Digital storage and retrieval of texts has been in the focus of an entire branch of contemporary literary studies. Literary texts online meant a new step, allowing readers to access (and editors to build and modify) the corpus in a radically new way, via the Internet. A recent development, however, the era of the network (with its “community sites” and all the different interactive communications between users) raises quite new issues. In addition to problems of archiving, accessibility and connectibility, the issues of literature produced and received on the Internet came to the fore, and deserve interest and theoretical reflection in their own right. In this study, some cases from the Hungarian internet scene concerning the temporality, authorial position, collective production, etc. are described, in order to call for a more systematic and thorough survey of these phenomena in general.
As a contribution to a larger theoretical discussion of the relationships between literature and political context, this paper offers an examination of the reception of the works of Hungarian poet and novelist Dezső Kosztolányi during the communist period, drawing particular emphasis to the origins of several misunderstandings. Over the past several decades Hungarian Marxist literary theorists, influenced by the philosophical and aesthetical heritage of György Lukács, have thought of artists as having a revolutionary role in society and literature as having an important role as a means through which to educate the nation. Kosztolányi’s concept of art for art’s sake did not minister to this ideological and political system, and as a consequence his reception and reputation suffered. Not only were critical evaluations of his writings, both literary and theoretical, distorted and crafted with the intention of creating a misleading image of the author, but the editions of his texts were also censored. It is not mere accident or circumstance that the critical edition series of his works could not be edited and research groups and projects dealing with an edition of his life’s work were not financed under the communist regime. Hungarian intellectuals have yet to raise the question as to why open discussion of the beginning of the 20th century (when events took place that continue to exert an influence on conceptions of culture today) remains a taboo. Why are there no (or few) critical editions and anthologies or studies dealing with the period? Twenty years have passed since the political transition and the situation remains essentially the same. Hungarian philologists who deal with Kosztolányi’s oeuvre must address these questions and challenge the Marxist axioms and stereotypes if they hope to further the development of Kosztolányi’s reception. Relying on postmodern theories is not sufficient if there is little fundamental research.
The history of Malta is a sequence of experiences which exposed the country to various cultures and consequently contributed towards its growth into a nation not only claiming to be distinct, but also having full awareness of its own identity. The Semitic character of its language and the Latinity of its culture have both contributed towards the complex formation of a unique country. This paper seeks to outline the development of the Maltese language as a medium through which Malta could best express itself and construct its own literature. Located midway between two continents, Malta’s geographical position is thus coherently reflected in this duality.
natural pandemics is intelligence. This has myriad forms, including the direct use of humans to access information, use of sophisticated computer systems to track infrastructure and resource movements, use of literature-related discovery techniques to help
The term “Hungarian literature in Slovakia” has been present as a problematic concept in literary historiography since the emergence of minority Hungarian literatures defined by geopolitics. Following established practice, the phrase “Hungarian
Literature, like any other social activity capable of generating perpetuated products, has likewise functioned along the ages
on two different levels. On the one level, it managed to generate and provide possible models for consensual explanations
of the world as well as for actual behavior. On the other, it managed to establish itself as a possible asset in an international
stock exchange of symbolic capitals. Writing an adequate history of literature, it is suggested in this paper, should better
take into account these two levels, as well as the correlations between them. With a better understanding of these correlations,
the history of literature can be better understood as an often major factor in the social organization of life. This can help,
on a more general level, to integrate the study of literature into a wider framework, by underlining the most distinctive
and manifest function of literature in the creation and maintenance of society by means of its culture.
The reception of the works of George Eliot in Hungary offers an interesting perspective from which to rethink some of the fundamental questions of reception theory and the interrelationships between political and social contexts and attitudes towards works of literature. Furthermore, shifting responses to Eliot illustrate the significance of divergences in approach to translation in the canonization of a work of literature in another literary tradition.
In scientific literature, there is the phenomenon of delayed recognition, where papers that initially are unappreciated but later go on to be recognized as significant are referred to as premature discoveries
World Literature’s time has come again in the current development of a new discipline of World Literature suitable for a time
of globalization. The new disciple faces some challenges: the challenge of translation, the challenge of what literary works
to choose as representative, the challenge of making a universal definition of “literature.” The thought experiment of imagining
what commentary you would need to put with a translation into Chinese of W. B. Yeats’s lyric, “The Cold Heaven,” exemplifies
these problems. Explaining the reasons for Friedrich Nietzsche’s rejection of Goethe’s Weltliteratur, in The Birth of Tragedy, is, when that rejection is put into the context of The Birth of Tragedy as a whole and of other writing by Nietzsche, a good example of the theoretical problems that the renewed discipline of World
Literature may need to take into account.