What Is a Novel?
This article is a study of Gilles Deleuze's reading of Herman Melville's Bartleby, the Scrivener. In “Section 1 – Bartleby, the Scrivener,” I provide a synopsis of Melville’s story in order to establish common grounding as well as to highlight points which will become of greater significance over the course of the article. In “Section 2 – ’I would prefer not to,’” I explain the effect of Bartleby’s language, or what Deleuze calls his “formula,” pointing to how it is the central clue in the reading of the text and the first step toward understanding Bartleby‘s peculiar nature. In “Section 3 - Ah, Bartleby! Ah, humanity?” I delve further into Bartleby's nature by describing the narrator's growing aggravation and madness in light of Bartleby. Here, I explain how the attorney feels stranded between two forces: those of universal, abstract structure and immanent, material force or what Deleuze calls, secondary and primary nature, respectively. These culminate in “Section 4 - An Ethics of Immanence,” which is an attempt to grapple with the ethical dilemma faced by the narrator in light of this larger issue of different natures. Perhaps the most important question arising from the story is: was there or wasn’t there a way of saving Bartleby?
The formulas of fragrances in the Persian classic literature and their semantic composition ("friend's scent", "Yusuf's scent" and "Uvays' scent ") -"terms" or "devices" of poets - are included in the lexical composition of the Persian language, they were often distinguished in the late medieval dictionaries in special sections. Examples of their use are considered in the article.
In the last ten years or so since the publication of David Damrosch's groundbreaking book What Is World Literature? (2003), one has come to recognize the need to begin to locate the various facets of the currently prevalent Anglo-Saxon discourse of world literature with more conceptual rigour. The first imperative, it seems to me, is to pose the question: where is "world literature" ontologically?2 Some believe it to be an attestable network of texts that, aided especially by the process of globalization, enter into myriad relations—however complex and mediated, but still ultimately demonstrable—that reveal (or sometimes conceal) the hard facts of canon formation, cultural propaganda, ideological indoctrination, the book trade, etc. Others understand world literature above all as a prism through which to analyze literature, a "mode of reading." Sometimes these two beliefs coexist in the same body of work, making it prone to conceptual confusion. A third option, often coexisting with the other two, is to practice "world literature" as an intellectual discourse with clear ideological subtexts, frequently liberal and cosmopolitan. How we actually understand "world literature," as an attestable reality of texts or as a prism—one might even be tempted to add a "unit"—of comparison, in other words, a "mode of reading," is not a metaphysical issue. It has very real implications for the ways in which we approach questions such as how one should try to narrate the history of world literature. In addition to this fundamental differentiation, I also wish to suggest another, more concrete grid that should assist in this effort of locating world literature as a construct. This grid is essentially chronotopic and consists of several vectors. One needs to be aware of at least four major reference points: time, space, language, and, crucially, what one could term self-reflexivity—how literature itself reflects on, and creates images of, "world literature," thus opening up spaces for interrogation and dissent from the currently prevalent notions of world literature. In what follows, I will address these four points in sections of varying length.
The article examines the concept "world literature" and the soviet approaches to it. It order to show a possible new perspective, it offers a new interpretaion of the contribution made by the soviet literary critics.