Skip navigation

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Ocalające zatracenie : rozważania o doświadczeniu, pamięci i pragnieniu w twórczości Zygmunta Haupta, Stanisława Czycza i Krzysztofa Vargi
Authors: Gruszczyk, Tomasz
Advisor: Krakowiak, Małgorzata
Keywords: Zygmunt Haupt; Stanisław Czycz; Krzysztof Varga
Issue Date: 2016
Publisher: Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski
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.
Appears in Collections:Rozprawy doktorskie (W.Hum.)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Gruszczyk_Ocalajace_zatracenie_rozwazania_o_doswiadczeniu_pamieci_i_pragnieniu.pdf2,18 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record

Items in RE-BUŚ are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.