If I choose Gadamer over Heidegger as my critical metalanguage, then am I not retreating from what I claim as the model of thinking poetically that I want to claim for Lorca? Gadamer seems a little too safe. I am stepping back from the late Heidegger where philosophy and poetry merge. But that is precisely what I'm after.
My answer:
A Heideggerian "reading" of Lorca would be deadly. I mean a reading that used his language of care, facticity, etc... The reader would say, "fine, I suppose that's ok if you are already a Heideggerian, but what if I'm not?" That's what I would say myself. What I am after is a kind of thinking in which you can paraphrase or translate, in which you can unlock Lorquian duende and compare it to other things. Without that, it is just inertly what it is.
Gadamer explains how you can understand something. Strategically, I need to retreat to this position of clarity rather than immersing myself in a mystificatory language. That's what criticism is, for me: stepping back to a position of clarity, deciding what can be known and what can't.
3 comments:
Do u ,ean smthng like Macherey said "unwinding within a closed circle"..?
I am not for Heideggerian readings of any poetry but for the reading of Heidegger as poetry instead.
Don't know the context of Macherey quote. It's just that H. doesn't work as critical metalanguage because the language itself requires its own explanation: hence it cannot explain anything else.
Post a Comment