Rafael Gutierrez said in one of his articles that the gap in literary criticism and history Colombia were due in part to squelch the controversy that he was a "literary or intellectual war war", away from the physical coup and resentment. While this approach could be taken up for an ethics test, a genre that has become the world's wild card has been tampered school ad nauseam.
I will not stop in his name although it is clear that the uncertainty regarding its conceptualization has allowed the use of this crazy genre. However, for me, the test is between the scientific and the literary is argumentative but his argument involves narrative tropes and turns pursuing the beauty of language, as is defined in some of the texts cited by Fernando Vasquez. By the way, taking into account its complexity, I must say that gender is an impossible test in school and college.
personally think that a test also requires a scientific and literary time, two spices that make it attractive, deep belief in the ideas and controversy. The first is achieved only with reading and writing constantly. The product is a letter that, while not entirely resolve an issue, at least it gives you a special way that the reader can see clearly.
front differences are academic article on the terminology used and the purposes, and even the impact it had on the reader, because a good essay will always be more successful than the long yawn that comes from some interesting work scientists. Non absolutize question must state that not all trials are attractive and all academic articles are anesthetics, some of the latter actually trap and within trials come in different shades.
trials are timid, an oxymoron, of course, because a venture-test requires careful respect the conventions and to rein in the experiment. Of these samples even there, much to my regret, because for me a contemporary essayist par excellence should be controversial. The controversy is not achieved with redundant or futile arguments ironic use of language. The intellectual argument requires knowledge of the causes and the strength of ideas.
The difference between polemics and diatribe simply outrageous lies in the argument. Nothing is more discouraging and even comic essayist devoted to iconoclasm ignoring the tradition of the discussion that is involved. They are exercises in a strong feeling of passion or sometimes animated by the desire for representation to be achieved by the shortest route. At the end of the day when an aspiring writer or a set that has exhausted its creative sources requires some attention, you can resort to simple scandal.
In the Colombian novel, for example, this output has become a recipe: sex, drugs and alcohol, drug violence, black humor. A beardless essayists also urges sometimes, an inclination for the role and end up being the laughingstock of the academic community. Personally I prefer those who remain under the conventional -Although some are boring, strenuous than those who do, from writing, course of circus stars.
But parallel to these failed attempts are examples of a real confrontational attitude that the reader enjoys. In Colombia I think of four names, a figure still incomplete because I have a lot to explore about: Rafael Gutierrez Girardot, Charles J. Mary, and Oscar Torres Pablo Montoya Duque. The four have been devoted to the practice of literary criticism with heavy doses of interrogation and, of course, a style that avoids the stiff and decency text. With four you can have fighting intellectual-o least expect them, because they have risked an art that, however unpopular, complex often rejected by those in the country's intellectual level.
Who is not disturbed when, for example, Rafael Gutierrez said that ours was an "aristocracy of aguapanela" (1982: 448) or Julio Flores was a "professional of sentimentality" (1982: 458 ) or Barba Jacob "mastered the art of saying loudly banalities" (1982: 498), or when Charles J. Mary said Héctor Sánchez and thinking about in his book of essays "as narrator of stories we like ... But as a thinker, as an essayist, Hector is really a calamity "(1996: 237) , how not to get excited to hear about Oscar Torres express The other jungle that Boris Salazar she "devoured Anaphora," a metaphor for the excesses of the author, how not to feel touched when reading Pablo Montoya in whose lines Ursúa says William Ospina "is impeccably written, but this is impeccable to grammar and only appeals to those who love altisonancia "(2009, 112).
Taken in isolation, these statements could suggest exercises demented who disturb the nest and want to be undesirable, or candidates for 15 minutes of fame that Andy Warhol-predicted we would all human beings. But the overall context of these statements emanating from an understanding of the reasons why these statements are expressed explosive. To me, this should be one of the spirits of the trial: the controversy.
not continue to bore you with bland texts, intellectual war welcome embellished by language.
References.
Gutierrez Girardot, Rafael. "The Colombian literature in the twentieth century" In Mutis Durán, Santiago (Editor). History Manual Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Cultura, 1982.
M aria , Carlos J . Feedback: notes on literary criticism and literature Colombian an teas and after García Márquez. Santa Fe de Bogotá, Barranquilla : Antares Editors, Institute of Culture, 1996 .
Montoya, Pablo. Historical Novel in Colombia, 1988-2008: from the pomp and failure. Medellín: Editorial Universitaria de Antioquia, 2009.
Leonardo Monroy Zuluaga
0 comments:
Post a Comment