(Continued from last Saturday)
According to his opponent, Rain represented unoriginal, compilation, imitative literature (Narcissus without a face, Nolit, Belgrade, 1981, p. 95). Trying to explain that compilation skills, replaced his creative ability, and quasi - art replaced the place of art (p. 88), that he literally takes over texts from other people's books. The main objection is that in his literary work he does not show creative skill, but passive, mechanical repetition of texts by other writers, and according to this he is not a writer, but an imitator - an epigone, not a role model, which completely disavows his value as a writer.
The controversy that erupted on the pages Anatomy class, Narcissus without a face, goes beyond literary-historical interpretation, because its reason is deeply connected to the ideological climate of the time, a political regime that mercilessly dealt with intellectuals. Jeremic academically - coldly, professorially, he tried to shed light on the problem, by referring to the literary - theoretical level of thinking of philosophers and aestheticians, in order to point out the inadmissibility of Kiš's approach in Anatomy class. U Narcissus without a face, the author tried objectiveno, dissect the text, without insults personality of Danilo Kiš, in order to defend the creative principle of writing, and to bring to the dock the copying of other people's texts as an invalid way of writing. Arguing with Kiš, Jeremić vainly claims that the content of his criticism is aimed at justifying literary creation, and exposing its opposite - imitation, and thus protecting literature from copying. As a lover of the truth Jeremić is irresistibly drawn to reveal the untenability of the writer's position in literature, the absurdity that epigonic writing can be declared an original creation. However, Kiš's polemical suggestiveness, with its intellectual and emotional potential, surpasses Jeremić's conceited height from which he judges the writer. Tombs for Boris Davidovich, no matter how exceptional his linguistic and educational culture was, no matter how much he tried to demonstrate his great learning and the superiority of his philosophical and aesthetic thinking.
By your intention Narcissus without a face, is, in essence, the opposite book Anatomy class. Jeremić was trying to expose the alleged magic tricks, and in the manner of an analytical spirit, confront the angry Kiš with valid evidence, based on impartial reasoning. It was necessary to challenge Kiš's knowledge of the science of literature, to point out his understanding, according to which only what is true is what is in his favor. In this name, Jeremić will first begin by exposing the atmosphere in which the book was written Anatomy class, as an advocate of the right to free critical speech. Admitting that Kiš imposed on his audience the opinion that his critics were persecutors, Jeremić was trying to build an image of a polished professor who speaks based on facts. In condemning the imitative way of writing as worthless, he dared to condemn not only Kiš's way of writing, but all writers whose writing practice is based on a quasi-literary procedure. This means that the critic's ambition is to point out a problem that goes beyond a specific case, so he tried to point out the meaning of literary creation, and to show how Kiš's way of thinking about this matter is wrong. Explaining the essence Narcissus without a face, the author is explicit that it does not have to be head and chin, Kiš himself, but every writer who calls himself does not see it as realized in one's own work but in that of others (p. 8), to confidently conclude that he has no intention of using swear words and insinuations. Jeremić essentially rejects not only some parts of the analyzed literary structure, but him as a writer, and then distances himself from the vulgar response, with his sublime critical style, trying to make an aesthetic canon for artistic creation out of his polemical pamphlet: The epigone seeks to reflect himself in someone else's work, but in this there is no face of his, but the face of the one who created that work (p. 8). In an attempt to explain the meaning of epigonism in literature, Jeremić uses the symbol of a mirror - mirroring in someone else's work, thereby losing the author's individuality and talent. Kiš is that man without a face, a narcissist who has lost his own face, seeing himself as in Ovid's Metamorphoses, in the water, but not in his own, but someone else's face, trying to appropriate it as his own.
What Jeremić draws attention to is the reference to well-known theories of inspiration, dating back to Plato's Burning, not recognizing Kiš's erudition, inventiveness in the intersection of different texts, the coherent whole of the work which is always something more than its own elements. Namely, the spirit of the work transcends its embodied structure, the segments of which it is composed, becoming a world unto itself, independent of its internal factors.
Intending to defend the right to creativity, Jeremić resorts to research, uses literary history and comparative analysis to defend his literary theoretical positions, abolishing any form of copying other people's works, declaring them harmful to literature. In doing so, he emphasizes with great pomp that he is not attacking the offended Kiš. ad hominem, trying to leave the impression of an impartial interpreter. His polemical book is supposed to serve general literature and universal truths, according to which the mission of the work is reflected in the pro-creation of something new, which did not exist in any textual record before the act of writing. Jeremić reminds us of astonishing The first accused's ignorance of literary science, but also of the meaning of his writing. The professor explains with hidden bitterness that as a university professor of aesthetics he cannot be equal to a boulevard journalist. Dragoljub Golubović, reminding us that Kiš managed to unite his critics into one personality - Pigeon - as a synonym for his opponents in matters of literature. Jeremić had to resort to the unfounded accusation that in Anatomy class the author used By ticks with text: My showdown with them, by creating an atmosphere of a provincial rut in which dogs bark while caravans pass by. The fact that Kiš allegedly uses the Krležian style of polemics could only enhance the effectiveness of his polemical language, thwarting the vile insinuations that the writer could not have known what was going on behind closed doors in the literary corridors, which is certainly not a thankless role for a professor.
There is no doubt that the critic's abusive language attempts to discredit Kiš as a writer, hiding under the guise of decency a huge amount of malicious claims: The Tomb of Boris Davidovich is mainly a conglomerate of retold, borrowed, imitated and directly taken over other people's works, and is therefore unsustainable (p. 8)Jeremić argues that imitation in literature cannot be justified, at the expense of the understanding that literary activity is per se, creative activity, so Kiš is exposed in his fundamental writing methodology. Furthermore, it is claimed that the writer is a typical offspring of our environment, of a violent temperament, angry and sarcastic towards all who do not submit to his interests, and using an emotional tone, he radiates anger, hatred and cynicism. Jeremić considers his own spiritual sublimity to be the fact that his polemical tone, the kobayagi, rejects hatred from moral motives, by rejecting the Old Testament lex talions, the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Apparently, Professor Jeremić believes that his shameless rebuke Tombs, its complete exclusion from relevant literary works, the objective stance of the honorable critic, that is, his own smallness, of a moral giant who, despite everything, considers himself a follower Senequinog principles of gentleness, reasonableness and greatness of soul. With all this, in contrast to without reason angry Kiš, considers himself a representative of reasonable criticism, an ethical vertical according to which he judges disinterestedly: There is no doubt that for him, humanist is an abstract noun, and polemics are a way to insult dissenters under the pretext of freedom of expression (p. 11).
Jeremic is under pretext reasonable criticism, mercilessly disqualified Tomb for Boris Davidovich, accusing its author of the ugliest vices and hatred. When he pours out a host of offensive things, then it is rational criticism, and when Kiš responds eloquently, wittily and without hesitation, then it is a pretentious vocabulary unworthy of a writer. In the manner of a cold-blooded scientist, Jeremić believes that he has defeated the writer, and has wrapped his poisonous words in the mantle of his own critical greatness. Ultimately, Kiš is accused of high treason, violating the freedom of dialogue and the general interest, not taking into account the facts that the astute analyst has established once and for all, hypocritically insinuating to his opponent that he has moved from the domain of literary theory to the domain of street reckoning. Jeremić brazenly expresses an anti-humanist thought, which has a touch of Aryan doctrine: Kiš is an outgrowth of a certain social environment, in which culture represents a thin layer of temporarily accepted civility, not a permanent refinement of the soul (p. 12). Indeed, from these words we might think that Dragan Jeremić belongs to an aristocratic culture, a superior race that possesses a permanent refinement of soul, while Kiš is a rookie, perhaps alluding to his maternal Montenegrin origin, a barbarian who has never managed to internalize higher patterns of cultivated behavior. Fortunately, Jeremić product and a person of higher culture of behavior, by his own admission, a person of European manners who, even when he furiously attacks the writer, retains the elegance and elegance of spirit. Especially when he establishes with the cunning of his mind that if Anatomy class has any value, it can only be as a point of reference to the theft of other people's creative efforts in our literature.
According to Professor Jeremić, the book Tomb for Boris Davidovich, is completely unoriginal, created by borrowing, imitating and copying other people's texts. His Anatomy class is an attempt to cover up literary theft, a satanic procedure of covering up traces and stolen loot, which could not have escaped the zealous critic - detective Jeremić in his investigative procedure and literary search, almost even the criminal prosecution of the writer. For the good of our literary bazaar, the fraud was discovered, Kiš unmasked in his corrupt intention to deceive our public, to plant a coward's egg, to mock our literary greats. But, alas. Alas! A connoisseur of Jeremić's rank was found to expose the writer, to point out all the worthlessness of his work, to the sources from which the writer stole other people's ideas and texts day and night. Indeed, what would our literature have lost if it were not for the moral boulder, the Jeremić Dragan strain, incorruptible and caring guardian of public morality, for whom the bazaar is maliciously whispered that they were in the service of the secret police, tasked by the shadowy centers of power with the cause of culture.
Already at the very beginning Narcissus without a face, the author claims to be a supporter of truth: I want to write for lovers of moral truth.. As a self-proclaimed devotee of virtue, the professor addresses a specific audience, one that is a lover of morality, selected individuals who are up to his ethical standards. While Kiš writes for lovers of rough scenes, he, Jeremić, writes for gentle, selected souls of his kind, capable of understanding moral truth due to the nobility of his spirit. In addition, nothing is so unintelligent as distorting facts, imagining that from academic heights it is possible to observe the world in some special way. A specialist in moral values, he slipped in matters of morality, because there is no place for inequality between people, nor glorification of one's own superior the position of an all-knowing critic.
The value of Kiš's work is the result of his self-promotion, Jermić points out, marketing, and unthinking critics incapable of escaping the clutches of those positive evaluations that they have imposed on us through extra-literary means. This is why Jermić's criticism seeks to lead equal dialogue with creators, developing awareness of the scientific evaluation of a literary work, appreciating inventive criticism, in its version of freedom of thought.
Jeremić intends to make a point with his Narcissus, all those who write against anti-Stalinist books are not Stalinists, but members of an obscure literary mafia backed by the state. All his efforts to avoid the persuasiveness of the accusation that he is an extended arm of the party's will fall flat if one assumes the true claim that he is Leonid Brezhnev asked the president Tita: What kind of anti-Soviet book did you publish?The meaning of the polemic that took place in the Zagreb magazine About, who edited Goran Babić, takes a different direction from the purely literary one, and refers to the political field in the background of the showdown. There is no doubt that the polemic is very much a daily one - political, and to the detriment of literature, which Jeremić admitted, emphasizing that he appreciates all writers who have contributed to the socialist - self-management culture, not realizing that the ideological vocabulary he uses reveals him as a party official in public life. Danilo Kiš did not remain indebted to the attacker either. In the text Low blows from another's hand (Književne novine, December 1, 1976), he writes that the premature New Year's greeting card from the Belgrade literary society Cosa nostre, and its literary boss, condemned him for ideological reasons, not to raise his head, and calmly endure the fate that this criminal gang has destined for him, otherwise he will be torn apart by horses' tails.
Dragan Jeremić is a solid expert in literary and aesthetic theories, but his intention is to demaskira Kiš was ideologically motivated, followed by all the small details, and personal envy of his creative momentum in order to make him resemble the mediocre spirit of the Palanca mentality. The polemic was not at all naive, guided by a hidden intolerance towards Kiš's talent for what the respected university professor Jeremić could not learn from books, no matter how hard he tried to leave the impression of a high-minded intellectual, of a sublime level of thinking in his scientific endeavor. The polemic itself grew into a socio-political event that shook cultural life to its roots, so to take one side or the other was an act of commitment for or against socialist reality. Danilo Kiš, as a strongly anti-communist writer with a stance, was a dangerous precedent for the fundamental postulates of the regime's ideology, its humanism and the political reality that was proclaimed from the highest levels, and by all means of propaganda, to be made to measure for man.
(Continued next Saturday)
Bonus video:
