MIRT KOMEL
The condition we are living in present-time, the condition commonly denominated „post-modernism”, is something that affects almost every aspect of our lives, and one of the aspects that it deeply affects is by my opinion our capacity of judgment. The most broad manner to grasp the transition from modernity to post-modernity means understand that we feel a still ongoing shift from a situation of more or less fixed values, norms, etc., to a fluid condition where black can be white and vice versa, where therefore our faculty of judgment is left without any fixed reference outside ourselves where to reside. There is no surprise that literature is not only not immune but also itself one of the creators of this effect, which has shifted our common way to look at word-wide process and happenings. One of the most influential and radical consequences that post-modernism as such has made in the field of arts is by my opinion the fact that it deeply marked the way we write, read and judge aesthetics in general and literature in particular. In the end of 19th century it was very common that literature was written, read and judged by authors themselves and between themselves: the idea in the background is that only artists can really know what art means. But as we perfectly know it was only partly so, artists were at that time in many ways conditioned by the public in the some way we are today (what is considered genius or ingenious by a certain group of artists cannot produce the some consideration on the part of the public, although it can be influenced by such impulses). The phenomenon of the „circle” (an enclosed group of people who has an oligarchical or monopolistic take on a certain field) that we usually criticize as specific of our era is nothing more than romanticism, as to say, „in the good old times people really knew what arts meant. In fact, the phenomenon of the circle who in private discuss and decides what is worth reading and what is not was invented by the same people who invented (or better, consolidated) classical romanticism. To make an example: The Weimaier circle that formed at the time around Goethe. I am not trying to say that in the 19th century writers „really” wrote only for each other, for the other writer’s specialized eye, but still, writers were those who decided one for another, being a cannon and measure one for another (whether already divided in clans or being lonely wolfs is another question I’m not going to address here in details). What changed was something else, that can be grasped only if we look at the shift of some general condition of living, working, creating and perceiving art in general: the distinctive change that 20th century brought is a condition of mass-society and mass-media, where the effect of one expert judgment is always multiplied by hundred laic, and where we cannot have any commonly accepted reassurance of the values and norms at hand: neither moral, neither esthetic. Does this means decadence, nihilism, „end of history” in arts and society? I don’t think so, it only means that we are still – and this is maybe a paradox that cannot be seen at first glance – living in a very, very modern era, and that the prefix „post-„ we tend to put to every modern concept (post-capitalism, post-liberalism, post-whatever…) is nothing more than a sign of our weakness in not being able to liberate ourselves from modernism.
IVAN HRISTOV
Translated from Bulgarian by Angela Rodel
On the end of the book. Why lie? We live in a time when the book is slowly dying. Some literati consider this a great tragedy. Yet we live in circumstances in which we can shout: “The book is dead, long live the book!” Like the battle between handwritten manuscripts and printed books, the time has come for the battle between printed and digital books. The disappearance of the printed book holds a huge ecological opportunity for humanity, as many trees will be saved. We could even argue that the outcome of this battle is clear from the outset. Nevertheless, as in the battle between theater and cinema, theater has become a more elite and hence more expensive art. A new hierarchy arises. The difference will be whether a book is read on a website or blog or as an e-book or on paper. Clubs for reading books have already arisen. You can watch films at home, but you have to go to the theater. Likewise, the printed book lays the foundations of a higher hierarchy. The handwritten manuscript is already a museum piece. Most likely its creators suffered in the same way we are now suffering. Yet the handwritten manuscript has not disappeared. The same holds true for theater. They have simply taken on different shapes. They have started to develop certain of features at the expense of others. The current regime gives precedence to the digital word. An important factor in the play of hierarchies is the question of transience. The power only has to go out and the word itself disappears. In the case of the printed book, far more effort is needed to destroy it. Another essential difference is the possibility for distraction. Reading on a computer always contains within itself the option of being plugged into the web, which is not invisible. As in the time of the spoken word, the possibility exists for direct intervention in the act of perception. The printed book requires far more seclusion. It places its reader in a subservient position and thus demands respect for the values it shares. The appearance of the printed book played a powerful role in establishing the institution of the author. The printed book in and of itself is something far more autonomous, far more separate. The digital word, on the contrary, weakens the institution of the author. Certain characteristics appear that resemble the time of the spoken word. The change from one regime to another often creates the feeling of chaos, of crisis, of lack of hierarchies, but in fact it is a transformation from one set of hierarchies to another. The digital word will steal away the “mass nature” of the printed word, which in turn will become elite, while the handwritten will be ultra-elite. New hierarchies will be established.
On mass and elite culture. Perhaps we should have begun with the question “Is it even possible for humans to exist without hierarchies?” In this day and age it is easy to talk about a world without hierarchies, about the blurring of boundaries between the low and the high. Yet human culture as a whole is built on hierarchies. We know that we can live without a leg or without an eye, but we can’t live without a heart or without a brain. Similarly, in our language a phrase has main and subordinate parts. Communism, as a concept of a society in which everyone is equal, created the most strongly hierarchical society. This is why the claim about blurred boundaries between mass and elite literary is quite suspect. To put it very broadly, literature has three functions: pedagogical, entertainment and aesthetic. The first two functions are priorities for mass literature. The 20th century showed that pedagogical or educational literature can also be mass literature. The Cold War Era also witnessed a vicious skirmish between literature that educates and that which entertains. On the one hand, ideology dictates, on the other – the market. Today we live in an era in which the market has conquered ideology. This heightens our fear that literature that entertains will conquer elite and aesthetic literature. The market, rather than aesthetic criteria, attempts to present itself as the authority. Like the digital word, commercial literature also attempts to barge into all spheres of our life. Aesthetic literature, however, fights back. Like the printed book, it has become elite, even though it often jumps into commercial literature’s backyard – although it never forgets where it came from. Having familiarized itself with commercial literature, aesthetic literature immunizes itself against the former and preserves cultural values for the time when aesthetic literature will make itself at home amidst the digital word as well – which, by the way, has already happened. Recently I often come across the argument that for a language to exist it must be spoken and used. This is a seriously flawed argument, since for a language to exist it must be used to express significant meanings and to write high literature. Dead languages may also be “spoken,” yet they are dead because they are no longer used to write high literature. Commercial literature attempts to blur hierarchies, and even to subordinate aesthetic literature. This is even more painful in a society like ours, which has been dominated by ideological literature for a long period. No one says that such a victory is impossible. If commercial literature wins out over the aesthetic, then the end of literature will truly come about, since it will not construct significant meanings.
On the hierarchies of the canon. Let us imagine for a moment what a huge change for humanity the introduction of the printed word was. Attempts to reform the Catholic Church had been made earlier, but Martin Luther’s Reformation was successful precisely because it took place in the Gutenberg Era. The digital word has at least two advantages over the printed word: the speed with which it can be spread and the comprehensiveness of its impact. We live in a time in which, as Andy Warhol put it: “Everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes!” The opportunities to read and be read have increased. In parallel to the book, literature now exists digitally as well. Besides books, magazines and newspapers, we also have the e-book, the website, the blog. All of these have different ways of presenting the word. This creates a sense of chaos, of crisis, of disorder. This feeling is even more painful for a society in which a single ideology and a single canon dominate. We live in times in which every author is a school, every critic is a canon. It is still difficult for us to realize that not one, but multiple canons exist in parallel. But even the “printed” canon, which is the result of a long tradition, is not so monolithic. How can we explain the fact that many authors languish for centuries in the waiting room before finally getting on the train that is the literary canon? The school kids’ canon is one thing, the university students’ another. Digital literature offers opportunities for alternative canons. The Internet Era creates possibilities for authors who don’t live within a country’s national borders to actively influence the formation of the literary canon. The speed of distribution and the comprehensiveness of its impact make it possible for the digital canon to dominate the printed canon. On the other hand, the printed canon relies on endurance and its long history. This battle turns the canon into a far more dynamic system than what we have been used to seeing. If the appearance of the printed word led to the atomization of individuals and their alienation from society, this tendency has only been strengthened in the Age of the Internet. If society is not strong enough to counter this effect, it could fall apart. On the other hand, this multiplicity of tastes, authors and canons can lead to a flourishing of literature. It is up to us.