Literatura in cenzura - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU

Stephan Packard:A Model of Textual Control: Misrepresenting Censorshipcism cannot be applied directly to this world. Instead, it is an experienceconfined to each individual reader, which is undeniable as it occurs, butunrepeatable in court or law. Whether the attempted removal of the workfrom profane punitive powers ultimately failed or succeeded, it doubtlesslyfocuses on this argument. While the freedoms this view can affordliterature is considerably greater than in the case of inclusion, it ultimatelyleaves the censorious discourse intact unless it can motivate or drive profanechange by its aesthetic impetus. When Max Frisch says: “If I werea dictator, I would have them play Ionesco,” he is motivated by this fearthat what enjoys the ultimate freedom of literary foreclosure forever remainswithin its aesthetic confines: Irony remains in the dialogue, cabaretremains on the stage, and rulers can laugh at themselves even as theycontinue to rule.Finally, in a third dimension of literary practice, literature can be seento confront textual control as its direct rival. If the discourse of censorshippresents itself as a second literary theory, then of course so does literatureitself, marked by a deliberately conscious and reflective self-presentationthat details its methods and unique attributes even as it makes use of them.Where literature reflects its own communicative situation, it can wrestlethat defining power from censorious discourse. In Bulgakov, this becomesmost conspicuous as censorship and controlled, deleted or promoted discoursesare topical not only to the presentation but to the plot of TheMaster and Margarita; censorship is explicitly turned into the “double-sidedrelationship” that always makes up its implicit form, and Bulgakov canbe said to censor the censors even as they censor his work (Kudelina).However, the same power of exposure is achieved by any work that reflectsupon its methods of communication to the point where it revealsthe second and implicit underbelly of explicit discourse: The dialogic discussionsof clerical and divine power and justification from the BrothersKaramazov could conceivably be censored and suppressed, but they cannotbe incorporated into a censorious discourse because they constantly exposethe excluded alternatives to their own distinctions and will not serveto encourage their deletion.WORKS CITEDBaecker, Dirk. “Why Systems?” Theory, Culture & Society 18.1 (2001): 59–74.Baets, Antoon de. Censorship of Historical Thought. A World Guide, 1945–2000. Westport:Greenwood, 2002.Butler, Judith. “Ruled Out: Vocabularies of the Censor.” Censorship and Silencing. Practicesof Cultural Regulation. Ed. Robert C. Post. Los Angeles: Getty Research Inst., 1998.247–60.189