Mains Outdoor Clocks With Bst

CARO Todorov, BUT WHAT DO I SAY NEVER?

pupil to: "Proffe ... I do not understand anything, but the sense in that ? What do I need? You tell me! Narrator extradiegetico, internal focus, but ... chissenegrega! "

I still remember my encounter with the University of Venice. I graduated in Foreign Languages \u200b\u200band Literatures, studying French as their first language. They are then immediately come in contact with the analysis of literary texts of structuralist mold. A cold shower! What matters is the structure of the text, its plant, as the words are linked to each other, the style. Look sacrosanct but that may not become the one and only point of reference when dealing with a literary text.

When I had to support the various competitions, the same music. You had to do the analysis of the literary text and should have known, as well as a number of other concepts, including those related to style. Nothing wrong with that. A teacher must know what a asindeto and how to structure a novel. But, in my opinion, should not lose sight of the transmission and the love for reading.

Today in our schools (high schools and professional does not matter) the boys are "initiated into the literature through the knowledge of the structural elements of the text and not the reflection of the issues that we talk about the author.

analyzing the work of Perceval of Chrétien de Troyes, the students of a high school, will be "questioned - as he writes Todorov - the role of that character of that episode, some of that detail in the quest for the Grail and not on meaning This same research [1] .

The boys are introduced to know immediately the structure of the text. And no more thinking about the human condition, the individual and society, love and hate, joy and despair. They will be asked: What is the narrator extradiegetico? Explain what un'analessi? Could you tell me what is the external focus? And the inside?

But what is structuralism? Today this word has taken on different meanings in different fields of inquiry. De Saussure is the father of structuralism, for which: the language is a system of relationships where each element can be defined only by the relationship it has with other elements (relations of equivalence and opposition). The reports create the structure. De Saussure, Jackobson, Gerard Genette, Roland Barthes and Todorov are just some of the names that recur when it comes to structuralism. Todorov wrote "What is structuralism?", Has helped to spread his "virus" (pardon the expression!). But then in 2007 he came out with an essay "La littérature en peril " where he harshly attacked this approach.

"To complete the university still needed to discuss at the end of the fifth year, a dissertation. How to talk about literature without having to bend to the demands of the dominant ideology? I chose one of the only route to escape the official recruitment. It was to deal with issues that had not nothing to do with ideology, so in all that concerned the literary text itself and its linguistic forms. I was not the only one who groped this solution already in the twenties of the last century the Russian formalists had paved the way, followed by others. All''università our teaching more interesting was, of course, an expert on versification. So I decided to write my thesis by comparing two versions of a long tale of a Bulgarian author, written at the beginning of the twentieth century, and I just grammatical analysis of the changes he had made from one version to another: replacing transitive verbs the intransitive, became the perfect more frequently imperfect ... thus my remarks to escape any form of censorship! Because of that, do not run the risk of breaking the party's ideological taboos.

I will never know how he was going to finish this game of cat and mouse, not necessarily to my advantage. I was presented with the opportunity to go for a year "in Europe", as we said then, that is to say beyond "Iron Curtain". I chose Paris. [2] "

E '1963. In his pocket a letter from the Dean of the Faculty of Sofia, Todorov can be introduced in the academic French. As we have just read, he wanted to study the style, language and literary theory in general. But by then it was studying literature in other ways: in relation to the ages and nations. The Sorbonne offered no courses that showed this new approach. Todorov was then hijacked by Gerard Genette who introduced him to turn to Roland Barthes (French semiologist). From there he began his career in the cultural and academic French. Collaborate with the university, and makes known the results Russian formalists. Writes the Theory of Literature. But once Inserit in French society, and from the mid-seventies, only to end his involvement in Theory of Literature to broaden her horizons. He is interested in anthropology, psychology of the Conquest of America etc ...

farther communist ideology, appreciate the freedom of a culture is not subject to ideological dogmas. No need to deepen the work in its structural aspects, widen their horizons of literary research.

When her daughter began to go to high school, Todorov was able to touch the fruits of this type of approach to literary texts. An approach that prepares students for matriculation exams in French debate whether The process falls in the register or in the comic absurdity, rather than analyze what role Kafka in European thought. " [3]

I never found a quote by Todorov in the books by Christian Bobin, but chance, anyway. to relate. I do it because both - Todorov a great essayist and scholar, Bobin a great writer and avid reader - I have cheered your heart and strengthened my relationship with books and literature, in general. The literary scene has always made me a bit 'in awe. But some books have irritated me. Especially the literary criticism that I was given in Venice in the early 80's. I found it absurd, empty. I do not understand. C onfesso I felt stupid - and my awe mixed with irritation grew. An approach to the text rather than entice them to read, I walked away. I was wondering, but why the books?

There are a thousand reasons. I propose one of Todorov, in fact:

"When I ask because I love literature, I naturally reply, because it helps me live. I do not ask more, as in the teens, to spare the wounds that could suffer during the meetings with real people, rather than removing the experiences, makes me discover worlds that are in continuity with them and allows me to better understand . Do not think I'm the only one who thinks so. Denser, more eloquent of daily life but not radically different, literature expands our universe, inspires us to imagine other ways to conceive and organize it. We are all made of what others give us: first our parents and then those around us, this literature opens up infinite opportunities for interaction with others and we enhanced, therefore, infinitely. Gives us an irreplaceable feeling, such that the real world becomes more meaningful and more beautiful. Apart from being a simple pleasure, a distraction for people who had learned, literature and allows individuals to better respond to their vocation of being human. [4] "

Todorov gives great power to literature, that power is not narcissistic self that becomes - in effect - a form of idolatry, but a power "vital."

"Literature can very. Po 'reach out when we are profoundly depressed, lead to human beings around us, make us better understand the world and help us live. He does not want to be a way to heal the spirit, but as a revelation of the world, may also, in passing, to transform the core. The literature has a vital role to play, but can hold only when taken in the broad and meaningful that has prevailed in Europe until the late nineteenth century and today has been put aside, and is triumphing absurdly narrow a conception. The reader town, searching in the works that read as giving a meaning to life, right to respect teachers, critics and writers when they say that literature speaks only of himself, or who teaches only to despair. Had he not reason, the reading would be doomed to disappear within a short time. [5] "

Todorov is referring to that self-referential literature, which speaks for itself, solipsistic and narcissistic. In other words, the literature becomes abstract and difficult for the few. Of this literature speaks to us in his portrait Christian Bobin:

"There is a magnificent literature, overloaded with gold and complacency. She considers writing more to life. He does not know anything more noble than a phrase. He has no doubt created masterpieces, however, and leaves me indifferent. It 's another one I hunger literature. It is as old as the first. Does not mean less work, but does not look the same. Or rather: there is a write-looking, is not by accident that by grace, and continues to look for. And there is a writing that he turns to the mirror, a bride who tests her dress. This does not look for anything. It has nothing to search, finding whom to marry has always been: If itself. Its beauty is not m 'is impressive. Not because I admire a work is said to admire, but for the strength of which it vibrates. What I mean by love is not at all sentimental. The only real love is incredibly hard. The poet Henri Pichette says that you should never write a single sentence that you can not whisper in the ear of a dying man. Well, it is exactly that. I love the writing is exactly that. And we are all the dying, is not it? Where these considerations lead me? Nothing, nothing. No problem: a small febrile attack. What I said tell him I put in another way: there is a word and a word of the principles of the beggars. That is how the principles in a room where there is nothing at the same time and in which everything is full, full to the brim. It 's a word so deaf enough in itself. That of beggars, by contrast, contains quite empty - space, silence - because the first man you can slip in and find happiness. It 's a word that leaves him a place to another. You know the old tradition of having a dish on the table for more than an unexpected visitor, a foreigner. These are the words that I love. E 'on these boards that I eat better. [6] "

Bobin also talks about this type of literature and criticism. Does not dwell on structuralism, no! Cite the authors they like and what little bear in the literary genre that wants to pass for a cultured person intelligent person. We feel instead as Bobin relates intelligence to read: there is even talk of "culture as a disease of accumulation," but we hear from him

"A person can be recognized by the nature of words they eat. I've always seen the people from cultural, with some happy exceptions, such as people who ate that proper names, these names when they reached a certain celebrity. Culture and intelligence belong to two different orders. You can have one and be without the other. You can be educated and appalling stupidity. Intelligence comes from the soul and is available to all for the mere fact of being born, though all do not use it, do not dare to use their personal capacity for solitude, the intensity of the loneliness of his soul. Intelligence is not no more: the personal way of being in front of and facing the world, the way each to be transformed by what comes to meet and to seek his own good, his own good, and sometimes what goes through the 'kill. Read, for example, is one of the simplest manifestations of intelligence, this has nothing to do absolutely nothing to do with culture. Reading is to prove itself in the words of another, to get the ink off blood to the bottom of the soul so that it is impregnated, eat what you read, transform itself and become it. The reading that does not upset your life is nothing, did not take place, it is not even time lost is less than nothing. Every life that is not upset from life and does not go alone, without the comfort of any lesson, to find their own good in this upheaval, is dead. He is the person alone to decide what is good for one person, relying solely on just the light of his solitude, as far away as possible from the intellectual and moral conventions. The intelligence is learned - is exercised. The culture but yes, you learn - it turns out gradually by the accumulation of extensive studies, joins us with the time and work of others. If one lives only in the culture, very soon becomes illiterate: Is there a time in cultural circles, in which the works are no longer meditate, love, eat, a time when you do not eat that the names of the authors, their names only, to do with pride or smeared. When the culture is so foolish, it becomes a disease of accumulation, one thing we know is that inconsumabile consume. [7] "

---

[1] Todorov, literature in danger , Garzanti, 2008 p. 22

[2] Todorov, Literature in perocolo pp. 10-11

[3] Todorov, literature in danger, op. cit., p.22

[4] Todorov, Literature in danger, op. cit., pp. 10-11

[5] Todorov, Literature in danger, pp 65-66

[6] C. Bobin, Self , St. Paul, p. 76

[7] C. Bobin, Consumption , Servitium, pp. 75-77