the Renaissance period, of modern philosophy- especially German- Ioan Slavici was also interested in the philosophy and culture of the Orient, in the French Enlightenment and moralists. All this knowledge will be reflected in the vocabulary he chose to use in his literary work. The presence of neologisms in I.Slavici's work has not been debated enough by literary critics and linguists. In the two hundred and forty pages of the novel looked after by D. Vatamaniuc, only fifteen neologisms have been identified. At a first glance, they seem to be insignificantly few, nevertheless the paper attempts to show the values these terms had in the language of a writer whose main tendency was mainly to use lexis of folk origin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]