|Abstract: ||The thesis consists of three parts. Each of them is divided into separate
chapters devoted to particular authors. The composition of those chapters is
determined by the level of representativeness of a particular issue in a particular
prose text. And so in the first part, dedicated to the strategy and poetics of the
fragment, the author takes into consideration their updating in the works of Krzysztof
Varga at the first place, then of Zygmunt Haupt, and finally, of Stanisław Czycz.
The past, reverting the memory and the rise of importance of individual
experience constitute the entity, around of which the considerance is developped in
the second part. It is commenced by issues concerning brooding as a particular
stock-in-trade in Haupt's prose. Fragments of Czycz's short stories, which show
cherishing of a particular loss in the narrative are marked and discussed. In Varga's
prose, the author attempts to save the myth of the past, instead of the past itself.
In the third part, the questions about status and stock-in-trade of the authorial
subject are raised, as well as about conceptions of subjectivity in works of Hapt,
Czycz and Varga.
Consideration of the prose of the three different authors, which is introduced
in the thesis, is supported by thinking about literature as both performance and
presenting. Every earnest reading of a literary work, which is understood in these
terms, should subsume not only what is presented, but also the act and the fact of
presenting itself. Then the text is understood, or imagined as a scene, being the
source of voice. This is a phenomenon of the communication, of the contact itself,
which is indicated by everything what happens in the text and by the text itself on
every formal and substantive level.
In texts of those authors, the voice belongs to someone, who can come into
existence only as the voice. The identity of such person, or rather his image consists
of life experience of the personal author, fragments of his biography, his
consciousness, but also his unconscious, social and cultural norms, linguistic devices
and the literary tradition. The question about “who” of this voice is in fact a question
about a particular, historical unit, but also about psychosocial, linguistic and literary
norms and practices. Just such questions are posed from the scene of writing in this
text, and specific answers are given by the “self” of this voice.
Both the “who” of this voice and his “what” are to large extent supported by
the experiences of the authors themselves. Characters who appear on the scene of
writing have traits similar, or even identical with traits that could describe people
hidden under names of the authors. Often enough, those characters show, or even
declare this similarity themselves. They narrate stories about themselves, about their
past evoked by the power of their memory. By talking about it, they also talk about
more or less conscious manners of shaping depictions of the past, about culturally
determined devices, that are not reproducing it, but producing. They appear in texts
as actors and narrators of the story. They will not refrain from speaking about that
second activity. It gives them semblance of authenticity, semblance of being, but still
this is just semblance.
The possibility of presence is undermined by the voice, which unceasingly
performs the act of disillusion, being the act of disillusion itself. The way of its
existence is paradoxical. It is not personal, or certainly, not only personal. It is a result
of pure productivity of the act of writing, to be exact, of writing out, writing up and
writing to show off. The voice says: “I am here”, instead of: “I am important here
because he is not able, or does not want to spring into existence on the scene of
writing as himself; By this speaking and marking I am supplanting him here” (that is
cynical voice of Czycz's writing out). Some other time: “I am not the voice of any
individual, not even of a community, but a voice of collectiveness. I am not only the
voice, which presents, speaks about something. I am the voice of the dialogue itself”
(dialogic voice of Haupt's writing up). Finally: “I am the voice of the scene itself, of
writing, of presenting” (spectacular voice of Varga's writing to show off).
The voice attempts to head to its source, but the only thing it can do is to
mark the source's impossible presence.
Literary marking and emulating in texts do not lead to any direction (of
retrieving what is lost, restoring the presence, establishing identity and expressing it
in a complete work), as it is a purpose itself. That is why the author of the thesis
states that in the prose of the authors mentioned above, the literary demonstration of
the desire itself is effectuated there. This desire enables any communication, which
becomes here an act of calling, corresponding with, and, as a result, saving only the
remnants of what is not present or unavailable.
Works of Haupt, Czycz and Varga are read as a project of the redeeming
loss: occurring in the voice which comes from the scene of writing during the process
of redeeming the remnants of a particular presence, by destroying and quelling it in
its literary articulation.|