UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, 7th Annual International Postgraduate Conference

Inclusion Exclusion

16-18th February 2006

Saturday 18 February 2:30 – 4:00: Panel K4: Literary Trends

Bohumil Fořt (Czech Academy of Sciences): ‘Current directions in Czech literary theory: changing the canon?’

In the last sixteen years Czech literary theory has not only undertaken big changes but it is possible to say that it has been truly re-established; not surprisingly if we bear in mind that when we speak about changes in Czech literary theory we can not only speak about changes which happened after 1989 but we also have to refer to one of the most important stages of Czech(oslovak) literary theoretical investigation - that of the 1960's wich, with few exceptions like Jiří Levý or the Nitra School, seems to be the last fruitful stage of that investigation.

After 1989 several concepts that seem to be highly influential and important for the modern development of literary theoretical inquiry in the Czech Republic have appeared. Generally speaking we talk about four different levels of influence. Firstly, prominent Czech theoreticians who were not allowed to teach or work publicly for the last twenty years came up with their works written during those twenty years and started publishing them. Secondly, the theoreticians who decided to leave the country in the late 1960's or early 1970's, and who were usually firmly connected with the Czech structuralist tradition, came back to teach and to be published in the country of their origin. Thirdly, the lack of connection with foreign literary theory for more than twenty years resulted in a number of books by foreign scholars, both original or translated, being introduced to Czech theoreticians. And finally, as a result of above mentioned influences a new generation of Czech theoreticians is focused on re-examining and re-definition of traditional Czech concept according to new formulated needs and new developed concepts, contexts and canons.

We can assume that leading directions in contemporary Czech literary theory vary in different ways and on different levels; nevertheless, we must consider two main groups of literary theoretical inquiry: the first one goes beyond the traditional Czech structuralist attitude and focuses on new approaches to literary theoretical problems, such as hermeneutics, psychoanalysis and phenomenology; the second keeps itself involved in the traditional Czech structuralist concepts and re-examines those concepts in the realm of a wider literary theoretical development, like poststructuralism and narrative semantics of possible worlds. Of course, the distinction is more of a rhetoric nature than of a factual one because the stipulated boundary between structuralism and other conceptions is not necessarily strict or firmly demarcated.

The talk examines those changes in contemporary Czech literary theory which are somehow connected with the structuralist doctrine. It focuses on formal preconditions of concrete concepts and strategies and on the way they do (or do not) correspond with traditional Czech structuralist thought and the way they either support the tradition, omit it, or avoid it. Pointing out similarities or ideas the newly introduced approaches share with Czech structuralist school is an inevitable part of the investigation, as well as pointing out their major dissimilarities and differences.

When speaking about literary theory one crucial notion firmly connected with any literary theoretical inquiry, such as interpretation, must be emphasized. Interpretation itself serves as the ultimate framework for any theoretical investigation of literary texts – without being able to be used as a basis for interpretation every literary theoretical conception lacks its purpose. Therefore, the role of interpretation in modern Czech theoretical thought is included in the overview, as well as the way the thought is influenced by changes and newly introduced trends in Czech literature – as we know well there is no theory without new material, and never vice versa.