A carregar...
Publicação
Especialização e crítica:algumas leituras excêntricas
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.53 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
A especialização e a tecnicidade dos críticos literários podem ser prejudiciais à interpretação. É falacioso acreditar que há uma essência particular subjacente ao intérprete que lhe confere poderes interpretativos. De igual modo, é um equívoco crer que a interpretação depende de um conjunto de técnicas instituídas a priori, que existe uma rede de instrumentos e de métodos entendidos como a única forma de ler. Pensar que se é um scholar e que, por isso, se está apto a traduzir o texto literário pode ser um erro; pensar que existe uma posição teórica que suporta as ideias do crítico é também um engano. Neste trabalho, serão tomados como objectos de análise casos de tradução, análise textual, e metacrítica. Três exemplos de especialização excessiva: 1) a fundamentação e o enquadramento teóricos são dispensáveis, nos casos em que se ancoram em argumentações de âmbito nacional, cultural, e linguístico; 2) a literatura é um universo avariado e contaminado: a sua maquinaria depende de estruturas frágeis e de inconformidades que dificilmente a teoria e a metodologia excessiva podem notar e solucionar; 3) alguns tipos de análise empregam ferramentas que exercem violência sobre o texto e o lêem às avessas.Specialization and technicality can undermine literary interpretation. It is likewise fallacious to believe that the interpreter must, in essence, carry a distinctive character, taste, and sensibility for aesthetic features that empower him with interpretive authority. Accordingly, it is equivocal to defend that interpretation depends on a set of techniques devised a priori, and that there is a net of instruments and tools that can be adopted and allow for the definitive reading. To think oneself as a scholar and to imagine that the academic status bestows a theoretical armor in support of the critic’s ideas is also a mistake. Specific cases of translation, criticism, and metacriticism shall be taken into account. Three specific moments featuring specialization and abuse of methodology: 1) theoretical grounds should be disposed of when they can only be supported by national, cultural, and linguistic justifications; 2) literature is broken, in the sense that its machinery depends upon fragile structures and inconformities difficult to pinpoint by means of theory and strict methodology; 3) some types of analysis employ tools that exert violence upon the literary text and turn it sideways.
Specialization and technicality can undermine literary interpretation. It is likewise fallacious to believe that the interpreter must, in essence, carry a distinctive character, taste, and sensibility for aesthetic features that empower him with interpretive authority. Accordingly, it is equivocal to defend that interpretation depends on a set of techniques devised a priori, and that there is a net of instruments and tools that can be adopted and allow for the definitive reading. To think oneself as a scholar and to imagine that the academic status bestows a theoretical armor in support of the critic’s ideas is also a mistake. Specific cases of translation, criticism, and metacriticism shall be taken into account. Three specific moments featuring specialization and abuse of methodology: 1) theoretical grounds should be disposed of when they can only be supported by national, cultural, and linguistic justifications; 2) literature is broken, in the sense that its machinery depends upon fragile structures and inconformities difficult to pinpoint by means of theory and strict methodology; 3) some types of analysis employ tools that exert violence upon the literary text and turn it sideways.
Specialization and technicality can undermine literary interpretation. It is likewise fallacious to believe that the interpreter must, in essence, carry a distinctive character, taste, and sensibility for aesthetic features that empower him with interpretive authority. Accordingly, it is equivocal to defend that interpretation depends on a set of techniques devised a priori, and that there is a net of instruments and tools that can be adopted and allow for the definitive reading. To think oneself as a scholar and to imagine that the academic status bestows a theoretical armor in support of the critic’s ideas is also a mistake. Specific cases of translation, criticism, and metacriticism shall be taken into account. Three specific moments featuring specialization and abuse of methodology: 1) theoretical grounds should be disposed of when they can only be supported by national, cultural, and linguistic justifications; 2) literature is broken, in the sense that its machinery depends upon fragile structures and inconformities difficult to pinpoint by means of theory and strict methodology; 3) some types of analysis employ tools that exert violence upon the literary text and turn it sideways.
Descrição
Tese de doutoramento, Estudos de Literatura e Cultura (Teoria da Literatura), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, 2012