For various sources I learn that my colleague recently Cozma Camilo Fernandez has been appointed a member of the Peruvian Academy of Language, old dream of my dear teacher San Marcos, now finally come true. As a token of appreciation and consideration for their achievements, rescued from my PC to review his book on the poet Rodolfo Hinojosa, written and published a few years ago in a university magazine whose name I do not remember. On the other hand, my note is also intended as an invitation to return to some debates, some intellectual vedettes forgotten and therefore that once defined the agenda of literary criticism in Peru.
paraphrase T. Adorno, we can say that for many has become clear that nothing in criticism and literary theory is evident. Any thesis, idea or opinion, has been reduced only to that: one, among many other theories, ideas and opinions. "It's your reading", say many appealing to an extreme relativism that converts to a critical and theoretical practice sophistry. Moreover, this practice has become a discipline in a kind of Platonic cave. A cave where, unlike that of Plato, philosophers no longer get to see the light. There are no truths, only spectra discourse.
This suggests to me the following image. Literary theory is a hotel with no doors or windows where anyone entering or leaving your taste. Hundreds of intellectuals pass through its halls. For a few hours some are put to bed and the deconstructionists. Then go to the Lacanian, then to Cultural Studies, foucaultnianos, and others. Some tired of so much noise they try to flee and take refuge in a room, lock the doors, walls and windows become narratologists, neo-rhetoric, and even Greimasian. However, this immanent closure delivers no nothing. Discursive continue tormenting noise behind walls and ceilings.
Others, also tired of so much noise postmodern opt out of the hotel and from the side of the street, trying to understand, make sense of this hotel with no doors. The latter are those facing the literary event from both a textual and discursive. Indeed, from their perspective, the effort of the literary discipline should be directed to develop a theory that relates text and discourse.
On several levels, critical production developed by Camilo Fernandez Cozma reveals an effort to participate in this last debate. Indeed, early in The strange islands of Emilio Adolfo Westphalen (Naylamp Editores, Lima, 1990), Fernandez Cozma shows the intention to address the complexity of the Westphalian poetry from two perspectives: the metacriticism and analysis textual. The first, referred to the critical discussion about the work of poet Abolition of the death and its relationship with surrealism, and the second, aimed at interpreting his poetry in the text by setting some elements of the theory of the archetypes of the psychoanalyst Carl Jung. In his second book Traces of aura. The poetics of JE Eielson (Latin American publishers, Lima, 1996), Fernandez Cozma deepens the anterior approach, using the neo-rhetoric as a basis for textual analysis and cultural reflection in the line of Walter Benjamin, one of the most interesting representatives of Frankfurt School. As pointed out Santiago López Maguiña in the preface, "this is a book that illustrates very well what is happening in the field of literary studies. It calls for special description, text analysis, which not mean, however, which activities closed, blind as to what takes place outside the contours, in the context. By contrast, trying to determine the significance, the meaning of texts, literary studies in fact deal with ways of perceiving and imagining are not only own the field of literature. "
Raúl Porras Barrenechea In and Peruvian literature (editorial Fund of San Marcos, Lima, 2000), Fernandez Cozma is clear and explicit textual analysis from a position metacriticism "discusses some hypotheses I quote [on Porras] have been blindly accepted by critics of Peru. " With a rare aggressive criticism in its production, the collection of essays that make up the book, Fernández Cozmo "puts into question that Porras is a Hispanic as was José de la Riva Agüero, and some hypotheses of Mario Vargas Llosa ". In this regard the critic says: "Vargas Llosa called" archaic "Arguedas, but in reality he is archaic because it imposes a strain of nineteenth-century positivist rationality."
In the book that concerns us Rodolfo Hinojosa and the poetry of the sixties (editorial Fund of the National Library of Peru, Lima, 2001), Fernandez Cozma Crimping text and speech in its reflection on the poet Contranatura. Metacriticism, intertextuality, neo-rhetoric and pragmatic, are the pillars of the book problematical. With them assesses the critical reception it has had in recent decades Hinostroza, organizing periods (partial approaches and visions globalizing), builds the horizons of poetic and cultural influences that dominate his writing (English and French), develops a rhetorical analysis-figurative Wolf Director of and Contranatura, emphasis on figures of speech and partners, and finally, makes a pragmatic approach Contranatura. With this latest guidance, Fernandez Cozma make explicit the discursive character of the poetry of Hinojosa, establishing that he "sees the crisis of metanarratives, devices that legitimize certain actions on the basis of connotative effect narratives such as politics or religion or morals, for example. However, "continues", in a second stage is to reconstruct the utopia from a different perspective and the appearance of cultural events that constitute a critique of instrumental rationality. In other words: "The human / error persists until the sale / a ceaseless sunrise / outside the magic circle." back to the hotel's image, we would say that Rodolfo Hinojosa and the poetry of the sixties , Fernandez Cozma accomplished more securely located in the side of the street and observe most clearly the relationship between text and discourse. Obviously, this critical position can be discussed both Derrida and from Genette. Because, after all, the theme of the relationship between text and discourse is nothing more than an exit to the crisis of theoretical paradigms, which does not override the other positions but rather fuels the debate. At this point the critical production of leaves Cozma Fernandez noted its limits. Limits imposed by the object of study of research: Westphalen, Eielson, Hinojosa. These items place him in the position of the critic, but not in the theoretical. Fernández Cozma, manipulates various theoretical devices (theory of archetypes, neo-rhetoric, pragmatics) with which gives meaning to the fabric of the text, but does not discuss its basis. At most force fields of application. Obviously, the latter escapes the demands of their research, which adequately satisfied. But we must not fail to note that these successes can find more than a repair if we leave the critical position and we think the issue from a theoretical perspective. Moreover, if it is understood that from formalism to deconstruction, the debate on the text and discourse has developed within the scope of the theory.
latter is not really a detailed criticism of his work, with results generally agree, but a claim. A requirement for someone who does not doubt that their analytical skills can contribute to the debate on issues that goes beyond our disciplinary space, and covers different areas of the humanities.
Photos: [1] Camilo Fernandez Cozma, [2] Rodolfo Hinojosa, [3] Faculty of Arts School of San Marcos in the Museum Raul Porras Barrenechea.
0 comments:
Post a Comment