Primerjalna knjižei;iiost
»Kdo izber Literatu
posredništvo
an, Aleš Vaupotič
Primerjalna književnost, letnik 33, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2010, UDK 82091(05)
»Kdo izbere?« Literatura in literarno posredništvo
Marijan Dovic
UDK 82:655.4
Ukvarjanje z vprašanjem Kdo izbere? se le izjemoma znajde v središču resnega zanimanja literarnih strok. Nasprotno, celo v klasični literarnoso-ciološki perspektivi, osredotočeni na trojček avtor-delo-bralec, se zdi nekoliko odrinjeno - kot da bi bilo preveč trivialno. Boljše izhodišče za njegovo konceptualizacijo ponujajo izpeljanke komunikacijskega modela Romana Jakobsona, a zares sistematično se možnosti za njegovo preučevanje začrtajo šele v novejših sistemskih pogledih na literaturo.1 Schmidt v svojem empiričnem teoretskem modelu med štirimi tipi vlog, ki jih lahko privzemajo udeleženci v literarnem sistemu, poleg literarnega proizvajalca, sprejemnika in obdelovalca upravičeno utemelji tudi vlogo literarnega posrednika kot enega izmed stebrov znotrajsistemske komunikacije. Podobno v Bourdieujevem sociološkem modelu kulturnega oziroma literarnega polja izstopi posredniška funkcija kot mesto, v katerem se najočitneje prepletajo silnice nasprotujočih si tipov kapitala, ekonomskega in simbolnega; ravno v umetnosti takšno križanje proizvaja najbolj protislovne učinke. Raziskave dinamike in interakcij literarnih polisistemov (Itamar Even-Zohar) so ravno tako pokazale na pomembno vlogo literarnega posredništva pri gradnji (nacionalnih) literarnih repertoarjev - predvsem z vidika inovacij in vplivov, ki prihajajo v ciljne sisteme prek prevodnega literarnega korpusa (Even-Zohar, Codde).
Klasični instituciji literarnega posredništva v modernih evropskih literarnih sistemih sta predvsem literarna revija in (literarna) založba. Literarna sociologija (Norbert Groeben, Hugo Verdaasdonk, Cees Van Rees ..) je natančno raziskala potovanje »novitet« skozi mehanizme trga in medijev ter empirično opisala njegovo dinamiko. Pot literarnih del skozi uredniške filtre, recenzijske in kritične odzive ter esejistične obdelave, da bi se na koncu podvrgla še obravnavi literarnih strok, ki jih skozi postopke k^ano-niza^ije na različne načine vračajo v kulturni prostor, je postala legitimen predmet raziskav vsaj odtlej, ko se je v literarni vedi uveljavilo zanimanje za literarni kanon. Toda če želimo ostati zavezani našemu temeljnemu vprašanju K^do izbere?, moramo premisliti tudi tisto, kar se dogaja pred tem — vse tisto torej, kar je priljubljen predmet kavarniških debat, zelo redko pa sistematične refleksije.
Predpostaviti je seveda mogoče, da bo odgovore treba iskati ob figuri ali, natančneje, ob funkciji revijalnega in še bolj založniškega urednika. »Urednik« je zanimiv kot teoretični model in hkrati kot historična figura v različnih družbenih, političnih in ekonomskih razmerah. »Urednik« je točka, v kateri se svet umetnosti križa s svetom ekonomije; z eno nogo stoji v svetu neizmerne svobode avtorskega ustvarjanja, značilne za moderne umetnostne sisteme, a je obenem z drugo nogo trdno zasidran v neki strukturi, neki hierarhiji (ekonomija/politika). Vsekakor predstavlja tisto figuro, ob kateri se pisatelj, če noče pristati v obskurnosti, de facto mora srečati z ekonomskim redom družbe, ki šele omogoča, da njegovi artefakti ugledajo luč sveta.
Urednik je seveda najprej posameznik z individualnim estetskim okusom, in dobri uredniki so pogosto tudi idealni porodničarji besedila, včasih celo njegovi (so)avtorji. Vendar nas bolj kot takšna »majevtična« vloga urednika tu zanima njegova funkcija od^čeva^a. V to funkcijo se v praksi vpleta kompleksna mreža dejavnikov, ki lahko »soodločajo« z urednikom in torej definirajo tisto, kar se v dani situaciji »izbere«, s tem pa seveda odločajo tudi o tem, kaj se v neki kulturi sploh »bere«. Koncept okusa, kolikor je že sam po sebi zapleten in problematičen, je torej vrh vsega nezadosten, in upoštevati je treba še niz drugih parametrov.
Eden izmed njih je povezan z že omenjenim dejstvom, da je moderni urednik hkrati del organizacijsk^e strukture založbe, torej del njene notranje hierarhije, ta pa je v končni instanci omejena s trgom, s pozitivno bilanco poslovanja. Urednik torej vedno razmišlja tudi s »šestim čutom« za tržni uspeh. Kadar pa je sistem reguliran drugače, netržno, in na različne načine subvencioniran, se moramo seveda vprašati, v kolikšni meri aktivna ali pasivna oblika politike izbira namesto urednika ali z njim. Tu je mogoče obravnavati širok razpon problemov, pa naj gre za tiho izključitev protirežimskih del v reguliranih založbah totalitarnih sistemov ali za sodobne primere pozitivne diskriminacije marginalnih skupin. Sem sodijo tudi strokovne komisije in ekspertni bralci, njihova sestava in načini imenovanja, ali pa seznami del, katerih prevod založbam avtomatično zagotovi subvencije; vse to so načini, kako (kulturna) politika prenaša v otipljivo prakso rezultate nenehnega obnavljanja znotrajsistemske razmejitve med »umetniškim« in »trivialnim«. Še en parameter, ki ga je treba ob vsem tem upoštevati, je seveda cenzura, ki jo spet lahko razumemo v širokem razponu od eksplicitne avtoritarne oblike prek perfidne komunistične (samo)cenzure do sodobne legalistične različice, ki se kaže v možnosti neugodnih defamacijskih tožb.
Doslej omenjeni načini »pomoči« uredniku pri procesu izbire se nanašajo tako na korpus, ki ga ustvarjajo domači avtorji, kot tudi na prevodni korpus, ki je ravno tako vedno posredovan prek uredniških izbir. Vendar
je treba oba v nekaterih pogledih teoretsko ločiti in pri vsakem upoštevati še dodatne dejavnike. Pri selekcijskih procesih pri prevodni literaturi — in ta je šele omogočila skupen duhovni prostor »svetovne književne republike« — je treba začeti na mikro nivoju in preučiti vlogo malih kulturnih posrednikov, kulturnih dvoživk, entuziastičnih prevajalcev, ki pogosto motivirajo založnike ciljnih literatur, in njihovih nagibov. Po drugi strani je treba preveriti rastočo vlogo literarnih nagrad na eni in medijskega zvezdništva na drugi strani kot pomembnih katalizatorjev prevajanja določenih del. S tem v zvezi se ni mogoče izogniti vprašanju mednarodnih kulturnih strategij in aktivnih promocijskih politik ter očitne asimetrije pri nastajanju nadna-cionalnih kanoničnih formacij, »svetovne« ali »globalne« literature, ki je odmevalo v sodobni komparativistiki (Franco Moretti, Pascale Casanova, David Damrosch; prim. Marko Juvan, »Svetovni literarni sistem«).
V zvezi z domačo literaturo ne bi smeli spregledati, da udeleženci v literarnem sistemu različne vloge največkrat prevzemajo simultano, tako da te ostajajo v nenehni napetosti, kar še posebej velja za posredniško vlogo. Predvsem kombinacija vloge proizvajalca in (vplivnega) posrednika je zanimiva z vidika koncentracije simbolnega kapitala in s tem moči v kulturnem polju. V preteklosti najdemo nemalo primerov, ko je takšna kombinacija učinkovito promovirala posamezne literarne struje, skupine, generacije ali zgolj ambiciozne k^lik^e. Potencialni konflikt interesov, ki je položen vanjo, tudi v prevodni literaturi nemalokrat spodbuja vezano trgovino, kompenzacijske dogovore »pod mizo« o prevodih in izdajah po načelu »roka roko umije«. Vpliv distribucije pozicij moči in delovanja neformalnih družabnih omrežij znotraj literarnega polja na kariere posameznih avtorjev, skupin in smeri, ki je sicer na predteoretski ravni pogosto reflektiran, nikakor ni raziskan dovolj sistematično.
Seveda moramo literarnoposredniško vlogo postaviti tudi v časovno perspektivo. Upoštevati je treba, da so se prakse in modeli literarnega posredovanja (in obenem funkcije urednikov in drugih posrednikov) v različnih okoljih močno razlikovali, zato nas morajo zanimati tudi historični problemi razvoja posredniške vloge, vpliv različnih modelov ureditve knjižnega trga, vpliv političnih sistemov in njihovih spreminjajočih se ideoloških podlag (liberalizem, kapitalizem, komunizem, demokracija), pa tudi specifični problemi posredništva v malih in velikih (dominantnih) literarnih sistemih. Na koncu se seveda ne bo mogoče izogniti premisleku o tem, ali bo literarno posredovanje v modernih literarnih sistemih, kakršne poznamo od 18. oziroma 19. stoletja dalje, v prihodnosti ohranilo svoje tipične značilnosti, ali pa se mu obetajo korenitejše spremembe.
^•k-k
Šele historizacija našega izhodiščnega vprašanja, katerega preprostost je le navidezna in zato varljiva, pravzaprav kaže, v kolikšni meri je njegova zastavitev vezana na neko točno določeno epoho - epoho tiskane knjige. Prispevke v tej tematski številki Primerjalne književnosti — razporejeni so po kolikor mogoče doslednem kronološkem ključu2 — tako uokvirja četvero razprav, ki na neki način izstopajo oziroma presegajo zgoraj začrtani okvir. Po eni strani segajo bodisi v čas, ko je knjiga šele zares začenjala svoj zmagoviti pohod po okcidentu in so se razmerja med sistemskimi vlogami - proizvajalsko, posredniško in sprejemniško - šele vzpostavljala (gl. predvsem Chartier, deloma tudi Habjan), po drugi strani pa že naznanjajo neizogibne spremembe: tradicionalno razumevanje literarnega posredovanja izzivajo že novi načini komuniciranja, ki jih prinaša informacijskoteh-nološka revolucija (Schreier), še bolj radikalno pa novomedijske literarne prakse (Vaupotič).
Prehojena pot torej vodi od tiskarjev in stavcev z začetka novega veka, ki skušajo tekst razumeti »bolje od avtorja«, do interaktivne ergodične literature 21. stoletja, kjer razmejitev vlog avtorja, posrednika in sprejemnika izgublja jasne konture. Ta pot kaže, da odgovorov na vprašanje Kdo izbere? ni vedno mogoče iskati zgolj na ravni posrednikov. S te plati so zopet morda šele »robne« razprave tiste, ki vprašanje posredništva ustrezno kon-tekstualizirajo oziroma ga smiselno umestijo v sredinski prostor med problemom proizvodnje oziroma avtorstva (gl. Chartier, Vaupotič), ki je bilo v žarišču tematske številke te revije pred letom dni, in problemom bralske recepcije (gl. Schreier), ki je načrtovana tema tematske številke Primerjalne književnosti v prihodnjem letu.3
Ugledni raziskovalec zgodovine novoveške pisane kulture Roger Chartier tako v prvem prispevku opozori na kompleksno posredniško vlogo prepisovalcev, urednikov, stavcev, korektorjev in drugih, ki so bili v 16. in 17. stoletju poleg avtorja vpleteni v dinamiko skupinskega procesa objavljanja in so s spreminjanjem »materialnosti« besedila vplivali tudi na njegove pomene oziroma interpretacije. Chartier seveda izziva predvsem predpostavko o nevtralnosti posredovanja oziroma njegovi razločenosti od avtorstva; nasprotno pa se prispevek Jerneja Habjana — čeprav ravno tako osredotočen na besedila z začetka novega veka — kritično dotakne povsem drugega aspekta vprašanja izbire. Habjan se problema loti na diametralno nasprotnem koncu, in sicer pri diskurzu in ideologijah (akademske) literarne vede, ki reproducira kanonične interpretacije in vrednotenja del ter s tem vzdržuje tako partikularne kanone (kot institucionalne stebre nacij) kot kanon svetovne literature. Sledeč zapletenim meandrom shake-spearologije skuša Habjan z analizo interpretacij Romea in Julije pokazati, da so številne izbire izsiljene oziroma vnaprejšnje, določene z družbenim
in institucionalnim kontekstom, v katerem literarna veda proizvaja svoj diskurz.
Takšen kontekst je tudi eden izmed osrednjih problemov, s katerimi se ukvarja nizozemska raziskovalka Els Andringa. Njena razprava z empirično preciznostjo izriše otipljivo sliko neobičajno živahne literarnozaložni-ške dejavnosti, ki so jo v letih 1930—1940 oblikovali nemški pregnanci na Nizozemskem, pri čemer jo zanima predvsem interakcija dveh vzporednih literarnih polj, domačega in gostujočega. Rezultati njene raziskave izkažejo presenetljiv vpliv politizacije kulturnega polja na obnašanje posrednikov. Manj presenetljivo pa je najbrž dejstvo, da je partikularni fokus nizozemske literarne zgodovine to poglavje sobivanja dveh literarnih polj enostavno prezrl — dejstvo pač, ki problem izbire vnovič izpostavlja v njegovi ideološki razsežnosti.4
Razpravi Marijana Dovica in Darka Dolinarja uvajata osrednji niz obravnav, ki imajo vsaj dve skupni potezi: lotevajo se sodobne literature in umetnosti (po drugi svetovni vojni) in skušajo o selekcijskih vidikih literarnega posredovanja razmišljati neposredneje. Dovic se v teoretično-tipolo-ški razpravi osredotoči na posredniško funkcijo knjižnega urednika v modernih literarnih sistemih ter skuša sistematično orisati tri skupine dejavnikov (ekonomske, politično-ideološke in mreženjske), ki vplivajo na njegove literarnoposredniške izbire. Dolinar pa uvodoma poudari izhodiščno vlogo bralčeve svobode izbire, takoj zatem pa opozori na kompleksnost procesov izbiranja na vseh ravneh literarne komunikacije ter ob analizi nekaterih uspešnih založniških projektov pokaže na specifike slovenskega literarnega polja v tranziciji od pretežno politično-ideološke regulacije (v času socializma) k novim razmeram, v katerih vse večjo vlogo prevzema trg.
Da antagonizem med mehanizmi trga in ideologijami ni lasten le avtoritarnim režimom, vsaka po svoje opozarjata tudi prispevka Maje Breznik in Jole Škulj. Breznikova se ob primerih slovenske umetniške neoavantgarde ukvarja s sodobnim umetnostnim postopkom in ključno vlogo institucij pri vzdrževanju in reprodukciji umetnostnega sistema (še posebej po tehnološkem preobratu, ki je umetniške izdelke odrezal od »dokumentarne« funkcije in povzročil nastajanje tako imenovanih anti-umetnin). A čeprav je institucija umetnosti že večkrat dokazala veliko samoobnovitveno kapaciteto, Breznikova resignirano sklene, da vendarle ne more več parirati »skritim strukturam« trga, ki produkcijo usmerjajo v banalnost in predvidljivost. Iz Bourdieujevih zamisli izhaja tudi Škuljeva, ki idejo literarnega polja in njegov položaj znotraj kulturnega ustvarjanja sooči z lotmanov-skim semiotičnim pristopom k literaturi in z delovanjem oziroma učinki semiosfere. Podobno kot Breznikova je tudi Škuljeva kritična do učinkov zgolj tržne regulacije literarne produkcije.
Andrew Wachtel namesto teorije prispeva refleksijo lastne uredniške prakse. Njegova perspektiva je hibridna: razpravo piše kot predavatelj na ugledni ameriški univerzi in hkrati kot urednik prevodne literarne zbirke, ki brez dvoma soustvarja kanon vzhodnoevropske literature v ZDA. Na uvodno vprašanje, kdo izbere, lahko torej preprosto odgovori: »jaz«; takoj zatem pa se kritično loti svoje vloge selektorja in medkulturnega posrednika. Wachtel se zaveda, da imajo njegove izbire v prevodno tako zaprtem in nereguliranem okolju, kot je ameriško, takojšnje kanonizacijske učinke.5 S prevodno literaturo se z nekoliko drugačnega zornega kota ukvarja tudi Slavka Rude-Porubska, ki natančno preuči mehanizme izbire prevodov v nemškem prostoru - predvsem tiste, ki skušajo v imenu vzdrževanja avtonomije polja in pestrosti ponudbe korigirati učinke ponudbe in povpraševanja. Avtorica pri tem naslovi tudi vprašanje asimetrije med centrom in periferijami ter nekoliko skeptično sklene, da podporni programi za prevodno literaturo ne zmorejo bistveno spremeniti prevladujočih trendov.
Drugačen pa je ton razprave, ki sta jo skupaj pripravila ugledna poznavalca sodobnih knjižnih trgov Miha Kovač in Rüdiger Wischenbart. Avtorja resno izzoveta nekatere stereotipe in mite o leposlovnih uspešnicah v Evropi. Z analizo lestvic uspešnic 2008-2009 pokažeta, da v večini obravnavanih držav med uspešnicami prevladujejo izvirna leposlovna dela in prevodi, ki prihajajo iz največjih evropskih jezikov in švedščine (ne pa na primer le prevodi iz angleščine).6 Med lekcijami, ki jih je mogoče osvojiti na podlagi njunih presenetljivih ugotovitev, je prav gotovo ta, da unifika-cijskih učinkov nereguliranega trga ne bi smeli precenjevati, po drugi strani pa še, da s preprostimi binarizmi, kakršen je recimo komercialno / kvalitetno, ni mogoče zadovoljivo pojasniti prakse.
Zadnji razpravi se že oddaljujeta od preučevanja tradicionalne posredniške vloge. Margrit Schreier se ukvarja s priporočanjem knjig v dobi interneta in z dejavniki, ki vplivajo na izbiro lahkotnega bralnega čtiva. Z empirično analizo »najuporabnejših« uporabniških spletnih ocen za posamezne uspešnice (na spletni strani Amazon) pokaže, da je za spletne ocenjevalce najpomembnejša možnost vživetja, sledijo pa ji dejavniki, povezani z avtorjem in nato še s tematiko. Izbiranje knjig torej tudi v internetni dobi sledi določenim vzorcem - toda ob tem, ko se mediacijska vloga bralcev iz neformalne spreminja v institucionalizirano, se pomen tradicionalnih posrednikov zmanjšuje. Še radikalneje se takšne spremembe kažejo v premisleku Aleša Vaupotiča. Vaupotič se vprašanja izbire loti s kibertekstualne perspektive in uvodoma poudari ključno razliko med fiksiranostjo klasičnega tiskanega teksta in interaktivno novomedijsko ter ergodično literaturo. Takšna literatura v avtorski in posredniški proces odločilno (strukturno) vpenja tudi sprejemnika, s tem pa na glavo postavlja zakonitosti klasične literarne komunikacije in odpira
niz pomembnih teoretskih vprašanj, povezanih z digitalnimi skupnostmi, kolaborativnim avtorstvom, strojnim generiranjem besedil in podobnim.7
Dvojezična tematska številka z naslovom »Kdo izbere?« in podnaslovom Literatura in literarno posredništvo, ki je nastala v sodelovanju dvanajstih slovenskih in tujih avtorjev in treh urednikov, nikdar ni imela ambicije, da bi celovito in dosledno zajela problematiko izbire in literarnega posredovanja v dobi tiskane knjige. A četudi se večina prispevkov ukvarja s sodobnimi primeri, so v njih razgrnjena vsa bistvena vprašanja, ki jih je tu mogoče postaviti; obenem pa so teoretske tipalke smelo usmerjene k novim območjem, ki šele postajajo predmet premisleka. Vrednost takšnega osredotočenja na literarnoposredniško vlogo - in to ni ravno pogosto ne v mednarodnem prostoru ne pri nas — je seveda v prvi vrsti historično-oziroma teoretično-analitična. Obenem pa imajo izsledki tudi neposredno uporabno vrednost: tako kot vse, še posebej male kulture bo namreč tudi slovenska morala v novem tisočletju tako ali drugače še vedno regulirati literarno produkcijo in knjižni trg. Gradivo in zamisli, ki jih prinaša ta številka — če jih seveda znamo ustrezno brati —, so odlična ekspertna podlaga za pomoč kulturni politiki pri načrtovanju prihodnjih odločitev.
OPOMBE
1	Na primer pri Niklasu Luhmannu, Pierru Bourdieuju ali Siegfriedu J. Schmidtu (gl. tudi Dovic).
2	Večina prispevkov se vsaj do neke mere ukvarja s konkretnimi primeri, ki takšno razporeditev omogočajo. Pa vendar zaradi pretežno teoretične narave nekaterih razprav izbrana razporeditev še zdaleč ni ed^a mogoča.
3	Odločilni pomen bralske recepcije za odgovor na izhodiščno vprašanje poudarjajo tudi nekateri drugi prispevki, na primer Dolinarjev.
4	»Metodološki nacionalizem« tradicionalnih historiografskih pristopov je danes tako rekoč obče mesto diskusij o prenovi literarnega zgodovinopisja — prim. tud^ Dolinar, Juvan
(ur.).
5	Hkrati njegova razprava razgrinja tud^, kako tržna naravnanost okolja založnike sili v določene kontekstualizacije (simptomatično je že poimenovanje serije Writings from an Unbound Europe)^ četudi se omenjena zbirka nahaja v varnem, neprepišnem zavetju akademske založbe, ki je v veliki meri izvzeta iz logike tržnih mehanizmov. S tem v zvezi prim. tudi Sapiro in prispevka Kovača in Dovica v tej številki.
6	Opozorita tud^ na dejstvo, da je ta proces izrazito enosmeren, saj na lestvicah uspešnic na evropskem zahodu ni prevodov iz manjših evropskih jezikov in iz vzhodne Evrope.
7	Novomed^jske prakse niso postavile na glavo le posredniške vloge, temveč so morda še očitneje problematizirale vlogo avtorja (prim. Hartling pa tud^ Lessig).
^•k-k
LITERATURA
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Prev. Susan Emanuel. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Codde, Philippe. »Polysystem Theory Revisited: A New Comparative Introduction«. Poetics Today 24.1 (2003): 91-124.
Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2004.
Dolinar, Darko; Juvan, Marko (ur.). Writing Literary History. Selected Perspectives from Central Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11.1 (1990, pos. št.).
Hartling, Florian. »Digitalni avtor? Avtorstvo v digitalni dobi«. Primerjalna književnost 32 (2009, pos. št.): 41-48.
Juvan, Marko. »Svetovni literarni sistem«. Primerjalna knjižeevnost 32.2 (2009): 181-212.
Lessig, Lawrence. Svobodna kultura. Prev. Polona Glavan. Ljubljana: Krtina, 2005.
Luhmann, Niklas. Art as a Social System. Prev. Eva M. Knodt. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Rees, Kees van. »How a Literary Work Becomes a Masterpiece: On the Threefold Selection Practicised by Literary Criticism«. Poe^tics 12.4-5 (1983): 397-418.
---. »The Institutional Foundation of a Critic's Connoisseurship«. Poetics 18.1-2 (1989):
179-198.
Schmidt, Siegfried J.: Grundriss derEmpirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1980.
Sapiro, Gisele. »The Literary Field Between the State and the Market«. Poetics 31.4-5 (2003): 441-464.
Verdaasdonk, Hugo. »Social and Economic Factors in the Attribution of Literary Quality«. Poe^^ics 12.4-5 (1983): 383-396.
Razprave
Literatura in besedilna posredovanja: premori in intonacija v zgodnjenovoveških besedilih
Roger Chartier
College de France, Pariz, Francija chartier@ehess.fr
Avtorji ne pišejo knjig, tudi la^^nih knjig ne, kajti knjige niso nikoli reprodukcija avtorskega rokopisa. V zgodnjem novem veku predpostavlja objava besedila, naj bo literarno ali ne, številna posredovanja in posrednike: prepisovalce, urednike, stavce, korektorje. Članek poskuša na primerih rabe ločil v angleških, španskih in francoskih besedilih 16. in 17. stoletja pokazati, daje objavljanje vedno skupinski proces in da obsega raznolike odločitve, obenem pa tudi, da so te odločitve, ki spreminjajo materialnost besedila, odločilne tudi pri konstituiranju pomena besedila.
Ključne besede: raba ločil / glas / avtorstvo / objavljanje / pomen / urejanje besedila / korekture
UDK
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. Teh šest besed je napisanih na listek, ki ga Mortimer izroči Lightbornu, ko ga odpošlje na grad Berkeley, kjer je zaprt Edvard. Šest besed. Toda kaj te besede pomenijo? Če naredi Lightborne premor po prvih štirih, mora vladarja ubiti: »Feare not to kill the king, 'tis good he die.« (»[N]e bojte se ubiti kralja, prav je tako.« /Marlowe, Edvar^d Drugi 93/) Če pa bralec razdeli stavek na enake dele, je treba ukaz razumeti drugače in kraljevo življenje zaščititi: »Kill not the king, tis good to fear the worst.« (»[N]e bojte se ubiti kralja, prav ima, kdor se boji.« /Prav tam/) Od rabe ločil v tem latinskem stavku ni odvisno nič manj kot življenje in smrt vladarja ali, rečeno bolj »cunninglie«, »z zvijačo«, kot se izrazi sam Mortimer (prav tam): umor ni na grbi pisca stavka, ki je naročnik umora, temveč na grbi prejemnika ukaza, ki je ukazu pripisal enega od mogočih pomenov.1
K sreči raba ločil ni vselej tako dramatična. Pa vendar je s tem, ko usmerja oko — ali glas —, vedno konstitutivna za pomen. Yves Bonnefoy v kratkem eseju »Les deux points, c'est un peu, en prose la poesie« (Dvopičje je kanček poezije v prozi) predlaga razločevanje med dvema sistemoma rabe ločil:
La ponctuation qui degage les articulations d'un texte, c'est celle que reclame la syntaxe, je suppose ; et qui tend ainsi a coincider avec les structures de la pensee ? Tandis que celle qui aiderait la lecture serait la plutot pour comprendre les besoins de la voix, ou mettre en evidence des rythmes, des sons : en somme, non pour penser mais pour seduire ?
(Rabo ločil, ki izraža členjenost besedila, po mojem mnenju terja skladnja: in ta raba naj bi se ujemala z miselnimi strukturami? Tista druga vrsta rabe ločil, ki naj bi pomagala pri branju, pa je namenjena predvsem glasu, poudarjanju ritmov in zvenov: skratka, ne mišljenja, temveč zapeljevanju?)
V 16. in 17. stoletju so k tej drugi vrsti rabe ločil težili angleški in francoski reformatorji pravopisa. Kot je pokazal Jeffrey Masten, si ti niso prizadevali zgolj standardizirati črkovanje, temveč so se poskušali približati popolnosti ali vsaj manjši nepopolnosti kastiljščine. Antonio de Nebrija (158-159) je namreč v delu Gramätica, tiskanem leta 1492, zapisal: »tene-mos de escrivir como pronunciamos: I pronunciar como escrivimos« (»pisati moramo, kakor izgovarjamo, in izgovarjati moramo, kakor pišemo«).
Vsi evropski jeziki so imeli preglavice pri doseganju tolikšnega ujemanja med izgovarjavo in črkovanjem. Prva mogoča rešitev bi lahko bila v izgovarjanju vseh črk besede kakor v latinščini. Tako pedantno izgovarjavo angleščine v Ljubezni tt^d zaman hvali Holofernes, ki Španca dona Adriana de Armado (bržčas paradoksno) obtoži, da je eden tistih »mučiteljev or-tografije«, ki imajo pri izgovarjavi angleških besed »odvratno« navado, da jim jemljejo črke.
He draweth out the thred of his verbositie, finer than the staple of his argument. I abhorre such phanatticall phantasims, such insociable and poynt devise companions, such rackers of ortagriphie, as to speake dout fine, when he should say doubt; det, when he shold pronounce debt; d e b t, not det: he clepeth a Calfe, Caufe: halfe, haufe: neighbour vocatur nebour; neigh abreviated ne: this is abho-minable, which he would call abominable, it insinuateth me of infamie: ne inteligis domine, to make frantique lunatique? (Shakespeare, A Pleafant 5.1.15-25)
(Vlakno argumentov njegovih je vse premalo razvlečeno in tenkovito za elokven-tnost njegovo. Ne morem trpeti takošnih opaljenih fantazmagoristov, takošnih vase zaverovanih, načipkanih vetrnjakov, ki jedva odprši usta, že kršijo ortografijo govoreč »misliu« namesto »misili«; »Doug^<, kadar bi reči moral »dolg^< - d, o, l, g, ne d, o, u, g: pa spet »tič« namesto »ptič« ter »sonce« namesto »solnce« - slo, solis« pa »čevelj« namesto »črevelj«, »snoči« vocatur »sinoči« Z eno besedo: pfej! - čemur bi on kajpak rekel: fej. To me navdaja z razkačenostjo: intelligis ne domine? - z raz-jarjenostjo, gnevom. /Shakespeare, »Ljubezni« 63-64/)
Za manj ekstravagantno rešitev se izkaže nasproten pristop, ki predlaga reformo, s katero bi črkovanje prilagodili izgovarjavi. Iz naslovov v Angliji
izdanih knjig, ki so se zavzemale za »spremembo pravopisa«, je razvidno, da njihov osrednji namen še zdaleč ni okrniti raznolikost zapisovanja, temveč doseči skladnost med zapisom in »podobo človeškega glasu« (Hart) ali primerno pisno ponazoritev »angleškega govora« (Bullokar).
V Franciji pa je želja po uvedbi »ustnega zapisa«, če naj uporabimo izraz Nine Catach, presegla preproste spremembe v črkovanju. V Ronsardovem primeru je namreč botrovala koreniti reviziji same abecede: uvedena sta bila nova znaka, izposojena iz španske abecede (n ali ll), črki in q pa sta postali odveč, saj sta ju začeli sistematično zamenjevati črki k in ^ (npr. zapis klatite ali ro^e):
Quant a nostre escriture, elle est fort vicieuse et corrompue, & me semble qu'elle a grand besoin de reformation, & et de remettre en son premier honneur, le K, & le Z, & faire des caracteres nouveaux pour la double N, a la mode des Espagnols pour escrire Monseigneur, & une L double pour escrire orgueilleux. (Ronsard, »Preface«)
(Kar pa zadeva našo pisavo, je ta na moč sprijena in popačena in po mojem nadvse potrebna prenove, ki bi črkama K in Z povrnila njuno prvotno častno mesto ter vpeljala nove znake za dvojni N po zgledu španskega n, tako da bi pisali
Monseigneur, ter dvojni L za zapis orgueilleux.)
Praksa tiskarskih delavnic se ni ravnala po teh korenitih in drznih predlogih. A vendar so tiskarne uvedle odločilno novost, ki je prispevala k večji skladnosti med zapisom besedila in ustnim podajanjem tega: določile so različne dolžine premorov. V tem pogledu je bistven tekst tiskarja (in avtorja) Etienna Doleta La punctuation de l^a l^angue fran^ojse (Raba ločil v francoskem jeziku), ki ga je sam pisec tiskal leta 1540 v Lyonu. Vsak stavek ali periodo, prilagojeno »človeškemu dihu«, strukturirajo tri dolžine premorov, vsako od teh dolžin pa označuje posamezno ločilo:point ä queue ou virgul^e (vejica), comma (ki Doletu pomeni dvopičje, »postavljeno v vrinjen stavek«) inpoinct rond (pika), ki »je vedno postavljena na konec stavka«.
Tout argument, & discours de propos, soit oratoire, ou poetique, est deduict par periodes. Periode est une diction Grecque, que les Latins appellent clausula, ou compraehensio verborum: c'est a dire une clausule, ou une comprehension de parolles. Ce periode (ou aultrement clausule) est distingue, & divise par les points dessusdicts [poinct a queue ou virgule, comma, poinct rond]. Et communement ne doibt avoir que deux ou membres: car si par sa longueur il excede l'aleine de l'homme, il est vicieux. (Dolet)
(Sleherni razmislek ali govor bodisi govorniške bodisi pesniške narave je razdeljen na periode. Perioda je grška beseda, ki jo Rimljani imenujejo clausula ali compraehensio verhorum, tj. stavek oziroma razumevanje besed. Ta perioda /ali stavek/ je dopolnjena in razdeljena z zgoraj navedenimi ločili: vejico, dvopičjem in piko. Navadno ima le dva ali tri dele, zakaj ni prav, če njena dolžina presega zmožnosti človeškega diha.)
Podobno nomenklaturo, a z malo drugačnim poimenovanjem ločil, je predlagal Jean Gerard v svoji izdaji Olivetanove Instruction des enfans (Vzgoja otrok), objavljeni leta 1537 v Ženevi. Gerard razlikuje med virgu^e oupoint a queue, (vejico ali piko z repkom), deuxpoint^s (dvopičjem) in point final (končno piko).
Francoski slovarji s konca 17. stoletja pričajo o uspehu sistema, ki so ga uveljavili tiskarji 16. stoletja in je vključeval pogostejšo uporabo podpičja, ki je bilo pred letom 1550 pravcata redkost in je označevalo premor srednje dolžine v primerjavi z vejico in dvopičjem. Ti slovarji pa so vendarle opozorili tudi na razliko med bralčevim govorom in rabo ločil. Raba ločil je bila dotlej, na primer v Furetierovem slovarju, pojmovana kot »slovnično obeležje«, ki označuje skladenjske in logične členitve govora.
Tak sistem rabe ločil je sicer lahko podal dolžino premorov, ni pa poznal načina za označevanje intonacije glasu, kar je povzročilo odstopanja od običajne rabe nekaterih ločil, ki so tako izgubila prvotni pomen in so jih začeli uporabljati za nakazovanje glasovnih poudarkov. Tako je Ronsard v nagovoru bralca na začetku prve od štirih knjig epa L^a Franciade leta 1572 takole opredelil rabo klicaja:
Je te supliray seulement d'une chose, lecteur, de vouloir bien prononcer mes vers & accomoder ta voix a leur passion, & non comme quelques uns les lisent, plustost a la fa9on d'une missive, ou de quelques lettres Royaux que d'un Poeme bien prononce : & te suplie encore derechef ou tu verras cette marque ! vouloir un peu eslever ta voix pour donner grace a ce que tu liras. (Ronsard, »Au lecteur«)
(Le za nekaj te prosim, bralec: moje vrstice skrbno izgovarjaj in svoj glas prilagodi njihovim strastem, ne beri jih, kakor počno nekateri, kot da gre za nekakšno pismo ali kraljevsko uredbo, in sploh ne za skrbno izgovorjeno Poezijo. Poleg tega te prosim še nečesa: vsakič, ko boš naletel na ločilo !, povzdigni za malenkost glas, kajti prebrano bo tako pridobilo na dražesti.)
Kot ugotavlja George Forestier (LIX—LXIII), pri Racinu nepričakovan vprašaj v povedi, ki ni vprašalna, nemara signalizira intenzivnost, recimo v prvi izdaji La Thebaide (III, 3): »Parlez, parlez, ma Fille?«. Nasprotno pa odsotnost vprašaja na koncu vprašalne povedi označuje, da glasovni poudarek ni potreben: »Ma Fille, avez-vous vu l'exces de nos miseres« (I, 2).
Drug način za »intoniranje in postavljanje« poudarka na določeni besedi v tiskanem besedilu je postavitev besede v kurzivo in uporaba velike začetnice. Moxon takole pravi v Mechanick Exercises on the Whole Art of Printing (Mehanične vaje o tiskarski veščini):
Words of great Emphasis are also Set in Italick, and sometimes begin with a Capital Letter: If the Emphasis bear hard upon the Word to be exprest as well as the
Thing to be exprest, it ought to begin with a Capital. I shall bring for instance an Observation I made above forty years ago on the Word that, viz. that that Word may be reiterated five times, and make good Sense: If it be set thus it will seem nonsense, that that that, that, that; but if it be Set thus, that that That that that Man would have stand at the beginning of the Line should stand at the end; it will, by toning and laying Emphasis on the middlemost That become good Sense. Now all the thats ought to be Set in Italick, and the middlemost That ought to begin with a Capital, because it is both the Thing and Word. (Moxon 216—217)
(Tudi besede s krepkim poudarkom so postavljene ležeče in se včasih začnejo z : začetnico. Ce sta močno poudarjeni tako beseda kot stvar, ki naj bosta izraženi, je treba uporabiti veliko začetnico. Naj spomnim na svojo ugotovitev o besedi that izpred štiridesetih let, namreč da lahko to besedo petkrat ponovimo, pa bo to še vedno imelo smisel. Ce zapišemo that that that, that, that [da ta that, ki ga], bo povsem brez smisla; če pa postavimo that that That that that Man would have stand at the beginning of the Line should stand at the end [da ta That, ki bi ga kdo postavil na začetek vrstice, mora stati na koncu], bo z intoniranjem in poudarjanjem srednjega That stavek dobil smisel. Zdaj je treba vse that postaviti v kurzivo, srednji That pa se mora začeti z veliko začetnico, ker gre tako za stvar kot za besedo.)
Taka raba velikih začetnic, ki označuje, naj bralci ali igralci povzdignejo glas in izpostavijo neko besedo, se pojavlja v prvih izdajah Racinovih iger, denimo v temle verzu iz Bajazita: »J'ai cede mon Amant, Tu t'etonnes du reste« (gl. Forestier LXI op. 4).
Odličen primer glasbene rabe dolžine premora in velikih začetnic najdemo v zadnji izdaji La Bruyerovega spisa Caracteres (Značaji), ki ga je pregledal sam avtor in je izšel 1696. Ta izdaja, na kateri temelji moderna izdaja, ki jo je pripravil Louis Van Delft, si je prizadevala pokazati, da je La Bruyere na kompozicijo vseh znc^čajev ali opc^žamj gledal kot na glasbeno frazo, ki je ne lomi nobena perioda ali izmenjajoče se razgibane sekvence. Ritem fraze je prikazan s pomočjo hitro sledečih si vejic in daljših se-kvenc brez ločil. Besedilo je obravnavano kot partitura z interpunkcijo, ki je označevala različne tempe arij: staccato, allegro, largo. Tovrstna besedilna kompozicija, kjer ločila usmerjajo »dih« in glasovno intonacijo, je bila zelo očitno namenjena individualnemu ali skupinskemu glasnemu branju celotnega besedila ali vsaj nekaterih delov.
A glasbena interpunkcija ni bila edini pripomoček, ki je usmerjal estetiko in recepcijo La Bruyerovega besedila. Velike začetnice so sodelovale pri konstituiranju pomena, saj so besede, pisane z veliko začetnico znotraj stavkov, dobile nadih dostojanstva, tako da je bilo dostojanstvo pripisano tudi posameznikom, institucijam ali pojmom, ki so jih te besede označevale. Raba velikih začetnice je poleg tega nakazovala, naj bralec te besede posebej izpostavi, in sicer s premorom pred njimi ali z glasnejšim izgovarjanjem. Velike začetnice so potemtakem sodelovale pri vizualnem
in semantičnem učinku, ki ga ustvarjajo raznovrstne oblike besedilnega zapisa in ki priča o La Bruyerovi tipografski občutljivosti. Da bi to občutljivost zaznali, se je treba vrniti k rabi ločil v izdajah iz 17. stoletja in Značaje osvoboditi anahronistične, zavajajoče, preobtežene rabe ločil, ki je od 19. stoletja naprej v to besedilo začela vnašati pike in narekovaje, velike začetnice pa je odstranila.2
Je mogoče predpostaviti, da so vsi avtorji posvečali toliko pozornosti interpunkciji v tiskanih izdajah svojih del kot Ronsard in La Bruyere? Je raba ločil avtorjeva naloga in odgovornost? Kot je ugotovil Malcolm Parkes, »je interpunkcija v tiskanem besedilu posledica interpunkcije pri avtorju, osebi, ki je kopijo pripravila za tisk, stavcu ali pa vseh treh skupaj« (Parkes 5). Na ta seznam bi lahko dodali še bralca, ki je bil pogosto povabljen, naj interpunkcijo popravi ne le v skladu s seznamom napak, tiskanem v izdaji, temveč tudi po svoji presoji. V londonski izdaji Homiliae Janeza Krizostoma iz leta 1543 denimo piše: »Če opaziš, da kod manjka ločilo ali naglasno znamenje ali da je to napačno postavljeno, boš, ljubeznivi bralec, storil prijazno dejanje, če boš napake popravil po lastni presoji.« (Gl. Binn)3
V španskem Zlatem veku je bila postavitev ločil, apuntuacion, naloga stavca ali korektorja. Leta 1619 je Gonzalo de Ayala, ki je bil tudi sam korektor v tiskarni, trdil, da mora korektor »poznati slovnico, črkovanje, etimologijo, ločila in mesta poudarkov« (Ayala). Leta 1675 je Melchor de Cabrera, ki se je zavzemal za davčno oprostitev za tiskarje, poudaril:
El componedor percibe el concepto, y discurso. [^ Debe] hazer interrogacion, admiracion, y parentesis porque muchas veces la mente de los Escritores se confunde, por falta de estos requisitos, necessarios,e importantes para el enten-dimiento y comprehension de lo que se escrive, o imprime; porque qalquiera que falte, muda, trueca, y varia el sentido. (Cabrera)
(Stavec razume pomen in argumentacijo. Znati mora] postaviti vprašaje, klicaje in oklepaje na prava mesta, saj postane izražanje pisateljev pogosto zmedeno, če ti elementi, tako potrebni in pomembni za dojemanje in razumevanje napisanega ali natisnjenega, manjkajo; kajti če jih ni, je smisel spremenjen, ponarejen in drugačen.)
Nekaj let kasneje (okrog 1680) Alonso V^ctor de Paredes v delu Instituciony origen del arte de la imprenta (Nastanek in izvori tiskarske umetnosti) piše:
[El corrector debe] entender el concepto del Autor en lo que manda imprimir, no tan solamente para poner la apuntuacion legitima; sino aun para ver si padecio algun descuido el dueno, para advertirselo. (Paredes)
([Korektor] mora razumeti avtorjevo intenco v besedilu, ki ga bo poslal v tiskarno, in sicer ne le zavoljo pravilne postavitve ločil, temveč tudi zato, da bi v besedilu našel morebitne napake in opozoril nanje.)
Odločitve o materialnosti besedila so bile v pristojnosti številnih akterjev, vključenih v proces objavljanja. Danes pa spričo različnih tradicij, na katere se naslanja tekstna kritika, glavna odgovornost za materialnost besedila ni vedno pripisana istemu akterju.
Bibliografija je v tem pogledu poudarjala vlogo stavcev. Stavci prvih novoveških tiskarn niso črkovali in postavljali ločil poenoteno. Ravno zato »analiza črkovanja« omogoča, da lahko določeno postavitev knjige pripišemo posameznemu stavcu, tako da je tovrstna analiza tudi podlaga za rekonstrukcijo dejanskega procesa nastajanja knjige, in sicer bodisi v luči zaporedja posameznih faz ali pa glede na raznovrstne oblike končnega izdelka. V tej analitični perspektivi sta interpunkcija in črkovanje obravnavani kot rezultat odločitev stavca, ki mora po Moxonu »odstavke, ločila, prelom, ležeče črke itn. razvrstiti tako, da bo celota najbolje uglašena z avtorjevim genijem pa tudi z bralčevimi sposobnostmi.« (Moxon 211-212) Kot poroča Alonso V^ctor de Paredes, je bilo treba interpunkcijo in črkovanje spremeniti, če je bila kopija za tisk narobe izdelana, kajti »niso angeli tisti, ki štejejo kopije«. V tem primeru je moral stavec spremeniti postavitev strani, velikost znakov in interpunkcijo, da bi tako pridobil prostor ali zapolnil preostali prostor na kopiji zadnje strani zvezka (Masten 75-107). Pri reševanju te zagate so se stavci včasih zatekali k »medios feos y no permitidos« (»umazanim in prepovedanim postopkom«), kot se je izrazil Paredes, namreč k dodajanju in izpuščanju besed ali stavkov teksta, ki so ga postavljali.
Po prepričanju druge, filološke usmeritve pa glavne vloge pri inter-punkciji ni igral postopek postavitve, temveč priprava kopije za tisk. To je bila naloga korektorjev, ki so dodajali naglasna znamenja, velike začetnice in ločila. Čeprav je bilo to delo povezano s tiskarnami, so o interpunkciji odločali kleriki, diplomanti univerz ali učitelji, ki so jih zaposlili založniki in tiskarji. Paolo Trovato je poudaril, da je bilo v 15. stoletju v očeh založnikov nadvse pomembno opozoriti na »pravilnost« knjig, ki so jih izdali. Na vsaki naslovnici je bilo namreč napisano con ogni diligenza corretto, »nadvse temeljito popravljeno« (gl. Trovato). Popravke so vnašali redaktorji posameznih izdaj, imenovani tudi korektorji, katerih posege v besedilo je mogoče zasledovati na različnih stopnjah izdajateljskega procesa, kakršne so priprava kopije za tisk, lektoriranje, zadnje korekture pred tiskom, sestavljanje seznamov popravkov (na primer v knjigi natisnjeni seznami popravkov, seznami popravkov na knjigi priloženem listu, ročno vnašanje popravkov v vsak izvod). Besedilo je bilo mogoče obogatiti in spremeniti na vsakem koraku tega procesa.
V	16. stoletju so korektorji pregledovali zelo različne vrste besedil: klasična grška in latinska besedila (gl. Grafton), rokopise v ljudskih jezikih, ki so krožili naokrog in so jih standardizirali z vidika črkovanja in včasih tudi jezika (za toskanščino v Italiji gl. Richardson), in dela sodobnih avtorjev, katerih rokopis je bil pogost slabo berljiv. V spisu Ortholypographia, natisnjenem leta 1608 v Leipzigu, se Hieronymus Hornschuch pritožuje nad brezbrižnostjo in malomarnostjo avtorjev, ki so tiskarjem pošiljali
rokopise, kjer mrgoli napak in jih sploh ni mogoče brati ali pa kvečjemu z velikim naporom Ne toliko v imenu korektorjev kot v imenu tiskarjev bi vsem tistim, ki bodo kdaj želeli natisniti svoje delo, odkrito svetoval in od njih zahteval, naj besedilo izročijo v taki obliki, da se v tiskarni ne bo nikoli treba spraševati, kot se je tisti suženj v komediji [v Plavtovem Pseudolu]: »Mar imajo tudi kokoši roke?« (Hornschuch)
Povsem v nasprotju z običajno razdelitvijo vlog je Hornschuch avtorje torej opozarjal, naj pazijo na rabo ločil:
Od vsega pa je nemara najpomembnejše, da svoje pisanje opremijo z ločili. Zakaj veliko ljudi ravno zato vsak dan dela številne napake: v poeziji pa ni nič bolj mučnega in graje vrednega kot vsi tisti, ki ločila docela izpuščajo. Poleg tega popravki rabe ločil poskrbijo za večjo eleganco besedila in bolj kot vse drugo prispevajo k jasnemu razumevanju snovi, medtem ko nedosledna raba ločil, zdi se, odseva zanikrnega duha. (Hornschuch)
Avtor je tedaj naprošen, naj tiskarni ne izroči svojega lastnega rokopisa (»grobega delovnega osnutka«) — t. i. foul papers —, temveč čistopis, »ki naj ga avtor ali prepisovalec kar najskrbneje prepiše na trd nevpojni papir in ga znova pozorno pregleda« (Hornschuh).
V	kastiljskem Zlatem veku rokopis, poslan Kraljevemu zboru za pridobitev pravic in privilegijev, nikdar ni bil avtorjev, temveč copia en limpio, čista kopija, ki je bila izdelek poklicnega pisarja. Ko so jo cenzorji odobrili in nato še popravili, so jo poslali založniku in nato tiskarju. To kopijo, ki ni bila avtorska, temveč čistopis, v španščini imenovan »original«, so dali pregledati in doživela je vrsto sprememb v črkovanju in interpunkciji. Rokopisi avtorjev so običajno vsebovali zelo malo ločil in so bili pri črkovanju nadvse nedosledni, zato so pisarski »izvirniki« (ki v resnici sploh niso bili izvirni), poslani cenzorjem in v tiskarske delavnice, morali doseči večjo stopnjo berljivosti (Rico 53—148).
Furetiere v Dictionnaire navede dva primera. V prvem pričakovano zapiše: »Ce Correcteur d'Imprimerie entend fort bien la ponctuation« (»Ta tiskarski korektor nadvse obvlada interpunkcijo«). V drugem pa, presenet-ljiveje, pravi: »L'exactitude de cet Auteur va jusques lä qu'il prend soin des
points et des virgules.« (»Ta avtor je tako natančen, da se ukvarja celo z vejicami in pikami.«)4 V prvem primeru je postavljanje ločil obravnavano kot tehnična veščina korektorjev, ki so jih zaposlili tiskarji. Drugi primer zadeva značilno pomanjkanje zanimanja avtorjev za ločila, obenem pa opozarja, da so se avtorji, denimo Ronsard in La Bruyere, v redkih primerih vendarle ukvarjali tudi z ločili.
Poglejmo še drug primer: Moliera. Je v tiskanih izdajah Molierovih iger mogoče najti sledi avtorjeve rabe ločil? Kot vemo, bi bilo tvegano, če bi izbiro interpunkcije v prvih izdajah njegovih del pripisali neposredno Molieru. V izdaji komedije Les Precieuses Ridicules (Smešni preciozi) iz leta 1660 se interpunkcija denimo spreminja na vsaki strani, celo glede na vrsto ločila, pač v skladu z navadami ali okusom stavcev (Veyrin-Forrer 338—366). Kljub temu razlike v rabi ločil med prvimi izdajami iger (tiskane so bile kmalu po njihovi pariški krstni uprizoritvi) in kasnejšimi izdajami, omogočajo, da rekonstruiramo vsaj implicitne namere (če že ne dejanske intence) besedila in njegovo navezavo na gledališko izvedbo.
Interpunkcija prvih izdaj Molierovih iger se zelo očitno navezuje na ustno podajanje besedila, bodisi zato, ker povzema besedilo, kakor je bilo recitirano na odru, bodisi zato, ker je predstavljala predlogo za glasno branje igre. Zato so prvotna ločila številčnejša in pogosto služijo pri karakteri-zaciji posameznih protagonistov. Oglejmo si recimo vejico po prvi besedi verza v izdaji komedije Le Tartuffe iz leta 1669, ki je bila nato odstranjena — »Gros, et gras, le tent frais, et la bouche vermeille« (»Zdrav kakor dren, / ves čvrst in čil, rdeč, dobro rejen« /Moliere, »Tartuffe« 17/). Opozorimo še na kopičenje vejic in velikih začetnic, s pomočjo katerega se dramska oseba Mojstra filozofije razlikuje od Mojstra plesa v komediji Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme (Zl^ahtni meščan) (II, 3; gl. Hill 125—141).
Prvotna interpunkcija je tudi poudarjala besede posebnega pomena. Izjemen primer najdemo v zadnjih dveh verzih Tartujfa. Moderne izdaje tiskajo brez premorov tole Orgonovo repliko: »Et par un doux hymen couronner en Valere / La flame d'un amant genereux et sincere« (»najslajša vez up okiti / Valerjevi ljubezni plemeniti« /Moliere, »Tartuffe« 89/). Toda v prvi izdaji iz leta 1669, pa tudi v naslednji iz leta 1673, je vejica postavljena tik pred zadnjo besedo: & sincere: »Et par un doux hymen, couronner en Valere, / La flame d'un Amant genereux, & sincere.« Zadnja beseda komedije je torej jasno ločena od ostalih in predstavlja antonim naslova Le Tartuffe ou L'Imposteur5 (Tartuffe ali Prevar^ant). Kdorkoli je že odgovoren za to ekspresivno in teatralno interpunkcijo (sam Moliere, pisar, korektor ali stavec), ta priča o močni povezanosti besedila z glasom, pa naj bodo to glasovi igralcev na odru ali glasovi bralcev, ki so igro recitirali in s poslušalci delili užitek besedila.
V Angliji so bile v zgodnjem novem veku igre s postavljanjem ločil zelo pogoste. Tak primer je »interpunkcijska pesem«, katere pomen se spreminja glede na bralčevo izbiro med premori, ki jih označujejo vejice in pike (Parkes 210-211). Drug primer je komični ali dramatični učinek, ki ga na odru ustvari napačna interpunkcija. Še slavnejši primer je seveda prolog, ki ga recitira Dunja, preden atenski obrtniki na Tezejevem dvoru odigrajo »Komedijo Priama in Tizbe«.
Prologue
If wee offend, it is with our good will.
That you should thinke, we come not to offend,
But with good will. To shew our simple skill,
That is the true beginning of our end
Theseus:
This fellow doth not stand upon points.
Lysander:
He hath rid his Prologue, like a rough Colt : hee knowes not the stoppe.
A good morall my Lord. It is not enough to speake ; but to speake true.
(Shakespeare, A Midfommer 5.1.1951-1964)
(Prolog
Ce žal'mo vas, je to iz dobre volje.
Ne mislite, naš cilj da ni pošten.
Kar znamo, pokazati vam najbolje,
To je početka našega namen
Tezej:
Do pike natančen ta dečko ni.
Lisander:
Jahal je svoj prolog kakor neizučeno žrebe; ne ve, kje ustaviti. Dober nauk,
knez moj. Ni dovolj govoriti, ampak prav govoriti. /Shakespeare, »Sen«
256/)
Captatio benevo^entim je pripisan nasproten pomen zaradi Dunjeve napačne uporabe premorov v govoru. Stavci kvartnega formata iz leta 1600, nato pa tudi stavci izdaje v folijskega formata, so obrtnikovo komično nerodnost tipografsko prevedli tako, da so pike postavili na napačna mesta, s tem pa nameravani pomen besedila obrnili na glavo, ne da bi spremenili eno samo besedo. Kot je ugotovil Tezej, je govor v primeru napačne in-terpunkcije »kakor zavozlana veriga: nič ni raztrganega, a vse je zmešano« (»Sen« 256).
»Izdajalec Mortimer« in »nerodnež Dunja« nas opozarjata, da interpunkcija vpliva na pomen. Moramo sprejeti klasično tezo, po kateri je od 18. stoletja naprej slovnična in skladenjska raba ločil zamenjala retorično, ki je označevala premore in včasih intonacijo (gl. Nelson)? Ali pa naj skupaj z Malcolmom Parkesom (Parkes 5) zagovarjamo mnenje, da je bilo
prav ravnovesje med »delinearizacijo retorične strukture periode in pozornostjo, namenjeno logičnim odnosom, ki jih izražajo skladenjske strukture«, glavno vodilo rabe ločil od renesanse naprej in da je v posameznem obdobju in včasih celo v istem besedilu mogoče naleteti tako na retorično kot na skladenjsko rabo?
Mar je utemeljeno meniti, da so bile vsem posameznikom, ki so odločali o interpunkciji, skupne iste norme in pričakovanja? Ali pa bi se morali ravnati po hipotezi Philipa Gaskella (Gaskell 28—61) in zasledovati različice interpunkcije v »istem« besedilu in raznolike namene in rabe posameznih različic besedil? To hipotezo je mogoče potrditi z analizo velike razlike med zapisom igralske vloge Orlanda, ki ga je igral Edward Alleyn, in tiskano izdajo igre Roberta Greena The Historie of Orl^ando Furioso (Zgodba o Besnečem Orlandu), objavljeno leta 1594 (gl. Stallybrass), ali pa recimo z analizo rokopisne interpunkcije, ki jo je John Ward dodal svoji tiskani kopiji H^c^m^et^a v izdaji iz leta 1676 (gl. Chartier).
Na koncu bi si lahko postavili vprašanje, kako razložiti razloge in modalitete za poskuse v 18. stoletju, da bi ponovno uvedli ustno in retorično rabo ločil. Kraljeva akademija je šele leta 1754, v drugi izdaji razprave Ortografia de la lengua espanola (Pravopis španskega jezika), uvedla obrnjene vprašaje in klicaje, ki naj bi usmerjali bralčevo intonacijo:
Despues de un largo examen ha parecido a la Academia se pueda usar de la misma nota de interrogacion poniendola inversa antes de la palabra en que tiene principio el tono interrogante, ademas de la que ha de llevar la clausula al fin de la forma regular, para evitar as^ la equivocacion que por falta de alguna nota se padece co-munmente en la lectura de los periodos largos. (Ortografia)
(Po dolgotrajnem proučevanju je Akademija ugotovila, da je mogoče poleg navadnega vprašaja na koncu stavka uporabiti narobe obrnjeni vprašaj, in sicer na začetku besede z vprašalno intonacijo, zato da bi se izognili zmedi, ki jo med branjem dolgih povedi pogosto povzroča pomanjkanje takega ločila.)
Petintrideset let kasneje, leta 1789, je Benjamin Franklin po španskem zgledu predlagal uvedbo vprašaja na začetku vprašalne povedi v angleščini, zato da bi »ekspresivna tipografija« mogla primerno usmerjati modu-lacijo glasu:
Farther to be more sensible of the Advantage of clear and distinct Printing, let us consider the Assistance it affords in Reading well aloud to an Auditory. In so doing the Eye generally slides forward three or four Words before the Voice. If the Sight clearly distinguishes what the coming Words are, it gives time to order the Modulation of the Voice to express them properly. But if they are obscurely printed, or disguised by omitting the Capitals and long s's, or otherwise, the Reader is apt to modulate wrong, and finding he has done so, he is obliged to go
back and begin the Sentence again; which lessens the Pleasure of the Hearers. This leads me to mention an old Error in our Mode of Printing. We are sensible that when a Question is met with in Reading, there is a proper Variation to be used in the Management of the Voice. We have therefore a Point, called an Interrogation, affix'd to the Question in order to distinguish it. But this is absurdly placed at its End, so that the Reader does not discover it, 'till he finds he has wrongly modulated his Voice and is therefore obliged to begin again the Sentence. To prevent this the Spanish Printers, more sensibly, place an Interrogation at the Beginning as well as at the End of a Question. The Practice of our Ladies in meeting five or six together to form little busy Parties, when each is employed in some useful Work; while one reads to them, is so commendable in itself, that it deserves the Attention of Authors and Printers to make it as pleasing as possible, both to the Reader and Hearers. (Franklin)
(Med drugimi prednostmi, ki jih prinaša jasen in razločen tisk, naj omenimo tudi to, kako koristen pripomoček je pri glasnem branju občinstvu. Med branjem oko navadno drsi tri ali štiri besede naprej pred glasom. In če z vidom jasno razločimo, katere besede sledijo, to glasu omogoči pripravo na modulacijo, ki bo te besede primerno izrazila. Ce pa so besede nejasno natisnjene ali nerazločne zaradi odsotnosti velikih začetnic, dolgih J ali kako drugače, bralec napačno usmeri glas in se mora, ko to ugotovi, vrniti nazaj in stavek ponoviti; to pa zmanjšuje užitek poslušalcev. Na tem mestu moram zato omeniti staro slabost v našem načinu tiskanja. Vemo, da moramo v primeru vprašalnega stavka uporabiti ustrezno modulacijo glasu. V ta namen poznamo ločilo, imenovano vprašaj, ki je pristavljeno k vprašanju. Vendar je vprašaj, absurdno, vselej postavljen na konec vprašanja in do njega bralec prispe šele takrat, ko hkrati ugotovi, da je uporabil napačno intonacijo in mora zato stavek ponoviti. Da bi se temu ognili, španski tiskarji postavljajo vprašaj tako na začetek kot na konec vprašalnega stavka. Naše gospe se imajo navado sestajati v majhnih delovnih krožkih s petimi, šestimi udeleženkami, zatopljenimi vsaka v svoje opravilo; branje, namenjeno tem damam, je tako hvale vredna dejavnost, da si zasluži pozornost avtorjev in tiskarjev, ki naj poskrbijo, da bo to branje kar najprijetnejše tako za bralca kot za poslušalca.)
Tako je mogoče okrog ustnega podajanja govora organizirati ne samo damske krožke, ampak tudi ali predvsem javni prostor, utemeljen na reprodukciji ustnih govorov, in sicer ne nujno znotraj obzorja antičnih mestnih državic. Na odru sta bila življenje ali smrt lahko odvisni od postavitve vejice. Pomen interpunkcije pa sega precej onkraj odra. Igra namreč tudi pomembno vlogo pri vzpostavljanju nove demokratične sfere.
Prevedla Varja Balžalorsky
OPOMBE
1	»Mortimer:
The king must die, or Mortimer goes downe, The commons now begin to pitie him, Yet he that is the cause of Edwards death, Is sure to pay for it when his sonne is of age, And therefore will I do it cunninglie. This letter written by a friend of ours, Containes his death, yet bids them save his life. Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. Feare not to kill the king tis good he die. But read it thus, and thats an other sence: Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. Kill not the king tis good to feare the worst. Unpointed as it is, thus shall it goe, That being dead, if by chaunce to be found, Matrevis and the rest may beare the blame,
And we be quit that caused it to be done.« (Marlowe, »Edward II« 86) (»Mortimer mlajši:
Kralj mora umreti, ali pa Mortimer pade. Ljudem se že začenja smiliti; a ta, ki bo položil roko nanj, bo prav gotovo drago plačal, ko njegov sin odraste; zato bom svoj ukaz prikril z zvijačo. To pismo, ki ga je napisal naš prijatelj, vsebuje na en mah smrt in življenje: Bere. Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est, ne bojte se ubiti kralja, prav je tako. Lahko pa se razbere čisto drug pomen: Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est, ne ubijte kralja, prav ima, kdor se boji. Najboljše bo tako, kot je, brez vejic: če bo kdo našel pismo, ko bo kralj že mrtev, bo padla krivda na Matrevisa in druge,
mi, ki smo dali ukaz, pa bomo prosti.« /Marlowe, Edvard Drugi 93/)
2	Navedimo Arriasov govor v poglavju »De la Societe et de la conversation« (O družbi in pogovoru). V modernih izdajah beremo:
»Quelqu'un se hasarde de le contredire, et lui prouve nettement qu'il dit des choses qui ne sont pas vraies. Arrias ne se trouble point, prend feu au contraire contre l'interrup-teur : Je n'avance, lui dit-il, je ne raconte rien que je ne sache d'original : je l'ai appris de Sethon, ambassadeur de France dans cette cour, revenu a Paris depuis quelques jours, que je connais familierement, que j'ai fort interreoge, et qui ne m'a cache aucune circonsance." Il reprenait le fil de sa narration avec plus de confiance qu'il ne l'avait commencee, lorsque l'un des convies lui dit : "C'est Sethon a qui vous parlez, lui-meme, et qui arrive de son ambassade.« (La Bruyere, Les Caracferes de Theophraste 150—151) V izdaji iz 1696 pa:
»quelqu'un se hasarde de le contredire et lui prouve nettement qu'il dit des choses qui ne sont pas vraies ; Arrias ne se trouble point, prend feu au contraire contre l'interrup-teur ; je n'avance, lui dit-il, je ne raconte rien que je ne sache d'original : je l'ai appris de
Sethon ambassadeur de France dans cette Cour, revenu a Paris depuis quelques jours, que je connais familierement, que j'ai fort interroge, et qui ne m'a cache aucune circonstance ; ü reprenait le fil de sa narration avec plus de confiance qu'il ne l'avait commencee, lors-que l'un des convies lui dit, c'est Sethon a qui vous parlez, lui-meme, et qui arrive de son Ambassade.« (La Bruyere, Les Caracteres 206)
Slovenski prevod bi se glasil:
»nekdo mu upa ugovarjati in mu jasno dokaže, da govori neresnične reči. Arrias pa se sploh ne zmede, nasprotno, jezno vzroji nad nasprotnikom; trdim in pripovedujem le tisto, pravi, kar sem izvedel iz prve roke: in sicer pri Sethonu, francoskem veleposlaniku na tem Dvoru, ki se je pred dnevi vrnil v Pariz in ga osebno poznam, podrobno sem ga izprašal in prav nobene okoliščine mi ni prikril; po tistem se k zgodbi vrne s še večjo samozavero-vanostjo, pa mu eden od povabljencev reče, prav s tem Sethonom, ki se je vrnil iz svojega Veleposlaništva, se ravnokar pogovarjate.«
3	Pri Binnu najdemo še en primer: »Tiskar bralcu. Inverzija in transpozicija črk sta zelo pogosti; ločila bodisi povsem manjkajo ali pa so napačno postavljena. Napake, ki so se prikradle v besedilo, zato pripišite naglici in slabi kakovosti moje opreme. Spodaj boste našli seznam napak, ki kvarijo pomen pesmi, da boste lahko odpustili drugim manjšim nepravilnostim in popravili napake resnejše narave.« (Prim. Hartwell)
4	Gl. članka »Ponctuation: Observation grammaticale des lieux d'un discours, ou on doit faire de differentes pauses, & qu'on marque avec des points & petits caracteres pour en advertir les lecteurs. Il y a plus de difficulte qu'on ne pense a faire bien la ponctuation. Ce Correcteur d'Imprimerie entend fort bien la ponctuation« in »Virgule: Terme de gram-maire. L'exactitude de cet Auteur va jusques-la, qu'il prend soin des points et des virgules« v Furetiere.
5	Izdaje 17. stoletja : »Et par un doux hymen, couronner en Valere, / La flame d'un Amant genereux, &sincere.« (Moliere, Le Tartuffe [1669]); »Et par un doux hymen, couronner en Valere / La flame d'un Amant genereux, & sincere.« (Moliere, Le Tartuffe [1673]). V moderni izdaji: »Et par un doux hymen couronner en Valere / La flame d'un amant genereux et sincere.« (Moliere, Oeuvres 180)
LITERATURA
Ayala, Gonzalo de. »Informacion en drerecho hecha por Gonzalo de Ayala«. V^ctor Infantes, En el Siglo de Oro. Estudiosy textos de literatura äurea. Potomac (MD): Scripta Humanistica, 1992.
Binn, James. »STC Latin Books: Evidence for Printing-House Practice«. The Library 32.1 (1977): 1-27.
Bonnefoy, Yves. »Les deux points, c'est un peu, en prose la poesie«. La petite phrase et la hngue phi^ase. Pariz: La Tilv Editeur, 1994. 15-22.
Bullokar, William. Booke at large, for the Amendment of Orthographie for English jpeech wherein, a moftperfect fupplie is made, for the wantes and double founde of letters in the olde Orthographie. London: Henrie Denham, 1580.
Cabrera Nunez de Guzman, Melchor de. Discurso legal, historicoy pol^tico en prueba del origen, progressos, utilidad, nobleza y excelencias del Arte de la Imprenta. Madrid, 1675.
Chartier, Roger. »Hamlet 1676. Les temps de l'oeuvre«. Le Temps des oeuvres. Memoire et prefiguration. Ur. Jacques Neefs, Vincennes. Pariz: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 2001. 143-154.
Chrysostom, John. Homiliae duae. London: Reginald Wolfe, 1543.
Dolet, Etienne. »La maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en aultre. D'advantage. De la punctuation de la langue Fran^oyse. Plus, Des accents d'yceUe« [Lyon: Dolet, 1540]. Nina Catach, L'Orthographe Jranfaise a l'epoque de la Renaissance (auteurs, imprimeurs, ateliers d'imprimerie). Ženeva: Librairie Droz, 1968. Forestier, Georges. »Lire Racine«. Jean Racine, Oeuvres compltetes. I, The'dtre-Poe'sie. Ur.
Georges Forestier. Pariz: Gallmard, 1999. LIX-LXII. Franklin, Benjamin. »To Noah Webster, Jr. (unpublished) Sat Dec 26, 1789«. The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp (30 Apr. 2010).
Furetiere, Antoine. Dictionnaire Universel. Haag, 1690.
Gaskell, Philip. From Writer to Reader: Studies in Editorial Method. Winchester: St. Paul's Bibliographies, 1984.
Grafton, Anthony. »Printers' Correctors and the Publication of Classical Texts«. Grafton, Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as Revelation. Cambridge (MA) in London: Harvard U P, 2001. 141-155.
Hart, John. An orthographie, conteyning the due order and reajon, howe to write or paint thimage of
mannes voice, most like the life or nature. London: William Serres, 1569. Hartwell, Abraham. Reginae literae sive de Eli^abethae Reginae in Academiam Cantabrigiensem ad-
ventu. London: William Serres, 1565. Hill, Gaston H.. »Ponctuation et dramaturgie chez Moliere«. La bibliographie materielle. Ur.
Roger Laufer. Pariz: Editions du CNRS, 1983. 125-141. Hornschuch, Hieronymus. Orthotypographia. Ur. Philip Gaskell in Peter Bradford. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1972.
---. »Orthotypographia Hoc est: Instructio operas typographicas correcturis et Admonitio
scripta sua in lucem edituris« [Leipzig, 1608]. Jerome Hornschuch, Orthotypographia. Instruction utile et necessairepour ceux qui vont corriger des livres imprimes et conseils a ceux qui vont les publier (1608). Ur. Jean-Francois Gilmont. Pariz: Edition des Cendres, 1997. La Bruyere, Jean de. Les Caracteres. Ur. Louis Van Delft. Pariz: Imprimerie Nationale, 1998.
---. Les Caracteres de Theophraste traduits du grec avec Les Caracteres ou les moeurs de siecle. Ur.
Robert Garapon. Pariz: Garnier-Flammarion, 1964.
---. The Characters of Jean de la Bruyere. Trans. Henri van Laun. New York: Brentanos,
1929.
Marlowe, Christopher. Edvard Drugi. Ljubljana: Slovensko narodno gledališče, 2005.
---. »Edward II«. Marlowe, The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe. Ur. Fredson Bowers.
Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1973. Masten, Jeffrey. »Pressing Subjects; or, The Secret Lives of Shakespeare's Compositors«. Language Machines: Technologies ofLiterary and Cultural Production. Ur. Jeffrey Masten, Peter Stallybrass in Nancy Vickers. New York in London: Routledge, 1997. Moliere. Le Tartuffe ou L'Imposteur. Comedie. Pariz: Jean Ribou, 1669. ---. Le Tartuffe ou L'Imposteur. Comedie. Pariz: Claude Barbin, 1673.
---. Oeuvres completes collationnees sur les textes originaux, zv. 6. Ur. Louis Moland. Pariz:
Garnier, 1880-1885.
---. »Tartuffe«. Moliere, Tartuffe. Don Juan. Ljudomrznik. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga,
1994. 5-89.
Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises on the whole Art of Printing (1683-4). Ur. Herbert Davis
in Harry Carter. Oxford in London: Oxford U P, 1958. Nebrija, Elio Antonio de. Gramatica Castellana. Ur. Miguel Angel Esparza in Ramon
Sarmiento. Madrid: Fundacion Antonio de Nebrija, 1992. Nelson, William. »From 'Listen Lordings' to 'Dear Reade^«. University of Toronto Quarterly: A Cana^d^an Journal of ^he Uumani^ties XLVI.2 (1976-1977). 110-124.
Ortograf^a de la Lengua espanola Castellana Compuestapor la Real Academia Espanola. Nueva edicion
corregida y aumentada. Madrid, 1754. Paredes, Alonso Victor de. Instituciony origen del arte de la imprentay reglas generales para los
componedores. Ur. Jaime Moll. Madrid: Calambur, 2002. Parkes, Malcolm. Pauses and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West.
Berkeley in Los Angeles: U of California P, 1993. Richardson, Brian. Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular 1470—1600.
Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1994. Rico, Francisco. El texto del 'Quijote', Preliminares a una ecdotica del Siglo de Oro. Barcelona:
Ediciones Destino, 2005. Ronsard, Pierre de. »Au lecteur«. Ronsard, Oeuvres completes. Ur. Jean Ceard, Daniel Menager in Michel Simonin. Pariz: Gallimard, 1993. 1180—1186.
---. »Preface sur la Franciade touchant le poeme heroique«. Ronsard, Oeuvres completes.
1177-1180.
Shakespeare, WiHiam. A Midjommer nights dreame. London, 1600.
---. A Pleajant Conceited Comedie called, Loues labors lojt. London: Cuthbert Burby, 1598.
---. »Ljubezni trud zaman«. Shakespeare, Zbrana dela. Ljubljana: DZS, 1971. 9—97.
---. »Sen kresne noči«. Shakespeare, Zbrana dela. Ljubljana: DZS, 1968. 197—264.
Trovato, Paolo. 'Con ogni diligen^a corretto': La stampa e le revisioni dei testi letterari italiani (1470-1570). Bologna: 11 Mulino, 1991. Veyrin-Forrer, Jeanne. »A la recherche des 'Precieuses'«. Veyrin-Forrer, La lettre et le texte: Trente annees de recherches sur l'histoire du livre. Pariz: Collection de l'Ecole Normale Superieure de Jeunes Filles, 1987.
Kdo izbere tistega/tisto, ki izbere?
izsiljeni izbiri shakespearovske epistemologije in tekstologije
Jernej Habjan
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Ljubljana, Slovenija Jemej.Habjan@zrc-sazu.si
Izbire, kijih prevladujoča l^^erarna veda opravlja v imenu bralstva, so tudi same opravljene vnaprej: opravijo jih institucije, ki reproducirajo vedo. Članek analizira učinke takšnih izbir na izbire sodobne shakespearologije in oriše alternativno branje Romea in Julije.
Ključne besede: literarna kritika / literarni kanon / Shakespeare, William / dekonstrukcija / multikulturalizem
UDK 82.09
Institucionalna literarna veda ni nič manj kakor njeno občinstvo določena s procesi v dani družbeni formaciji. Veda ne le določa bralske izbire prek šolskega aparata, kanona, knjižnega trga, pač pa je tudi sama določena z zunanjimi vnaprejšnjimi izbirami, če naj se reproducira kot del teh aparatov in institucij. Se pravi, v okviru šole kot vladajočega modernega ideološkega aparata (Althusser 79-83), knjižnega trga kot dela vodilne institucije kapitalistične svetovne-ekonomije (Wallerstein 35) in kanona kot osrednjega mehanizma institucije nacije (Močnik 8) domena literarne vede ni selekcija, temveč prej kombinacija. Institucionalizirana veda bodisi kritično bodisi odobravajoče sintagmatizira paradigmatske izsiljene izbire, ki reproducirajo svetovni-sistem.1
Novejši zgovoren primer je poročilo Ameriški zvezi za primerjalno književnost za leto 1993: t. i. Bernheimerjevo poročilo je subjektiviralo takšno prisilno izbiro kot dilemo med kontekstualizmom in nekontekstu-alizmom, namesto da bi jo zavrnilo in se vrnilo k tekstualizmu kot svoji teoretski in ne ideološki praksi. Pisci in piske poročila so institucionalni položaj vede predstavili kot antinomijo med kontekstualističnimi kultu-rološkimi pristopi k literaturi in nekontekstualističnimi hermenevtičnimi ali semiotičnimi pristopi; natančneje, dilema naj bi zadevala sam status
literature kot spoznavnega predmeta literarne vede. Toda kar je s kompa-rativističnega, nereflektirano domačinskega gledišča videti kot disjunkcija, lahko teoretsko koncipiramo kot konjunkcijo. Z vidika širših procesov v svetovnem-sistemu, v katere je umeščena tovrstna debata o prihodnosti univerzitetnih oddelkov, izbira med kontekstualizmom in nekontekstua-lizmom zgolj potegne limito polja primerjalne literarne vede »v dobi mul-tikulturalizma«, če naj uporabimo kar Bernheimerjevo datacijo.2
Spričo protislovij poročila, ki so tako paradigmatska kakor sintagmat-ska, moramo domnevno opozicijo med kontekstualizmom in nekontek-stualizmom obravnavati kot identiteto. Na paradigmatski osi že samo poročilo nevede reši opozicijo, ko jo poskuša poudariti s promocijo pluralnosti kontekstualizma. A poročilo pripisuje ta pluralizem ne le pozitivnemu polu, kontekstualizmu, ampak tudi odnosu tega pola do svojega negativa, nekontekstualizma, zato naddoloči samo opozicijo in jo nereflektirano predstavi kot neantagonistično kontradikcijo. Na sintagmatski osi se ta paradoksnost poročila artikulira recimo kot protislovno sklicevanje na ekonomski položaj. Na eni strani poročilo odpravlja nacionalne književnosti kot spoznavni predmet v imenu mnoštva manjšinskih identitet in se s tem implicitno ravna po meddržavnih sistemskih aparatih globalnega kapitala (EU, NATO, STO), ki uveljavljajo neoliberalno identitetno politiko na račun socialdemokratskega razrednega kompromisa. Na drugi strani pa poročilo v sklepnem »opozorilu« predlaga univerzitetnim oddelkom konservativen umik k ustaljeni obravnavi nacionalnih literatur in s tem eksplicitno pripozna »spreminjajočo se ekonomsko in družbenopolitično pokrajino« (Bernheimer idr. 47). Svetovna-ekonomija je torej priklicana kot argument za nasprotujoča si sklepa: o potrebi po razširitvi (41—43) in po ohranitvi (47) predmeta primerjalne literarne vede.3
To protislovje med splošnim multikulturalističnim pluralizmom in posebnim nacionalističnim ekskluzivizmom lahko rešimo, če ga obravnavamo kot primer širšega procesa v modernem svetovnem-sistemu. »Pravzaprav je postalo sočasno delovanje in propagiranje univerzalizma in antiuniver-zalizmov osrednja, temeljna strukturna poteza modernega svetovnega-sis-tema. Ta protislovna dvojica je postala prav tako temeljna za sistem, kakor je temeljna osna delitev dela na center in periferijo.« (Wallerstein 56) V okviru založništva in siceršnje kulturne produkcije, zaščitene z avtorskim pravom, v katero se poročilo uvršča, ko kontekstualistično zvaja umetnost na kulturo, je ta »simbioza« (38) med univerzalističnim liberalizmom in antiuniverzalističnim rasizmom in seksizmom reproducirana kot razmerje med protekcionistično kulturno politiko »kulturne izjeme« in neoliberalno politiko »kulturne raznoličnosti« (Breznik 33, 37—38) — razmerje, ki je nadalje projicirano v drugega od svojih lastnih polov, predstavljeno v etni-
stičnih in celo biologističnih predpostavkah multikulturalizma tega pola (31—32, 42). Ta projekcija, ponovitev alternative med protekcionizmom in neoliberalizmom v samem neoliberalizmu napravi alternativo »simbiotično« in, še več, nakazuje, da to simbiozo vzpostavlja značilni institucionalni mehanizem utajitve vednosti v imenu verovanja. Vednost o protidružbe-nih učinkih neoliberalne politike je utajena v imenu verovanja v neolibera-lizem, tako da lahko institucije zagovarjajo »kulturno raznoličnost«, kadar normalno prakticirajo svoje verovanje, in uveljavijo »kulturno izjemo« v neobičajnih primerih, ko vednost ne more zdržati verovanja.
Poročilo ACLA za leto 1993 je od te simbioze odvisno, zato ker je njegova praksa predteoretska. Poročilo namreč utemelji svoja priporočila na sočasnem institucionalnem položaju komparativistike, ne pa na epi-stemološkem prelomu s tovrstnimi institucionalnimi izsiljenimi izbirami. Univerzitetni oddelki naj bi se izvežbali v preklapljanju med pluralističnim multikulturalizmom in elitističnim nacionalizmom, zato da bi se mogli ravnati bodisi po ekonomski situaciji kot taki ali pa po drugih oddelkih, za katere se predpostavlja, da se že ravnajo po tej situaciji. Zato poročilo ne le ne producira epistemičnega reza, ampak reproducira institucionalno dilemo med kontekstualizmom in nekontekstualizmom, posredno pa tudi konjunkcijo med univerzalizmom in antiuniverzalizmom. To samoniklo vpetost poročila v identitetno politiko zgošča njegovo mnenje, da bi morali učitelji izkoristiti multikulturno sestavo svojih avditorijev za »class discussion«, »diskusije v predavalnici« (Bernheimer idr. 46). Se pravi, učitelji naj naslavljajo študente kot domačine partikularnih manjšinskih identitet, ne kot kartezijanske subjekte, ki bi mogli participirati na produkciji vednosti.
Da je ta zamenjava modernega subjekta znanosti s postmodernimi identitetami privedla do vznika nadjazovske zapovedi uživanja, je razvidno denimo pri projektu »Shakespeare in šole«, ki so ga leta 1986 zasnovali na Univerzi v Cambridgeu (Gibson 144). Projekt nalaga učencem uživanje v uprizarjanju oseb po scenarijih, ki naj bodo zgolj ohlapno utemeljeni na Shakespearovih tekstih, in jih varuje pred »prebijanjem skoz opombe« (142), tj. pred branjem Shakespearea kot subjektivirajočega teksta: »|T]ekst predpostavlja samotnega, posamičnega, nad mizo sklonjenega učenjaka. Scenarij pa kakor vaja predpostavlja, da spoznavanje in uprizarjanje drame izhaja iz skupnega izkustva.« (145)4
Ko vpelje »class discussion« namesto c^^ss struggle, razrednega boja, se poročilo umesti na položaj tega, kar Badiou odpravi kot »kulturno sociologijo« (Badiou 23), akademsko zastopstvo multikulturalizma. Ta po Badiouju vsiljuje nihilistično konjunkcijo, lažno izbiro med konservativno »zunanjo prisilo« logike Kapitala (27) in biopolitičnim gonom smrti (27, 29, 32—33). Podobno radikalno kritiko te konjunkcije razvije Julia Reinhard
Lupton v delu Citiztn-Saint^s (Državljani-svetniki), razpravi o Shakespearu in politični teologiji. Avtorica ob interpretaciji Kalibana iz Viharja kot kreature in ne manjšinske identitete, o kateri govori antiuniverzalistični novi historizem, trdi, da »se v odziv na izsiljeno izbiro med univerzalizmom in partikularizmom kreatura uobliči kot njun negativni presek, nezvedljiv nanju.« (Reinhard Lupton 177) Shakespearova
ključna kristalizacija določenega materialnega momenta v teologiji kreature nam utegne pomagati pri iskanju postsekularne rešitve protislovij modernega človeštva, ujetega med vse bolj katastrofično izbiro med univerzalizmom globalnega kapitala in tribalizmom etničnega čiščenja. (178)
V navezavi na Luptonovo bi mogli dodati, da to identiteto med univerzalizmom in partikularizmom doseže njuna promocija — ne subjektivitete, pač pa — ravno »identitete, povzete bodisi v makrokozmični totalnosti 'človeštva' bodisi v lokalnem prakticiranju 'kulture.'« (177)5
Čeprav se ta identifikacija humanistične in multikulturalistične shake-spearologije z določenima pozicijama v sodobnih ideoloških bojih utegne zdeti zgolj aktivizem, je ni težko podpreti z analizo epistemoloških protislovij sodobnih študij Romea in Julije.
Odkar sta igro interpretirala Kristeva (Kristeva) in Derrida (Derrida, »L'aphorisme«), je njena političnost topos shakespearologije. A bližje kakor trditev Nicholasa Royla, da balkonski prizor »ni več isti po Derridaju« (Royle 23), nam je, nasprotno, Derridajevo lastno zagotovilo, da »je v Shakespearu vse: vse in še ostalo« (Derrida, »This« 67). »Ta »ostanek« je po našem mnenju manko v shakespearologiji, vpisan vanjo kot protislovje, kot zvestoba manku, nevednost o katerem sili shakespearologe v protislovja. Kajti na eni strani »antiesencialistični« branji igre pri Kristevi in Derridaju navdihujeta diametralno nasprotne nadaljnje interpretacije (od Greenblattove do Bloomove); na drugi strani pa sta identični denimo z Girardovo »esencialistično« interpretacijo. To lažno izbiro bi morali zavrniti v imenu hipoteze, da je igra politična prav v svojem intimizmu.
Pod vplivom »para francoskih jezikačev« (Zahodni 53), če naj uporabimo Bloomovo žaljivko, shakespearologi postajajo »apostoli resentimenta« (49). Njihova protislovja lahko zgostimo v antinomijo med zunanjim in notranjim pristopom k problematiki imenovanja.6 Prvi pristop (Schalkwyk 151—177, Belsey, Ryan, Maguire 50—73) pojmuje imenovanje v Romeu in Juliji kot zunanje jazu, četudi konstitutivno za jaz; drugi pristop (Kristeva, Leggatt 29—58, Davis) pa projicira ta dualizem v jaz kot zaprečen z am-bivalenco ljubezni-sovraštva. Ker pa oba pristopa nereflektirano vidita v ljubimcih žrtvi določenega konstruiranega drugega (bodisi imenovanja bodisi ljubezni-sovraštva), stalno prehajata drug v drugega (Leggatt 29—58,
Davis).7 Pristopa tedaj zgoščata svoj lastni odnos do esencialističnega nasprotnika, saj prehajata tudi vanj: kot vzajemno zvedljiva sta zvedlji-va tudi na esencializem. Kajti viktimizacija ljubimcev ni nič manj očitna pri Bloomu, Girardu ali Fryeju. Ti naturalizirajo konstruiranega drugega, predpostavljenega pri obeh antiesencialističnih pristopih, kot »časove ironije« (Bloom, Shakespeare 87), »mimetično željo« (Girard 48—49) oziroma »tragično heroično« (Frye 33).8
Zaradi viktimizacije ljubimcev je naposled tudi sama igra viktimizirana, odsotna iz Bloomovega centra zahodnega kanona (Lear, H^am^et, Othel^lo, Macbeth) kot tudi iz multikulturnega Shakespeara Viharja, Beneškega trgovca in, zopet, Othel^la? Zavrnitev te izsiljene izbire med humanističnim univerzalizmom bloomovske dekonstrukcionistične literarne vede in humanističnim partikularizmom derridajevskega dekonstrukcionističnega mul-tikulturalizma bi zavrnila samo dihotomijo med bloomovskim nekonte-kstualizmom in derridajevskim kontekstualizmom.10
Ce bi se shakespearologija hotela ogniti dvojni slepi pegi romantičnega kulta barda - zaradi katere lahko Bloom obilno piše o Shakespearu, a zavrne samoopredelitev »shakespearoslovec« (Bloom, Zahodni 47), medtem ko je Derrida želel postati »'strokovnjak za Shakespeara'« (Derrida, »This« 67), a je napisal le en članek —, bi morala radikalizirati (in ne transgresivno zavračati) romantični kult recimo v smeri politične teologije Luptonove. Le tako bi bila Shakespearova univerzalnost konceptualizirana tako onkraj vsote partikularnih jazov (od Hamleta do Falstaffa: Bloom, Shakespear^e 4-5, 745) kakor onstran partikularne univerzalnosti med univerzalnostmi drugih (od Platonove do Celanove: Derrida, »This« 67). To pa bi zahtevalo zvestobo dogodku strukturalne psihoanalize, ne pa zgolj negacijo bloomo-vskega ali derridajevskega poststrukturalizma.11
Kot rečeno, ko vidijo v Romeu in Juliji žrtvi partikularnega imenovanja, kontekstualistična branja nehote ponavljajo nekontekstualistične podreditve ljubimcev univerzalni usodi. Spodletelo srečanje ljubimcev, problematika igre, je postvarjeno v učinek bodisi derridajevske »ironije očetnega imena« (Derrida, »L'aphorisme« 532) ali pa bloomovskih »časovih ironij«. Poleg tega pa ta branja reproducirajo tudi dve še tradicionalnejši praksi: izločajo igro iz korpusa »zrelih tragedij« in ohranjajo tekstološko dilemo med »any other name« in »any other word«. Nevede pomagajo konservativnim nasprotnikom pri vzdrževanju dveh občih mest: da je Romeo in Julija t. i. slaba tragedija (Oz) in da je njena prva kvartna izdaja eden od bardovih »slabih« kvartov (Farley-Hills).
Kar zadeva slabo tragedijo, multikulturalisti očitno sprejemajo običajno sodbo, da igra ne zadovolji merila »značaja kot usode - 'velikega moža', čigar poraz ima notranji izvir, in sicer bodisi prirojeno slabost ali pa zmo-
tno moralno odločitev.« (White 1) Kar pa zadeva »slabi« kvarto, je to edina različica Romea in Julije med petimi kvartnimi in štirimi folijskimi izdajami iz let 1597-1685, v kateri na temo neodvisnosti vonja vrtnice od njenega imena oziroma besede za vrtnico, beremo: »What's in a name? That which we call a rose, / By any other name would smell as sweet«, ne »What's in a name? That which we call a rose, / By any other word would smell as sweet« (2.2.43-44). Brian Gibbons, urednik izjemno referenčne izdaje Arden iz leta 1980, pravi o drugi vrstici, da »Shakespeare imenuje ime [name], kolikor se kot reč razlikuje od osebe, z besedo word Drugi kvarto je tu smiseln in bi moral obveljati navzlic nerazumnemu pritisku domačnosti besede name, ki so jo izbrale mnoge pretekle izdaje.« (Shakespeare 129)
Ta razlaga je odtlej prevladala: Riverside, RSC, cambriška in številne druge ugledne izdaje so izbrale »any other word« na račun »any other name«. Omeniti velja, da med konservativnimi izjemami spet srečamo Blooma, tokrat kot pisca spremne besede k yaleski izdaji iz leta 2004. Namesto izbiranja in reševanja uganke, ki je bila nemara uganka za samega avtorja,12 naj poudarimo, da je obenem prevladalo tudi že omenjeno mnenje, da ta »reč«, ki se »razlikuje od osebe« — pa naj bo »ime« (»name«) ali »beseda« (»word«) — viktimizira Romea in Julijo in s tem umešča igro med slabe tragedije, ki jim manjka »'veliki mož', čigar poraz ima notranji izvir«.
Sedaj vidimo, da partikularistični multikulturalizem še zdaleč ne zavrne univerzalističnega humanizma bardolatrije, temveč reproducira njegove izbire glede genologije, teorije značaja in tekstologije. Ti »obsedenci z oblastjo in spolom«, če naj navedemo še eno Bloomovo nalepko (Shakespeare 10), Bloomovega središča zahodnega kanona ne teoretizirajo, ampak zgolj dopolnijo z beneškim Židom ali Mavrom. Zaradi te dopolnile geste je anti-nomija med bloomovskimi in derridajevskimi shakespearologi pomenljivo podobna konjunkciji univerzalizma in antiuniverzalizma, ki jo Wallerstein, Badiou ali Luptonova pripisujejo današnji ideološki hegemoniji.
To lažno izbiro lahko zavrnemo, če institucionalno antinomijo zamenjamo s teoretsko debato in predlagamo strukturalistično, anti-dekon-strukcijsko in -humanistično interpretacijo igre kot teksta. Vrnitev k tekstu bi omogočila bralstvu izbiranje onkraj alternative med kanonom in transgresijami kanona, ki pojem kanona reproducirajo, ne pa analizirajo.
Naj se na hitro vrnemo k problemu imenovanja.13 Siže določa Julijina zamenjava imena z besedo, tj. praznega označevalca z navadnim, relacio-nalnim členom označevalne verige. Začetna dvojna interpelacija — očetova zahteva po možitvi s Parisom in dojiljina transgresivna, nadjazovska zapoved uživanja ne glede na to zapoved — sooči Julijo z mankom v Imenu Očeta. Julija zapolni ta manko tako, da se ravna po binarni logiki označevalca, ki jo pripelje k Romeu, ki v jeziku njene matere (ne pa v njenem ma-
ternem, tj. knezovem jeziku) označuje »Monteg, ergo sovražnik Capuletov, ergo Julijin sovražnik, ergo prepovedani, ergo ne-Paris«. Ideal jaza, simbolni Drugi, za katerega Julija igra, je torej njen oče, medtem ko je Romeo zgolj njen imaginarni idealni jaz. V diskurzih obeh družin, ki vladata Juliji, če že ne Veroni, Romeo označuje bodisi »Monteg, ergo prijatelj« bodisi »Monteg, ergo sovražnik«; na knezovi impotentni »tretji poti« pa označuje »meščan«. Slepa pega tega dispozitiva, ki je kot takšna retroaktivno konstituirana v tem dispozitivu, pa je objekt kot odsotnost slehernega pozitivnega predmeta: za Julijo je označenec Romea »Julijin ljubimec«, se pravi, objekt-razlog Julijine želje je ona sama kot »Romeova ljubimka«, realno-kot-nemožno.
Romeova privlačnost je torej zgolj retroaktivni učinek očetove zahteve; Julija zato ne more nasloviti Romea, ne da bi dosegla očeta. Ko je oče prvič navzoč, krhko pripet na Ime Očeta, Romeo pa izgnan iz Verone, ločen od svojega imena (3.5.124-195), Julija poskuša promovirati Romea na mesto ideala jaza. Njen poskus, da bi obšla očetov diskurz in v Mantovi, kamor pobegne izgnani Romeo, uveljavila svoj diskurz navidezne smrti, strukturno nujno propade. Julija ne sprevidi, da so njene izjave odvisne od Drugega, ki pa je tudi sam odvisen od »arene boja dveh glasov«, rečeno z Bahtinom, tj. od Romeu nenaklonjene »arene razrednega boja«, rečeno z Vološinovom. Kot subjekt Verone, nezmožen, da bi vstavil falični označevalec Julijine igre navidezne smrti v označevalno verigo njenega pisma, Romeo prebere njeno igro za Ime Očeta prav tako konvencionalno kakor njen oče. In Julija šele sedaj, ko je neuspeh njenega diskurza ljubezni ponovljen v neuspehu njenega diskurza navidezne smrti, subjektivira nič, ki ga je designiralo njeno lastno »What's in a name?«. Njen sklepni suspenz igre za Ime Očeta, tj. njena odpoved pobegu k Parisu ali v samostan, pelje v samomor kot lacanovski samomor, edini mogoči prehod od označevalca k dejanju.
Ce jo beremo kot element teksta - tekst pa je po Jakobsonu ravno sin-tagmatska elaboracija paradigmatske logike označevalca -, Julija dejansko postane tragični »značaj kot usoda«, kot takšna pa tudi odločilna tekstolo-ginja in urednica svoje lastne izjave o imenu/besedi.
OPOMBE
1 »'[Zjgodoviaski sistemi' so obstajali v treh različicah - kot minisistemi in kot 'svetovni-sistemi' dveh vrst: kot svetovna-ekonomija in svetovni-imperiji.« (Wallersteia 25) »Svet, v katerem zdaj živimo, moderni svetovni-sistem, izvira iz 16. stoletja. Ta svetovni-sistem je tedaj deloval predvsem v nekaterih predelih Evrope in v Amerikah. Cez čas se je razširil po vsej Zemlji. Je in je zmeraj bil svetovna-ekonomija. Je in je zmeraj bil kapitalistična svetovna-ekonomija. [S]vetovaa ekonomija [je] veliko zemljepisno območje, v katerem obstaja delitev dela in v katerem zato poteka pomembna menjava temeljnih ali
bistvenih dobrin, pa tudi tokov kapitala in dela. [.] [Kjapitalistični sistem [.] daje prednost neskončni akumulaciji kapitala. « (33—34)
2	Za multikulturalizem kot vladajočo ideologijo sodobne komparativistike, ki je nadomestila nacionalizem, dopolnjen s kozmopolitizmom, gl. Juvan, »Ideologije« 86.
3	Tudi Mary Louise Pratt (59—61) v odzivu na Bernheimerjevo poročilo omenja institucionalne kompromise, ki jih pisci poročila predlagajo, ker želijo sprejeti globalizacijo in hkrati ohraniti evropocentrizem. Toda ona se bolj ko ne zavzema le za še več globalizacije.
4	V okviru projekta je izšla izdaja Romea in Julije, ki vabi učence in učenke: »[O]živite igro v učilnici, dvorani ali dramski delavnici prek prijetnih dejavnosti, ki bodo poglobile vaše razumevanje igre. [.] [S]podbujamo vas, da si ustvarite lastno mnenje o Romeu in Juliji, in ne da vam ponujajo interpretacijo koga drugega.« (Gibson 144) Tako je recimo odgovarjanje na vprašanje Parisove iskrenosti v 5.3.12—17 »prepuščeno učencem in učenkam samim, namesto da bi učitelji in učiteljice poudarjale težo kritiške sodbe o teh vrsticah. Pri tem prizoru so učenke in učenci tudi povabljeni, da eksperimentirajo z izjavljanjem replik [.] v zaporedju, drugačnem od scenarija. [.] K lastni presoji jih spodbujamo, tudi kot jih vabimo, da naj spodbijajo uveljavljene odrske konvencije.« (148) Prim. op. 5.
5	Naša druga ključna referenca je Moretti (42, 68—69), po katerem tragedija iz obdobja kraljice Elizabete I. in kralja Jakoba I. uprizarja suverena kot razcepljenega z neodpravljivim konfliktom med voljo in razumom. S tem ko tako na eni strani negira suverena klasične tragedije kot nevtralizirajoče dopolnilo k družbenim protislovjem, na drugi pa prihodnost tragedije kot takšne, je Morettijev Shakespeare eden od predhodnikov Cromwella.
6	Na začetku devetdesetih let je tema dosegla tudi postmodernega permisivnega srednješolskega Shakespeara: »Nestabilnosti poststrukturalizma, problematika jezika in reference, imenovanje in identiteta dajejo podlago razmišljanjem na temo 'Kaj je ime?': dijaki in dijakinje razglabljajo o tem, kaj bi se pripetilo, če bi 'preimenovali' bodisi sebe ali pa konvencionalno sprejete označevalce.« (Gibson 151)
7	Kot vir zagate nam zopetlahko velja Kristeva, ki nemotivirano preide od Shakespearovega teksta (kot naddoločenega z ljubeznijo-sovraštvom) k biografiji (kjer je ljubezen Romea in Julije — ki jo Kristeva nenadoma loči od sovraštva — fantazma nesrečnega barda).
8	Girardova humanistična »mimetična želja« je resnica domnevno antihumanistične »ljubezni-sovraštva« pri Kristevi kot tudi njegovih lastnih napadov na »stare humanistične« (Girard 45) shakespearologe. Še več, kot omenja R. S. White, je bilo tako skozi celotno 20. stoletje, ko so si prevladujoče prisvojitve Romea in Julije — revizije bodisi Freuda ali pa Marxa — nevede delile predpostavko, da je človeška svoboda nemogoča (White 4).
9	Girard je zoper pomenljiv, saj izrecno (Girard 42) navaja argumente za izločitev Romea in Julije iz svoje knjige A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare (Gledališče zavisti: William Shakespeare).
10	Kot humanistični, kanonizatorski prisvajalec francoskega transgresivističnega de-konstrukcionizma je Bloom predstavljen v Juvan, History 116.
11	Bloomov Zahodni kanon kultivira travmatično polifonijo svojega predmeta, korpusa zahodnega kanona, s tem ko ga zgosti v en sam opus: Shakespeare je središče kanona, ker je z »iznajdbo človeškega« (Shakespeare XX, 4, 714) vpeljal vse ključne zahodne topoi. Polifonija teh je torej odpravljena v Shakespearu — ki pa ga za berljivega napravi Bloom sam, ki v zameno prizna »bardolatrijo« (728). Kot središče pa Shakespeare tudi mora ostati prazen, prazni označevalec, ki organizira kanon kot svoj lastni kontekst. Odtod Bloomova averzija do »francoskih« kontekstualizacij Shakespeara kot zgolj enega od označevalcev v označevalni verigi. Tega kvazi-strukturalizma, skupnega bloomovskim kanonizacijam in multikulturalističnim kontekstualizacijam, ne moremo preseči z odpovedjo strukturalizmu, ampak le z radikalizacijo tega v smeri teorije realnega kot nemogočega preseka med praznim označevalcem in označevalno verigo. To zahteva vrnitev k tekstu kot spoznavnemu pred-
metu, kar sta zanemarila tako Eagleton in denimo Greenblatt kot tudi Bloom, Kermode ali Girard, natančneje, sama dilema med kontekstualizmom in nekontekstualizmom.
12	David Farley-Hills (43-44, 27) zavrne obče mesto, po katerem naj bi bil prvi kvarto rekonstrukcija igre po spominu, objavil pa naj bi ga tiskar John Danter, in sicer brez pooblastil njegovih lastnikov. Farley-Hills pravi, da ta kvarto v resnici izhaja iz Shakespearovih lastnih delovnih osnutkov, t. i. »foul papers«, in se spogleduje celo s trditvijo Jayja L. Halia, da prvi kvarto ni poročilo, ampak skrajšana različica Shakespearovega izvirnika.
13	Natančnejša analiza igre je podana v Habjan, Janus 149-174.
LITERATURA
Althusser, Louis. »Ideologija in ideološki aparati države«. Althusser, Izbrani spisi. Prev. Zoja
Skušek. Ljubljana: Založba /*cf., 2000. 53-110. Badiou, Alain. Etika: Razprava o zavesti o Zlu. Prev. Jelica Šumič-Riha. Ljubljana: Društvo za
teoretsko psihoanalizo, 1996. Belsey, Catherine. »The Name of the Rose in Romeo andJuliet««. Romeo andJuliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. Ed. R. S. White. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. 47-67.
Bernheimer, Charles, et al. »The Bernheimer Report, 1993«. Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Ed. Charles Bernheimer. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1995. 39-48. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998.
---. Zahodni kanon. Prev. Nada Grošelj in Janko Lozar. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura,
2003.
Breznik, Maja. »Kultura med 'kulturno izjemo' in 'kulturno raznoličnostjo'«. Aldo Milohnic idr., Kultura d.o.o. Materialni pogoji kulturne produkcije. Ljubljana: Mirovni inštitut, 2005. 15-43.
Davis, Lloyd. »'Death-marked Love': Desire and Presence in Romeo and Juliet«. Romeo and
Juliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. 28-46. Derrida, Jacques. »L'aphorisme a contretemps«. Derrida, Psyche : Inventions de l'autre. Pariz: Galilee, 1987. 519-533.
---. »'This Strange Institution Called Literature': An Interview with Jacques Derrida«.
Derrida, Acts of Literature. Ed. Derek Attridge. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 33-75.
Farley-Hills, David. »The 'Bad' Quarto of Romeo and Juliet«. Shakespeare Survey 49 (1996): 27-44.
Frye, Northrop. Northrop Frye On Shakespeare. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1986. Gibson, Rex. »'O, what learning is!' Pedagogy and the Afterlife of Romeo and Juliet««.
Sha^k^espea^r^e Surt^ey 49 (1996): 141-152. Girard, Rene. »The Passionate Oxymoron in Romeo and Juliet««. Shakespeare et l'exces. Ed. Pierre Kapitaniak and Jean-Michel Deprats. Pariz: Societe Fran^aise Shakespeare, 2007. 41-56.
Habjan, Jernej. Janus, Prokrust, Bahtin: Kvadratura Bahtinovega kroga. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura, 2008.
Juvan, Marko. »Ideologije primerjalne književnosti: perspektive metropol in periferij«.
Primerjalna književnost v 20. stoletju in Anton Ocvirk. Ur. Darko Dolinar in Marko Juvan. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2008. 57-91. ---. History and Poetics of Intertextuality. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 2008.
Kristeva, Julia. »Romeo et Juliette : le couple d'amour-haine«. Kristeva, Histoires d'amour. Pariz: Seuil, 1984. 203—224.
Leggatt, Alexander. Shakespeare's Tragedies: Violation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005.
Maguire, Laurie. Shakespeare's Names. New York: Oxford UP, 2007.
Močnik, Rastko. Julij'a Primic v slovenski književni vedi. Ljubljana: Sophia, 2006.
Moretti, Franco. »The Great Eclipse«. Moretti, Signs Taken For Wonders. London and New York: Verso, 2005. 42—82.
Oz, Avraham. »'What's in a Good Name?' The Case of Romeo andJuliet as a Bad Tragedy«. »Bad« Shakespeare: Revaluations of the Shakespeare Canon. Ed. Maurice Charney. Rutherford, Madison in Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson UP; London in Toronto: Associated UP, 1988. 133-142.
Pratt, Mary Louise. »Comparative Literature and Global Citizenship«. Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. 58-65.
Reinhard Lupton, Julia. Citizen-Saints: Shakespeare and Political Theology. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 2005.
Royle, Nicholas. Jacques Derrida. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
Ryan, Kiernan. »'The Murdering Word'«. Romeo and Juliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. 116128.
Schalkwyk, David. Speech and Performance in Shakespeare's Sonnets and Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2007.
Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. Ed. Brian Gibbons. London and New York: Methuen (The Arden Shakespeare, Second Series), 1980.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. Uvod v analizo svetovnih-sistemov. Prev. Tanja Rener. Ljubljana: Založba /*cf., 2006.
White, R. S. »Introduction: What is this thing called love?« Romeo and Juliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. 1-27.
»Literarna kritika ni upravičena, če je na kocki krik milijonov src«: nemški avtorji v eksilu na Nizozemskem v letih 1930-1940
Els Andringa
Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Utrechtu, Nizozemska e.b.andringa@uu.nl
Koje Hitler l^^a 1933prišel na oblast in dal sežgati knjige prepovedanih avtorjev, so mnogi pisatelji, založniki in kritiki zbežali iz Nemčije. Nizozemska je postala središče literature v eksilu, saj sta se dva od največjih založnikov ustalila v Amsterdamu. Kako je literatura v eksilu vplivala na takratno nizozemsko literarno polje? In ali je literatura v eksilu dobila trajno mesto v nizozemski literarni zgodovini? Članek raziskuje, v kolikšni meri so odzivi v medijih izražali položaj in spremembe na uveljavljenem nizozemskem literarnem polju. Obravnava tudi vprašanje, zakaj je literatura v eksilu skoraj povsem izginila iz nizozemske literarne zgodovine, četudi je bila z njo tesno povezana.
Ključne besede: literatura v eksilu / 2. svetovna vojna / nemška književnost / Nizozemska / literarna recepcija
UDK 821.112.2.09(492)»1930/1940«
Ko so nacionalsocialisti leta 1933 prevzeli oblast v Nemčiji in dali javno zažgati knjige nezaželenih avtorjev, so mnogi pisatelji, znanstveniki in intelektualci zbežali iz države. Večina jih je najprej odšla v sosednje države in tam upala na izboljšanje razmer. Amsterdam je tako postal glavno zbirališče in poslovno središče, kjer sta v sodelovanju z vidnimi nizozemskimi založniki delovala dva izmed najpomembnejših založnikov literature v eksilu: Allert de Lange in Emmanuel Querido. Knjižna produkcija se je začela leta 1933 in se je nadaljevala do nemškega vdora na Nizozemsko v maju 1940. Med letoma 1933 in 1940 je Querido izdal 137 naslovov sedeminpetdese-tih avtorjev (Walter 237-266), de Lange pa 91 naslovov devetinštiridesetih avtorjev (Schoor 85). Poleg njiju je dela avtorjev v eksilu občasno izdajalo še okrog petdeset drugih nizozemskih založnikov. Izdajali so literarna in
znanstvena dela, ki so izhajala v nemščini in so bila namenjena nemško govorečim območjem, in sicer predvsem v Švici, na Češkem, do Anschlussa iz leta 1938 pa tudi v Avstriji (Landschoff; Navrocka; Schoor). Tudi sama Nizozemska je bila razmeroma velik trg, saj je tam leta 1937 živelo okrog 75.000 ljudi nemškega rodu — izseljencev in beguncev (van Roon 43). Poleg tega so nemščino že od leta 1850 naprej poučevali na srednješolski ravni; s francoščino si je delila prestižni status »kulturnega jezika«; angleščino, tretji tuji jezik, ki je bil del nizozemskega šolskega izobraževanja, pa so uporabljali predvsem kot praktični poslovni jezik. Tako je visoko izobražena nizozemska »elita« z zanimanjem brala nemške knjige, kritiki pa so že desetletja spremljali nemško literaturo. Še več, najuspešnejši avtorji so bili prevedeni v nizozemščino; med njimi so bili najbolj priljubljeni Stefan Zweig, Jakob Wassermann, Thomas in Heinrich Mann, Joseph Roth, Vicky Baum in Lion Feuchtwanger. Vsi ti avtorji, celo nobelovec Thomas Mann, ki se mu Nemci niso želeli odreči, so odšli v eksil.
Do te migracije nemške literature je prišlo v zelo kratkem času, zato je zanimivo opazovati interakcijo med uveljavljenim in novim literarnim sistemom v času političnega pritiska, družbene nujnosti in zelo zapletenega trga. Knjige so bile ne le napisane v tujem jeziku, govorile so tudi o mučni izkušnji in položaju avtorjev. Če se izrazimo kemijsko: to je priložnost za opazovanje reakcij, ki se zgodijo, ko elementi pod določenimi pogoji vstopijo v dano okolje. Teh zapletenih procesov ni mogoče zlahka pojasniti, zato se osredotočamo na to, kako se je uveljavljeni nizozemski polisistem kazal v zgodnji kritični recepciji literature v eksilu in kako so se v tem sistemu pojavile prve razpoke. V sklepnem delu pa poskušamo odgovoriti tudi na vprašanje, v kolikšni meri se je literatura v eksilu ohranila v nizozemski literarni zgodovini.
Polisistemska teorija Itamarja Even-Zoharja je hevristično orodje za opisovanje strukture in dinamike spreminjajočega se literarnega polja. Even-Zohar opredeli polisistem kot sistem podsistemov, ki se med seboj povezujejo v hierarhičnem redu glede na družbeni prestiž in ekonomsko moč.1 Na podlagi Even-Zoharjevih temeljnih konceptov opredelimo literarni podsistem kot skupino akterjev — pisateljev, založnikov, kritikov in bralcev —, ki si delijo repertoar literarne vednosti, standardov in vrednot. Literarna vednost obsega na primer naslove del in imena avtorjev, ki so referenčni okvir. Standardi in vrednote določajo merila za presojo in izbiro. Polisistem je načeloma neomejen in se stalno spreminja pod vplivom dejavnikov zunaj in znotraj literarnega polja. Ta študija se ukvarja predvsem z zunanjimi dejavniki, tj. političnimi in družbenimi omejitvami; primeri notranjih dejavnikov pa so odpor proti obrabljenim konvencijam, želja po inovacijah in boj za pripoznanje.2
Od konca 19. stoletja naprej je bila nizozemska literatura zaznamovana z ideološko segregacijo. Razpoznavni so štirje glavni tokovi podsistemov: dva verska (katoliški in protestantski), konfesionalno »nevtralni« liberalni tok in socialno-politični socialistični tok, ki deloma prehaja druge tri.3 Ti štirje ustaljeni tokovi so pronicali v vsa področja družbe, od politike do izobraževanja in zdravstva, poleg tega pa so se odsevali tudi v kulturnem življenju. Na področju literarne dejavnosti so vse štiri tokove zastopali založniki, pisatelji, bralci in mediatorji, ki so ustvarjali in brali knjige, revije, kritike in eseje. Različne vsebine teh tokov so se razlikovale po temeljnih vrednotah svojih literarnih programov in kritik. Najočitnejše vrednostno merilo katoličanov je, da mora literarno delo izražati ravnotežje med estetsko obliko in duhovno navdihnjenim pozitivnim odnosom do življenja. Protestantski program je temeljil na nameri, »da se preveri usklajenost literarnega dela z Resnico, ki nam jo razodene Božja beseda«;4 zahtevali so precej puritansko etiko. Socialisti so cenili realistično upodobitev družbenih dilem. Nizozemski »liberalci« tistega časa so se odlikovali po naklonjenosti individualnemu izražanju in poudarjanju notranjih estetskih vrednot. Ti tokovi so se razlikovali ne le po vrednotah, ki so sestavljale njihov literarni program in kritiko, temveč tudi po strategijah, kako nagovarjati in opozarjati svoje bralce. Denimo katoliške duhovnike je cerkev pooblastila, da naredijo seznam del, ki ne smejo biti v rabi v katoliških knjižnicah in šolah; to je bila blaga, a vseeno stroga oblika cenzure.
V obdobju po prvi svetovni vojni je prevladovalo pragmatično sobiva-nje strank, čeprav so se profilirale v polemičnih bojih, ki so potekali med različnimi tokovi in včasih tudi znotraj njih. Različna mnenja o ravnotežju med estetskim in konfesionalnim izražanjem so na primer delila urednike najuglednejše katoliške revije De Gemeenschap (Skupnost). Leta 1934 je ne-strinjanje doseglo vrhunec in dva urednika sta ustanovila alternativno revijo De nieuwe Gemeenschap (Nova skupnost). Kmalu se je izkazalo, da razlika ni bila samo v stopnji konfesionalne angažiranosti, ampak tudi v usmeritvi te angažiranosti: prispevek nove revije k tako imenovani »katoliški rekonstrukciji« se je zelo približal nacionalistični ideologiji nacistov.5 Zato ne preseneča, da se ta revija ni menila za literaturo v eksilu in je celo kazala znake antisemitizma, medtem ko je prva objavljala tudi recimo eseje Josepha Rotha in pesmi Hansa Keilsona pod psevdonimom Alexander Kailand.
Ti štirje ločeni tokovi so obstajali, dokler sekularizacija ni preobrazila nizozemske družbe v šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja; še vedno pa utemeljujejo tradicionalno nizozemsko zgodovinopisje in se kažejo v literarni zgodovini. V tridesetih letih 20. stoletja pa je recepcija moderne nemške literature odsevala tako ustaljeni sistem in hkrati sprožila proces razvoja, ki je zarezal v vse ustaljene tokove. Pri določanju meja v literarnem
polisistemu nas postopki kritične analize diskurza vodijo k natančni preiskavi lingvističnih indikacij v literarnih kritikah.6 Različna stališča in pogledi so še posebej očitni v kontrastivnih in komparativnih konstrukcijah, kakršna je: »Literarna kritika ni utemeljena, če je na kocki krik milijonov src.«7 Kombinacija negacije in pogojnika v »ni če« zariše ločnico med običajno in izjemno situacijo, med standardnimi in drugačnimi normami »literarne« kritike. Ce Johan Winkler trdi, da čas trpljenja zahteva odklon od sprejetih standardov, s tem namiguje na premik v literarni funkciji. Navedena izjava nakazuje razpravo, ki je začela prehajati meje različnih tokov, takoj ko se je začela pojavljati literatura v eksilu. Kadar so se kritiki ravnali zgolj po estetskih merilih, so zavračali vrsto del avtorjev v eksilu, ki so izražala dejansko stanje; kadar pa so se preusmerili k lojalnosti in empatiji, so sprejeli vizijo literature kot izrazne priče sodobne zgodovine. Ta dilema se je izražala na različne načine in z različnimi poudarki. Ugledni liberalni kritik Anthonie Donker je na primer leta 1934 napisal esej o »Literaturi in politiki v Nemčiji«, v katerem je trdil, da je
literatura s politično podlago običajno obsojena na to, da uniči naravo umetnosti zaradi preveč slepečih barv, poudarkov in kontrastov in zaradi premajhne distance do svojega predmeta. Propagandistični učinek zlahka prevlada nad čistim, nemotenim ozračjem zbranega ustvarjanja, ki je jedro pogosto zlorabljene larpurlarti-stične mentalitete.8
Toda isti kritik hvali integriteto »realističnega romana« Heinza Liep-manna o Nemčiji in iskrenost ter pristnost avtobiografskega dela Ernsta Tollerja o mladosti v Nemčiji. Razpravo je zapletel še en dejavnik: s poudarjanjem aktualnosti in političnih implikacij so kritiki včasih opazili podobnost med deli, napisanimi v Nemčiji, in deli, napisanimi zunaj nje. Anonimni kritik je o avtorju v eksilu Lionu Feuctwangerju zapisal:
Umetnost pravzaprav zahteva določeno mero zrelosti: neposreden Zeit-Kunst je le izjemoma ustvaril dela trajne kakovosti; nova »nacionalna« nemška umetnost paradoksno trpi zaradi enake slabosti kakor Feuchtwanger v drugi polovici svojega romana.9
Najuglednejši nizozemski liberalni kritik Menno ter Braak je razpravo zasukal še v drugo smer. Upal je, da bo avtorje, ki so preživeli grožnje in strah, zajel proces notranje revolucije, ki jih bo osvobodila obrabljenih konvencij, duhovne sterilnosti in diktatov trga. Leta 1934 je objavil esej o nemški literaturi v eksilu v tedniku D^s Neue Tage-Buch (Novi dnevnik), v katerem je avtorje v eksilu obtožil, da pišejo tradicionalno; kritiziral je tudi medije v eksilu, češ da slepo hvalijo nova dela, namesto da bi jih presojali
po kakovosti in izvirnosti. V prvem odstavku je predstavil svoje stališče o obstoječem diskurzu:
Ko je v Nemčiji leta 1933 vzniknila »nacionalna revolucija«, se niso bili le nemški avtorji prisiljeni opredeliti, saj je nemška literatura zadevala Evropo, ne samo Nemčije. V sedanji Evropi pa ne moremo več govoriti o nacionalnih literaturah Čeprav se zdi na prvi pogled nespametno povsem izločiti nacionalni značaj in evropsko literaturo obravnavati kot neke vrste »kolektivni esperanto«, je še stokrat bolj nespametno videti v nacionalnosti osrednji standard.10
Literatura emigracije, poudarja ter Braak, »bi morala biti več kot le nadaljevanje. Morala bi pogumno razumeti svojo evropsko nalogo in poganjati je ne bi smela nuja po kljubovanju varljivemu misticizmu privržencev Blubo literature.«11 Ter Braakova vizija, navdihnjena z Nietzschejevim »dobrim evropejstvom«, je bila transnacionalna, inovativna literatura, ki zmore preseči ozkost nacionalizma.
Nasprotujoče si strukture teh citatov kažejo razpoke in spremembe v vsebini kritičnih vrednot tistega obdobja. Nasprotujoči si vzorci so vidni povsod: estetika nasproti resničnosti, estetika nasproti lojalnosti in usmiljenju, ideologija nasproti anti-ideologiji in internacionalizem nasproti nacionalizmu. Če se vrnemo k strukturi nizozemskega polisistema, se postavi vprašanje, kako so ta stališča povezana z omenjenimi štirimi tokovi. Tu se najprej naslanjam na študijo Paula Buurmana, ki je preučeval recepcijo nemške literature v uglednih nizozemskih dnevnih časopisih pred drugo svetovno vojno in po njej. Izbral je po en reprezentativni časopis za vsak družbeni segment in preštel, koliko sodobnih pisateljev v eksilu, pisateljev, ki so bili na seznamu simpatizerjev nacistov (sodobni SN), in drugih pisateljev, ki jih ni bilo mogoče klasificirati ali identificirati, je bilo predmet literarnih kritik. Rezultati za obdobje med 1930 in 1940 so prikazani in tabeli 1:
časopis
pisatelji	liberalni	socialistični	katoliški	protestantski
	(NRC)	(Het Vol^k)	(De Ti/d)	{Standaard)
sodobni eks.	83 (14,5%)	66 (40,5%)	17 (15,4%)	5 (18,5%)
sodobni SN	82 (14,3%)	17 (10,4%)	17 (15,4%)	2 (7,4%)
sodobni drugi	408 (71,2%)	80 (49,1%)	76 (69,2%)	20 (74,1%)
skupno	573	163	110	27
Tabela 1: Število kritik treh kategorij nemških avtorjev v nizozemskih časopisih v letih 1930-1940 (Buurman)
Trije rezultati izstopajo. Prvič, liberalni časopis je nemški literaturi namenjali daleč največ pozornosti, a je to čast v enaki meri namenil avtorjem v eksilu in tistim, ki so simpatizirali z nacisti. Podrobnejši pregled kritik pokaže, da večina kritikov v teh delih bodisi ni videla ali pa ni hotela videti ideologije nacionalsocializma. Včasih se zdi, da so bili le naivni, včasih pa, da so to ideologijo jasno podpirali. Enak vzorec je opaziti v katoliškem časopisu, čeprav z manj iztopajočimi številkami. Potemtakem niso vsi literarni kritiki na Nizozemskem dajali prednosti avtorjem v eksilu - to je le pravljica, ki ji je nizozemska družba hotela verjeti po vojni. Drugič, protestantski časopis se je bore malo zanimal za nemško književnost. Tretjič, socialistični časopis je prednost dajal literaturi v eksilu. Podrobnejši pregled kritik pokaže, da so socialistični literarni kritiki dajali prednost pisateljem s socialističnim ali pacifističnim profilom, med katerimi so bili Erich Maria Remarque, Andreas Latzko in Lion Feuchtwanger.
Pregled treh liberalnih, treh katoliških in ene protestantske revije iz let 1933-1935 pokaže podoben vzorec.12 Središčna vloga liberalcev in katoličanov se kaže v preprostem dejstvu, da sta ta dva tokova dominirala na trgu revij. Primerljive socialistične revije takrat ni bilo. Protestantska revija Opwaartsche wegen (Poti navzgor) je tuji literaturi posvečala malo pozornosti, nemški literaturi v eksilu pa sploh nič. Nemška literatura v eksilu ni bila obravnavana niti v obeh katoliških revijah. Tretja revija, De Gemeenschap, je obravnavala avtorje v eksilu, emd njimi tudi nemške, vendar, kakor smo videli, šele po letu 1935. V liberalnih revijah se kaže vzorec deljenega zanimanja: dve reviji redno pišeta o literarni produkciji v eksilu, ena, For^m, pa le izjemoma. Sklenemo lahko, da je novemu »podsistemu« posvečala pozornost večina liberalnih medijev, majhen del katoliških in tako rekoč noben protestantski medij. Tako lahko konfesionalne segmente interpretiramo kot dejavnike, ki zavirajo proces recepcije. Pač pa so socialistični kritiki poskušali osvetliti literaturo v eksilu, a so imeli v literarnem polisis-temu manj ugleden položaj.13
Nizozemska je postala središče literarne produkcije in distribucije in je imela krog bralcev nemških knjig. Kritike so bile objavljene v pomembnejših časopisih in revijah, poleg tega so se v istih ali drugih založniških hišah najuspešnejša dela prevajala v nizozemščino. Toda ali so te razmere omogočale, da bi literatura v eksilu dobila trajno mesto v nizozemski literarni zgodovini? Odgovor je kratek: ne. Med deli, ki so bila prevedena v nizozemščino v tridesetih letih 20. stoletja, je bila le peščica ponovno natisnjena ali prevedena. Najbolj zgovorno pa je, da nizozemske literarne zgodovine do zdaj v svoje preglede niso vključile pisateljev v eksilu, četudi so ti ostali na Nizozemskem in nazadnje začeli pisati v nizozemščini.14 V nadaljevanju povzemamo nekaj hipotetičnih razlag za takšno stanje. Ne
odgovarjamo na vprašanje »Kdo izbere?«, temveč opozarjamo na nekatere družbene omejitve, ki so usmerjale proces izločanja.
Zgodovinski položaj na Nizozemskem je bil seveda vpet v širši mednarodni kontekst. Nekateri dejavniki pa so imeli vlogo tudi v tem mednarodnem polisistemu. Vojna je prekinila družabno in kulturno življenje po vsej Evropi. Po koncu vojne je večina ljudi raje gledala naprej kakor nazaj - to je bil čas tišine in potlačenih spominov, ki je trajal desetletja. Literatura in umetnost, ki sta spominjali ljudi na temno obdobje, ki so ga ravnokar preživeli, nista bili zelo dobrodošli. Še več, v okupiranih državah je vladal odpor do nemškega jezika in kulture, močno pa je naraslo zanimanje za angleščino, jezik osvoboditeljev, kar je razvidno iz slike 1. Buurman sklene, da se je število kritik, ki so obravnavale nemška literarna dela, znatno znižalo.
20 T-
195« 1958 1966 1974 1902 1990
Slika 1: Odstotek prevedenih naslovov od vseh naslovov v letih 1950-1990 (Heilbron)
Naslednji splošni dejavnik, ki je vplival na to, da dela avtorjev v eksilu niso postala del nizozemske literarne zgodovine, je v tem, da je vključevanje literature, napisane v tujem jeziku, za tradicijo pisanja nacionalnih literarnih zgodovin nasploh zelo neobičajno.15 Menimo, da to velja povsod. Zakaj je tako, se denimo Pascale Casanova ne vpraša izrecno, a morebiti je vzrok iskati v boju za ohranitev mednarodne veljave jezika in identitete nekega naroda. Čeprav so se raziskovalci literature vse od ruskih formalistov, čeških strukturalistov in francoskih sociologov kulture naprej zavedali zunanjih dejavnikov v literaturi, se nacionalne literarne zgodovine raje držijo tradicionalnih okvirov in tako reproducirajo že potrjene izbire. Med posebnimi razlogi, da je nemška literatura v eksilu na Nizozemskem izpuščena, je morda delitev pozornosti zaradi segmentacije polisistema. Poleg tega poetika angažmaja in solidarnosti ni bila splošno sprejeta in se je po vojni hitro umaknila umetniški avtonomiji in inovativni formi; posledica je bila povečan interes za skupino evropskih »modernističnih« pisateljev.
Dejstvo, da je tudi nekaj avtorjev v eksilu eksperimentiralo z novimi oblikami, da bi izrazili svoje izkušnje, je bilo zlahka prezrto.
Prevedel Peter Lamovec
OPOMBE
1	Za Even-Zoharjevo lastno, malce drugačno definicijo gl. Even-Zohar 11. Za kritično razpravo o Even-Zoharjevem konceptu in operativno adaptacijo njegovih definicij gl. Andringa, »Penetrating« 522-529.
2	Even-Zoharjev model deloma izvira iz zgodnejših teorij ruskih formalistov, med katerimi sta Jurij Tinjanov in Roman Jakobson, ter čeških strukturalistov. V svojih pogledih na sociologijo estetskega je Jan Mukarovsky večkrat izpostavil interakcijo neločljive dinamike oddaljevanja umetnosti od tradicije in učinke družbenih struktur na estetske vrednote (Mukarovsky, Anesthetic 22-23, 67).
3	Pravzaprav je na Nizozemskem obstajal še en tok (sicer razmeroma šibek): judovska skupnost je tam živela že od 16. stoletja naprej. Čeprav je bila njena družbena in kulturna vloga od druge polovice 19. stoletja naprej velika, je nizozemsko zgodovinopisje ni prepoznalo kot pomemben segment nizozemske družbe. Tako tudi nizozemska judovska literatura, ki je imela že od poznega 19. stoletja naprej posebne značilnosti, ni dobila mesta v nizozemski literarni zgodovini. Za vpliv na recepcijo literature v eksilu gl. Andringa, »Begegnung«.
4	Roel Houwink v literarni reviji Opwaartsche wegen (1936/1937: 66).
5	Ta kontroverznost je dokumentirana v: Van Faassen, Chen in Asselbergs.
6	Razlago in primere tega procesa podaja Andringa, »Grenzübergänge«.
7	Johan Winkler v kritiki antologije poezije avtorjev v eksilu (Verse der Emigration^ »Verzi emigracije«) v dnevniku Het Volk (Ljudstvo) z dne 16. maja 1935. Winkler in Het Volk spadata v socialistični tabor. Winkler sicer nagovarja tudi bralce in kritike liberalnega tabora, naj se v tem mučnem stanju odrečejo ekskluzivni in individualistični estetiki. Prevod nizozemskih citatov je kolikor mogoče dobeseden; nismo poskušali olepševati stilističnih lastnosti, značilnih za tisto obdobje.
8	Anthonie Donker v Critisch Bulletin (1934, 43-47: 43). Ta literarni kritik predstavlja liberalni tabor.
9	Anon., »Nieuwe Duitsche romans. Emigrantenuitgaven«, objavljeno v desno usmerjenem liberalnem dnevniku De Telegraaf (Telegraf) z dne 1. marca 1934.
10	Menno ter Braak v Das Neue Tage-Buch (29. december 1934: 1244-1245).
11	»Blubo« se nanaša na »Blut und Boden« (kri in gruda) ideologijo nacionalnih socialistov.
12	Liberalne revije so bile Forum, Critisch Bulletin (Kritični bilten) in De Gids (Vodnik), katoliške De Gemeenschap^ De nieuwe Gemeenschap in Roeping (Klic), protestantska pa Opwaartsche wegen.
13	Čeprav ni bilo reprezentativne literarne revije s socialističnim profilom, je nekaj posameznih socialističnih literarnih kritikov (Nico Rost, A. M. de Jong in Jef Last) energično podpiralo literaturo v eksilu. Objavljali so v socialističnih dnevnikih in tednikih ter v različnih liberalnih literarnih revijah. Pomembni so bili tudi kot prevajalci.
14	Elisabeth Augustin se je na primer nizozemščine naučila, preden je emigrirala; takoj je začela pisati v nizozemščini, in sicer tako dobro, da so bili njeni romani obravnavani in objavljeni, kakor da bi jih napisal nizozemski avtor. Kljub temu njena prepoznavnost ni bila zadostna, da bi si prislužila mesto v nizozemski literarni zgodovini.
15 V standardne literarne zgodovine niso vključene niti literature manjšinskih jezikov v istem geopolitičnem prostoru. Na severu Nizozemske ime provinca Friesland svoj jezik; literarna tradicija te province je morda res skromna, a v zadnjih nizozemskih literarnih zgodovinah ni omenjen niti njen obstoj. Tu torej zopet naletimo na konvencijo, po kateri v literarni zgodovini prevladuje literatura z največjo stopnjo pripoznanosti in intelektualnega vpliva, ne pa povezava literature z zgodovino in družbo, ki ju odseva.
LITERATURA
Andringa, Els. »Penetrating the Dutch Polysystem. The Reception of Virginia Woolf, 1920-2000«. Poe^^ic^s To^y 27.3 (2006): 501-568.
---. »Grenzübergänge. Das niederländische Polysystem im Spiegel der Rezeption ausländischer Literatur«. Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen. Ur. Simone Winko, Fotis Jannidis in Gerhard Lauer. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. 455-488.
---. »Begegnung jüdischer Literaturen. Bed^gungen der Rezeption deutscher Exilliteratur
im niederländischen Polysystem«. Arcadia 44.2 (2009): 289-316.
Buurman, Paul. Duitse literatuur in de Nederlandse dagbladpers 1930-1955. Een historisch-documen-tair receptie-onderzpek. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 1996.
Casanova, Pascale. The World Republic of Letters. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 2004 (19991).
Even-Zohar, Itamar. »Polysystem Theory«, »The Literary System«, »The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem«. Poetics Today 11 (1990): 9-26, 27-44, 45-51.
Heilbron, Johan. »Nederlandse vertalingen wereldwijd — Kleine landen en culturele mon-d^alisering«. Waarin een klein land: Nederlandse cultuur in internationaal verband. Ur. Johan Heilbron, Wouter de Nooy in Wilma Tichelaar. Amsterdam: Prometheus, 1995. 206252.
Landshoff, Fritz H. Amsterdam Kei^rsgracht 333 Querido Verlag. Erinnerungen eines Verlegers. Berlin: Aufbau Verlag, 2001 (19911).
Mukarovsky, Jan. Aesthetic Function, Norm, and Value as Social Facts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1979 (19361).
Navrocka, Irene. »Kooperationen im deutschsprachigen Exilverlagswesen«. Exilforschung. Ein inl^ernationales Jahrbuch 22 (2004): 60-83.
Roomse ruzie: de splitsing tussen »De Gemeenschap« en »De Nieuwe Gemeenschap«. Ur. Sjoerd van Faassen, Salma Chen in Bernard Asselbergs. Nijmegen: Vantilt, 2007.
Roon, Ger van. »Het beleid van de Nederlandse regering tegenover Hitler-Duitsland, 1933-1940«. Ne^er-land en het Duitse Exil 1933-1940. Ur. Kathinka Dittrich in Hans Würzner. Amsterdam: Van Gennep 1982. 40-48.
Schoor, Kerstin. Verlagsarbeit im Exil: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der deutschen Abteilung des Amsterdamer Allert de Lange Verlages 1933-1940. Amsterdam: De Lange/Rodopi, 1992.
Walter, Hans-Albert (ur.). Fritz H. Landshoffund der Querido Verlag 1933-1950 [=Marbacher Magazin 78]. Marbach: Deutsche Schillergesellschaft, 1997.
Urednik in posredniška funkcija v literarnem sistemu
Marijan Dovic
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Ljubljana, Slovenija marijan.dovic@zrc-sazu.si
Raz
v literarnem sistemu. Začrtati skuša kompleksno omrežje dejavnikov oziroma omejitev, ki vplivajo na urednikovo literarnoposredniško delovanje. Podrobneje so obravnavane tri skupine takšnih dejavnikov: ekonomski, politično-ideološki in mreženjski
Ključne besede: literarni sistem / literarno posredništvo / založništvo / knjižni trg / urednik / uredniška politika
UDK 808.2
V	prispevku se bomo osredotočili na funkcijo urednika in podrobneje zarisali omrežje dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na njegovo literarnoposredni-ško delovanje. Za takšno osredotočenje imamo dovolj dobre razloge. Na splošno je v literarni vedi vloga posrednikov — ne le urednikov, temveč vseh, ki ob avtorjih sodelujejo v zapletenem večfaznem procesu knjižne proizvodnje (tiskarji, stavci, lektorji in korektorji, založniki, knjižničarji, distributerji, tržniki .) — podcenjena ali sploh neupoštevana tako glede njihovega prispevka h končni podobi posameznih besedil1 kot glede njihove kompleksne vloge pri oblikovanju celotnega spektra čtiva, ki je v določeni zgodovinski situaciji na voljo različnim skupinam bralcev. Kolikor namenoma ostajamo v dobi prevlade tiskane knjige kot osrednjega materialnega nosilca miselnih vsebin, je mogoče reči, da so posredniki odločilno sooblikovali zalogo idej v obtoku - in sicer tako znotraj nacionalnih literarnih polj kot v mednarodni izmenjavi (prim. St Clair, The Reading Nation, Chartier).
V	sodobnih literarnih sistemih, ki so se v procesu splošne družbene diferenciacije postopoma oblikovali predvsem od 18. in 19. stoletja naprej, osrednji posredniški položaj brez dvoma pripada uredniku (prim. Dovic, Slovenskipisatelj, in Schmidt).2 Urednik se s te plati kaže kot nekakšen vratar (gatekeeper): njegovo funkcijo je mogoče razumeti kot vstopni filter, ki pa nikakor ni le indiferentno sito. Urednik namreč že od začetka usmerja avtorjevo kreativnost, določi zadnjo verzijo teksta, oblikuje strategijo iz-
daje, politiko promocije in prodaje in podobno (Glas 386). Hkrati z aktom pripustitve neko delo oziroma avtorja že tudi določi, ga obremeni s ko-notacijami in mu pripenja od njega neodvisne identitetne plasti (de Nooy 514). To velja še zlasti za knjižnega urednika: dostopne študije kažejo, da je vloga revij kot medija za literarna besedila pretežno tranzitorna. Res je, da večina novih avtorjev najprej prodre v revijah — torej so revije pomemben vstopni kanal za nova imena — toda hkrati večina avtorjev, ki začnejo literarno kariero v revijah, nikdar ne pride do samostojne knjige; brez (kontinuiranega) knjižnega opusa pa ni mogoča trajna akumulacija simbolnega ali ekonomskega kapitala (Verdaasdonk, »Literary Magazines« 230—231, prim. Janssen).
Razlogi za preučevanje funkcije literarnega urednika in njenih ekvivalentov v različnih zgodovinskih okoliščinah so potemtakem dovolj trdni; toda v teoretskem in metodološkem smislu je pot uhojena slabo. Tipične pritožbe raziskovalcev zadevajo pomanjkanje dokumentacije in podatkov, pa tudi zahtevnost njihove interpretacije v danem kontekstu. Le postopoma so se predvsem v literarni sociologiji — od klasične Escarpitove šole prek napredujočega interdisciplinarnega preučevanja zgodovine knjig ali politične ekonomije branja do najnovejših raziskav knjižnih trgov, ki so oprte na sodobne informacijske sisteme — oblikovala resnejša izhodišča za raziskovanje. Pionirsko delo na tem področju predstavljajo študije nizozemskega literarnega polja, ki jih je navdahnila Bourdieujeva sociologija; s sistematičnim zbiranjem in interpretiranjem empiričnih podatkov so presegle teoretsko shematičnost in postavile solidne temelje za razmislek o literarnoposredniški vlogi.3
Urednik kot funkcija: dejavniki vpliva
Lik urednika se vsekakor vsiljuje kar sam od sebe, kadar se sprašujemo, k^do izper^e. Vprašanje pa je seveda, ali je uredniška funkcija res toliko avtonomna, kot se utegne zdeti na prvi pogled, ali pa je ob primarnem navdušenju urednika nad nekim besedilom vendarle treba resno upoštevati tudi druge dejavnike. Zamislimo si torej figuro urednika literature, kakršno bi si mnogi udeleženci sodobnih literarnih sistemov predstavljali kot idealno. Motivi takšnega lika bi bili najverjetneje zamišljeni v skladu z logiko avtonomije — torej z zahtevo, bistveno za umetnostne sisteme, kot so se razvili v zadnjih stoletjih epohe tiska.4 Avtonomen urednik bi stremel k sledečemu: izbiral bi predvsem takšna dela — bodisi domače izvirne novitete ali prevode — ki bi izpolnjevala njegova pričakovanja o posebni literarni oziroma estetski kvaliteti.
Seveda vemo, da so v praksi takšna načela izpostavljena različnim vrstam omejitev, s katerimi se mora tradicionalni urednik kot odločevalec nenehno spoprijemati. Takšne omejitve je mogoče klasificirati na različne načine. Enega od njih prikazuje spodnja preglednica: v njej nastopajo ekonomski, politično-ideološki in mreženjski tip omejitev.
Uredniška funkcija in njene omejitve
politične/ideološke omejitve
Y
urednik
estetske preference, izobrazba, »habitus« itn.
ekonomske omejitve	učinki mreženja
Ni treba poudarjati, da je v praksi omenjene tri skupine dejavnikov težko razločiti; zgornja shema torej v tem smislu ostaja pretežno teoretič-no-abstraktna. Posamezni dejavniki se prepletajo, mešajo in se na koncu nekako vedno povezujejo z ekonomskimi. Zato v nobenem trenutku — tudi kadar se ukvarjamo z drugimi oblikami omejitev — ne bi smeli pozabiti, da je uredniška funkcija vedno v presečišču z ekonomijo: proizvodnja knjig kot materialnih nosilcev intelektualnih vsebin ima svoje specifike, toda kot gospodarska panoga neogibno ostaja vpeta v družbeni red. V tem smislu mora vsako založniško podjetje na dolgi rok ura^vnotežiti finančno poslovanje (odhodki ne smejo presegati prihodkov - ne glede na to, ali so sredstva pridobljena s prodajo na prostem trgu, s pomočjo monopolov, subvencij, mecenov ali kako drugače). Zato mora tudi urednik težiti k ohranjanju stabil^-nosti: s svojimi odločitvami ne sme ogroziti dolgoročnega obstoja založbe in s tem svojega lastnega položaja. To je skorajda aksiom, ki velja ne glede na stopnjo historične diferenciacije posredniških funkcij, velikost trga in druge parametre.
Upoštevati je treba tudi, da v knjižnem založništvu prodajni uspeh nikdar ni povsem predvidljiv: le manjše število naslovov prinaša večji dobiček, medtem ko preostali komajda pokrijejo finančni vložek ali pa niti tega ne. Zato je za stabilnost založb — toliko bolj tistih, ki izdajajo literaturo — zelo pomembna kontinuiteta opusov uveljavljenih avtorskih imen.5 Založbe stremijo k oblikovanju prepoznavne skupine »hišnih« avtorjev; bolj predvidljiva prodaja del iz repertoarja, ki nastaja na ta način, pa jim hkrati odpira več prostora za tveganje (Glas). Takšne praktične opazke
je potrdila tudi ena redkih sistematičnih raziskav literarnih založniških programov (Verdaasdonk, »The Influence«). Izkazalo se je, da sodobne nizozemske literarne založbe pod vplivom tržnega povpraševanja oblikujejo str^ktur^o podobne programme s poudarkom na prozi in na delih domačih avtorjev.6 V središču programov so predvsem dela t.i. uspešnih avtorjev, iz katerih se oblikuje žel^ezni repertoar posamezne založbe.7 Na splošno sta jedro uspešnih avtorjev in kontinuiteta izdajanja bistvena za dolgoročni uspeh založbe, saj omogočata boljše načrtovanje in v končni fazi večjo drznost pri izdajanju inovativnih del. A če je povpraševanje tisto, ki založbe sili k unifikaciji — in ta ugotovitev niti ni presenetljiva — je morda bolj zanimiva ugotovitev Verdaasdonkove raziskave sledeča: trg založbe obenem spodbuja, da se hitro in sproti odzivajo na dejavnosti neposrednih panožnih konkurentov in oblikujejo program, ki bo prepoznaven in ga bo vendarle odlikovala neka razlika, neka differentia specifica, ki ga bo vzdignila iz monotonije strukturno podobnega.
Ekonomski dejavniki
Oglejmo si ekonomske dejavnike pobliže. V povsem liberalnem ekonomskem modelu je vsekakor odločilen knjižni trg. Povpraševanje bralcev oziroma kupcev, ki zares potegnejo denarnico iz žepa (vprašanje, ali bodo knjigo tudi brali, je s tega vidika nepomembno), bi bilo seveda v tem smislu edini merodajni okvir presoje uspešnosti uredniških odločitev. Pri tem je jasno, da so zgodovinski parametri posameznih tržnih okolij izrazito raznoliki in jih je treba upoštevati v vsakokratnem kontekstu. Takšni parametri so velikost trga, stopnja diferenciacije založniških in knjigotrških funkcij, prevladujoči tipi prodajnih kanalov (razvejenost in struktura knjigarniške mreže); tipi in diferenciacija založniških podjetij, potencialni doseg izdaj in povprečne naklade, prodajne cene, dinamika izdaj in cenovne politike (krivulja povpraševanja, morebitna socialna stratifikacija možnosti dostopa), oblike regulacije trgovanja s knjigami (na primer davčna politika, režim enotne cene knjige, subvencijski režimi), vloga zasebne ali javne mreže knjižnic,8 seveda pa tudi nakupovalne navade, izobrazba/pismenost potencialnih bralcev, dostopni informacijski sistemi in tako dalje. Vsi ti dejavniki so v zgodovini pomembno vplivali ne le na obnašanje bralcev, temveč tudi avtorjev in urednikov.
Izkazalo se je, da na sestavo ponudbe knjig v obtoku bistveno vplivajo tudi proizvodne tehnike in režimi regulir^anja intelektualne lastnine (St Clair, »The Political Economy« 10-13). Ekonomika tiska in fizične omejitve nasploh so naddoločale naklado in obseg literarnih del (dolžino romanov ali pesniških
zbirk), neredko pa tudi njihov izbor.9 V zvezi z reguliranjem intelektualne lastnine pa velja, da gre sicer za politično-ideološko vprašanje, ki pa ima vsaj z vidika založnikov predvsem ekonomske implikacije (avtorske pravice), s tem pa tudi neposreden vpliv na uredniške odločitve.10 V tem smislu imajo ekonomsko razsežnost tako rekoč vsi dejavniki, ki izhajajo iz sfere politične regulacije: različni subvencijski režimi, načini obdavčitve, podpiranje posameznih segmentov knjižne verige, režimi javnega odkupovanja, knjižnične mreže (brezplačna javna izposoja) ipd.; vsem je skupno, da v večji ali manjši meri relativizirajo oziroma blažijo učinke zakona povpraševanja.
Pri razmisleku o ekonomskih dejavnikih je treba upoštevati še dejstvo, da je prostor uredniške avtonomije določen s širšim okvirom or^gani^acije založniškega podjetja. V tem smislu nikakor ni vseeno, ali gre za založbo, ki je organizirana kot delniška družba in je kot taka zavezana anonimnim vlagateljem, ki jih zanima izključno profit, ali pa gre za drugače organizirano hišo, ki ji v ekonomskem smislu zadošča preživetje in obenem zasleduje drugačne družbene cilje. Kot je na primerih iz slovenske tranzicije pokazal Miha Kovač, je za prvi tip značilno, da prodajni sektor zelo omeji uredniški odločevalski prostor (Kovač, Skrivno življenje knjigi). Razloge, da se to ne zgodi vedno in povsod, pa je seveda treba iskati v tistih dejavnikih, ki skušajo na tak ali drugačen način omejiti delovanje zgolj tržnih silnic. Oglejmo si jih torej nekoliko podrobneje.
Politični in ideološki dejavniki
Ko razmišljamo o političnih oziroma ideoloških omejitvah avtonomije uredniške presoje - in tu postavljamo ob stran predpostavko, da je prepu-ščenost proizvodnje knjig »nevidni roki« trga brez ideoloških primesi - so gotovo najprej na vrsti mehanizmi tekstualnega nadzora oziroma cenzure (in pripadajoče samocenzure). Zgodovinsko zelo raznolike pojavnosti takšnega nadzora so se do skrajne mere zaostrile predvsem v totalitarnih režimih, ki so skušali vzpostaviti popoln nadzor nad kulturnim poljem, ki je bilo resno ogroženo v svoji avtonomiji in je zato razvijalo zanimive in raznolike opozicijske strategije.11 V primerjavi z liberalnim tržnim režimom določajo avtoritarno regulirano literarno polje povsem drugi parametri: vloga trga je skoraj izničena ali vsaj temeljito omejena, značilna je centralizacija institucij, prevzem sredstev konsekracije, nenehni ideološki posegi, cenzura, birokratizacija pisateljskega dela in podobna sredstva (prim. Dovic, »Totalitarna in post-totalitarna cenzura«, Neubauer). Odgovor na vprašanje, kdo izbere oziroma kdo urednikom »pomaga« izbirati, je v takšnih razmerah dovolj prosojen.
Načeloma je mogoče pritrditi ugotovitvi Sapirove, da je ločnica med liberalnimi oziroma demokratičnimi režimi na eni strani in totalitarizmi na drugi razmeroma ostra. V demokratičnih okoljih težnje po totalnem nadzoru ni več, kar pa ne pomeni, da so politični in ideološki dejavniki nujno potisnjeni povsem ob stran. Nasprotno, izkaže se, da so takšni dejavniki tudi v okoljih liberalnega trga od nekdaj v znatni meri krojili obnašanje posredniškega sektorja. Ena izmed možnosti vstopa takšnih dejavnikov je gotovo politizacija založništva, v kateri se aktualna politična razmerja preslikajo v kulturno polje: v tem primeru deklarirana nazorska usmeritev posamezne posredniške ustanove učinkuje kot pomemben dejavnik izbire.12 Omenili smo tudi vpliv avtorskopravne regulative. Gre za kompleksno in zahtevno vprašanje, ki je bilo od nekdaj predmet trenj in katerega raznolikih dimenzij se tu ni mogoče lotiti niti približno.13 Upoštevati pa je vseeno treba, da načini zakonodajne regulacije avtorstva neposredno vplivajo na ravnanja urednikov oziroma založnikov: naj v ilustracijo zadoščajo nešteti primeri izdajateljskih izbruhov, ki so - predvsem na večjih literarnih tržiščih - sledili izteku pravic za posamezna dela.14
Mimo omenjenega je politične dejavnike vpliva treba iskati predvsem v regulacijskih politikah knjižnega trga, ki običajno izhajajo iz določenih vrednostnih in ideoloških predpostavk. Na njihovi podlagi države izvajajo niz pasivnih ali aktivnih posegov v proizvodnjo knjig, ki zelo neposredno vplivajo na uredniške prakse in s tem tudi na knjižno ponudbo. Pogosta oblika takih politik so neposredne subvencije posameznim členom knjižne verige - avtorjem, prevajalcem, založnikom ali knjigarnarjem - pa seveda tudi sredstva, namenjena financiranju knjižnic. S te plati je na primer treba upoštevati deklarirane cilje in strukturo vsakokratnih razpisov, sestavo razpisnih komisij, mehanizme odločanja, obstoj morebitnih prioritetnih list, posebne programe in podobno. Šele iz celovite analize regulacijske politike je mogoče izluščiti, kaj so njeni vodilni motivi: je to ideološki nadzor, značilen za totalitarizme; gre morda za nacionalistične motive, katerih korenine segajo v čas konstituiranja nacionalnih kultur in nacionalnih držav; gre morda za prestiž ekspanzionistične kulturne politike, ki skuša delovati prek meja lastne kulture; ali pa gre v posameznih primerih za zasledovanje in promocijo vrednot in ideologij, kot so na primer strpnost, integracija manjšin, zaščita marginalnih družbenih skupin in podobno. Vse takšne motivacije strukturirajo podporne režime in s tem neposredno vplivajo na odločitve v posredniškem sektorju.15
V tem kontekstu velja posebno pozornost posvetiti tudi ideologiji literarne avtonomije, ki v znatni meri usmerja regulacijo sodobnih knjižnih trgov. Državni regulacijski mehanizmi so večinoma razumljeni kot nujen korektiv trgu in njegovim omejitvam - predvsem zato, ker naj bi trg pre-
več težil k uniformiranju produkcije. Intervencionistična politika se torej legitimira kot pomoč literarnemu polju, da zmore zadržati določeno stopnjo avtonomije glede na trg in njegovo inherentno težnjo po standardizaciji; s tem naj bi prispevala k bolj raznoliki in tudi bolj kakovostni ponudbi na »tržišču idej«.16
Sodobne intervencijske mehanizme je v veliki meri mogoče razlagati iz ide(ologi)je avtonomije umetnosti. Kljub temu pa je treba opozoriti na drugi pomemben ideološki steber, katerega pomen je še toliko večji v literarnih kulturah, ki so (ali se tako razumejo) »periferne«: gre za zamisel o odločilnem pomenu pisanega korpusa in še posebej literature za vzdrževanje jezikovne, s tem pa tudi nacionalne identitete. Šele od tod je mogoče razložiti ne le posebno skrb za literarno življenje malih jezikovnih skupnosti, temveč tudi pojav posrednikov, ki so svoje delo razumeli kot posebno narodno oziroma kulturno posl^anstvo. Vanj so založniki in uredniki pogosto verjeli tako močno, da so izdajali knjige tržnemu polomu navkljub. Njihovih odločitev potemtakem ni motiviral gospodarski interes, temveč neka specifična kulturna »tiha predpostavka« (Kovač, Skrivno življenje knjig).
S te točke pa se že odstira tudi pogled na konflikt, zaradi katerega založništva vendarle ni mogoče obravnavati zgolj kot (nespecifično) gospodarsko panogo. Tranzitorna lega v presečišču med svetom ekonomije in umetnostno oziroma duhovno sfero vzpostavlja založništvo kot torišče spora med dvema tipoma kapitala, simbolnim in ekonomskim; konflikta, ki je vpisan v jedro sodobnih umetnostnih oziroma kulturnih polj (gl. Bourdieujevo analizo v The Rul^es of Ari). To je tudi razlog, da se je v založništvu oblikovalo polje »omejene produkcije« (restricted production), ki se namenoma skuša distancirati od trga in za merilo namesto okusa množice postavlja presojo enakovrednih kolegov (peers). Na ta način se tudi v založništvu reproducira ločnica med elitnim in trivialnim svetom: med svetom »kratkoročnega profita«, ki hkrati pomeni slovo od simbolnega kapitala, in svetom, ki se kratkoročno odpove profitu, da bi lahko investiral v zalogo del, ki bodo morebiti postala »klasična«; pridobljeni simbolni kapital pa se seveda na koncu seveda vendarle prevede tudi v ekonomskega.
Privlačnost teoretskega razlikovanja, ki ga je Bourdieu ponazoril s kontrastom med francoskima založbama Laffont in Minuit, je nesporna. Toda v praksi se je izkazalo, da ločnica ni tako ostra, kot se dozdeva na prvi pogled. Razmerje med »profitnim« in »neprofitnim« v založništvu je kompleksno, saj v praksi tudi komercialni založniki niso imuni na draži simbolnega kapitala (konec koncev se simbolni kapital včasih hitro prevede v ekonomskega — na primer po prejemu nagrade), medtem ko se mali založniki načeloma ne pritožujejo, če jim prodaja gre od rok že od začetka. Poleg tega smo že omenili, da so uspešnice pogosto finančna osnova za
bolj tvegane izdaje, stabilen in predvidljiv dotok dohodkov od prodaje železnega repertoarja ustaljenih piscev pa založnikom šele omogoča eksperimentiranje (prim. Sapiro in Verdaasdonk, »The Influence«). Mehanizirano rabo Bourdieujevega razlikovanja je v tem smislu kritiziral tudi Frank de Glas, ki je z empiričnim primerom pokazal, da ostre ločnice ni in da je slika, v kateri so na eni strani lovilci čistega dobička, ki uniformirajo produkcijo, na drugi pa tisti, ki si prizadevajo le za kakovost (simbolni kapital), pretirano poenostavljena. Ne glede na to pa se je mogoče strinjati z njim, da sta Bourdieujevi distinkcija med simbolnim in ekonomskim kapitalom ter analiza mehanizmov konsekracije bistveno pripomogla k razumevanju razmer v literarnih poljih.
Učinki mreženja
V polju, kjer kopičenje simbolnega kapitala igra tako pomembno vlogo, ne bi smeli spregledati učinkov družabnih omrežij (social networks). Ti učinki so razmeroma slabo raziskani, saj so omrežja doslej večinoma ostajala izven metodološkega horizonta literarne vede.17 Šele na podlagi diagramov konkretnih mreženjskih odnosov je mogoče podrobneje razložiti, kako se v določenih kulturnih situacijah vzpostavlja in distribuira simbolni kapital — toda raziskav na to temo je razmeroma malo, njihovi rezultati pa niso enoznačno prenosljivi v druga okolja.18
Vsekakor je mogoče tvegati hipotezo, da so učinki mreženja pomembnejši tedaj, ko se z različnimi oblikami regulacije vloga trga zmanjšuje. Takoj pa velja opozoriti tudi na splošno težnjo akterjev, da mreža — povezave med založniki, mediji, univerzami, žirijami, kulturno politiko — ostaja nekoliko prikrita. Založniki in uredniki so vsekakor nagnjeni k temu, da ustvarjajo sistematično omrežje povezav, v katerega prestižnem jedru se po možnosti nahajajo sami; poleg središčnosti (betweenness) in gostote povezav (density) si prizadevajo priti tudi v položaj veznega mostu do različnih skupin in klik; vse to jim omogoča lažje nadzorovanje »odmevov v medijih, bližnjih stikov s kritiki in člani literarnih komisij, zastopanje lastnih hiš v žirijah ipd.« (Sapiro 451).
Za urednike imajo seveda primaren pomen kakovostni stiki z avt^orji. Simbolni kapital urednika se najprej odraža v sposobnosti vzdrževanja prijateljskih in včasih zelo osebnih vezi z avtorji, vse to pa pripomore k vzdrževanju stabilne avtorske skupine, ki je za preživetje založbe tako rekoč nujna (prim. Verdaasdonk, Glas). Središčni položaj v gostih omrežjih urednikom omogoča tudi hitro odkrivanje novih avtorskih potencialov.19 Ker založbe z izdajanjem prevodne literature večinoma delujejo kot mednaro-
dni kulturni posredniki, je za uspešno delovanje urednikov poleg obvladovanja »domačega terena« nujna tudi njihova vključenost v širša omrežja. V tem primeru ne gre toliko za neposredne odnose s tujimi avtorji kot za odnose bodisi s profesionalnimi literarnimi agenti ali pa s kulturnimi »izvidniki«, poznavalci posameznih literatur, ki so neredko tudi prevajalci v ciljne jezike. Ta mreža malih posrednikov in navdušenih iniciatorjev pogosto bistveno vpliva na uredniške izbire pri prevodih. Brez dvoma pa na takšne izbire vpliva tudi vpetost urednika v mednarodna združenja, v izmenjavo avtorjev na različnih festivalih in sejmih, v infrastrukturo mednarodnih nagrad in podobno. Na splošno je mogoče reči, da kakovostno urednikovo mednarodno omrežje močno širi prostor za uspešno prevodno politiko založbe, obenem pa odpira prostor tudi za etično vprašljive rabe odločevalske moči (vezana trgovina z avtorji ipd.).20
Nadalje je vitalni interes urednika, da vzpostavlja več kot zgolj profesionalne stike s predstavniki medijev, še posebej s kulturnimi novinarji, recenzenti, kritiki ter radijskimi in televizijskimi uredniki in voditelji — toliko bolj v množičnih medijih, ki lahko odločilno prispevajo k promociji knjige.21 Podobno je urednik načeloma visoko motiviran za to, da si s pomočjo omrežja pridobi možnost vpliva na (netržne) medije konsekracije: komisije za podeljevanje nagrad, komisije za razdeljevanje subvencij, stanovska združenja, vodilne kritike in esejiste ter celo na univerzitetno humanistiko. S svojimi prizadevanji urednik utrjuje simbolni kapital in prestiž založbe, ki skuša uveljaviti kar se da močno in prepoznavno identiteto: še malo ni vseeno, ali gre za založbo, ki slovi kot odkriteljica novih avtorjev, izdaja-teljica klasikov, podpornica neke kakovostne smeri, ali se je drži sloves zgolj »dobičkarske« ipd. Simbolni kapital založbe močno konotira knjige avtorjev, ki izdajajo pod njeno blagovno znamko. Vloga urednika je tu ključna in pogosto njegovo lastno ime postaja tretji identitetni steber — poleg imena avtorja in imenu založbe — ki se ga lahko drži celo avreola (genialnega) selektorja. Ker dejavniki mreženja pomembno vplivajo na distribucijo simbolnega kapitala, potemtakem v veliki meri usmerjajo obnašanje posredniškega sektorja — in to velja tudi tedaj, ko ni mogoče dokazati njihovega neposrednega vpliva na posamezne uredniške odločitve.
Sklep
Opisani model lahko služi kot splošno izhodišče, s katerega se da bolje razložiti obnašanje, razvoj, pa tudi morebitne posebnosti in anomalije posredniškega sektorja v različnih zgodovinskih okoliščinah. V slovenskem primeru bi bilo tako mogoče razpravljati o razmeroma velikem pomenu, ki
so ga imele izpeljanke nacionalistične ideologije pri delovanju in organizaciji založništva — tako rekoč od začetka 19. stoletja pa vse do današnjih dni, ko modifikacije te ideologije še vedno pomembno sodoločajo reguliranje knjižnega trga — potem o vlogi komunistične ideologije in cenzure pri poskusu obvladovanja celotnega kulturnega polja, o večji ali manjši vlogi trga v posameznih obdobjih in podobno. Prav tako je z upoštevanjem treh skupin dejavnikov lažje razložiti razmere v sodobnem slovenskem literarnem sistemu, ki je v številnih potezah zelo specifičen.22 Na splošno se zdi, da je v njem vloga mehanizmov, ki naj bi korigirali trg, razmeroma močna, s tem pa se seveda izrazito krepi vpliv politično-ideoloških dejavnikov, pa tudi pomen tistih dejavnikov, ki smo jih poimenovali »učinki mreženja«. Analiza razmer v sodobnem slovenskem literarno-posredniškem sektorju bi torej poleg parametrov knjižnega trga morala upoštevati tudi ideologije, ki vplivajo na izbore različnih financerjev,23 ter podrobno preučiti kompleksno prepletena socialna omrežja, ki usmerjajo razporejanje simbolnega kapitala in sredstev konsekracije. Na podlagi takšne analize bi bilo seveda smiselno razmisliti tudi o korekcijah regulacijske politike — predvsem v tistih segmentih, ki ne delujejo optimalno.
OPOMBE
1	Vprašanje deleža tistih, ki jih zgodovinski pogled običajno »ne vidi«, je še posebej zanimivo z vidika teorije avtorstva (prim. Bennett, pa tudi Chartierjevo razpravo v tej številki).
2	Tak osrednji položaj klasičnega urednika so šele v zadnjih letih omajale spremembe, ki jih je prinesla informacijskotehnološka revolucija (prim. Kovač, Od katedrale do palačinke, ter razpravi Schreierjeve in Vaupotiča v tej številki).
3	Dolgoročno sistematično opazovanje literarnega polja je bilo možno le ob institucionalni zaslombi oddelka za trženje in sociologijo knjig v Tilburgu (Marketing and Sociology of Books), tesno povezanega z delom Huga Verdaasdonka in z ugledno revijo Poetics, ki je od osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja objavila pomemben korpus empiričnih raziskav. Seveda je nizozemske ugotovitve mogoče v druge sisteme prenašati le z veliko mero previdnosti.
4	Avtonomne socialne sisteme razumemo kot tiste, ki (avtopoetično) proizvajajo in vzdržujejo lastne sistemske meje.
5	O neprecenljivem pomenu prepoznavne skupine hišnih avtorjev za založnike zgovorno pričajo tudi metaforična poimenovanja s področja konjereje (ang. stable, fr. e'curie, srb. ergela).
6	V petih velikih nizozemskih založbah je v letih 1975—1980 močno prevladovala proza (73%) pred poezijo, esejistiko in dramatiko, bistveno več je bilo izdaj domačih avtorjev (65%), od prevodov pa so prevladovali veliki jeziki, še posebej angleščina (13%), za njo pa nemščina (5,9%) in francoščina (5,3%) (Verdaasdonk, »The Influence« 596).
7	V raziskavi so kot uspešni avtorji opredeljeni tisti, ki imajo objavljenih več del in so vsaj eno leto prinašali založbi več kot odstotek letnega prihodka (Verdaasdonk, »The Influence« 580). Pogosti izraz »backlist« pa je sicer mogoče prevajati kar kot katalog (založbe), v ožjem smislu pa lahko meri tudi na to, kar imenujemo »železni repertoar«.
8	Odličen primer je vloga zasebne komercialne verige knjižnic Mudie's in njen vpliv na založniške izbire, ki ga je opisal William St Clair (»Following Up« 725). Avtorji, ki jih je ta knjižnica zavrnila za množični odkup, so imeli bistveno slabše karierne možnosti.
9	Kadar na primer neka tehnika zaradi težnje po maksimalni izrabi proizvodnih sredstev spodbuja tiskanje točno določenega števila izvodov nekega dela, s tem pomembno strukturira ponudbo. Po drugi strani pa visoki stroški prevoda (in tiska) zelo dolgih besedil urednike motivirajo k odločanju za krajša besedila.
10	O ekonomskih koreninah koncepta avtorskih pravic dovolj zgovorno priča njegov zgodovinski razvoj (prim. Bennett, Rose, Lessig in St Clair, »The Political Economy«).
11	Mednje Sapirova šteje metaforične in alegorične izmike, ilegalno založništvo in objavljanje v tujini. Strinjati se je mogoče, da je dolgi boj umetnosti proti cenzorski kontroli pomembno prispeval k oblikovanju temeljev avtonomije polja (Sapiro 499).
12	Tako dobimo posredniške ustanove, ki se bolj ali manj očitno deklarirajo kot katoliške, konzervativne, liberalne, socialistične ipd. Nekateri primeri kažejo, da bi politizacija utegnila biti bolj izrazita pri revijah kot pri založbah in poleg tega vsaj deloma vezana na razvojne faze literarnega sistema (gl. Dovic, Slovenski pisatelj, pa tudi razpravo Andringe v tej številki). Vsekakor gre za zanimiv problem, ki je v primerjalnem in historičnem smislu še premalo raziskan.
13	To velja že od časov, ko sta Diderot ali Fichte premlevala razmejevanje »dela« kot duhovne (virtualne) entitete od njegovih akcidenčnih, materialnih pojavnih oblik (debato je sprožil problem prenašanja lastninskih pravic v zvezi z delom - prim. Chartier 247-270) do današnjih polemik v zvezi s plagiatom in predlogi za drugačno urejanje tega vprašanja (prim. Lessig).
14	V tem smislu je St Clairova analogija s farmacevtsko in informacijsko-tehnološko industrijo povsem na mestu (»The Political Economy« 5).
15	V tem sklopu velja opozoriti na diskusije o morebitni ničelni stopnji obdavčitve knjige, ki je odmevala tudi pri nas. Zagovorniki ničelne stopnje izhajajo iz teze, da je obdavčitev knjige pravzaprav (nesmiselna) obdavčitev znanja.
16	Za skrajen primer deregulacije veljajo ZDA, kjer premočno prevladuje proizvodnja standardiziranih, klišejskih žanrov, medtem ko ostajajo poezija, dramatika in celo prevodna literatura (zaradi vstopnega stroška prevoda) povsem na obrobju (Sapiro 450).
17	Analiza družabnih mrež (social network analysis) se je razvila predvsem v empirični sociologiji in antropologiji. Posameznike razume kot vozlišča (nodes) v omrežjih medsebojnih vezi; zanima jo predvsem, kako struktura povezav vpliva na njihovo obnašanje in norme.
18	Wouter de Nooy in Frank de Glas sta na primer raziskovala, kako nizozemske založbe vzpostavljajo in vzdržujejo simbolni kapital, medtem ko je Susanne Janssen empirično preverila, kako avtorjeve vzporedne aktivnosti (poleg izdajanja knjig) vplivajo na možnosti njegovega uspeha, pri čemer se je pokazalo, da igrajo dejavniki mreženja pomembno vlogo. Njena analiza preuči tri skupine parametrov: neknjižne komunikacijske kanale (festivali, revije ^), refleksivne dejavnosti (izjave o sebi, polemike, intervjuji, kritike, eseji ^) in dvig socialnega kapitala. Za vse tri skupine, še posebej zadnjo, je ključno mreženje - zmožnost angažiranja vplivnih kolegov oziroma vzpostavitev vzajemnega priznavanja z založniki/ uredniki, kritiki, podeljevalci subvencij, člani komisij za nagrade ipd. (Janssen 277-278).
19	V večjih založništvih, kjer je to mogoče, takšno vlogo sicer vse bolj prevzemajo
specializirani literarni agenti.
20	Takšna »trgovanja« so sicer pogosto predmet kavarniških diskusij med avtorji, kritiki in založniki, le redko pa so deležna bolj distancirane pisne obravnave.
21	Kot opaža Sapirova, moč množičnih medijev pri konsekraciji na splošno raste. Kratek čas njihove osredotočenosti pa poudarek z vsebine nujno prenaša na avtorja kot »zvezdo« (456).
22	V splošnem slovenski knjižni trg določajo sledeče poteze: relativna majhnost (približno dva milijona poteacialaih bralcev), nizka stopnja diferenciacije založništva in knji-gotrštva ob razmeroma velikem številu založnikov, visok delež neposredne prodaje knjig v primerjavi s prodajo po knjigarnah, velik pomen brezplačne izposoje v javnih knjižnicah v primerjavi s prodajo ter slabo razvit trg z mehkimi platnicami. Medtem ko se število naslovov iz leta v leto konstantno povečuje (6358 knjig v letu 2008), povprečne naklade padajo. Segmentu izdajanja literature je s pomočjo različnih vzvodov najmanj podvržen neposrednemu povpraševanju trga. Delež literarnih naslovov v celotni produkciji je razmeroma visok (od blizu četrtine v letu 2004 je do leta 2008 padel na približno petino, tj. 1274 naslovov od skupno 6358 tega leta), vendar so naklade povprečno precej nižje. Žanrsko premočno prevladuje proza (63%) pred sorazmerno visokim številom pesniških izdaj (20%; vsi podatki se nanašajo na leto 2008). Zelo visok delež zavzema prevodna literatura (kar 44% oziroma 565 izmed 1274 naslovov); takšna ^»odprtost« v tujino je po eni strani posledica omejene proizvajalske baze, po drugi pa ravno subvencij, ki izničijo vstopno stroškovno razliko. Kot drugod tudi v Sloveniji močno prevladujejo prevodi iz angleščine (55%), medtem ko ostali jeziki ne dosegajo 10% (gl. Statistični letopis 2009 in Grilc).
23	Z vidika našega izhodiščnega vprašanja še malo ni vseeno, kako so organizirani razpisi in kako poteka delo (eksternih) specialističnih komisij, ki odločajo o podpori programom in projektom. To velja predvsem za razpise Javne agencije za knjigo (JAK), ki je najpomembnejši financer literarnih izdaj.
LITERATURA
Bennett, Andrew. The Author. London, New York: Routledge, 2005.
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Prev. Susan Emanuel. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Chartier, Roger. Pisanje in brisanje. Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis, 2008.
Dovic, Marijan. Slovenski pisatelj. Razvoj vloge literarnega proizvajalca v slovenskem literarnem sistemu. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2007.
---. »Totalitarna in post-totalitarna cenzura: od trde k mehki?« V: Literatura in cenzura
(ur. Marijan Dovic). Primerjalna književnost 31 (2008, pos. št.): 9-20.
Glas, Frank de. »Authors' ffiuvres as the Backbone of Publishers' Lists: Studying the Literary Publishing House after Bourdieu.« Poetics 25 (1998): 379-397.
Grilc, Uroš. »Knjiga v presečišču javnega in zasebnega: primeri Francije, Finske, Hrvaške in Slovenije.« ¥jiji^ž«ica 50.4 (2006): 49-80.
Janssen, Susanne. »Side-Roads to Success: The Effect of Sideline Activities on the Status of Writers.« Poe^^ic^s 25.5 (1998): 265-280.
Kovač, Miha. Skrivno življenje knjig. Protislovja knjižnega založništva v Sloveniji v 20. stoletju. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 1999.
---. Od katedrale do palačinke: Tisk, branje in znanje v digitalni družbi. Ljubljana: Študentska
založba, 2009.
Lessig, Lawrence. Svobodna kultura. Prev. Polona Glavan. Ljubljana: Krtina, 2005.
Neubauer, John. »Publishing and Censorship. Introduction.« V: Marcel Cornis-Pope, John Neubauer (ur.). History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe. Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Volume III: The Making and Remaking of Literary Institutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. 39-61.
Nooy, Wouter de. »Social Networks and Classification in Literature.« Poetics 20.5-6 (1990): 507-537.
Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1993. Sapiro, Gisele. »The Literary Field between the State and the Market.« Poetics 31.4-5 (2003): 441-464.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Die Selbstorganisation des Sozialsystems Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989. St Clair, William. »Following Up the Reading Nation.« The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol.. VI, 1830-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 704-735.
---. »The Political Economy of Reading.« <http://es.sas.ac.uk/Publications/johncoffin/
stclair.pdf>. (Dostop 24. 6. 2009.)
---. The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004.
Statistični letopis 2009. Ljubljana: Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, 2009. <http://www.
stat.si/ letopis/>. (Dostop 24. 6. 2009.) Verdaasdonk, Hugo. »The Influence of Certain Socio-Economic Factors on the Composition of the Literary Programs of Large Dutch Publishing Houses.« Poetics
14.6 (1985): 575-608.
---. »Literary Magazines as Med^a for Publishing Literary Texts.« Poetics 18.1-2 (1989):
215-232.
TT"	'11	•	•l''^
Kdo izbira in kc.o ponuja v iZbiro?
Darko Dolinar
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovensko literature in literarne vede, Ljubljana, Slovenija darko.dolinar@zrc-sazu.si
Ob vprašanju »kdo izbira?« ponavadi najprej pomislimo na bralca, soočenega z obsežnim naborom raznovrstnih tekstov, ki se mu ponujajo v branje, in si prizadevamo rekonstruirati, razumeti ali razložiti njegove interne izbirne mehanizme in postopke hkrati z zunanjimi instancami, ki v večji ali manjši meri sodelujejo pri tem. Toda izbiranje se ne dogaja samo na območju, ki ga prekrivajo študije recepcije in bralčevega odziva, temveč je na različne načine prisotno v
Ta spis oriše nekatere ključne točke tega problemskega sklopa, predvsem posredniško funkcijo med ponudbo in izbiro, ter jih ilustrira s posameznimi značilnimi primeri iz slovenskega založništva in knjigotrštva v minulih desetletjih ter med t. i. tranzicijo v kapitalistično tržno gospodarstvo, predvsem s primeri knjig, ki po široki branosti in prodajni uspešnosti znatno odstopajo od normalnega stanja.
Ključne besede: literarno posredništvo / uredništvo / knjigotrštvo / uredniška politika / bralec / branje / literarni sistem / knjižna selekcija
UDK 028.02:655.4
Odgovor ali vsaj začetek odgovora na vprašanje, postavljeno v naslovu, se ne zdi težek: seveda je bralec tisti, ki si izbere berilo.1 Predstavljajmo si ga v eni značilnih situacij, recimo kadar pride na frankfurtski knjižni sejem ali v kako nacionalno ali univerzitetno biblioteko ali kadar odpre domačo stran velike spletne knjigarne: povsod je soočen z obsežnim naborom raznovrstnih tekstov, ponujenih v branje. Na prvi pogled se ob tem lahko zazdi, da uživa popolno svobodo, ker lahko po mili volji izbira med množico razpoložljivih tekstov. Vendar pogosto opazimo ravno nasproten učinek: tolikšna mera razpoložljive ponudbe je za posameznega bralca praktično neobvladljiva, množica tekstov ga naravnost zasuje, možnost suverene, svobodne izbire se mu sprevrže v napor, muko,2 zaradi katere si mora poiskati takšno ali drugačno pomoč.
Ob takšnem, na videz paradoksnem položaju se ovemo, da je bila naša izhodiščna predstava o bralski izbiri preveč poenostavljena. Upoštevati moramo, da se tako bralci kot tudi berila močno razlikujejo med seboj. Strokovno podkovani bralec, ki se jasno zaveda, kaj potrebuje, bo med
knjigami s svojega interesnega področja pač iskal in izbiral veliko bolj usmerjeno in bolj učinkovito kakor laik. To je najbolj očitno pri znanstvenih in strokovnih delih; toda razlika med večjo ali manjšo stopnjo kompe-tence pri bolj razgledanih ali pri bolj naivnih bralcih je še kako pomembna tudi pri beletristiki, čeprav so motivi in mehanizmi izbire tam precej drugačni kot pri stvarni literaturi. Na obeh področjih in pri obeh skupinah bralcev torej obstaja podobna potreba po pomoči, usmerjanju, svetovanju pri izbiri, ki pa se realizira po zelo različnih poteh. Poučeni bralec se opira na informacije o avtorjih, na knjižne recenzije in referate, na svoje poznavanje profilov založb in knjižnih zbirk. Nasprotno možnost ponazarja tipična situacija, znana iz ljudskih knjižnic: marsikateri obiskovalec si zaželi »nekaj lepega za branje«, kaj naj bi bilo to, pa ne zna povedati. Svoje pravice do svobodne izbire zato ne realizira sam, temveč jo v večji ali manjši meri prepušča nekomu drugemu - v tem primeru knjižničarju, ali splošneje rečeno, izvedencu oziroma instanci, ki se na zadevo pač bolje spozna. Dejanje izbire, ki naj bi bilo po naši prvotni domnevi nekaj individualnega in v tej individualnosti suverenega, se razplasti in zakomplicira.
Ce ne že prej, se je treba v tem trenutku spomniti, da je bralčeva izbira samo zadnji akt med celo vrsto predhodnih in podobnih; da poteka proces izbiranja v diahronem zaporedju in sinhronem prepletu množice individualnih in skupinskih selekcijskih aktov; da je izbiranje navzoče v celotnem poteku komunikacije od avtorske produkcije tekstov prek raznih poti njihovega posredovanja in distribucije do različnih modusov recepcije. Vendar ni izbire brez ponudbe; zmeraj nastopata v paru. Ce zadevo do skrajnosti poenostavimo, dobimo osnovni model: avtor ponuja svoje izdelke bralcu, ki izbira med njimi. Toda to poteka samo v izjemnih primerih z neposrednim stikom med njima, praviloma pa prek posrednika, pri katerem sta funkciji ponudbe in izbire najbolj očitno povezani.
Posredniška dejavnost obstaja v osnovni obliki že v ustnih kulturah; pomembnejša je postala, odkar se teksti zapisujejo in reproducirajo, in se je razrasla do danes znanih zapletenih in na različne institucionalne nosilce porazdeljenih oblik, odkar se knjige proizvajajo in distribuirajo kot tržno blago. V sodobnih razmerah je posredništvo ena stalnih in nepogrešljivih sestavin v delovanju celotnega literarnega sistema, še zlasti v založništvu in knjigotrštvu; je pa tudi zamotano in notranje protislovno. Za njegov potek in rezultate je relevantnih več zunanjih okoliščin. Mednje sodita obseg in ustroj literarnega oziroma jezikovno-kulturnega prostora in s tem povezana, a ne povsem izenačena obseg in ustroj knjižnega trga, odločilno pa ga oblikuje preplet ekonomskih, ideoloških in kulturno-umetniških silnic, ki delujejo v tem prostoru.
Po splošno sprejeti domnevi naj bi bile ekonomske zakonitosti univerzalno veljavne. Toda na velikih jezikovnih območjih, kakršna so angleško,
francosko, špansko, portugalsko, nemško, rusko, verjetno tudi arabsko in kitajsko, ki presegajo meje posameznih nacionalnih literatur, kultur in držav, imajo te zakonitosti nedvomno drugačne učinke kakor v majhnih jezikovno-kulturnih prostorih, domicilih literatur maloštevilnih, tudi politično nesamostojnih ljudstev. V centraliziranih planskih gospodarstvih je razmerje med vplivi ideološkega in ekonomskega faktorja na izbor knjižne produkcije gotovo povsem drugačno kakor v tržnih gospodarstvih; v avtoritarno urejenih skupnostih s poudarjeno vlogo vladajoče politične ideologije je drugačno kakor v demokratičnih družbah.
Proces izbiranja, povezan s posredniško funkcijo, je osredinjen v založbah in v specializiranih publikacijah ter deloma tudi v množičnih občilih (kolikor objavljajo literarne tekste), poleg tega delujejo nanj še različni zunanji vplivi. Praviloma so vanj vpleteni številni udeleženci — uredniki, interni recenzenti, literarni svetovalci, ekonomisti, tržniki, prodajalci, knjižničarji, cenzorji, kritiki, šolniki — ki se ravnajo po različnih, včasih celo protislovnih kriterijih. Pri tem je verjetno najbolj opazno nasprotje med logiko delovanja in cilji ekonomskega kapitala na eni in simbolnega (kulturnega, umetniškega, ideološkega, etičnega) »kapitala« na drugi strani. Ta zamotani interaktivni proces se izteka v skupno oblikovanje bralne ponudbe, ki hoče prepričati bralce, naj jo sprejmejo v karseda veliki meri. Posredništvo tako izpolnjuje svoj namen in pri tem dosega večji ali manjši uspeh.
Uspeh se v založništvu in knjigotrštvu ponavadi meri s podatki o knjižnih natisih in ponatisih, o nakladah in o prodaji, toda to zožuje predstavo o recepciji samo na razsežnost blagovne produkcije in distribucije. Bolj ustrezno merilo za recepcijski uspeh bi bila dejanska branost; prvi korak k njeni približni oceni lahko naredimo tako, da poleg prodaje upoštevamo vsaj še izposojo v knjižnicah. Toda vsi ti podatki postanejo povedni šele takrat, ko prepoznamo njihovo normalno mero in izjemna odstopanja od nje, jih postavimo v časovno zaporedje in jim kot izhodišče začrtamo širši referenčni okvir z nekaj relevantnimi vidiki, kot so:
—	velikost potencialne bralske populacije,
—	obseg celotne knjižne produkcije (po številu naslovov in po nakladah) ter
—	razmerja med izvirnimi in prevedenimi knjigami.
Poleg teh splošnih značilnosti sta posebej za literaturo relevantna zlasti
še:
—	delež umetniške literature v celotni knjižni produkciji in
—	razmerje med posameznimi literarnimi žanri.
Osnovni kvantitativni opisi so večinoma dostopni že v javnih statistikah. Nadaljevati in poglabljati jih je mogoče s podatki o dejanski strukturi bralstva po starosti, spolu, izobrazbi, poklicu, o bralnih navadah, okusu,
preferencah glede na različna literarna območja in žanre. Takšni podatki so dosegljivi z empiričnimi raziskavami, kot so ankete po reprezentativnih vzorcih (dejanskih ali potencialnih) bralcev, študije značilnih primerov in podobno. Njihove ugotovitve je seveda nujno potrebno kritično soočati z recepcijskoteoretičnimi, literarnosistemskimi in sociološkimi načelnimi pogledi. Toda to že pelje globlje v raziskovanje recepcije. Zato se bomo tukaj ustavili in se vrnili k posredniškemu oblikovanju bralne ponudbe; obravnavali jo bomo ob nekaj značilnih primerih, ki ilustrirajo delovanje slovenskega literarnega sistema v času od konca druge svetovne vojne do danes.
Takšna časovna omejitev je utemeljena iz več razlogov. Vojna in revolucija sta povzročili tolikšen prevrat, da se je dotedanji literarni sistem bistveno preoblikoval in so se njegove institucije (založbe, literarne in kulturne revije, množična občila) vzpostavile čisto na novo. V naslednjih desetletjih so se postopno dogajale ideološke in estetske spremembe, s katerimi se je slovenska kultura ponovno zbliževala z evropsko, in potekali so ekonomski, družbeni in politični procesi, ki so peljali v gospodarsko in družbeno tranzicijo ter k državnopolitični osamosvojitvi Slovenije. Vse to je od zunaj usmerjalo delovanje literarnega sistema.
Med njegove stalne značilnosti sodi to, da je razmeroma majhen. Populacija na današnjem ozemlju Slovenije je narasla (v približnih številkah) od 1.450.000 v letu 1945 na današnja 2.000.000. Pri tem se je njena poklicna in izobrazbena struktura močno spremenila, tako da je število potencialnih bralcev naraščalo precej hitreje od števila prebivalstva.
Število izdanih knjig na leto se je od začetnih okrog 550 dvigalo do skoraj 3.500 leta 1970, zatem do 1990 opazno upadalo, od takrat pa spet naraslo na prek 6300 (zadnji objavljeni podatki veljajo za leto 2008).3 Med njimi prevladujejo izvirne slovenske knjige. Delež prevedenih v celotni produkciji niha med 20% in 30%, najnižji je bil okrog 14% (l. 1950 in 1980), najvišji malo prek 40% (l. 1970).
Tolikšen porast knjižne proizvodnje opozarja na velike spremembe v založništvu. Od začetnih manj kot 10 državnih ali podržavljenih založb se je število dvignilo na okrog 500 pravnih subjektov, registriranih za založniško dejavnost, od tega jih izdaja knjige nekaj prek 160. Bistveni premiki so se začeli z ekonomsko in družbeno tranzicijo proti koncu osemdesetih let, ko so se dotedanje velike založniške hiše privatizirale, združevale, prevzemale manjše, spreminjale programe, propadale, ob njih pa je vzniknila množica novih, med drugim tudi takih, ki izdajo samo po en naslov na leto. Danes je v jedro slovenskega založništva mogoče šteti okrog 50 poklicnih založb, institucij in društev, ki skupno izdajo več kot polovico letne knjižne proizvodnje. Podobno rast, četudi z nekaj značilnimi razlikami, bi lahko ugotavljali
tudi pri drugih poteh za objavljanje literature, predvsem pri literarnih revijah in pri množičnih medijih oziroma njihovih literarnih rubrikah.
Povprečni delež izvirne in prevedene umetniške literature v celotni knjižni proizvodnji se giblje malo nad 20%, najnižji je znašal 15% (l. 1950) in najvišji 29% (l. 1960). V absolutnih številkah je to od okrog 100 naslovov letno v poznih 40. letih do današnjih nekaj manj kot 1300 naslovov (l. 2008). Tudi tukaj je število doseglo prvi vrh l. 1970 (628 naslovov), zatem je upadlo in ga spet preseglo šele ob koncu 90. let. Zanimivo je, da je povprečni delež literarnih knjig med vsemi slovenskimi knjigami nižji, pod 20% (ekstrema sta 9% in 24%), med vsemi prevedenimi pa višji, s tem da srednja vrednost bolj niha med 25% in 42% , skrajni meji pa sta pri 13% (l. 1970) in 56% (l. 1950).
Pri literarnih knjigah se razmerje med slovenskimi in prevedenimi razumljivo nagiba v korist slovenskih. Povprečni delež prevodov med vsemi literarnimi knjigami je bil 38%, s tem da je neenakomerno nihal med skrajnostma 29% in 50% (ta je iz l. 1950, ki je bilo očitno kritično za izvirno proizvodnjo); zadnji znani podatek je 762 slovenskih in 512 prevedenih literarnih knjig (l. 2008). V zadnjem desetletju je število prevodov strmo naraščalo, precej hitreje kot število izvirnih slovenskih izdaj.
Na temelju doslej ugotovljenega je mogoče izpeljati nekaj sklepov o oblikovanju bralne ponudbe in z njo danih možnostih izbire.
V minulih desetletjih je knjižna proizvodnja od skromnih začetkov močno napredovala po obsegu in vsebinski razvejanosti. V času povojnega splošnega pomanjkanja, potem ko je poleg vsega drugega propadlo tudi veliko starejših javnih in zasebnih knjižnih fondov, so bralci naklonjeno sprejemali, prebirali in kupovali tako rekoč vse knjižne novosti. Šele ko je leto za letom izhajalo čedalje več knjig, je bilo mogoče med njimi izbirati, ko pa je ponudba presegla neko težko ugotovljivo mejno velikost, je izbiranje postalo neizogibno, saj je odslej celo za profesionalnega bralca praktično nemogoče, da bi sproti prebral vse, kar izhaja v slovenščini.
Porast števila izdanih naslovov je spremljalo upadanje naklad. Nekatere med prvimi povojnimi izdajami so presegle 10.000 izvodov; nekako v prvem desetletju so se kot normalne oblikovale naklade za roman 3.000-6.000 izvodov, za pesniško knjigo 800-1.500 izvodov, nato so postopno upadale, najbolj izrazito med gospodarsko tranzicijo v 80. letih, in odtlej dosegajo komaj tretjino prejšnjih. To sicer omejuje razširjenost posameznih knjižnih naslovov, vendar nima večjega negativnega vpliva na dejansko branost, saj manjšo prodajo uspešno nadomešča naraščajoča izposoja v knjižnicah.
•k -k it
Obseg izposoje seveda v precejšnji meri vnaprej opredeljujeta velikost ponudbe, tj. razpoložljivih zalog v knjižnicah, ter število obiskovalcev. Toda tudi če upoštevamo postopno večanje obeh količin, se izkaže, da v primerjavi z njima dejanski obseg izposoje narašča dosti hitreje. To mdr. nazorno izpričujejo novejši statistični podatki o splošnih knjižnicah. Za ilustracijo naj zadostuje nekaj podatkov o številu vpisanih članov, številu obiskov in številu izposojenih knjig (številke so navedene v 1000; prim. Statistični let^opis 2009, spletna izdaja):
leto	št. članov	indeks članstva	št. obiskov	indeks št. obiskov	izposoja	indeks izposoje
1995	427	100	5.352	100	12.812	100
2005	515	121	8.925	167	20.888	163
2007	526	123	9.572	179	25.644	200
Obisk je naraščal dosti hitreje od članstva, najhitreje pa izposoja. Ali drugače povedano: v letu 1995 si je povprečni obiskovalec izposodil 30 knjig, l. 2005 dobrih 40 in l. 2007 skoraj 49 knjig, kar nedvomno izpričuje porast branosti.
O vsebinski sestavi knjižne proizvodnje je mogoče z veliko mero posploševanja in poenostavljanja trditi, da se je oblikovala v interakciji med umetniško-estetskimi, ideološkimi in ekonomskimi kriteriji. Ideološki vidik, podprt z ukrepi državne politike, je prevladoval pri sestavljanju založniških programov v prvem povojnem desetletju. Ekonomsko-komercialni vidik je začel prihajati v ospredje po gospodarskih reformah v drugi polovici šestdesetih in na začetku sedemdesetih let in je ob ponovni vzpostavitvi kapitalističnega tržnega gospodarstva prevzel eno glavnih vlog; na ta račun jo je politično-ideološki vidik takrat izgubil. Kljub temu si je politika s sistemom državnih subvencij ohranila vsaj minimalno možnost vplivanja na vsebino založniških programov, četudi dokaj redko posega po njej.
Soigra med temi konfliktnimi silnicami je delovala na izdajanje slovenske književnosti nekoliko drugače kot na izdajanje prevodne. Založbe so se počutile bolj zavezane domači literaturi in so iz umetniško-estetskih in kulturnopolitičnih, ne nazadnje pa tudi iz nacionalno afirmativnih razlogov blažile komercialno argumentirane težnje svojih tržnih in prodajnih oddelkov k drugačnemu oblikovanju knjižnih programov. Teže so se upirale notranjim in zunanjim ideološkim pritiskom, zlasti v prvih povojnih desetletjih. Ne glede na vse to so odtlej v novih izdajah izšli skoraj vsi starejši slovenski literarni klasiki in tudi pomembni avtorji prve polovice 20. stoletja — razen ideološko najbolj spornih, zlasti tistih iz vrst politične emigracije. Sodobno literaturo so založbe ob upoštevanju omenjenih pridržkov izdajale sproti oziroma z manjšimi zamudami za časom nastanka
tekstov in za revialnimi objavami. Ce v založbah ne bi bilo načrtne podpore, bi si npr. težko razložili, kako da na Slovenskem izhaja toliko pesniških zbirk in kako da pesništvo že nekaj časa celo vodi med literarnimi žanri po letnem številu izdanih naslovov,4 četudi prodaja pri veliki večini pesniških knjig praviloma ne krije proizvodnih stroškov.
Pri prevodni književnosti je položaj nekoliko drugačen. Po zvrstni sestavi v njej absolutno prevladujejo romani, daleč za njimi sta kratka proza in poezija, čisto na koncu pa dramatika, kot najbrž ustreza interesom in prevladujočemu okusu množičnih bralcev. Pri dramatiki je vsekakor treba upoštevati nujen popravek, da je bilo za potrebe gledališč, pa tudi radia in televizije prevedeno precejšnje število dramskih del, ki niso dočakala knjižne objave, temveč so dosegla naslovljence po drugačni poti.
Kar zadeva literarni oziroma jezikovno-kulturni izvor tekstov, je takoj po vojni izhajalo največ prevodov iz ruščine, sredi petdesetih let pa so prvo mesto prevzeli prevodi iz angleščine in ga z veliko prednostjo obdržali vse do danes. Sledili so jim najprej prevodi iz srbsko-hrvaškega oziroma iz juž-noslovanskih jezikov, nato so se na drugem in tretjem mestu izmenjevali prevodi iz francoščine in nemščine. Takšna številčna sestava je nedvomno povezana s postopno idejno, nazorsko in družbeno preorientacijo, ki ji je začetni sunek dal politični spopad med Jugoslavijo in vzhodnim blokom leta 1948. Vendar je to le ena izmed opaznih značilnosti. Poleg tega se je sodobna prevodna književnost navezovala na tradicijo s ponovnimi objavami vrste starejših prevodov. Predloge za nove prevode so založniki in prevajalci izbirali iz velikih evropskih in iz severnoameriške literature, in sicer predvsem priznana dela iz 18., 19. in zgodnjega 20. stoletja; poleg tega so posegali v manjše evropske literature, kot so nizozemska oz. flam-ska, skandinavske, zahodnoslovanske in balkanske. Temu se je na novo pridružil interes za latinskoameriške, indijske, kitajsko, japonsko in afriške literature (pri teh iz praktičnih razlogov, zaradi lažje dostopnosti, predvsem za dela, pisana v evropskih jezikih). Prevedena je bila vrsta evropskih klasikov iz starejših dob od antike do renesanse in baroka, poleg njih tudi nekatera temeljna dela starega orienta. Prevodi iz sodobnih literatur so večinoma nastajali iz želje po spoznavanju najnovejših literarnih smeri in tokov, le da so to funkcijo opravljali v zelo različnem obsegu in tempu ter z različnim uspehom.
Opisane značilnosti se odkrivajo poznavalskemu pogledu z literarno-kritičnega oziroma literarnovednega stališča. Toda pri tem ne smemo zanemariti nekega drugega zornega kota, v katerem se pokaže, da so bili številni prevodi motivirani zgolj komercialno. Založniki so namreč v želji po čimboljši prodaji izbirali temu primerne predloge za prevajanje med knjigami, ki so dosegale velike prodajne uspehe že v svojem domačem okolju;
najbolj so se zanašali na tiste, ki so se potrdile na trgih angleškega, nemškega ali francoskega jezikovnega območja. Veliko večino takih uspešnic prištevajo med t. i. lažjo, popularno oziroma trivialno literaturo, ki naj bi bila že po definiciji bolj dostopna širšim krogom bralcev in kupcev kot t. i. umetniška. Nekatere slovenske založbe so se sicer že v zgodnjih petdesetih letih odločale za posamezne poskuse s preverjenimi starejšimi, »klasičnimi« primerki trivialne književnosti, kot so npr. dela Alexandra Dumasa očeta in Arthurja Conana Doylea. Tiskale, opremljale in razpečevale so jih na način kolportaže,5 mimo običajnih poti za promocijo in distribucijo svojih resnih knjižnih izdaj, tako da v tedanjem javnem diskurzu o problematiki prevodne literature in založništva to ni zbujalo pomembnejših odzivov. Šele v času tranzicije v kapitalistično tržno gospodarstvo so uspešnice, največkrat sodobne, postale stalna sestavina mnogih založniških programov in hkrati s tem predmet ponavljajočih se polemičnih debat.
Pojav uspešnic nas vrača k vprašanju, kaj je ob doslej opisanih splošnih značilnostih knjižne ponudbe lahko še posebej nagovarjalo bralce in nekaterim knjigam utiralo pot k branosti in prodaji, dosti večji od povprečne. Če se povrnemo k naši začetni postavki o značilnem obnašanju bralcev, lahko sklepamo, da se laže odločajo za tiste knjige, pri katerih so deležni kakršne koli podrobnejše informacije, nasveta ali usmerjanja. Takšne spodbude prihajajo iz različnih virov, največ iz samih založb, zatem iz drugih, predvsem kulturnih in izobraževalnih institucij, ali pa prosto krožijo v medijih, ki se ukvarjajo s knjigami in avtorji. Uredništva založb npr. oblikujejo knjižne zbirke različnih profilov in tako bralcem ponujajo določene vsebinsko-oblikovne tipe tekstov ter vnaprej zagotavljajo določeno kvalitetno raven bralne ponudbe. Nasploh zbujajo v javnosti več odziva tista dela in avtorski opusi, ki sodijo v kanon domače ali svetovne literature, in tisti, ki so pred kratkim dočakali estetsko in literarnozgodo-vinsko prevrednotenje. Pri širjenju knjig, uvrščenih med šolsko obvezno ali priporočeno berilo, sodeluje nespregledljiv moment oblastvene prisile. Manj obvezujoče in bolj spodbujevalno motivirajo bralce različne literarne nagrade od državnih do tistih, ki jih podeljujejo avtorska združenja, strokovna društva, gospodarska podjetja ali časopisno založniške hiše - te znajo že iz predlaganja in izbora kandidatov napraviti privlačen medijski dogodek ali cel niz dogodkov, kakršne lahko npr. spremljamo v zadnjih letih ob podeljevanju nagrade Kresnik za najboljši slovenski roman. Ob vsaki obsežnejši publicistični obravnavi kakega literarnega dela ali opusa oziroma njegovega avtorja, zlasti če ta v katerem koli oziru velja za reprezentativen primer, se bralski interes zanj praviloma razširi in poglobi. Pri samih tekstih je lahko povod za to npr. ideološka ali moralna problematičnost ali kakršnakoli spornost tem, snovi in motivov. Kar zadeva življe-
nje in delovanje avtorjev, so lahko v tem pogledu eksemplarični ruski in vzhodnoevropski disidenti, z druge strani pa tisti zahodni pisci, ki so se angažirali kot mnenjski voditelji v političnih in civilnodružbenih zadevah. Prenos v drug medij, tj. v film ali na televizijo, zbudi dodatno zanimanje za knjigo in ji pripelje nove skupine bralcev; dober primer za to so visoko profesionalno izdelane televizijske ekranizacije angleške literarne klasike, ki jih pripravlja in uspešno trži BBC. Takšnim spodbudam se pridružujejo že dolgo znani stari pa tudi novi tržni prijemi, kot so raziskave bralske populacije in nanje oprte različne oblike promocije knjig in avtorjev, različne poti prodaje (v prednaročilu, v osebnih stikih z zastopniki, po pošti, telefonu in medmrežju), članstvo v založniških klubih in literarnih družbah, ki prinaša s sabo nekatere ugodnosti, itd. Vse to opremlja osnovno ponudbo, tj. nabor izdanih knjig, z dodatnimi poudarki, ki še posebej nagovarjajo potencialne odjemalce k branju ali natančneje rečeno k nakupu čisto določene knjige.
Nekatera od dosedanjih izvajanj bomo ilustrirali s tremi primeri: eden je dobro znan in je bil že neštetokrat omenjen, druga dva sta bržkone že pozabljena. Vsi trije sodijo v pozna šestdeseta in zgodnja sedemdeseta leta 20. stoletja, v čas razmaha slovenskega založništva in začetka njegovega preobražanja iz planske v tržno gospodarsko obliko.
V letih 1964-1977 je pri Cankarjevi založbi izhajala zbirka Sto romanov (prim. Munda in Grum). Izbor naslovov je posrečeno združeval najbolj znana, pa tudi dotlej na Slovenskem še manj znana klasična dela svetovnega romanopisja z nekaj predstavniki zunajevropskih literatur vred, potem umetniško reprezentativne tekste 20. stoletja, ki se uvrščajo v modernizem, eksistencializem ali »novi roman«, ter nekatere najbolj razširjene in priljubljene novejše romane z bolj tradicionalno fakturo. Izbrana literarna besedila so spremljale esejistične študije vodilnih slovenskih poznavalcev literature. Glavni urednik zbirke je bil Anton Ocvirk, utemeljitelj primerjalne književnosti na Slovenskem kot samostojne znanstvene stroke. Zbirka, ki je že v zasnovi nosila toliko simptomov odličnosti, je bila tiskana v formatu žepne knjige z decentno likovno opremo. Založba jo je skrbno pro-movirala in jo prodajala v prednaročilu po dostopni ceni. Zbirka je bila v širši javnosti in pri kritiki, v množičnih medijih in v strokovnih publikacijah razglašena za kulturni dogodek osrednjega pomena. Bralstvo jo je sprejelo z odprtimi rokami, saj je prvi letnik izšel v danes komaj verjetni nakladi 24.000 izvodov in bil kmalu razprodan; trinajst let pozneje se je zbirka končala s še zmeraj upoštevanja vrednimi 6.300 izvodi. Sledili sta še dve
•k -k it
komercialni potezi: že takoj ob zaključku zbirke (1977) ponatis najbolj priljubljenih desetih del po izboru bralcev in dobro desetletje pozneje (19861989) ponatis celote v drugačni opremi in trdi vezavi, ki pa ni več dosegel primerljivega tržnega učinka. Zbirka je obveljala za zgled pomembnega uredniškega in založniškega dosežka in je dala spodbudo vsaj za dve ali tri podobne poznejše, le da vsebinsko bolj v sodobnost usmerjene zbirke.
Približno ob istem času, ko je izhajalo Sto romanov, je bilo v ljudskih knjižnicah daleč največ povpraševanja po romanu slovenskega pisatelja Toneta Svetine Ukana ter po seriji romanov Anne in Sergea Golona s skupnim naslovom Angelika, prevedeni iz francoščine.
Svetina, dotlej znan kot avtor poljudnih povesti, je napisal obsežen tekst s temo druge svetovne vojne, okupacije in osvobodilnega boja. Na ravni okvirnega dogajanja vsebuje številne na zgodovinskih dejstvih utemeljene opise. Osrednja fabulativna nit prikazuje zapletene vohunsko obveščevalne spopade med okupacijsko vojsko in policijo na eni ter odporniškim gibanjem na drugi strani. Glavne osebe niso upodobljene črno-belo, temveč diferencirano, tekst izpričuje smisel za težavni položaj ljudi, ki so se nehote znašli med sovražnimi frontami v vojnem spopadu, in kaže nekaj razumevanja celo za najbolj negativne like. Načenja pa tudi nekatere kočljive ali dotlej tabuizirane teme, kot sta izdajstvo med partizani in množični poboj zajetih kolaborantov. Obsežni, sproti rastoči roman je izhajal pri založbi Borec v različnih izdajah in ponatisih od 1965 do 1987, avtor je njegovim trem delom pozneje pridružil še knjigo o njegovem nastajanju (»roman o romanu«), tekst je bil predelan v ilustrirano slikanico, le načrt o njegovi televizijski ekranizaciji ni bil udejanjen.
Angelika, serija pustolovsko zgodovinskih romanov s snovjo iz poznega 17. stoletja, je dober primer trivialnega pisanja. Naslovna junakinja, mlada, lepa, erotično nadarjena, bistroumna in značajsko neuklonljiva francoska podeželska plemkinja, se zapleta v vsakršne avanture, ki jo ženejo vsaj čez polovico takrat znanega sveta, nenadni preobrati usode jo dvigujejo na najvišje vrhove ugleda in blaginje in jo spet mečejo na samo družbeno dno, neštetokrat se s svojimi izjemnimi sposobnostmi komaj reši iz različnih smrtnih nevarnosti, a si zmeraj pribori srečen konec - do novega zapleta v naslednji knjigi. Recept je razmeroma preprost: pripoved vzdržuje visoko fabulativno napetost, socialno-psihološki orisi oseb in njihovih medsebojnih odnosov so prilagojeni sodobni mentaliteti, opisi dogajanja in okolja so vešče oprti na razmeroma korektno uporabo dokaj obsežnega zgodovinskega znanja. Spričo tega tudi zaželeni uspeh ni izostal. Od l. 1963 do 1977 je založba Lipa izdala devet romanov te serije, od tega prve tri kar v štirih natisih, pri naslednjih je zanimanje nekoliko popuščalo. Ne glede na to je zbirka, dopolnjena še z nadaljnjimi tremi romani, proti koncu 80. let
dočakala novo izdajo. Toda vsi ti, za slovenske založniške in knjigotrške razmere kar impozantni dosežki so samo drobec v sklopu velikega svetovnega uspešniškega posla. V dobrega pol stoletja od l. 1955 so bile knjige o Angeliki prevedene v več kot 30 jezikov in izhajale v več kot 60 državah, skupno je bilo prodanih krepko prek 150 milijonov izvodov. Tržni uspeh knjig je podpiralo pet filmskih verzij, ki so bile poleg kinematografske mreže pogosto predvajane na televiziji in prenesene na elektronske nosilce (DVD). Odmevnost zbirke so večali običajni spremni pojavi, kot so klubi navdušenih privržencev, predstavitve in debate na svetovnem spletu in podobno. Po drugi strani je zbujal zanimanje tudi dolgotrajni sodni spor okrog avtorskih pravic. Zadeva še ni končana: pred kratkim je bilo mogoče zaslediti napoved, da oseminosemdesetletna avtorica pripravlja ponatis in celo nadaljevanje zbirke (prim. Anon., »Nesmrtna Angelika« 2009, Anon., »The World of Angelique«).
Navedeni trije primeri izjemno učinkovite in tržno uspešne bralne ponudbe temeljijo na različnih razlogih. Zbirka Sto romanov je znala elitno literaturo ponuditi na tak način, da je kot mamljiva možnost udeležbe pri »kulturnem kapitalu« postala dostopna tudi širšim krogom bralcev. Realistične snovne in idejne sestavine Svetinovega vojnega romana, predvsem na ravni kolektivnega dogajanja, so mnogi bralci lahko soočali z lastnimi doživetji in spomini; njegovi problematični zgodovinsko-politični motivi sodijo med zgodnje primere obravnav, ki so se v poznejši slovenski literaturi in publicistiki razrasle in postale ena osrednjih tem javnega dis-kurza; njegovi fabulativni zapleti so ponujali ugodje ob napetosti, kakršno poznajo bralci akcijskih pripovedi; vse to je ustoličilo Svetinov roman kot izvirno slovensko uspešnico. Trivialna pustolovsko-ljubezenska štorija o Angeliki pa se je ponujala našim bralcem v sprejem na čisto hedonistični in eskapistični ravni in zbujala med njimi temu ustrezen odziv, s katerim so bili udeleženi v hkratnem istovrstnem dogajanju na svetovnih knjižnih trgih, tako da se naši založbi niti ni bilo treba posebej potruditi zanj.
Če povzamemo dosedanja izvajanja, se tudi v slovenskih razmerah izkaže, da med avtorjem in bralcem stoji obsežen, zapleten in težko pregleden posredniški aparat, v katerem se oblikuje bralna ponudba. Posrednik po eni strani pregleduje avtorsko produkcijo in izbira iz nje; po drugi strani ugotavlja želje in potrebe bralca ter z ozirom nanje išče nove prodajne niše. Dejaven je v obe smeri. Prizadeva si, da bi po ovinkih ali kar naravnost vplival tako na avtorsko produkcijo kot tudi na bralsko recepcijo in ju usmerjal po svoje. V skrajnem primeru naj bi avtorji pisali po njegovih
•k -k -k
predlogih ali celo naročilih, bralci oziroma kupci pa naj bi takšno ponudbo bolj ali manj disciplinirano sprejemali.
Spričo tega ni čudno, da tako avtorji kot bralci marsikdaj občutijo posredniški aparat kot odtujeno, sprevrženo silo, ki bi jim rada zrasla čez glavo, zato se ji poskušajo izogniti in vzpostaviti neposreden medsebojni stik. Ena izmed tradicionalnih poti k temu je avtorsko branje na različnih javnih prireditvah. Nov pojav s podobno težnjo so objave na medmrežju, kjer avtorji brez posredovanja založnikov ponujajo svoja nova dela neznanim, anonimnim bralcem. Prvo ne more preseči obrobne vloge v celotnem sklopu distribucije; drugo utegne imeti boljše razvojne perspektive, vendar lahko po analogiji z avdiovizualnimi oziroma elektronskimi mediji domnevamo, da nova možnost objavljanja ne bo spodrinila stare, temveč se bo kvečjemu uveljavila poleg nje.
Kot že omenjeno, je v sodobnih razmerah vloga posredništva v razvitem literarnem sistemu nepogrešljiva. Posredniške instance si prizadevajo delovati kolikor mogoče učinkovito, tako da bi karseda zanesljivo pripeljale bralca do zaželenih odločitev. Toda naj ga še tako skrbno preučujejo, naj ga še tako obdelujejo z različnimi sofisticiranimi prijemi in si ga prizadevajo usmeriti po svoje, naj so pri tem v mnogih primerih celo uspešne, pa vendar ne morejo zmeraj z gotovostjo predvideti izida svojih prizadevanj. Bralec kljub vsem poskusom programiranja od zunaj zmeraj ohrani vsaj delček svoje izvorne svobode: zadnja odločitev pripada njemu, on je tisti, ki dokončno izbere.
OPOMBE
1	O tem priča že etimologija: besedi bralec in brati sta v sorodu z izbrati/izbirati, nabrati/ nabirati, prebrati/prebirati v konkretnem in abstraktnem pomenu (prim. Snoj 2003); podobno je pri latinskih izrazih legere, lector in njunih izpeljankah v romanskih jezikih, pa tudi pri nemškem lesen, der Leser.
2	Npr. v pogovorni in publicistični nemščini se pogosto uporablja fraza »die Qual der Wahl« - muka [zaradi] izbire.
3	Večina navedenih podatkov je povzetih po Slovenski bibliografiji in po Statističnem letopisu, nekateri po bibliografskem servisu Cobiss in še posameznih drugih virih. - Ob vsem dolžnem spoštovanju do statistične znanosti je treba posamezne navedbe jemati z rezervo, ker se je metodologija popisovanja s časom spreminjala in so bile že baze iskanih podatkov opredeljene različno tako po zvrsteh publikacij (npr. z vključevanjem ali izločanjem polliterarnih zvrsti) kakor tudi po geografsko-političnem prostoru (npr. z upoštevanjem samo slovenskih knjig, izšlih v Sloveniji, ali pa vseh v slovenščini ne glede na kraj izida). Toda tukaj nam gre predvsem za razmerja in razvojne težnje, zato se lahko zadovoljimo s približnimi, malce zaokroženimi številkami.
4	Po zadnjem objavljenem podatku je l. 2008 med 709 naslovi slovenskega leposlovja izšlo 149 romanov in kar 225 pesniških knjig (Statistični letopis 2009, spletna izdaja).
5 Že leta 1952 so pri Slovenskem knjižnem zavodu izšli Dumasovi Trije mušketirji v nakladi 10.000 izvodov in Grof Monte Cristo v 18.000 izvodih (prim. Munda in Grum I 163). To sicer niso bile prve slovenske izdaje teh dveh del, pa tudi ne zadnje; podobne knjige so izhajale od preloma 19. in 20. stoletja vsaj še do srede 90. let v več različnih izdajah in ponatisih, tudi izpod peres več prevajalcev (prim. Hladnik 1983).
LITERATURA
Anon. »Nesmrtna Angelika«. De^o 14. 9. 2009: 24.
Anon. »The World of Angelique — the official website celebrating for Anne Golon's historical novels«. <http://www.worldofangelique.com>. (Dostop 1. april 2010.)
Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2004 (Studia litteraria).
Hladnik, Miran. Trivialna literatura. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU, DZS, 1983 (Literarni leksikon 21).
Kocijan, Gregor. Knjiga in bralci. Ljubljana: Delavska enotnost, 1974.
Kocijan, Gregor (idr.). Knjiga in bralciII. Ljubljana: Raziskovalni center za samoupravljanje
RS ZSS (idr.), 1980.
---. Knjiga in bralci III. Ljubljana: Kulturna skupnost Slovenije (idr.), 1985.
---. Knjiga in bralci IV. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za
bibliotekarstvo, 1999 (BiblioThecaria 5).
Kovač, Miha. Skrivno življenje knjig. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za bibliotekarstvo, 1999 (BiblioThecaria 3).
---. Od katedrale do palačinke. Ljubljana: Študentska založba, 2009.
Munda, Jože, in Grum, Martin. Bibliografija Cankarjeve založbe 1945-1994. I. Bibliografija Cankarjeve založbe 1945-1974 in Slovenskega knjižnega zavoda 1945-1956. II. Bibliografija Cankarjeve za-ložbe 1975-1994. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1995.
Rugelj, Samo (ur.). Zgubljeno v prodaji. Sedem pogledov na prihodnost slovenske knjige. Ljubljana: Umco, 2005 (Premiera 42).
---. Slovenska knjiga včeraj in jutri. Osem pogledov na pomen domače knjige. Ljubljana: Umco,
2007 (Premiera 62).
Rupel, Dimitrij. Literarna sociologija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU, DZS, 1982 (Literarni leksikon 18).
Slovenska bibliografija 1945-. Ljubljana: Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, 1948-.
Smolej, Tone, in Majda Stanovnik. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2007.
Snoj, Marko. Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1997. 2. izd. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2003.
Statistični letopis Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana: Zavod za statistiko, 1953—; od 1994 tudi na CD-ROM. Spletna izdaja: <http://www.stat.si/letopis/>.
Štefančič, Marcel. »'Živi nevarno, prikrito in hitro'«: umrl je Tone Svetina (1925-1998), avtor Ukane, edinega slovenskega partizanskega vesterna«. Mladina št. 16 (21. 4. 1998): 47.
Splošni skepticizem v umetnosti
Maja Breznik
Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Slovenija maja.breznik@guest.arnes.si
Prispevek govori o umetnostnem postopku nasploh in o sodobnem umetnostnem postopku z »anti-umetninami«, kije vpeljal pogoje za »splošni skepticizem« v umetnosti. Vprašanje »Kdo izbere?« v tem kontekstu zadeva umetnostne institucije, ki bedijo nad reprodukcijo umetnostnega sistema kljub odporu »anti-umetniške«produkcije.
Ključne besede: kulturno posredništvo / umetniški postopek / umetnostne institucije / skupina OHO / avtorstvo
UDK 316.74:7
Izhodiščno vprašanje s kolokvija »Kdo izbere?« se opira na argument ad hominem in na izpeljano predpostavko, da o izboru literarnih del odloča določena oseba ali institucija, ki jo ta oseba zastopa. Ob vprašanju nemudoma pomislimo na urednike in založnike, vendar bi morali misliti, med drugimi, tudi na državne komisije in uradnike, ki delijo državne subvencije, na pedagoge in univerzitetne profesorje, ki pripravljajo bralne spiske za učbenike, na kritike in urednike knjižnih prilog, ter na knjižničarje, ki izbirajo knjige za javne knjižnice. Izhodiščno vprašanje hkrati namiguje, da se odločitve teh oseb opirajo na zasebni okus posameznikov, vpletenih v izbiro literarnih del, zato pripušča skoz zadnja vrata vprašanje o »objektivnosti«, ki bi ga lahko zastavili bolj ali manj naivno, kot »pristranskost« osebe, ki je ujeta v določeno institucionalno prakso, bodisi v hegemone ideologije državnih aparatov ali v založniške strategije iskanja dobičkov. Vprašanje s kolokvija predpostavlja, da končni izbor literarnih del določata politični in ekonomski kontekst, kar neprijetno zaplete zadevo, če hkrati verjamemo v ideologijo avtonomne umetnostne sfere in v »pravo« literarno produkcijo, ki se lahko vzdrži političnih in ekonomskih zahtev, iz česar, ne nazadnje, izhaja predpostavka o možnosti »objektivne« izbire.
Vprašanje s kolokvija nas, skratka, napeljuje, da spodbijamo osebne nagibe odgovornih oseb ali da obsojamo represivno naravo institucij; temu bi se radi izognili. Zato bomo poskusili razviti analizo umetnostnega postopka in na nekaj konkretnih primerov pokazati, zakaj prihaja do kratkih stikov med umetnostnimi in institucionalnimi praksami, ki porajajo zaskrbljujoče vprašanje »Kdo izbere?«.
Umetnostni postopek
Izhajali bomo iz analize Rastka Močnika (Močnik, Veselje v ^ ki se opira na Vološinova in Medvedeva in kjer se lahko poučimo, da umetnostni postopek pripada sferi ideologije kot obliki ideološke obdelave: umetnostna produkcija ima opraviti z znakovnim sistemom, ki poteka v medosebni družbeni komunikaciji, in je zato nedvomno »ideološka«. Vprašanje znaka in znakovnega sistema je zato pomembno za razumevanje umetnostnega postopka. Vološinov je v ključni točki spodnesel Saussurovo teorijo znaka, ki jo Vološinov razlaga kot mehaničen odnos označevalca z označencem: četudi se v Saussurovem jezikoslovju označevalec in označenec po naključju spojita, sta odtlej, pravi Vološinov, priklenjena drug na drugega v mrtev »ideološki znak« (Vološinov 34). Vološinov je v nasprotovanju Saussuru razvil »živ ideološki znak«, čigar življenjska sila naj bi se kazala v »notranji dialektičnosti znaka« (prav tam), kajti: »Bit, ki jo znak odraža, se v znaku ne le preprosto odraža, temveč se v njem prel^amlja.« (Vološinov 33; prim. Kržan) Sklep, ki ga je mogoče izpeljati iz te trditve, razloži problem, zakaj nasprotni družbeni skupini ni treba razviti drugega jezika, da bi lahko predstavila svoje (nasprotno) stališče: uporablja isti jezik, pojasnjuje Vološinov, vendar daje istim znakom drugačne poudarke (akcente), pomene. »Po teh teorijah je znak«, pravi Močnik, »r^efr^akcija ali prel^c^mljanje različno usmerjenih 'družbenih interesov', v njem se lomijo različni in nasprotujoči interesi - znak je arena razrednih bojev«. (Močnik, Veselje 51) Znak, ki se temu upira in ne prelamlja raznih poudarkov ali interesov ter zavrača, da bi bil arena razrednih bojev, zgubi zato vitalnost, dinamičnost in sposobnost nadaljnjega razvoja.
Umetnostni postopek izhaja iz ideološke obdelave, ki je inherentno dana vsakemu znakovnemu sistemu. Ideološka obdelava naj bi bila po Močniku »primarna refrakcija« ali primarna ideološka obdelava, ki jo zažene znak s tem, da ne odraža le »družbene biti«, temveč omogoča tudi stalno križanje raznih poudarkov, interesov. »Notranja dialektičnost znaka« naj bi bila posebej aktivna v času družbenih kriz in revolucionarnih prevratov, ko se mora jezik prilagoditi družbenim spremembam in jih odražati s sprejemanjem novih poudarkov.
V primerjavi z opisano primarno ideološko obdelavo je umetnostni postopek »drugotna obdelava«: »Umetnostne prakse potemtakem opravljajo nekakšno drugotno obdelavo ideološko že obdelanega ali, natančneje, že Weft^aktiranegd, prelomljenega gradiva.« (Močnik, Veselje 52)
Ob tem se moramo za trenutek ustaviti. Ce ideološki znakovni sistem omogoča in celo zahteva stalno refrakcijo poudarkov v znaku, tedaj se moramo vprašati, kdaj se primarna ideološka obdelava konča in kdaj se
začne sekundarna obravnava, saj ta nujno vključuje tudi primarno ideološko obdelavo. Pierre Macherey je odgovarjal na to vprašanje v knjigi Pour une theorie de laproduction Htteraire (prev. prvega dela: Macherey). Avtor, pravi Macherey, dela z gradivom, ki je »nosilec in vir vsakdanje ideologije« (Macherey 201), kar do neke mere ustreza »ideološkemu gradivu« pri Vološinovu. Ta »vsakdanja ideologija« je »brezoblični diskurz« (prav tam) — neadekvaten, nemočen, nedokončan, raztrgan in prazen diskurz, ki je hkrati pomensko poln in prazen. To je brezobličen diskurz, ki pove nekaj, ne da bi kaj pomenil. Umetnostni postopek po Machereyju »prekinja« nepretrgani govor, ko mu da obliko: ko avtor zaustavi tok govorice, ji da določeno obliko in pomen. Umetnina potemtakem vzpostavi razliko do ideološke obdelave s tem, da se upre vsakdanji govorici: s tem pa avtor tudi prevzame nadzor nad prosto in nedokončano govorico. Umetnostni postopek iz tega razloga ne pripada vsakdanji ideologiji, četudi iz nje izhaja, ker je sposoben ustvariti implicitno kritiko ideološke vsebine — s tem ko ji podeli obliko. Umetnostni postopek je ideološki po materialu, ki ga uporablja, hkrati pa tudi zunaj ideologije, saj se zna ločiti od materiala, ki ga uporablja, in vzpostaviti razliko med prosto govorico in umetnino. Macherey je opisal to situacijo z lepim patetičnim stavkom: »Tam, kjer se v svoji brezobličnosti končuje 'življenje', se začenja umetnina« (Macherey 203). Umetnostni postopek ima zato moč, da se vzpostavi kot avtonomen: čeprav umetnost deluje v okviru ideologije, je hkrati drugačna od ideologije, od katere se distancira. Prišli smo že daleč, še vedno pa nam manjka pomembna razsežnost umetnostnega postopka.
Skrite strukture
Vsako umetnostno področje ustvari svojo skrito (zgodovinsko, družbeno in empirično) strukturo, skozi katero avtorji ustvarjajo svoje upodobitve in pustijo »pripovedovati svoje zgodbe«, ne da bi mogli bistveno vplivati na način, kakšne oblike bodo na koncu imele njihove zgodbe. Avtor ali avtorica zato vedno ustvarja v skupnosti, saj pogosto dela v »nejasnem in globalnem dogovoru« (Macherey 208) z bralci, naročniki, založniki in kritiki, v dogovoru, ki je že oblikoval določeno število eksplicitnih in manj eksplicitnih predpostavk, s katerimi avtor kroti brezoblični vsakdanji govor in mu nazadnje da obliko. Avtor ne ustvarja sam in zase, temveč vedno z drugimi in za druge. Skupnost jamči za procese verifikacije, kakor tudi legitimira, denimo, žanre, stile in kanone. Skratka, skupnost vzpostavi družbeno polje umetnosti z gosto mrežo posrednikov in posredniških institucij (založnikov, kritikov in naročnikov).
Umetnostni postopek poteka na vseh treh ravneh, ki smo jih doslej opisali: raven ideološke obdelave (shema 1) predstavlja gradivo, na katerem dela umetnik z drugotno umetnostno obdelavo, s katero se upira brezobličnemu vsakdanjemu diskurzu. Umetnostni postopek potem poteka tudi na ravni družbene institucije, s tem da se sklicuje na »notranjo normativnost«, ki jo zastopajo umetnostne institucije. Z ustvarjalčevega stališča »notranje normativnosti« delujejo kot skrite strukture.
Vse ravni so povezane tako, da nobena ne more prevladati nad preostalima: drugotna obdelava ne more odpraviti primarne obdelave, brez katere umetnost ne bi mogla predstaviti nečesa »vidnega«, »oprijemljivega« in »čutnega« (če predpostavimo, da umetnost to predstavlja). Na drugi strani pa umetnika njegova povezanost z družbenimi kodifikacijami umetnostnega postopka ne ovira pri kritičnih intervencijah v primarno ideološko obdelavo. Povezanost vseh ravni vzpostavi spoj »zunanjega« in »notranjega« sveta: »zunanji« svet vstopi skozi ideološki material kot vsakodnevne gospodarske in politične prakse, medtem ko »notranji« svet vstopi skozi ustaljena pravila in norme. Četudi spodbude prihajajo z raznih strani, se lahko povežejo v umetnini in nazadnje ustvarijo »spoznavni estetski učinek«.
Drugotna obdelava
otid^lav^ klädauoie oE^ef^e^ gradiva: pretinitev proElega In
DräzobDtnega VEahdanJega gwara
___/
"BpHznatnl eslElElil ueheK
I
Primarna obdelava
lde49loEkj abOd^ua {znat bri rerrakcfa all pisütTi^ji^ raziKtH UBmerjenlh idnübenlh Intenesof - znak hri ar«na razrednih iK^ev)
A
V
Dmžbena institucija umetnosti
Skrite ^üiMure: Inrtänie nonne, pra^la, tanonl, dniZbcna pricato^anja, otu«
Shema 1: Umetnostni postopek
Tehnološki preobrat
Tehnološki razvoj stalno vpliva na spreminjanje umetnostnega postopka, vendar je imela možnost tehnološke reprodukcije podobe in gibanja v 19. stoletju poseben, če ne prelomen učinek na umetnostno produkcijo. Prelom se je najprej (v prvi polovici 19. stoletja) zgodil s fotografijo kot reprodukcijo podobe, potem s fonogramom kot reprodukcijo glasu in nazadnje s filmom kot reprodukcijo gibanja, s čimer naj bi se spremenila, kot je verjel Walter Benjamin, »celotna narava umetnosti« (Benjamin 155). Možnost tehnološke reprodukcije je nedvomno povzročila, da so ročno izdelane reprodukcije postale odveč, in sicer ne le slikarstvo, pač pa tudi druge umetnostne prakse. Na tem mestu je za nas pomembna ugotovitev, da so umetnosti zgubile monopol nad posnemanjem in predstavljanjem resničnosti.
Bistvena funkcija vseh umetnosti dotlej je bila, da so spreminjale umr-ljivo v nesmrtno, da so zagotavljale večen spomin minljivim predmetom posnemanja, skratka, da so imele »monumentalno funkcijo«, ki jo je tedaj izrinila fotografija s svojo »dokumentarnofunkcijo«.. Dokumentarno, ker je fotografija najprepričljivejša, če ujame ljudi v pravem trenutku (kairos, srečen trenutek), ko še niso imeli časa, da bi se pripravili na poziranje (Barthes, Camer^a), tako da je vrednost fotografije tem večja, čim manj »umetniška« je njena predstavitev. Monumentalna (spomeniška) funkcija velja za zlagano v primerjavi z neposrednim tehničnim posnemanjem, ki lahko prikaže osebe in situacije v kateremkoli trenutku, postavi v ospredje polivalentnost podob, v kateri se »reprezentativnost« izgubi. Iz tega razloga si je v dobi fotografije težko zamisliti slikarske portrete, četudi jih ob nekaterih priložnostih namenoma razkazujejo, da bi kljubovali dokumentarni funkciji fotografije. Nekoč so me v senatni sobi Univerze umetnosti v Beogradu osupnili slikani portreti rektorjev, ki so bili sicer očarljivi, ker so vsakega zaznamovali umetniki z vplivi raznih umetniških smeri, ki so jim pripadali, a so kljub temu pritiskali na obiskovalce s težkim monumentalnim sporočilom. Bilo je očitno, zakaj bi bilo v tem kontekstu neprimerno uporabiti preproste fotografije, ki bi lahko razkrile slabosti v veličinah oseb, ki jih je bilo treba predstaviti. Vendarle dokumentarna funkcija fotografije ni samodejna niti pri fotografiji: največja nevarnost za fotografijo, pravi Barthes, bi bila v tem, da bi jo želeli spremeniti v umetnost, se pravi, da bi njeno neposredno dokumentarno funkcijo zatrli in jo nadomestili z mo-numentalno funkcijo slikarstva.1
Po Benjaminu so sredstva tehnološke reprodukcije povzročila, da je tradicionalna vloga umetnosti postala odveč. Umetnosti so bile, razlaga Benjamin, dolgo priklenjene na religiozne kulte; ko pa to ni bilo več
potrebno, so same razvile svojo »teologijo umetnosti«, ki je kot svoj zadnji rezultat ponudila »čisto umetnost«. To naj bi bilo sprejemljivo v času predmodernih umetnostnih praks, ki so lahko zavoljo omejenih tehničnih sredstev prikazovale le »površinsko«, medtem ko naj bi tehnična reprodukcija omogočala »rentgensko« prikazovanje, s čimer naj bi se umetniška fuunkcija stopila z znanstvenim pogledom na stvari. Benjamin celo trdi, da bo umetnina dobila v prihodnosti povsem nove funkcije, med katerimi bo umetnostna funkcija čisto naključje, saj bodo »umetnostne prakse« izhajale iz politike, ne pa iz okultne umetnostne tradicije.
Če se ponovno ozremo na shemo 1, je prihod tehnološke reprodukcije spremenil odnose med ravnmi umetnostnega posnemanja. Umetnost je zgubila stik z neposrednim materialom in s tem monopol nad reprezen-tacijo resničnosti, ko ni bila več edina, ki lahko zagotovi večni spomin osebam in stvarem, ki jih prikazuje, niti ne najnatančnejša. Umetnostni postopek kot drugotna obdelava zato odtlej vzpostavlja odnos le do svojih pogojev možnosti, si zastavlja vprašanja obstoja umetnosti, družbenih pričakovanj in okusov, vloge umetnosti in oblikovanja kanonov. Če pa se umetnostna praksa omeji na raziskovanje same narave umetnostnih praks in umetnostnih institucij, tedaj lahko moderna umetnost poraja le »anti-umetnine«, dela, ki spodnašajo uveljavljeno družbeno vlogo umetnosti in ji celo odkrito nasprotujejo (shema 2).
Drugotna obdelava anti-umetnine
DOKUMENTARNA FUNKCIJA
\
V
Družbena institucifa umetnosti
Stnip Etruklune: kntetne nomie, pravila, bnom, dnjibena prttabwanja, okuE
J
Shema 2: Umetnostni postopek v moderni umetnosti
Kdo odloča?
Po »tehnološkem preobratu« se kot največja uganka zastavlja vprašanje o vlogi umetnostnih posrednikov in o njihovem odzivu na notranji razvoj umetnosti. Vse večji poudarek na samo-refleksivnosti umetnostnega postopka je načelo vprašanje, ki bi ga lahko imenovali »splošni skepticizem« do umetnosti. Izraz je nastal v povezavi s starejšim izrazom »posebni skepticizem«, ki ga je oblikoval antropolog Edward Evans-Pritchard ob raziskovanju šamanstva pri ljudstvu Azande.2 Odkril je, da glede šaman-stva obstaja precejšen skepticizem in da imajo ljudje nekatere šamane za šarlatane, ki zlorabljajo človeško naivnost, a kljub temu večina še naprej verjame v šamanstvo. Geoffrey Lloyd je argument povzel v knjigi Magic, Reason and Experience (Lloyd) in proučeval tako rekoč neizogibno vprašanje, ki izhaja iz argumenta o »posebnem skepticizmu«, vprašanje »splošnega skepticizma«. Pogoji za »splošni skepticizem« so bili izpolnjeni, pravi Lloyd, v stari Grčiji, ko je postalo nezaupanje v magične prakse obče in se je na stežaj odprlo splošnemu dvomu, ki ga poznamo iz moderne znanosti. Ksenofan, Heraklit in mnogi drugi stari Grki so vpeljali obči dvom v magijo na raznih področjih hkrati — v zdravljenju, pravnih postopkih, verskih obredih in znanstvenih razlagah, s čimer so prispevali k nastanku grške znanosti. Verjamemo, da bi bilo mogoče izpeljati podoben sklep o moderni umetnosti, ki je intervenirala v polje umetnosti z nizom transgresij glede na predpostavljene ideje o umetnosti. Marcel Duchamp je vpeljal transgresijo in demistifikacijo družbene ideje umetnosti, ko je razstavil »najdeni predmet« ali »ready-made« (s Fonl^ano, ki je morala biti pisoar, sic) namesto prave umetnine, Piero Manzoni pa je pozneje za umetnino razglasil umetnikov iztrebek (Merda d'artist^a). Oba sta pomembna kot dva izmed mnogih pripadnikov sakrilegične (sekrecijske) umetnosti, ki se poigrava z odporom do družbene institucije umetnosti.
Kulturni posredniki (v tem primeru muzeji, kuratorji in umetnostne revije) imajo zaslugo, da »poigravanje« ni izpeljalo vseh posledic, ki so že v samem »poigravanju« z umetnino, da vzpostavi splošni skepticizem kot brezpogojni in sistematični dvom v umetnost. Možnemu izidu, ki bi vodil v splošni skepticizem, so se izognili tako, da so samo »igro« ustoličili kot umetnostni postopek in jo kanonizirali kot moderno in sodobno umetnost. Kulturni posredniki in njihove institucije so umetnikom preprečili, da bi do konca izpeljali načrt, ki so ga ti že nakazali z umetniškim postopkom. Odgovor umetnikov na strategije obstrukcij, ki jih izvajajo »strokovnjaki« in umetnostne institucije, pa je uporaba teh strategij kot stalni navdih za nove umetnostne intervencije in nove kritike umetnostnih institucij. Končni rezultat je, da umetniki in umetnostne institucije ostajajo zaprti v nepretrgano igro, ki zadeva le vpletene v to igro.
Avtor ali producent?
Da se ne zgubimo med praznimi abstrakcijami, bomo predstavili nekaj konkretnih primerov in analizirali nekonsistentne pozicije umetnostnih praks na eni strani in družbenih institucij na drugi. Naši primeri so vzeti iz produkcije slovenske avantgardne skupine OHO, ki je imela tudi svojo založniško zbirko. Skoraj prelahek primer je izdaja Francija Zagoričnika Opus Nič, knjigo, ki ima, poleg naslova na prvi strani in kolofona na zadnji strani, pet praznih oštevilčenih listov. Zato bomo za primer vzeli običajno pesem Tomaža Šalamuna iz zbirke Namen pelerine iz leta 1968 (Šalamun 3):
reprezentant massimo bianchi in uradnica luciana carere
barist roberto lella in gospodinjagraziela vrech
šofer enrico marsetti in prodajalka floridia ruggiero
šofer enzo romano inprodajal^ka ana maria pavani
varilec pier giuseppe spagnoli in šivilja rita boffa
radiotehnik fulvio merlach in uradnica franca parenzan
pomorščak marino vio in otroška negovalka anna franceschi
arhitekt nereo apol^lonio in frizerka lucia pitacco
hotelski šef renato raguzzi in učiteljica silva pilat
podčastnik finance luigi romanel^li in gospodinja loredana parovel
fizik edoardo castel^li in fizik fiore^la lanfri
bančni sel fabio longaro in uradnica maria pia manin
višji uradnik alesandro castelnuovo in študentka petrina saina
poštni agentgianfrancopangher in telefonistka diana bortolotti
Pesem predstavlja seznam moških in ženskih imen s poklici, ki spominja na časopisne poročne oglase. Šalamun uporabi metodo, ki je pri članih OHO pogosta, tj. da predstavlja stvari take, kakršne so bile v resnici, brez umetniške obdelave ali vsaj, če to ni bilo mogoče, z minimalno umetniško obdelavo. Svet se v teh delih pojavlja kot (realni) svet stvari v nasprotju z (umetnostnim) antropocentričnim pogledom. Šalamun podobno vzame besede kot stvari, ne da bi jim poskušal vsiliti dodatni pomen, brez metafor ali retorike. Njegova pesem zato izpade kot sprevrnjena podoba romantične teme, ki je dotlej zaposlovala dolgo tradicijo moderne evropske poezije: ljubezensko razmerje je tukaj predstavljeno kot brezčuten časopisni oglas, ki avtomatično niza imena ženinov in nevest z njihovimi poklici. Pesem je, kot se zdi, le navedek banalnega sporočila, ki vendarle ujame najpomembnejši trenutek med osebama, ko sta si pripravljena zapriseči večno zvestobo. Kaji bi lahko bilo še bolj vzvišeno od vseh ljubezenskih situacij, ki jih prikazuje vsa ljubezenska poezija skupaj? Avtor nam da na voljo le odlomek iz časopisnega oglasa, pa vendar rutinsko sporočilo proizvede pomene in asociacije, ne da bi avtor to nameraval ali celo proti njegovi volji, saj
je, kot pravi Močnik, jezik ustvarjalen sam po sebi (Močnik, »Izpeljava«). Spoznavni estetski učinek poezije skupine OHO in Tomaža Šalamuna v tem primeru je samo-ustvarjalnost jezika, ki uhaja reifikaciji, v katero ga poskušajo ujeti.
Drugi člani skupine OHO so šli dlje, da bi zgrabili (zapisani) jezik in se uprli neuklonljivosti jezika, da bi postal stvar. David Nez in Milenko Matanovic (gl. sliki spodaj) sta se ukvarjala s pisavo, kakor jo vidimo skozi osnovno neposredno pojavnost, tj. s črto. Nez je med raznimi potovanji držal svinčnik nad papirjem in pustil roki, da sama piše (ali riše). Matanovic je naredil vrv iz lesa in vrvi, ki jo je splavil po Ljubljanici, kjer je rečni tok upogibal vrv v naključne oblike.
Vse omenjene umetnine so spodnesle tudi predstavo o umetniku kot avtorju. Šalamun, Nez in Matanovic niso »ustvarjalci« res »novih stvaritev«, saj so bodisi nekaj le prenesli iz izvirnega konteksta v kontekst umetnine ali pa so dali na voljo svoje telo kot instrument, ki je proizvedel novo umetnino (kot denimo Nez). »Umetniki« niso ustvarili nečesa novega, le še enkrat so uporabili že obstoječe, temu so dodali novo delo, niso pa »ustvarili dela iz nič«, kar naj bi ustvarjalci in avtorji počeli. Tako so pokazali na funkcijo avtorja, kakršna naj bi bila po Machereyu: oseba, skozi katero govori jezik ali obstoječi govor. Kot pravi Barthes, mora avtor navadno pozabiti na samega sebe, da bi lahko privrele na površino govorne prakse (Barthes, »Smrt«). Kar avtor res počne, razloži Barthes, je sestavljanje raznih »govorov« in »navedkov« v besedilo, in če smo kdajkoli mislili drugače, pravi, je bil za to kriv individualizem modernih družb, ki je primerjal avtorja s samim »Stvarnikom«.3 Umetnine so zatorej odkrito smešile izvir-
nost in genialnost avtorjev, ki naj bi ustvarjali brez prednikov in učenja. Z razpadom kolektiva OHO leta 1971 se je večina njenih članov tudi zares odločila, da ne bodo več delali »umetnin«.
Institucije, ki odločajo
Videli smo, da umetnostne prakse odkrito kljubujejo mistifikaciji avtorstva, a se umetnostni sistem kljub temu še naprej oklepa mita v pravni, družbena, in gospodarski razsežnosti. Le na hitro bomo našteli nekaj primerov, ki oživljajo že tako rekoč mrtev mit. Prvič, zakon o avtorskih pravicah določa načine nagrajevanja avtorjev, ki se opira na temeljno predpostavko o avtorjevi ustvarjalnosti, iz katere izhaja neodtujljiva pravica nad predmeti intelektualne lastnine. Drugič, trg umetnin, kamor moramo poleg trgovine z umetninami prišteti tudi trgovino z avtorskimi pravicami, sponzorstvo in donatorstvo ter sistem davčnih olajšav za umetnost, ki bi ohromel brez predpostavke o »kreativni vrednosti«, Bourdieujevi »simbolni alkimiji«, ki se pripisuje umetnini. Zadnji, a ne najmanj pomemben je odnos nacionalnih držav do umetnostnih institucij, ki se prav tako opira na idejo o nacionalnem umetniškem geniju in o razvoju nacionalnega značaja skozi ustvarjalnost.4 Brez te predpostavke bi razpadel sen o »kulturni državi«, ki potlej ne bi bila več tako velikodušna pri razdeljevanju subvencij za umetnost kakor tudi ne pri varovanju avtorskih pravic. Podmena je zato lahko napačna, vendar je hkrati tudi nujna za obstoj vseh teh umetnostnih institucij. Umetnik se lahko kot posameznik roga idealizirani podobi ustvarjalca v konkretnih situacijah, kot pripadnik umetnostne skupnosti, kot član umetnostnega sistema, pa mora igrati vlogo ustvarjalca - ne nazadnje tudi Šalamun, avtor citirane pesmi, ki danes velja za največjega slovenskega pesnika po drugi svetovni vojni. Tiste, ki »odločajo«, umetnostne institucije, potemtakem držijo umetnostne prakse v tesnem primežu: razpravo o avtorju so zaprle v vprašanje umetnostnega postopka, s tem da problem, ki zadeva družbeno naravo umetnosti, predstavljajo kot problem umetniške reprezentacije. Kar je vprašanje družbene vloge umetnosti in naj bi prodrlo do družbene ravni, je postalo nerešljiva uganka estetske obdelave, igra med subjektoma, ki si lastita pravico nad umetnino: med producentom in ustvarjalcem.5 Prvi zanika obstoj avtorja in se odpoveduje pravicam nad delom, medtem ko drugi zahteva vse zasluge za nastanek dela zase. Umetnostni postopek je postal igra, umetniški »trik« ali »hec«, ki naj kot tak proizvede estetski užitek in spoznavni estetski učinek.6
Vendar, kot pravi Bourdieu, »ko [umetniki] zavračajo, da bi igrali igro, ko nasprotujejo umetnosti z njenimi pravili, dela teh avtorjev ne izražajo
le dvoma o igranju igre, temveč o igri sami in verovanju, na katerega se igra opira, zato so ta dela čista nepopravljiva transgresija« (Bourdieu 170). Toda umetnostne institucije so sposobne zavrniti »nepopravljive transgresije« in, še več, oživiti institucijo umetnosti kakor feniks iz pepela, medtem ko uspešno odbijajo napade, kakor so Barthesovo težko napoved o smrti avtorja preobrnili v lahkotno metaforo in estetski domislek. Umetnostne institucije se postavljajo za čuvaje starih pravil umetnosti, s katerimi se oklepajo literarnih doktrin (ki so večinoma zastavljene s stališča avtorja, kot je kritično opozoril Barthes v »Smrti avtorja«), staromodnih založniških strategij (kjer prav tako straši avtor kot avtorjev osebni pečat v literarnih umetninah) in nacionalističnih kulturnih politik.
Življenje samo pa jim vrača nazaj. Komercializacija založništva vzpostavlja pravila, ki so nad-določena s strategijami iskanja dobičkov, po katerih avtorje proti njihovi volji silijo v vlogo pravih »producentov«. Podjetniki jim radi priznajo svetost avtorjev, če so jo ti pripravljeni zamenjati za resnično materialno eksploatacijo, ki se skriva za videzom svetosti. Njihovi materialni delovni pogoji se ne razlikujejo od delovnih in življenjskih pogojev »kognitariata«, nove armade delovnih množic, ki je zapolnila spra-znjeno mesto industrijskega proletariata. Od fleksibilne delovne sile, ki se udinja priložnostnim delodajalcem in je prisiljena pozabiti na delavske politične, socialne in ekonomske pravice, se avtorji razlikujejo po tem, da so potencialni imetniki avtorskih pravic, se pravi, da bodo lahko nekoč uveljavili rento na predmetih avtorskih pravic. Vendar v vsakdanjih produkcijskih pogojih renta deluje kot obljuba večnega vstajenja, s katero priložnostni delodajalci držijo avtorje v ponižnosti, materialnem odrekanju in težkem pričakovanju, da bodo nekoč slavni in bogati umetniki, četudi se vnaprej zavedajo majhnih možnosti.
Sistem avtorskih pravic je iluzija o pravičnem nagrajevanju umetnikov, vendar je nujna, da bi naredila prostor upravičenju deregulacije in privatizacije javnih storitev, globalizacije kulturnih trgov ter komercializacije in ho-mogenizacije kulturne ponudbe (Breznik 112—180). V teh procesih nazadnje nastajajo dominantne »skrite strukture«, po katerih so avtorji prisiljeni ustvarjati in preko katerih iščejo stik s potencialnim bralstvom. Trg kulturnih dobrin kot najpomembnejša institucija, ki opravlja selekcijo literarnih del in odloča, do katerih del bo imela javnost dostop, uveljavlja preko svojih »skritih struktur« banalnost in predvidljivost, s katero piscem ostane le še svoboda, da se prilagodijo pričakovanjem množičnih potrošnikov.
Pkn, letnik 33, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2010 OPOMBE
1	Kako se je to zgodilo na ravni pravnih predpisov, opisuje Bernard Edelman (Edel-man).
2	Jack Goody je opisal razvoj tega argumenta v knjigi The Interface between the Written and the Oral (Goody 68-69), ki se je začel z antropološkimi odkritji Evans-Pritcharda v Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande in nadaljeval z vpeljavo izraza »splošni skepticizem« v knjigi G. E. R. Lloyda Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origins and Development of Greek Science.
3	Gl. pomembne prispevke na temo avtorja v zborniku Avtor: kdo ali kaj piše literaturo?, posebni številki Primerjalne književnosti (2009), ki sta jo uredila Vanesa Matajc in Gašper Troha.
4	Taja Kramberger (Kramberger) in Braco Rotar (Rotar) razvijeta kritiko teleološkega pristopa v nacionalnem zgodovinopisju, ki predpostavlja razvoj od neciviliziranega (divjaškega) do civiliziranega stanja, do katerega naj bi prispeli s pomočjo »nacionalne kulture« in »nacionalnih umetnikov«.
5	Jernej Habjan obravnava zanimiv primer preigravanja teh dveh subjektov (»izjavljav-cev«) na polju, ki ga opiše kot »l'art na nični stopnji« (Habjan 56).
6	Več o pomembni teoretski razsežnosti pojma »hec« gl. Močnik, Extravagantia 113 isl.
LITERATURA
Barthes, Roland. Camera lucida: zapiski o fotografiji. Ljubljana: ŠKUC, ZIFF, 1992.
---. »Smrt avtorja«. Sodobna literarna teorija. Ur. Aleš Pogačnik. Ljubljana: Krtina, 1995.
19-23.
Benjamin, Walter. »Umetnina v času, ko jo je mogoče tehnično reproducirati«. Benjamin,
Izbrani spisi. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 1998. 145-176. Breznik, Maja. Kultura danajskih darov. Ljubljana: Založba Sophia. 2009. Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Ar-t. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1992. Edelman, Bernard. Le droit saisi par laphotographie. Pariz: Flammarion, 2001 [1973]. Goody, Jack. The Interface between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Habjan, Jernej. Janus, Prokrust, Bahtin: kvadraturaBahtinovega kroga. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura, 2008.
Kramberger, Taja. Historiografska divergenca: razsvetljenska in historistična paradigma. Koper: Annales, 2007.
Kržan, Marko. »V. N. Vološinov in teorija dejavne govorice«. V. N. Vološinov, Marksizem
in filozofija jezika. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 2008. 223-247. Lloyd, Geoffrey E. R. Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origins and Development of
Greek Science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979. Macherey, Pierre. »Nekaj temeljnih konceptov«. Louis Althusser idr., Ideologija in estetski
učinek. Ur. Zoja Skušek-Močnik. Ljubljana: CZ, 1980. 143-235. Močnik, Rastko. Extravagantia. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 1993.
---. »Izpeljava poezije OHO«. Problemi XXV.277 (1987): 62-63.
---. Veselje v gledanju. Ljubljana: Založba /*cf., 2007.
Rotar, Drago Braco. Odbiranje izpreteklosti. Koper: Annales, 2007. Šalamun, Tomaž. Namen pelerine. Ljubljana (samozaložba), 1968.
Vološinov, Valentin Nikolajevič. Marksizem in filozofijajezika. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 2008.
Politike branj / Politike diseminacije
Jola Škulj
ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede, Ljubljana, Slovenija jsk@zrc-sazu.si
gočepremisliti na ozadju
ustroja njenih stvarnih vezi, kot jih Lotmanova misel o delovanju semiosfere. Pogled na Bourdieujevo idejo literarnega polja in njegov položaj znotraj kulturnega ustvarjanja je soočen s semiotskim pristopom k literaturi in s semiotskimi premisleki literarno zgodovinskih dejstev, ki so
Ključne besede: uredniška politika / literarno polje / semiosfera / Bourdieu, Pierre / Lotman, Jurij Mihajlovič
UDK 82.0:655.41
Tema komparativističnega kolokvija »Kdo izbere?« posega v ekonomijo simbolnih dobrin. Založništvo skupaj z revijalnimi objavami uteleša iniciative posredovanja in predstavlja dejaven rob odločanj v vzpostavljanju kulturnih prostorov. Uredniške izbire opravljajo svoja lastna razbiranja simbolnih in ekonomskih vrednosti in so tako udeležene v zapletenem avtoregulativ-nem delovanju literarnega življenja. Pa je vloga uredniških politik zares tako bistvena? Ali so uredniške izbire dejansko odločujoč vidik nenehnega dogajanja literature? Kakorkoli že, nihče ne more trditi, da je premik v industrijo publiciranja, ki ga beležimo v zadnjih desetletjih, s svojimi interesi pravzaprav ključno udeležen tudi v izgrajevanju literarnega polja, tj. da pomaga ustvarjati prostor literarnih drž1 in uravnavati interese ali iskanja literature. Bourdieu je leta 1983, ko je opredeljeval problem kulturne produkcije, zapisal:
Da bi ga temeljito razumeli, je treba literarno ustvarjanje obravnavati v relacijskih pojmih, s konstruiranjem literarnega polja, tj. prostora literarnih drž, ki so možne v danem obdobju v dani družbi. Drže se porajajo v srečevanju posameznih dispozicij delujočih dejavnikov (njihovega habitusa, oblikovanega na njihovi družbeni poti) in njihovega položaja v polju pozicij, ki je opredeljen z razporeditvijo specifičnih oblik kapitala. Ta specifičen literarni (ali umetniški ali filozofski itn.) kapital funkcionira znotraj ^»ekonomije«, katere logika je inverzija logike širše ekonomije družbe. (»The Field of Cultural« 311)
Kulturno ustvarjanje se zapleta v nevidno mrežo stvarnih vezi, v razgiban prenos odloženega in vztrajno preoblikovanega simbolnega kapitala. Kulturne naložbe se soočajo z nepomirljivo upornostjo literarnega in umetniškega polja, ki obstaja kot bojno polje. Politike branj in politike širjenja literature vedno znova avtorizirajo to polje in ga oskrbujejo (pravzaprav mrežno vzpostavljajo) z novimi konfliktnimi in protislovnimi obogatitvami. - Osredotočeno na politike branja in politike diseminacije literature jemlje to razpravljanje v pretres nekatere Bourdieujeve koncepcije in jih sooča s semiotskimi pojmovanji kulture ter z delovanjem oziroma učinki semiosfere (Lotman, »The Semiosphere«).
Šele tedaj, ko je literarno dejanje kot natisnjena verzija ali knjiga prepuščeno v življenje in se vplete v družbeni prostor, je mogoče, da vstopa v neukinljivo igro, ki jo Bourdieu razume kot literarno polje. Založništvo tako predstavlja za sleherno literarno delo izhodiščni korak v dolgem procesu njegovega literarnega uveljavljanja znotraj literarne institucije. Skozi branja
-	in tukaj namerno uporabljamo množinsko obliko - je literarno besedilo pripuščeno, da udejanja svoje delovanje in se umešča v literarno institucijo, to pomeni, da ima možnost vstopati v družbeni prostor, da se lahko uresničuje in prepoznava njegov modelirajoči sistem (strukturo njegove literarnosti) in postaja predmet odziva, ki prejema pozornost in sloves. Bralci in kritiki, enako kot posredniki in institucionalne vloge založniških hiš, revij, šol, univerz, akademij, raziskovalnih inštitutov - vsi opravljajo vloge kot konstitutivni členi v verigi vzpostavljanja literarne institucije in pomagajo literaturi, da se prepozna kot organiziran sistem in je potencialno celo integrirana v kanon.
Uredniške in založniške politike so potemtakem udeležene v »ekonomiji« kulturnega kapitala, čeprav je v neoliberalni orientaciji svobodnega trga njihov prvotni interes predvsem zazrt v drug tip ekonomije
-	ustvarjanje finančnih dobičkov. Kot plod uredniških izbir so tako literarne transakcije simbolnih dobrin zgolj izročene v obtok, medtem ko literarni pojavi zaživijo svoje življenje v samem literarnem polju in se zapletajo v samosvojo ekonomijo v smislu običajnega vzajemnega del^ovanja med deli sistema ali strukture. V primeru literature se ideja ekonomije (lat. oeconomia < gr. oik^onomia: upravljanje hiše - oiko(s): hiša + gr. -nomia: red) nanaša tudi na upravljanje virov občestva, nečesa, kar je v skupni lasti skupnosti v danem prostoru, posebno z ozirom na to, kar je ustvarjeno alipoiesis (gr. poiein: narediti) v izvirnem grškem pomenu izdelovanja ali stvaritve. Knjižne ali e-izdaje so tako prvi pogoj za udejanjanje branj, izhodišče za dojemanje besedilne substance v bralnih pogajanjih in dolgem procesu bralnih odzivov ter literarne uveljavitve, preboja v seznam vzornih del.
Bourdieu trdi, da je literarno ali umetniško polje
vseskozi prostor spopada med dvema principoma hierarhizacije: heteronomnim principom, ki ga zagovarjajo oni, ki dominirajo polje ekonomsko in politično (npr. »meščanska umetnost«), ter avtonomnim principom (npr. »umetnost zaradi umetnosti« oziroma estetskost), ki ga tisti od njegovih zagovornikov, ki so najmanj opremljeni s specifičnim kapitalom, skušajo legitimirati s položajem neodvisnosti od ekonomije ter začasni neuspeh vidijo kot znamenje izbranosti, uspeh pa kot znamenje kompromisa. (»The Field of Cultural« 321; poudarila J. Š.)
Bourdieujeva razmejitev heteronomnih in avtonomnih literarnih načel je precej primerna za analitično razpravljanje o prevladujočih uredniških in izdajateljskih politikah v zadnjih desetletjih. Prostemu trgu zavezano založništvo nedvomno zavzeto podpira produkcijo knjig kot potrošne dobrine. Tako naklonjene logiki porabništva in budne za okus javnosti, ki sega po knjigah kot dobrini kratkočasja, namenjajo izdajateljske hiše pretežno podporo meščanski umetnosti, če si pomagamo z izrazoslovjem iz Bourdieujeve sociologije kulturne produkcije. Frank de Glas, po katerem utegne »prenos rabe Bourdieujevih pojmov na literarno založništvo izoblikovati precej jasnejšo in razumljivejšo preučevanje načinov, kako založništvo ravna z avtorskim delom«, se v razpravi o raziskovanju literarno-založniških hiš po Bourdieuju sklicuje na rezultate svoje empirične študije dveh nizozemskih založb in sklene, »da založbe izvajajo močno prepoznaven vpliv v rasti« avtorjev. (Glas, »Authors' ffiuvres« 379) Rezultat njegove študije dejansko potrjuje, da »je tem hišam uspelo stalno privabljati nove ustvarjalne avtorje v svoje programe« (prav tam), poleg tega pa so skoraj gotovo vplivale na mnoge, da so opustili svoje nagnjenje k brezkompromisnemu umetniškemu pisanju.2 Založniška industrija z odprtim očesom za uspešnice običajno ni prav naklonjena »progresivni iznajdbi posebne družbene igre« (Bourdieu, »The Field of Power« 163), ki ji spričo njenih avtonomnih principov in lastnih interesov rečemo visoka literatura, ter široko promovira komercialen okus za leposlovje. Seveda sicer še zmeraj obstajajo manjše, specializirane (kdaj pa kdaj tudi subvencionirane) založniške hiše, ki se premišljeno posvečajo knjižnim izidom inventivnega pisanja in vzdržujejo avtonomna načela v literaturi. Vendar te običajno previdno tiskajo le številčno zelo omejene naklade. Iz sredine sedemdesetih let mi ostaja prav dobro v spominu pogovor s preminulim ameriškim pisateljem Johnom Gardnerjem, ki je takrat na moje presenečenje omenjal, da so nekateri zgodnji — kasneje uveljavljeni — postmodernistični avtorji izšli pri manjših neodvisnih newyorških založbah v ne več kot tristo izvodih, pravzaprav v enakem številu natisov, kot je v tistih letih na slovenskem knjižnem trgu z dvema milijonoma prebivalcev dosegala naklado
ekskluzivna avantgardistična zbirka Znc^menja. Vendar bi v zdajšnjem slovenskem časopisju težko naleteli na naslov, kakršen je v času aktualne gospodarske in finančne krize v New York Timesu (15. 2. 2009) pozival k »Reševanju zveznih umetniških skladov«, v podnaslovu pa opozarjal na »Prodajanje kulture kot umetniške moči« (Pogrebin), pa ne zato, ker bi bila tukajšnja situacija dovolj dobra, pač pa zato, ker magično gospostvo svobodnega trga tudi v tej veji poslov še vedno straši naokrog in ostaja intenzivno vraščeno v logiko uredniških strategij. Navedeni pogled na kulturno ustvarjanje kot ekonomsko moč, izrečen v času ekonomske krize, demonstrira le možnost verodostojnejšega kulturnega čuta za literaturo kot poiesis in kaže na stvarno dejavnost založništva kot dvojnega interesa vlaganj - v heteronomni in avtonomni princip literature. V času vse očitneje porajajočih se teženj intelektualnega hlastanja po branju3 zahtevajo uredniške in založniške politike takšne vloge upravljanja in sprejemanja odločitev, ki ostajajo obveza večje profesionalne odgovornosti, pa tudi bolj dorečene avtorefleksivnosti in izostrene, kompetentne vednosti, kaj je resničen pomen literarne proizvodnje onkraj »kolonizacije trga« (Lizardo in Skiles 20).
Kaj kvalificira tistega, ki izbira? Kako orisati sklop priročnih lastnosti pri najboljših uredniških odločitvah v založništvu? Kaj je podlaga za dobro, pretanjeno presojo, za vešče izostren profesionalen pogled, katero besedilo izbrati za natis, da se bo prodajalo in širilo med bralci? Uredniški posel terja poznavalski profesionalni profil, čeravno ta gotovo deluje v bistvu skozi intuicijo in kopico izkušenj. Vendar ali lahko res trdimo, da najboljši literarni posredniki nezavedno presodijo, da utegne rokopis postati uspešna knjiga, da zmorejo imeti v trenutku neposreden vpogled in prepoznati, da je predloženi tekst poln dobrih lastnosti, in da se odzovejo in dojamejo povsem mimogrede skozi branje, brez razmišljanja, katero natisnjeno delo bo navrglo uspeh? Ustroji kulturne industrije in vzorci kulturnih izbir se z leti ali nekaj desetletji gotovo spremenijo in občutljiv profesionalni bralec ali urednik s svojim tankočutnim občutkom za dogajajoči se založniški univerzum gotovo ve, kako se odzivati na dana kulturna preoblikovanja in interese. V svoji prefinjeni neposredni vednosti instinktivno prepoznava odlike in notranjo vrednost besedila in se zaveda, kako dati v obtok to, kar ima v sebi dragocen in veljaven simbolni kapital v prihajajočem svetu literature. Vendar kako takšno vednost zaobjeti in osvetliti z vidika literarne vede?
Rečemo lahko, da se izkušen urednik dobro zaveda, kaj konstituira legitimen kulturni kapital v posameznem literarnem polju, saj mu je blizu, kako ga prepoznavati iz mnogoterosti preteklega simbolnega kapitala. Teoretski okvir, ki ga sama lahko premislim in natančneje raziščem dejavnike za
uredniškimi in založniškimi strategijami, gotovo ne pripada ne založniškim študijam in njihovim interesom preučevanja knjižne industrije (kot to poučujejo na londonski mestni univerzi4 ali na oxfordskem izdajateljskem centru za založniške študije, ki je del Šole za umetnost in humanistiko) pa tudi ne empirično zastavljenim sociološkim glediščem na literarno kulturo (kot jih raziskujeta Richard A. Peterson ali Paul DiMaggio). Moji pogledi lahko razbirajo Bourdieujev pojem literarnega polja in njegov položaj znotraj kulturnega ustvarjanja predvsem skozi semiotski pristop k literaturi in s pomočjo semiotskih premislekov literarnozgodovinskih dejstev, ki so implicitno komparativistična v pravem pomenu besede. To pomeni, da bo tu Bourdieujevo osredotočanje, kako je polje kulturnega ustvarjanja osnovano in kako se to navezuje na druga polja, kot so polje moči in r^azr^eda, ostajalo bolj ali manj ob strani, četudi takšna stališča v sociološki perspektivi nedvoumno kažejo, da je kultura simbolni spopad za primat posameznih del kakor tudi naturalizacija določenih praks. Tiste, ki jih zanima razpravljanje o Bourdieujevi »razširitvi ideje na način, kako avtorji v založniških repertoarjih strukturirajo oboje, materialno in simbolno produkcijo založniških rezultatov«, lahko napotim na de Glasov članek, napisan za konferenco SHARP5 2008 v Oxfordu (Glas, »The Usability«).
Vsako premišljevanje o kulturnem kapitalu je pravzaprav v zvezi z ključnima konceptoma polja in — v primeru literature — pisateljevega samosvojega habitusa, ki ju obsežno pretresajo Bourdieujevi spisi. Po njegovem polje predstavlja ustroj družbenih razmerij, prostor spopada za pozicije znotraj sebe in je dejansko vzpostavljeno skozi konflikt. Slučaj avtorja in njegovega dela je s stališča njegovih analiz neločljiv od pojava literarnega polja. Bourdieu v svojem lapidarnem opisu ugotavlja:
Kaj mislim s »poljem«? Kot sam uporabljam izraz, je polje poseben družbeni svet s svojimi lastnimi zakoni delovanja, neodvisnimi od onih v politiki in ekonomiji. Obstoj avtorjev, kot stvarnost in pomen, je neločljiv od obstoja literarnega polja kot avtonomnega sveta, napolnjenega s posebnimi načeli vrednotenja postopkov in del. Dejansko je invencija avtorja v modernem pomenu besede neločljiva od progresivne invencije posebne družbene igre, ki jo poimenujem literarno polje in se konstituira, ko vzpostavlja avtonomijo, tj. posebne zakone delovanja znotraj polja moči. (»The Field of Power« 162—163; poudarila J. Š.)
Vsak avtor in bralec slehernega besedila vstopa »v polje ustvarjanja, dojetega kot sistem objektivnih rel^acij med dejavniki ali institucijami in kot prostor spopadov za monopol moči konsakracije, v katerem se vrednost umetniškega dela in prepričanja v to vrednost nenehno poraja.« (Bourdieu, »The Production« 78; poudarila J. Š.)
Ko razlaga zapleten pojem literarnega polja, definiranega s posebnimi zakoni delovanja in kot avtonomen svet, napolnjen s posebnimi načeli vrednotenja postopal
kov in del, Bourdieu v svojem izčrpnem razčlenjevanju implicitno prikliče v misel drug podobno zapleten holistični pojem semiosfere, ki ga je uvedel Lotman leta 1984 in ga precej izčrpneje semiotsko in historično razdelal v knjigi Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture (1990; slov. prev. ruske različice: Znotraj mislečih svetov). Zamotana ideja semiosfere tudi vpisuje v sebi prostor možnega in sugerira pisatelju ali bralcu »vse, kar mora kdo imeti spravljeno v umu, da je vključen v igro«, če uporabim Bourdieujeve besede (»Principles« 176-177).
Ta prostor možnega pojasnjuje Bourdieu v ključnem odstavku:
Polje kulturnega ustvarjanja predlaga onim, ki se vanj vpletejo, prostor možnega, ki rabi temu, da se njihova raziskava usmerja, celo brez njihovega vedenja, k opredeljevanju sveta problemov, referenc, umskih kriterijev (pogosto osnovanih na imenih osrednjih oseb), pojmov na -izem, skratka vsega, kar je treba imeti v mislih, da bi bili v igri. Ta prostor možnega je tisto, kar pripravlja ustvarjalce posameznih obdobij, da so hkrati umeščeni in časovno zamejeni (problematike so zgodovinski produkt določene zgodovine polja), in relativno avtonomni v odnosu do neposrednih določil ekonomskega in družbenega okolja. Ta prostor možnega, ki presega individualne dejavnike, deluje kot vrsta sistema obče reference, ki pripravlja sodobne režiserje, tudi ko se ne sklicujejo zavestno drug na drugega, da so nepristransko umeščeni v odnos z drugimi, kolikor so povezani kot delovanje istega sistema umskih koordinat ali kriterijev. (Prav tam)
Polje ustvarjanja, literarno polje in semiosfera so entitete, ki se nenehno generirajo, vsaka od teh idej predpostavlja vseskozi na novo opredeljen, dogajajoči se prostor možnega, ki je »vrsta sistema obče reference« oziroma »isti sistem umskih koordinat ali kriterijev«. Bourdieu nedvoumno opozarja, da je prostor možnega zgodovinski produkt določene zgodovine polja, relativno avtonomen glede na neposredna določila ekonomskega in družbenega okolja. Polje ustvarjanja, literarno polje in semiosfera, vsak od njih uteleša sistem objektivnih rel^acij. Pravzaprav so modeli (reprezentanti ustroja ali konfiguracije), ki uprizarjajo kulturne komunikacije in notranja predelovanja v umetniškem dinamizmu.
Ta prostor možnega, ki prehaja individualne dejavnike, deluje kot avtonomna živa in dejc^vna mreža otipljivih sledi, ki izhajajo iz preteklega simbolnega kapitala in v sebi vpisujejo konfliktne in protislovne izbire za porajajoče faze kateregakoli pisanja in kateregakoli branja besedil. Prav tako ta eživa in dejavna mreža otipljivih sledi avtorizira sam prostor spopada, ki mu je besedilo podvrženo v dolgem procesu svoje konsakracije.
Sistemi in vzorci kulturnih izbir se nedvomno skozi čas spreminjajo glede na nove dejavnike in prerazporeditve v literarnem polju oziroma v semiosferi, v obeh kot sistemih stvarnih vezi — semiotskih, kognitivnih, umetniških, širših antropoloških, družbenih. Ko pojasnjuje zgodovinsko
spremembo kot nastop »nenadnega pojava mnoštva, zmožnega 'ustvariti dobo', ki vsiljuje novo, razvitejšo pozicijo spremljano s spodmika-njem ustroja začasno hierarhiziranih pozicij, nezdružljivih znotraj danega polja« (»The Field of Cultural« 340), ponudi Bourdieu zelo dobro, natančno pripombo o stopnjujočih se kompleksnostih, vsebovanih v literarnih matricah, in se tako dotakne vprašanja, zakaj skozi čas umetniška in literarna idiomatika ter strategije postanejo vse bolj institucionalizirane6 (tj. uveljavljene kot konvencije v organizmu kulture) in profesionalizirane:
Ker so celotni nizi pripadajočih sprememb navzoči praktično v zadnji (kakor je šest številk, ki jih zavrtimo na telefonu, navzočih v sedmi), je delo ali estetsko gibanje nezvedljivo na katerokoli drugo, umeščeno kje drugje v nizu; in vračanja v pretekli stil niso nikoli »ista stvar«, ker so ločena od tega, v kar se vračajo, z negativnim nanašanjem na nekaj, kar je samo bilo negacija tega (ali negacija negacije itn.)
Prav zato v umetniškem polju, ki je doseglo višjo stopnjo te zgodovine, ni prostora za naivne; natančneje, zgodovinaje imanentna »za delovanje polja«, in da bi se soočali z objektivnimi zahtevami, ki jih predpostavlja, moramo kot ustvarjalci pa tudi kot porabniki posedovati celotno zgodovino polja.7 (Bourdieu, »The Field of Cultural« 340—341; poudarila J. Š.)
Literarno polje in semiosfera, oba kot besedilni pomen generirajoča mehanizma implicirata celotno zgodovino literature kot odprtega niza in predstavljata izčrpne organizacijske vzorce bežnih zasnutkov stvarnih vezi. Literarno polje podobno kot semiosfera prikliče in predpostavlja »celoten semioti-čen prostor, ki pripada določeni kulturi«, kot pravi Lotman (Znotr^aj, 175), pri čimer ima v mislih semiotski prostor ne le ustvarjalnega pisanja, ki je nastalo na danem teritoriju, ampak tudi prevedenih del, uprizorjenih gledaliških predstav ipd. Njegove izjave o vlogi in delovanju semiosfere so ustrezne tudi za samo razumevanje vloge literarnega polja, dojetega kot družbeni prostor. Lotman zatrjuje, da »semiosfera predstavlja tako rezultat kulture kot tudi pogoj za njen razvoj in delovanje«, semiosfero razume kot »celoto in organsko enotnost žive snovi [kulture — J. Š.], po drugi strani pa pogoj za nadaljevanje obstoja [kulturnega — J. Š.] življenja« (prav tam). Če strnemo, lahko rečemo, da je živa kultut^a funkcija semiosfere in literarnega polja v njunem lastnem prostoru in času. Lotman trdi, da je »za semiosfero značilna r^aznorodnost« (Znotraj, 176), in podobno velja tudi za literarno polje. (Kot vemo, je Bourdieu opozoril na obstoj številnih pomožnih polj znotraj literarnega polja in na mnoge posebne subkulture.) Semiotski prostor »v istem trenutku in pod vplivom enakih impulzov« še vedno ni en sam kodni ustroj, ampak ni^povezanih, vendar r^azličnih sistemov, pojasnjuje Lotman (Znotr^aj, 177), medtem ko Bourdieu (»The Production«, 102) prepoznava
konfliktno integriranje številnih družbeno specializiranih podpodročij v posameznem polju.8
Semiosfera, semiotska danost, polna ustrojev različnih tipov, in Bourdieujevo pojmovanje, ki se nanaša na sociološke vidike ustroja literarnega polja, predstavljata dvoje razpoložljivih komparativističnih holi-stičnih pojmov, ki zagotavljata boljše oporišče onim, ki se vsakodnevno znajdejo pred uredniškimi in izdajateljskimi izbirami. Obe ideji utelešata literarnozgodovinski kontekst - (semiotične ali družbene) učinke preteklih, spremenljivih kulturnih realnosti -, tisto, kar je pristojno, da oblikuje sinhrono, aktualno razumevanje. Lotman pojmuje semiosfero »kot enoten mehanizem« in trdi, da »vsi ti elementi semiosfere niso statični, ampak se nahajajo v gibljivem, dinamičnem sorazmerju in nenehno spreminjajo formule medsebojnih odnosov« (Znotraj, 178).9 Ali je prav, če rečemo, da so naša branja latentna v vedno spreminjajoči se semiosferi in fluidni stvarnosti literarnega polja? Lotman pritrdilno odgovori na to vprašanje:
V zgodovini umetnosti umetniška dela, ki pripadajo daljnim in preteklim kulturam, še naprej aktivno sodelujejo v razvoju zgodovine umetnosti kot živi dejavniki. Tu ni »na delu« samo zadnji časovni prerez oziroma ploskev, ampak celotna gmota kulturnih tekstov. V bistvu je vse, kar se nahaja v aktualnem kulturnem spominu, neposredno ali posredno vključeno v kulturno sinhronijo. (Znotraj, 179; poudarila J. Š.)
Semiosfera - to zajetje celotne nagnetene zgodovine kulturnih besedil - predstavlja holistični model sveta za aktualnimi kulturnimi procesi, četudi bi jo videli kot nenehno na novo prebrano danost, vseskozi preoblikovano aktualnost ali vztrajno redefinit^ajočo mrežo kulturnih sledi, oblikovanih v nezaključenem dialogizmu. Ideja semiosfere je eksemplarično razgledišče na tr^ansgresivno realnost kulture.
Tu je pravzaprav možno skleniti in reči, da se bralne politike in izdajateljske strategije pri svojem delu soočajo z zapleteno nalogo zavezujočega, vse bolj rafiniranega razumevanja literarno ustvarjalnih procesov. Vedeti je treba, da so izdajateljske izbire in diseminacije branj ujete v brezpogojno resno in sofisticirano igro kulture, semiotsko in družbeno posredovano skozi nabor številnih različnih preteklih slovstvenih del, poetoloških sledi in matric. Vpisovanja v besedilih so vseskozi kritično motrena skozi našo lastno eksistenco in udeležena v izgrajevanju neposrednih zgodb tega, kar predstavljapoiesis. Tako fenomen hlastajočega učenega bralca, vse kaže, ni zgolj naključje.
OPOMBE
1	Bourd^eu uporabi izraz »prises de position«.
2	V tem kontekstu spomnimo na tole Bourd^eujevo pripombo: »Spopad v polju kulturnega ustvarjanja pri vsiljevanju legitimnih načinov kulturne produkcije je neločljiv od spopadov znotraj dominantnega razreda (z opozicijo med 'umetniki' in 'meščanstvom') za uveljavitev dominantnega načela dominacije (kar je navsezadnje definicija človeške uresničitve). V tem spopadu so umetniki in pisatelji, ki imajo največ specifičnega kapitala in so najbolj zavzeti za svojo avtonomijo, občutno oslabljeni zaradi dejstva, da nekateri od njihovih tekmecev enačijo svoj interes z dominantnimi principi hierarhizacije in se skušajo vsiliti celo znotraj polja s pomočjo posvetnih oblasti. Najbolj heteronomni kulturni ustvarjalci (tj. tisti z najmanj simbolnega kapitala) imajo najmanj virov za odpor proti zunanjim zahtevam katerekoli vrste. Da bi obranili lasten položaj, morajo proizvesti orožja, ki jih lahko dominantne sile (znotraj polja moči) nemudoma obrnejo zoper kulturne ustvarjalce, ki so najbolj zavezani svoji avtonomiji.« (Bourdieu, »The Field of Cultural« 322)
3	Prim. Peterson, »Six Constraints«, »Changing«, »Problems«; Peterson in Kern; Lizardo in Skiles.
4	Tu zasledimo naslednje učne module: svet knjige (10 kreditnih točk), založništvo kot posel (15 kreditnih točk), založniško pravo (15 kreditnih točk), digitalizacija in založništvo (15 kreditnih točk), prodaja knjig (10 kreditnih točk), naročanje in pridobivanje projektov (15 kreditnih točk), knjižni marketing (15 kreditnih točk), založniški proces (15 kreditnih točk), delovne umestitve in poročila (10 kreditnih točk), disertacija (60 kreditnih točk).
5	Society for the history of authorship, read^g, and publishing.
6	Misel, da je umetnost postajala bolj in bolj institucionalizirana in profesionalizirana, zapiše Siegfried Schmidt v Die Selbstorganisation des Sozialsystems. Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert (1989).
7	Bourd^eu ob tem v opombi pojasnjuje, da je zgodovinsko dojemanje vsakič nekaj svojevrstnega: »Dojemanje, ki ga terja delo, ustvarjeno v skladu z logiko polja, je razlikovalno, distinktivno (specifično) dojemanje, pozorno na razlike, odmike od tega, kar je normalno, običajno, modalno v obravnavanem trenutku, tj. od drugih del, sodobnih in predvsem preteklih — skratka, zgodovinsko dojemanje.« (Bourdieu, »The Field of Cultural« 341)
8	Prim. opombo 9.
9	Podoben pogled ima tud^ Bourdieu (»The Production« 102), ko razpravlja o okusu: »Polje kulturnega ustvarjanja je par excellence polje nesoglasja med izpostavljenimi frakcijami dominantnega razreda, ki se bojujejo osebno, še pogosteje pa s pomočjo producentov, ki branijo njihove 'ideje' in zadovoljujejo njihove 'okuse', ter dominiranimi frakcijami, ki so povsem vključene v ta boj. Ta konflikt povzroči integracijo številnih družbeno specializiranih podpodročij v eno samo polje[.]«
LITERATURA
Bourdieu, Pierre. »The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed«. Poe^^ics 12 (1983): 311—356.
---. »The Field of Power, Literary Field and Habitus«. The Field of CulturalProduction. Essays
on Art and Literature. Ur. in uvod Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press; London: Polity Press, 1993. 161—175. ---. »Principles for a Sociology of Cultural Works«. The Field of Cultural Production. 176191.
---. »The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods«. The
Field of Cultural Production. 74-111.
de Glas, Frank. »Authors' ^uvres as the Backbone of Publishers' Lists: Studying the Literary Publishing House after Bourdieu«. Poetii^s 25 (1998): 379—397.
---. »The Usability of Richard Peterson's 'Production of culture'. Concept for the
Study of Publishers' Lists«. http://www.let.uu.nl/~Frank.deGlas/personal/ FdG%20SHARP2008.pdf (31. 8. 2009).
Lizardo, Omar, in Sara Skiles. »Highbrow Omnivorousness on the Small Screen? Cultural Industry Systems and Patterns of Cultural Choice in Europe«. Poetics 37 (2009): 1—23.
Lotman, Yuri M. »The Semiosphere«. Sollet Psychology 27 (1989): 40—61. (V ruščini 1984.)
Lotman, Jurij Mihajlovič. Znotraj mislečih svetov. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 2006.
Peterson, Richard A. »Six Constraints on the Production of Literary Works«. Poetics 14 (1985): 45—67.
---. »Changing Representation of Status Through Taste Displays: An Introduction«.
Poe^^ics 25 (1997): 71—73.
---. »Problems in Comparative Research: The Example of Omnivorousness«. Poetics 33
(2005): 257—282.
Peterson, Richard A., in Roger M. Kern. »Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore«. American Sociological Review 61 (1996): 900—907.
Pogrebin, Robin. »Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force«. New Yor^k T^mes, 15. 2. 2009.
Ustvarjanje kanona sodobne vzhodnoevropske književnosti v ZDA: urednikovo gledišče
Andrew Wachte
Northwestern University, Evanston, ZDA a-wachtel@northwestem.edu
Oris zgodovine, filozofije in izzivov, s katerimi se sooča zbirka Pisanje iz nevezane Evrope (izdajajo založba Northwestern University Press) z vidika glavnega urednika zbirke.
Ključne besede: literarni kanon / vzhodnoevropska književnost / Amerika / knjižni trg / literarna recepcija / kulturni stereotipi / uredniška politika
UDK 821.161:655.4(73)
Pripovedništvo Vzhodne Evrope. Tistim redkim Američanom, ki sploh berejo prevodno literaturo, zapisane tri besede v mislih nemudoma izrišejo določeno sliko. Predvsem si predstavljamo dolg, zgoščen, melanholičen in filozofsko obarvan roman, ki se zelo verjetno osredotoča na grozote komunizma. Ce se v zgodbi že pojavi humor, bo ta bolj temne vrste, podprt z močnimi odmerki alkohola in cigaretnega dima. Takšne stereotipne predstave je težko razpršiti; to velja toliko bolj, kadar je število prevedenih knjig iz določene regije omejeno. Seveda je treba poudariti, da se v ameriških očeh oziroma predstavah stereotipi ne oblikujejo le v povezavi z Vzhodno Evropo. Latinsko-ameriška književnost se na primer kar enači z magičnim realizmom in vsak roman, ki k nam zaide iz arabskega sveta in ki ne ponuja vpogleda v »islamsko miselnost«, je nemudoma obsojen na pozabo.
Eden izmed razlogov, zakaj je literarne/kulturne stereotipe v anglo-fonih državah tako težko spreminjati, je dejstvo, da je na razpolago malo prevodne literature iz določenih delov sveta. V vodilne evropske jezike, kot sta na primer italijanščina in španščina, se veliko prevaja in tam je na knjižnih policah več kot 20% prevodne literature, na manjših knjižnih trgih je ta odstotek še večji. V Veliki Britaniji in v ZDA (torej v državah, ki na leto izdata daleč največ knjig) pa je odstotek knjižnih prevodov maj-
hen: v ZDA okoli 3% in le nekoliko več v Veliki Britaniji. V »dobrih starih časih«, pred kakšnimi petindvajsetimi ali tridesetimi leti, so velike prestižne newyorške založniške hiše, ki so bile tudi nosilke trendov za ameriško bralstvo (na primer Knopf in Farrar Straus & Giroux), kljub razmeroma majhni priljubljenosti prevodne literature letno na tržišče še vedno poslale vsaj nekaj svežih naslovov.1 V kolikor takšni založniki niso že popolnoma izginili, so svoj program do danes zagotovo prilagodili pritiskom trga in si ne morejo več privoščiti tiskanja »prestižnih« knjig manj znanih tujih avtorjev. Tako je prevodna literatura pristala skoraj izključno v domeni malih neodvisnih ali vsaj deklarativno neodvisnih založnikov, ki so sposobni poslovati z nizkimi stroški, knjige pa lahko prodajajo predvsem preko interneta in redkih neodvisnih knjigarn v ZDA. Najuspešnejše med njimi - Dalkey Archive Press (University of Illinois), Open Letter Books (University of Rochester) in Northwestern University Press - si pomagajo tudi z denarno podporo pripadajočih univerz. Res pa je, da so takšne subvencije odvisne od trenutnega finančnega stanja posamezne univerze in od pripravljenosti vodstva univerze, da podpre določen projekt, ki morda ni neposredno vezan na obstoječi izobraževalni program. Prav zato je takšna podpora nezanesljiva in nestalna.
Trenutno obstaja le ena razmeroma obsežna zbirka sodobnih literarnih del iz Vzhodne Evrope v angleškem prevodu. Nosi naslov »Pisanje iz nevezane Evrope«, izdaja pa jo Northwestern University Press. Zbirka si prizadeva zrušiti stereotipe o tem, kaj vzhodnoevropska literatura sploh je oziroma naj bi bila; pokazati želi, da pisatelji iz nekdanjih komunističnih držav Vzhodne in Srednje Evrope ustvarjajo dela, ki so stilsko in žanrsko zelo raznolika. Čeprav ni res, da avtomatično zavrnemo dela, ki ubesedu-jejo stereotipne vzhodnoevropske probleme (konec koncev je dejstvo, da je bil komunizem v Vzhodni Evropi dolga leta edina realnost in čudno bi bilo, če to ne bi vsaj nekoliko odsevalo v pripovedništvu tega konca sveta), si vseeno prizadevamo za publikacijo del, ki so v žanrskem in tematskem smislu bolj raznorodna in ki se ne ukvarjajo z življenjem znotraj komunistične politične ureditve. Pravzaprav je naš edini kriterij literarna dovršenost, torej umetniška vrednost.
Zbirka se je oblikovala v začetku devetdesetih let minulega stoletja, torej ravno tedaj, ko sem prišel na univerzo Northwestern. Takrat je ustanovo zapuščal Jonathan Brent, ki je bil dolga leta direktor založbe in ugotovili so, da so v času njegovega vodstva izdali veliko knjig iz Srednje Evrope (predvsem iz Čehoslovaške, Madžarske in Poljske). To je bil čas, ko se je v Evropi ravno končalo obdobje komunistične oblasti in zanimanje za Vzhodno Evropo je bilo veliko. Prosili so me, naj prevzamem vodenje založniške dejavnosti. Odločen sem bil, da moramo začeti izda-
jati knjige iz vseh nekdanjih komunističnih držav Vzhodne, Srednje in Jugovzhodne Evrope. Sestavil sem uredniški odbor, ki je imel dober pregled nad literarno dejavnostjo v omenjenem delu sveta (Clare Cavanagh je bila zadolžena za Poljsko in Rusijo; Michael Heim za Češko, Madžarsko in Romunijo; Roman Koropeckyj za Ukrajino in Poljsko in Ilya Kutik za Rusijo in Ukrajino). Z njihovo pomočjo sem se namenil odkrivat najboljšo prozo (včasih tudi poezijo), ki je nastala v nekdanji komunistični evropski regiji. Od prve knjige dalje, ki je izšla leta 1993, smo doslej izdali več kot petdeset prevodov iz skoraj vseh dežel Vzhodne, Srednje in Jugovzhodne Evrope (z izjemo Latvije, Moldavije in Belorusije). Načelno raje izdajamo dela še živečih in mlajših avtorjev, vendar smo nekajkrat izdali tudi dela že preminulih ustvarjalcev. Pravzaprav je naša najbolje prodajana knjiga delo bosanskega pisatelja Meše Selimovica (1910-1982) Dervišin smrt (Death and the Dervish), ki je v izvirniku izšla že leta 1966.
Še vedno sem najbolj ponosen na tiste izdaje, ki pomenijo prvi prevod nekega avtorja v angleški jezik ter na tiste knjige, ki ne podlegajo stereotipnim podobam vzhodnoevropskega pripovedništva. V zadnjem času so mi pri srcu predvsem tri: roman makedonskega pisca Goceta Smilevskega Pogovor s Spinozo (Conversation with Spinoza), delo bosanskega pisatelja Muharema Bazdula Druga knji^ga (The Second Book) in roman češke pisateljice Petre Hulove Vse to pripada meni (A// This Belongs to Me). V romanu Smilevskega je Spinozova intima soočena z zunanjo realnostjo, z vsakdanjimi življenjskimi dejstvi in situacijami, ki jih je oblikoval mislečev čas — izpostavljeni so njegova naveza z judovsko skupnostjo v Amsterdamu, njegovo izobčenje leta 1656, izoblikovanje njegove filozofske miselnosti, pa tudi problematična čustvena vez s štirinajstletno učiteljico latinskega jezika Claro Mario van den Enden ter pozneje z njegovim učencem Johannesom Caseariusom. Iz navedenih povezav se tako splete presunljiv in kompleksen portret oblikovanja neke filozofske misli in človeka, ki je to misel skušal živeti. Na nastanek Bazdulove zbirke kratkih zgodb so vplivali Danilo Kiš, Milan Kundera in Jorge Luis Borges. Bazdul piše lahkotno, obenem pa sta razvidna drzen antinacionalističen ton in jasna želja po novemu pogledu na bosansko in jugoslovansko zgodovino. Najbolj izjemno delo od naštetih je verjetno roman Petre Hulove, ki se dogaja v Mongoliji in že s prvim stavkom spodkoplje prav vse predstave, ki smo jih morda imeli o vzhodnoevropskem pripovedništvu: »Ko tu doma udari shooroo, se
začnejo po zraku med seboj loviti plastične vrečke.
2
Na začetku smo večino knjig prevzeli od drugih založnikov. Naši prvi dve knjigi, deli hrvaške pisateljice Dubravke Ugrešic, sta najprej izšli v Angliji v trdi vezavi, ki je težje dostopna bralcu. A že prva dva naslova sta pokazala na pripravljenost založnika, da zaobide stereotipe vzhodno-
evropske literature, saj sta obe deli (V žrelu življenja - In the Jaws of Life in Brodenje po toku za^vesti - For^ding the Stream of Consciousness) lahkotni in me-taliterarni. Precej hitro smo od »prevzetih« del prišli na naš lasten izbor. Zavedati se moramo, da je bilo tovrstno založništvo — zaradi pomanjkanja denarja za plačilo avtorskih pravic in prevajalskih storitev — vedno težavno početje. Do neke mere ga je olajšalo dejstvo, da je večina ljudi, ki v ZDA in v Veliki Britaniji sodelujejo pri prevajanju in branju prevodne literature, na takšen ali drugačen način del akademskega sveta.
To seveda velja tudi zame. Za razliko od ljudi, ki se na primer v Sloveniji in drugod z založništvom ukvarjajo profesionalno, jaz od univerze Northwestern za svoje delo ne prejemam posebnega plačila.3 Plačo mi daje univerza, ki moje založniško delo pojmuje kot del mojih delovnih obveznosti, ki sicer vključujejo predavanja, raziskovalno delo in še množico drugih zadolžitev. Posledično kot založnik nisem odvisen od tega, koliko dobička naše knjige prinesejo ali ne prinesejo. Univerzo zanima le to, ali so izdane knjige, ki nam morda prinesejo celo finančno izgubo, dovolj prestižne za izdajo, saj se tako univerzi dviguje ugled.4 Ugled je seveda izjemno težko izmeriti, ampak vsaj približen pokazatelj so lahko recenzije v vodilnih revijah ali nominacije za prevajalske nagrade; pomembno je tudi, ali knjige poznajo in uporabljajo naši akademski kolegi in pa seveda, ali je avtor knjige prepoznavno ime. Za Northwestern University Press je bilo na primer odločilnega pomena dejstvo, da sta dva avtorja, ki smo ju izdali (ne sicer v moji zbirki), Imre Kertesz in Herta Müller, dobitnika Nobelove nagrade za književnost.
Podobna ekonomika velja tudi za delo prevajalcev, brez katerih nikakor ne bi mogli preživeti. Večina prevajalcev je bodisi profesorjev ali podiplomskih študentov z ameriških univerz, ki so se iz tega ali onega razloga zaljubili v delo določenega avtorja in se odločili, da bodo svojo energijo, čas in znanje vložili v to, da bo izbrani avtor dostopen tudi angleško govorečemu bralcu. Kar zadeva nabiranje predlogov za prevod, sta v praksi uporabljeni predvsem dve metodi. V primeru jezikov, ki jih dobro poznam (ruščina, bosanščina/hrvaščina/ srbščina in slovenščina) in/ali v primeru držav, katerih literarno produkcijo redno spremljam, čeprav jezika ne razumem dobro (Bolgarija, Makedonija in Poljska), je stanje takšno, da preprosto poznam veliko prevajalcev. Če torej najdem roman, ki bi ga rad objavil, ponavadi najdem tudi nekoga, ki bo pripravljen delo prevesti. Kadar pa govorimo o državah, o katerih ne vem skoraj nič, sem odvisen bodisi od uredniškega odbora ali pa še pogosteje od posameznih prevajalcev, ki mojo zbirko poznajo in pristopijo k meni s predlogom — torej z delom, ki bi ga radi prevedli ali pa so ga morda že prevedli.
Glede na to, da moram uredniški odbor prepričati o kakovosti sleherne knjige, ki jo nameravamo izdati, lahko nastane problem, če nimamo na
voljo prevoda, ki bi ga lahko prebral zunanji ocenjevalec (še preden lahko odobrimo tiskanje, mora vsaka knjiga dobiti pozitivno oceno nekoga, ki ni v uredniškem odboru). Temu problemu se lahko izognem tako, da v primeru področij, kjer nimamo na razpolago veliko zunanjih strokovnjakov (na primer za madžarski jezik in književnost), na pomoč pokličem tistih nekaj profesorjev, ki delujejo na izbranem področju. Ti potem predlog pregledajo in ocenijo, še preden je prevod zaključen. Še pomembneje pa je, da lahko tudi sam preberem dobršni del predlaganega besedila, preden je sprejet v objavo, saj nikoli ne objavim ničesar, kar mi osebno ni všeč. Ponavadi je prevod že na voljo vsaj v enem jeziku, ki ga razumem.
Kot primer do zdaj najbolj kompleksne in zapletene situacije, s katero smo se morali soočiti, naj navedem izdajo romana estonskega romanopisca Jaana Krossa (1920-2007). Kontaktiral me je prevajalec Eric Dickens in me vprašal, ali bi nas morda zanimal Krossov roman Vastutuulelaev (Jadr^anje proti vetru; Sailing against the Wind), ki pripoveduje zgodbo Bernharda Schmidta, izumitelja astronomskega teleskopa, ki se je rodil v Estoniji. Roman je postavljen v različna okolja: na Filipine v času popolnega sončnega mrka, na otok Maissaar, kjer se je Schmidt rodil, in v Nemčijo dvajsetih in tridesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, v obdobje hude ekonomske krize. V zgodbi je tudi nekaj ljubezenskih primesi in tehničnih elementov, ki zadevajo teleskope in brušenje teleskopskih leč. Izkazalo se je, da obstaja francoski prevod, ki sem ga prebral in mi je bil všeč. Našli smo tudi ocenjevalca, ki je razumel francosko. Upoštevaje dejstvo, da je Dickens izdal že veliko prevodov iz estonščine in da uživa ugled odličnega prevajalca, se je uredniški odbor odločil za izdajo, četudi nismo prebrali niti besede v angleščini. Vendar je moral Dickens, ki v nasprotju z večino naših prevajalcev ni zaposlen v akademski sferi in se preživlja zgolj s prevajanjem, estonsko vlado zaprositi za štipendijo, preden se je sploh lahko lotil projekta. Štipendijo so mu odobrili in trenutno je prevajanje v teku. Izid pričakujemo naslednje leto.
Najbolj zadovoljujoč in izpolnjujoč del mojega uredniškega dela je priznanje, ki ga večkrat slišim, in sicer da zbirka »Pisanje iz nevezane Evrope« dejansko ustvarja literarni kanon Vzhodne, Srednje in Jugovzhodne Evrope v angleškem jeziku. To morda zveni nekoliko megalomansko, ampak resnica ni daleč od zapisanega. Kot vse kaže, bo angleščina še naprej ostala prvi svetovni jezik. To pa pomeni, da bodo morali avtorji, ki prihajajo iz manjših, manj znanih dežel in ki želijo prodreti onstran meja svoje domovine, svoja dela prenesti v angleški jezikovni kod. Pomembna jezika sta tudi francoščina in nemščina, da se razumemo, vendar pa je veliko bolj verjetno, da bo na primer bralec iz Španije, z Norveške ali iz Rusije albanskega pisca bral v angleškem in ne v francoskem ali nemškem
prevodu. Še več, zbirka »Pisanje iz nevezane Evrope« je edina knjižna zbirka v angleškem jeziku, ki se podrobno zanima za literaturo iz te razmeroma velike regije.5 Obstajajo še druge manjše založniške hiše (že omenjeni Dalkey Archive Press in Open Letter Boks) in množica drobnih založniških projektov, ki se zanimajo za sodobno literaturo iz Vzhodne Evrope, a na leto izdajo le eno ali dve tovrstni knjigi. »Pisanje iz nevezane Evrope« ima tako neprimerno večji obseg in s tem vlogo pri oblikovanju literarnega kanona Vzhodne Evrope. To vlogo jemljemo zelo resno in upamo, da bomo z našo dejavnostjo kljub vedno slabši finančni situaciji v ameriškem založništvu lahko nadaljevali tudi v prihodnje.
Prevedla Leonora Flis
OPOMBE
1	Kar zadeva vzhodnoevropsko literaturo, jo je »pokrivala« na primer Penguinova zbirka »The Other Europe« (»Druga Evropa«), v kateri so izšla tudi dela tako pomembnih literarnih ustvarjalcev, kot sta na primer Danilo Kiš in Tadeusz Borowski.
2	Petra Hulova, All This Belongs to Me. Prev. Alex Zucker. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2009, 3. »Ger« je šotor mongolskih nomadov (jurta), »shooroo« pa puščavski veter.
3	Upravičen sem do izplačila 1% zaslužka od prodanih knjig iz zbirke, ki jo urejam, kar v dobrem letu nanese okoli 300 dolarjev.
4	Ta članek ni namenjen natančnemu razčlenjevanju finančnega stanja na ameriških univerzah, vendar moram poudariti, da Northwestern University Press, tako kot velika večina univerzitetnih založniških hiš (edina izjema so največji univerzitetni založniki, kot so Chicago, Harvard, Oxford in Cambridge University Press), z vsako izdano knjigo izgubi nekaj denarja. Tako je tudi z zbirko, ki jo urejam. Upamo le, da bo določena knjiga prodajana dovolj dobro, da bomo lahko pokrili vsaj stroške tiskanja, vezave in distribucije in pa morda še del uredniških stroškov. V naši zbirki izdamo 250 knjig s trdo vezavo, ki jih prodamo knjižnicam, in pa med 750 in 1000 mehko vezanih, ki so namenjene splošni prodaji, ki se dandanes odvija predvsem po spletu, bodisi neposredno preko naše spletne strani ali pa preko posrednika, kot je na primer Amazon.com.
5	Obstaja še nekaj zbirk, ki so skušale oblikovati kanon starejših del, ki so nastala na območju Vzhodne Evrope; najvidnejša med njimi je zbirka založbe CEU Press.
Kdo izbere prevodno literaturo? Prevajalske subvencije v Nemčiji
Slavka Rude-Porubska
Univerza Ludvika Maksimiljana, München, Nemčija slavomira.porubska@campus.lmu.de
Članek na podlagi predpostavke, daje literarno prevajanje družbena praksa, obravnava dva nemška subvencijska programa in s tem ilustrira postopek izbiranja literature v kontekstu asimetričnih smernic mednarodnega prevajanja
Ključne besede: knjižni trg / uredniška politika / prevodna literatura / literarno prevajanje / prevajalske subvencije / Nemčija
UDK 655.4(430):81'255.4
Prevajalske subvencije: »podrejene odločitve«?
Razpravljanje o izbiranju prevodne literature se ponavadi osredotoča predvsem na vlogo urednika in založnika, dejavnikov, ki ju Michaela Wolf razume kot glavni avtoriteti v literarnem polju (Wolf, »Zum sozialen Sinn« 266). V kompleksni mreži tesno povezanih akterjev uredniki in urednice delujejo kot pobudniki prevodov, obenem pa tudi kot stražarji, ki prevodom prepovedujejo vstop na knjižni trg. Domet njihovega vpliva sega vse do odobritve novih prevodov in do samih bralcev in bralk. Nemški založnik Samuel Fischer je svoj vpliv na presojanje, kaj je vredno izdati in brati, nekoč ponazoril kar s tole opredelitvijo uredniškega poslanstva: »Najpomembnejša in najlepša naloga založnika je bralcem vsiliti nove vrednote, ki si jih sploh ne želijo.« (Mendelssohn 5)1 Družbene odločitve pri spodbujanju prevajanja se razlikujejo od uredniških. Prvič, izbori subvencijskih programov ponavadi temeljijo ravno na uredniških odločitvah; te izbore lahko zato označimo za »podrejene«. Drugič, odločitev družbe za promocijo prevajanja lahko potrdi, popravi ali celo zavrne založnikovo odločitev. Verjetnost, da se bosta družba in urednik odločila za isti prevajalski projekt, obstaja le takrat, ko imata skupne vrednote. Podpora določenim prevajalskim projektom gre torej vštric z določitvijo še posebej relevantnih naslovov. Dodeljevanje subvencij tako postane metoda soodločanja o prihodnosti določene prevedene literature.
Na podlagi trditve, da je izbiranje prevodne literature družbeno pogojen proces, pričujoči članek obravnava predpogoje odločanja za prevode,
obenem pa učinkovanje teh odločitev na knjižni in prevajalski trg. Clanek se osredotoča na vprašanje, ali prevajalski subvencijski programi (zlasti tisti, ki podpirajo literarno produkcijo »majhnih« jezikov in marginalizira-nih literatur) spreminjajo asimetrično literarno izmenjavo med narodi. Ali pa programi podpore prevajanju, ki so večinoma državni, nemara sploh ne učinkujejo na smernice mednarodnega prevajalstva? Clanek si ne prizadeva zajeti vseh subvencij, ki so založnikom na voljo, niti vseh tistih, ki podpirajo prevajanje leposlovja v nemščino. Na podlagi predhodne analize dveh izbranih prevajalskih subvencijskih programov, ki ju izvajata Društvo za promocijo afriške, azijske in latinskoameriške literature in Berlinski literarni kolokvij, ki podpira prevajanje srednje- in vzhodnoevropske literature, razprava podaja nekaj splošnih značilnosti razmerja med prevodno literaturo in mehanizmi mednarodne literarne izmenjave.
Izbiranje prevodne literature in utvara o avtonomni izbiri
Naše uvodno razmišljanje zadeva Pierra Bourdieuja in njegovo študijo o sodobni založniški dejavnosti v Franciji »Konservativna revolucija v za-ložništvu«.2 Bourdieu razgrne dejanske mehanizme odločanja v domnevno avtonomnem literarnem polju. Vsi naslovi, ki se potegujejo za prevajalske subvencije, so namreč že sami proizvod procesa izbiranja, ki so ga opravili prevajalci, literarni agenti, uredniki in (splošneje) »strukturne prisile, ki jih narekuje polje« (Bourdieu, »A Conservative« 137). Bourdieu prepričanje o avtonomnem odločanju založnikov označi za »utvaro, ki širi nevednost o številnih prisilah polja« (124), in opozori na glavna načela uredniških strategij glede izbire (prevodnih) del, ki se bodo uvrstila na založnikov seznam. Literarnim prevodom pripiše dve »antagonistični funkciji« (147-152), ob tem pa ugotavlja, da se založniške strategije pri izbiri prevodov ujemajo z založnikovim statusom v založniškem polju (odvisnim od višine in razporeditve založnikovega kapitala) in z njegovim »manevrskim prostorom« (137).
Bourdieujeva raziskava značilnosti francoskega založništva in njegova študija o družbenih pogojenostih mednarodne cirkulacije kulturnih dobrin (gl. Bourdieu, »Les conditions«) sta zastavili nova vprašanja sociologiji prevajanja. V članku »Osnutek sociologije prevajanja« Johan Heilbron in Gisele Sapiro vpeljeta nov model za analizo literarnega prevajanja, pojmovanega kot družbena praksa, vpisana v specifičen družbeni kontekst. Analiza mora upoštevati tri razsežnosti. Prvič, obravnava naj strukturo mednarodnega polja kulturne izmenjave. Literarne prevode je treba umestiti v njihov prostor, ki ga strukturirajo hierarhični odnosi med narodi, njihovimi jeziki in literaturami. Drugič, razlikovati je treba med različnimi vrstami prisil, ki
vplivajo na proces literarne izmenjave. To so zlasti politična, ekonomska in kulturna dinamika, ki vzpostavljajo hierarhijo mednarodnega prevajalskega trga. Tretjič, recepcijo literature je treba proučevati z upoštevanjem vloge kulturnih in literarnih posrednikov, tako institucionalnih kot individualnih, ki sodelujejo pri produkciji in distribuciji prevodne literature.3
Ključni elementi pri zarisu položaja subvencijskih teles v vlogi posrednikov so tržne in nacionalne prisile. Sapiro ugotavlja, da je s širše perspektive državne subvencije mogoče razumeti kot sistem, ki ščiti kulturno produkcijo (na primer prevodno literaturo) ter temelji na načelu vrednosti in ne tržnosti: »Čeprav je tržišče pripomoglo k osvoboditvi literarne dejavnosti od državnega nadzora, je v liberalno-demokratičnih ureditvah ravno država razvila kulturno politiko, s katero podpira področje omejene produkcije« (Sapiro, »The Literary« 460). Vzpostavitev subvencijskih sistemov je zato »načeloma namenjena omejevanju ekonomske prisile v tržnih demokracijah, zlasti zmanjševanju nevarnosti standarizacije in homogeniza-cije tiste kulturne produkcije, ki je priljubljena pri največjem številu potrošnikov« (Heilbron in Sapiro 100). V takem kontekstu ponudba in povpraševanje nista več prepuščeni zgolj mehanizmom svobodnega trga, temveč ju usmerjajo specifični dejavniki in njihovi interesi. Kolikor sta produkcija in distribucija prevodne literature na različne načine subvencionirani, je treba vplive na prevodno literaturo razumeti kot družbeni konstrukt, ki ga ustvarjajo prevajalske subvencijske komisije v skladu z lastnimi vrednotami in preferencami. Ker sistem ponudbe temelji na subvencijskih sredstvih, tudi odločitve o dodelitvi prevajalskih subvencij postanejo sila, ki deluje na prevajalskem trgu in s tem oblikuje tudi literarno polje nasploh. Subvencijske komisije sodelujejo pri vzpostavljanju »zgodovinsko spremenljivega rangiranja literarnih trendov, preferenc in gibanj« (Hagestedt 306). »Vrednostno naravnano delovanje«4 institucij, ki podeljujejo denarno podporo, je razvidno denimo pri odločitvah o izhodiščnem jeziku pa tudi o prevodnem projektu samem. Te odločitve v določeni meri pričajo tudi o pomenu literarne izmenjave med dvema jezikoma preko prevajanja. Subvencijske komisije lahko spremenijo »prevladujočo arhitektoniko literarnega in kulturnega opredeljevanja v prid institucionaliziranim vrednotam« (Dücker in Neumann 17). Prevajalska subvencijska telesa imajo tako možnost potrditi ali zavrniti urednikovo izbiro. Prevajanja literature zato ne pogojujejo le urednikove izbire, temveč tudi metode nominiranja in preference posameznega subvencijskega telesa.
Subvencijska politika prevajanja: (re)produciranje asimetričnih smernic mednarodnega prevajanja?
Pričujoče poglavje obravnava značilnosti globalnega prevajalskega trga s posebnim poudarkom na hierarhičnih razmerjih (razmerjih moči) med narodi, literaturami in jeziki. Proučevanje subvencijskih programov, ki podpirajo prevajanje literarnih del, zahteva preusmeritev pogleda od nacionalnega knjižnega trga k mednarodnemu pa tudi upoštevanje modelov tega globalnega prostora.5 S tem ko svetovni sistem prevajanja opredeli kot »transnacionalno kulturno polje v Bourdieujevem smislu« (Heilbron 432), Johan Heilbron poudarja, da je za literarne izmenjave značilna neenakost, ki priča o kulturni dominaciji. Posebno pozornost je treba posvetiti makrostrukturi globalnega prevajalskega trga, in sicer z vidika pogostosti kot tudi smeri prevajalskih dejavnosti:
Pogostost prevodov, kulturni transfer, ki ga sprožajo, in njihova smer so odvisni od položaja posamezne kulture ali jezika in od njune moči v mednarodnem polju. Prevajalske smernice odsevajo hierarhična razmerja na globalnem trgu, podobno kot pri pretoku blaga. (Bachleitner in Wolf 2)
Zaradi skupnih značilnosti mednarodnega prevajalskega sistema je za prevajalske smernice značilna neenakost, saj je več prevodov usmerjenih od središča k obrobju kot narobe. Nemščina zavzema v hierarhični strukturi visoko-središčnih, središčnih, pol-obrobnih in obrobnih jezikov6 središčno vlogo (Heilbron 434). Bachleitner in Wolf jo uvrščata med jezike, ki prevladujejo na globalnem prevajalskem trgu. V njenem statusu je mogoče videti posledico dolge tradicije literarne produkcije, visoko razvitega literarnega jezika, razvejanosti literarnih institucij in kultiviranega literarnega občinstva (Bachleitner in Wolf 3-4). Za jezike s središčno vlogo v mednarodnem prevajalskem sistemu je v nasprotju z drugimi jeziki značilen sorazmerno visok delež pri prevodih, in sicer tako pri uvozu kot pri izvozu prevodnih naslovov. Nemški založniški trg je odprt za prevode s tujih jezikov, po trenutnih statističnih podatkih7 pa literarni prevodi predstavljajo 10% nemškega knjižnega trga.
Slika 1: Število prevodov v nemščino in iz nemščine (glede na prodajo prevajalskih pravic) v letih 1998-2008
—Pievüdi v neniičino -■- Prevodi iz iiein^tiiit
1K>»
aijiij 80(0 Tnrn ■50(0 GÜLÜ JDLD
-30110
10(0 n
-lasi äjjü aai acji jjja iüui ME ŽCK	sjiia
Na vzpostavitev subvencijskih programov, ki pocipirajo uvoz prevodov iz marginaliziranih jezikov v nemščino, ki je središčni jezik, je mogoče gledati kot na nasprotovanje mehanizmom mednarodne cirkulacije prevodov. Ob tem si lahko postavimo vprašanje, ali prevajalske subvencije zares delujejo kot »ukrepi za zmanjšanje asimetričnih smernic na prevajalskem trgu« (Bachleitner in Wolf 5). Po drugi strani pa Heilbron, upoštevajoč njeno središčnost, opozarja, da ima nemščina »možnost igrati vlogo vmesnega ali posredovalnega jezika« (435) med pol-obrobnimi in obrobnimi jeziki. S tega vidika prevajalske subvencije prispevajo k ohranjanju lastnosti in smernic globalnega trga ter sodelujejo pri akumulaciji »tranzitnih profi-tov« za nemščino v vlogi vmesnega jezika. Prevajalske subvencijske programe, ki jih izvajajo različne institucije, lahko zato razumemo kot izraz »strateškega prizadevanja za akumulacijo literarnega kapitala« (Pölzer 17).
Opazovanje trga: dejstva o knjižnem trgu in prevajanju v Nemčiji
Preden preidemo k neposredni analizi subvencijskih programov, naj strnjeno predstavimo prevajalski trg v Nemčiji. Spričo njegove bogate tradicije je za nemški knjižni trg mogoče reči, da je naklonjen prevajanju leposlovja iz drugih jezikov. V letu 2008 je delež prevodov predstavljal skoraj 9% celotne knjižne produkcije v Nemčiji. V podkategoriji leposlovja, ki zajema pripovedno prozo, poezijo in dramatiko, je ta delež leta 2008 dosegel skoraj 25%. Posebno pozornost je treba nameniti izhodiščnim jezikom prevodne literature. Prevodi iz angleščine predstavljajo najvišji delež na
nemškem trgu, in sicer 67% v letu 2008. Francoščina se uvršča na drugo mesto z več kot 11% deležem. Na Seznc^mu 10 izhodiščnih jezikov za prevode v nemščino so leta 2008 italijanščina, španščina, nizozemščina, švedščina, ruščina, japonščina, turščina in norveščina močno zaostajale za angleščino in francoščino. Ta seznam, kakor tudi Seznam 20 izhodiščnih jezikov za prevode v nemščino, se iz leta v leto zelo malo spreminja. Jeziki, med katerimi so poljščina, madžarščina, kitajščina in arabščina, se sicer uvrščajo na Seznam 20 izhodiščnih jezikov, toda delež prevodnih naslovov iz teh jezikov v nemščino trenutno predstavlja manj kot 1% vseh prevodov.8 Število prevodov iz angleščine, ki ostaja prevladujoči izhodiščni jezik, je med letoma 2004 in 2008 naraslo za 10% (2004: 57%, 2008: 67%). V nasprotju s tem visokim porastom pa je delež prevodov iz jezikov, ki na Seznamu 20 izhodiščnih jezikov niso omenjeni, v istem obdobju znatno upadel. Še leta 2004 je bilo 20% (670 del) vseh prevodnih naslovov, prevedenih iz »majhnih« ali manjših jezikov, leta 2008 pa se je ta delež spustil kar na 2% (149 del).
Slika 2: Število prevodov iz angleščine v nemščino in prevodov iz tistih jezikov, ki niso uvrščeni na Seznam 20 izhodiščnih jezikov za prevode v nemščino, v letih 2004-2008
Spričo vseh teh ugotovitev je treba poudariti, da gre trenutni porast števila prevodov v nemščino pripisati predvsem iz angleščine prevedenemu leposlovju in ne leposlovju v drugih jezikih. Vlogo prevajalskih subvencij, ki podpirajo majhne ali manj upoštevane jezike in literature, je zdaj treba še podrobneje obravnavati.
Prevajalske subvencije v Nemčiji
Program subvencioniranja prevodov, ki ga izvaja Društvo za promocijo afriške, azijske in latinskoameriške literature (litprom), je bil ustanovljen leta 1984 po Frankfurtskem knjižnem sejmu leta 1980, katerega glavna tema je bila »Črna Afrika«. Ustanovitvi programa je botrovala ugotovitev, da leposlovna dela južne poloble na evropskem knjižnem trgu niso zadovoljivo zastopana. Društvo letno financira od dvajset do trideset prevajalskih projektov, tako da je doslej izšlo 573 del pripovedne proze, poezije, dramatike, otroške in mladinske književnosti ter esejistike. Vsa besedila so bila subvencionirana med letoma 1984 in 2009, med njimi pa najdemo tudi prve prevode uveljavljajočih se avtorjev iz držav, kot so Tajska, Indonezija, Malavi, Kenija in Urugvaj.
Leta 1993 je Berlinski literarni kolokvij (LCB) ustanovil Program za promocijo prevajanja srednje- in vzhodnoevropske literature, da bi zagotovil dostop do novih knjig iz držav in regij, ki so bile do leta 1989 za t. i. Železno zaveso, potem pa na obronkih nemškega javnega interesa (npr. Albanija, Latvija in Slovaška). Ta program subvencionira okrog petnajst prevodov sodobne proze, poezije in dramatike letno. Od leta 1993 do 2009 je bilo subvencioniranih 251 prevodnih naslovov.
Odločitvi za analizo teh dveh programov za subvencioniranje prevodov je botrovalo več dejavnikov. Prvič, oba programa je mogoče razumeti kot primera politične volje za podporo prevajanju iz določenih književnosti. Z drugimi besedami, razumeti ju je mogoče »kot politično-kulturni odgovor na sorazmerno ekonomsko šibkost določenega trga« (Kessel 429) — kot tisti segment knjižnega trga, ki marginaliziranim literaturam omogoča, da dosežejo nemško govoreče bralstvo. Drugič, potrebna finančna sredstva za namene teh programov zagotavlja država: v tem primeru sta to Nemško zvezno ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve (Auswärtiges Amt) in Švicarski umetniški svet Pro Helvetia. Najvišja vrednost subvencije sega do 90% kritja celotnega stroška prevoda. Tretjič, z ozirom na razdeljenost severne in južne poloble ter Zahodne in Vzhodne Evrope oba programa posegata v problematiko kulturne dominacije in asimetrične cirkulacije prevodnih besedil. Zagotavljata namreč, da delujeta kot protiutež pomanjkanju literarne prepoznavnosti in asimetričnim smernicam v prevajanju. Vzorčni primerki literarnih del (več kot 800 naslovov), ki sta jih subvencionirala ta programa, ponujajo uporabno podlago za proučevanje potencialne vloge državnih institucij pri spreminjanju prevajalskih smernic v mednarodnem prevajalskem sistemu. Ob tem se postavljata zanimivi vprašanji o učinku teh subvencijskih programov in o raznolikosti izhodiščnih jezikov, uvrščenih na njun seznam. Odgovore bomo poskušali poiskati preko obravnave treh ključnih vidikov.
Začetne ugotovitve in razprava
Delež subvencioniranih prevedenih del med vsemi prevodi in vsi v Nemčiji objavljeni prevodi leposlovja
Med letoma 1998 in 2008 sta oba programa subvencionirala povprečno petinštirideset prevodov letno. Delež besedil, ki jih subvencionirata litprom in LCB, povprečno znaša 0,67% vseh v Nemčiji objavljenih prevodov in 0,76% vseh leposlovnih del v tem obdobju. V primerjavi s številom vseh prevodov je vloga teh subvencij obrobna. V Nemčiji ostaja literarna produkcija obrobnih jezikov iz kulturnih področij z majhnim kapitalom marginalna.
Slika 3: Delež prevodov, ki sta jih subvencionirala litprom in LCB med vsemi prevodi / vsi leposlovni prevodi v letih 1998-2008
Raznolikost izhodiščnih jezikov, vključenih v subvencijska programa
Subvencijska programa sta od leta 1984 oziroma 1993 subvencionirala prevode leposlovnih del iz devetintridesetih jezikov.9 Priprava Sezna^ma petih izhodiščnih jezikov v okviru teh dveh programov pokaže na njuno močno osredotočenost na določene jezike in jezikovne skupine. Med naslovi, ki jih je podprl litprom, so najpogostejši izhodiščni jeziki španščina (28%), angleščina (23%), arabščina (17%), francoščina (13%) in kitajščina ter portugalščina (obe 4%). Delež teh najbolj zastopanih jezikov predstavlja 89% vseh subvencioniranih prevodov programa.10 Deleži najpogostejših jezikov, ki jih subvencionira LCB, pa so naslednji: ruščina (40%),
poljščina (16%), jeziki Jugovzhodne Evrope, vključno s slovenščino, srbščino, hrvaščino, bosanščino in makedonščino (10%), madžarščina (9%) in češčina (8%); ti skupaj zavzemajo 83% delež izhodiščnih jezikov v tem programu.11 Ob pogledu na maloštevilnost prevladujočih izhodiščnih jezikov na seznamu subvencioniranih besedil je mogoče po analogiji določiti, na kakšnih temeljih poteka izbira izhodiščnih jezikov leposlovnih prevodov na nemškem knjižnem trgu. Obenem se pokaže, da prevajalskim sub-vencijskim programom ne uspe zajeziti naraščajoče premoči angleščine pri prevajanju v nemščino.
Delež subvencioniranih prevodov iz posameznega jezika v okviru vseh leposlovnih prevodov iz tega jezika
Ko primerjamo število vseh leposlovnih prevodov s številom subvencioniranih prevodov iz posameznega jezika, se za ruščino, poljščino in madžarščino izkaže, da delež z naslova LCB subvencioniranih prevodov iz teh jezikov med letoma 1998 in 2008 predstavlja več kot 10% vseh objavljenih leposlovnih prevodov iz teh jezikov. Subvencioniranih je bilo 11,6% vseh prevodov iz ruščine, 14,1% prevodnih naslovov iz poljščine in 17,4% vseh madžarskih naslovov. Prispevek subvencijskih programov k prevajanju iz določenih jezikov je torej statistično pomemben: programa sodelujeta pri oblikovanju repertoarja leposlovnih prevodov v nemščino. Poleg tega je število leposlovnih prevodov iz teh treh jezikov naraslo v času, ko je bila posamezna od teh treh držav častna gostja Frankfurtskega knjižnega sejma. Delež subvencioniranih prevodov med leposlovnimi prevodi iz teh treh jezikov je dosegel vrh v različnih obdobjih. Leta 2003 je delež subvencioniranih prevodov iz ruščine narasel na 15% vseh prevodov iz ruščine. Delež finančno podprtih prevodov iz poljščine se je leta 2000 povzpel na 30% vseh leposlovnih prevodov iz poljščine. Spričo gostovanja Madžarske kot častne gostje na Frankfurtskem knjižnem sejmu leta 1999 pa je delež subvencioniranih prevodov madžarskega leposlovja presegel 85%.
Podobno je mogoče ugotoviti za arabščino. Leta 2004,12 ko je bil arabsko govoreči svet častni gost Frankfurta, je bilo v Nemčiji objavljenih petintrideset prevodov iz arabščine (med njimi pa osemnajst leposlovnih del). Litprom je leta 2004 financiral trinajst leposlovnih prevodov iz arabščine, približno dvakrat toliko kot v prejšnjih letih. V istem letu je delež subvencioniranih prevodov leposlovja iz arabščine narasel na 72% v okviru vseh leposlovnih besedil, prevedenih iz arabščine. Te ugotovitve kažejo, kako gospodarstvo in mednarodni tržni dogodki, kakršni so knjižni sejmi, vpli-
vajo na knjižni in prevajalski trg in na prevajalske subvencijske programe, ki delujejo v prid literarnega uvoza. V mejah peščice parametrov, ki smo jih obravnavali, ta nemška programa za subvencioniranje prevodov služita le kot pokazatelja te težnje.
Strnimo, da smo v kontekstu smernic mednarodnega prevajanja opazili neskladje med vlogo, ki si jo pripisujejo prevajalski subvencijski programi, in njihovim dejanskim učinkovanjem na asimetrično cirkulacijo prevodov. Subvencijske programe ponavadi v en glas hvalimo, češ da skrbijo za podporo prevajanju marginaliziranih literatur na nemškem knjižnem trgu. Toda analiza je pokazala, da so možnosti teh subvencij za spremembo hierarhičnega reda v mednarodni literarni izmenjavi še vedno zelo omejene, in sicer tako v količinskem deležu kot pri raznolikosti izhodiščnih jezikov, iz katerih bodo prevajali. Neuravnoteženost moči in neenakost v ugledu, ki ga uživajo jeziki in literature, odločilno določajo o tem, koliko se bo prevajalo, pa tudi o tem, kateri prevodni tokovi bodo v prednosti. Z vidika nemščine kot ciljnega jezika za prevode pa se lahko nazadnje tudi vprašamo, ali subvencijski programi nemara krepijo vlogo nemščine kot enega središčnih jezikov v mednarodnem krogotoku prevodov, čeprav sami zagotavljajo, da širijo predvsem zanimanje za marginalizirane literature. Nadaljnja podrobnejša študija bi lahko preverila, ali in v kateri meri nemški subvencijski programi posredno podpirajo vlogo nemščine kot vmesnega jezika, posrednika med literaturami z obrobij in pol-obro-bij, ki na globalnem prevajalskem trgu uživa ugodnosti tovrstne »tranzitne trgovine« (Heilbron 437).
Prevedla Varja Balžalorsky
OPOMBE
1	Fischerja navaja Wolf (gl. »Dem Publikum«).
2	Francoska različica članka je bila objavljena leta 1999 ((Bourdieu, »Une revolution«). Kot ugotavlja Bourdieu, je literarno ali založniško polje, ki je del odločevalnega procesa o literaturi, kakor vsako polje kulturne proizvodnje strukturirano okrog nasprotij med majhno in obsežno cirkulacijo. Podpolje produkcije v velikem obsegu uravnavajo kratkoročni gospodarski dobički in nagovarjanje širokega občinstva. Na področju leposlovnih prevodov pa tržna logika narekuje izdajanje uspešnih mednarodnih uspešnic, prevedenih zlasti iz angleščine. Estetska merila in inovacijska vrednost imajo veljavo v podpolju omejene produkcije, kjer so založniki bolj kvalificirani za vlogo odkriteljev besedil v manjših jezikih. Ceprav »sprejemajo tveganje, ki je kulturnemu investiranju inherentno« (Poupaud 39), imajo ti založniki dolg produkcijski cikel in produkcijo prevodnih naslovov usmerjajo v morebitni profit v prihodnosti. Bourdieujev članek se jasno postavlja po robu »tržnim prisilam, na katere morajo založniki vse bolj pristajati zaradi naraščajoče koncentracije okrog velikih skupin. Te prisile ogrožajo avtonomijo literarnega polja.« (Sapiro,
»Translation« 155). Bourd^eu pripisuje podpolju omejene produkcije možnost upora proti tržnim silam in standarizaciji literarne produkcije. To je stvar majhnih neodvisnih založnikov z dosledno prevajalsko politiko, ki zavrača pojmovanje literarnega prevajanja kot ugodnosti ali tržne naložbe. Na koncu Bourdieu poudari pomembnost »advokatov«, ki podpirajo vlogo cirkulacije v majhnem obsegu. Kljub temu pa so po njegovih kritičnih ugotovitvah državne subvencije v Franciji navadno namenjene založniškim družbam, ki razpolagajo z velikim kapitalom — tako ekonomskim kot simbolnim.
3	V namene analize se osredotočamo na prvi vidik, ki ga predlagata J. Heilbron in G. Sapiro. To nam omogoča navezati vlogo prevajalskih subvencijskih programov v Nemčiji na mednarodno literarno izmenjavo.
4	V svoji raziskavi o literarnih nagradah B. Dücker in V. Neumann povežeta to delovanje z avtoriteto, ki določa, kaj je vreden kulturni produkt. To ugotovitev je mogoče aplicirati tud^ na druga področja in subvencijska merila.
5	Za opis prevajalskega trga, ki je del mednarodnega knjižnega trga in odnosov med državami, G. Sapiro predlaga kombiniranje Bourd^eujeve teorije polja in teorije ekonomije simbolnih dobrin s Heilbronovim modelom središče — obrobje (gl. Sapiro, »Translation«, in Heilbron). S stališča prevajalske izmenjave pojem Pascale Casanova »prevod kot neenaka izmenjava«, utemeljen na asimetrični distribuciji jezikovnega in literarnega kapitala različnih držav in njihovih literatur, prav tako prispeva k razumevanju prevajalskih smernic kot podlage za merjenje moči med narodi (gl. »Consecration« in The World).
6	Po Heilbronu je angleščina visoko-sred^ščni jezik, središčna jezika sta nemščina in francoščina (pa tud^ ruščina). Vsi ostali jeziki so pol-obrobni ali obrobni. Položaj v svetovnem prevajalskem sistemu ali središčnost jezika sta odvisna od celotnega števila prevedenih knjig po vsem svetu. Število domačih govorcev in obseg jezikovnih skupin nista odločilna dejavnika.
7	Za podatke o trenutnem stanju prevodov v nemščino gl. Kessel. Schalke in Gerlach analizirata segment leposlovnih prevodov v Nemčiji z vidika založniških strategij. Stockov članek (»Sechs«) se ukvarja z relevantnostjo prevodov za literarni izvoz in uvoz v Nemčiji.
8	Leta 2008 so se na Seznamu 20 izhodiščnih jezikov za prevode v nemščino pojavili naslednji jeziki: angleščina (66,9%), francoščina (11,5%), italijanščina (2,9%), španščina (2,6%), nizozemščina (2,3%), švedščina (2%), ruščina (1,8%), japonščina (1,4%), turščina (1,2%), norveščina (0,8%), finščina (0,7%), poljščina (0.6%), hebrejščina in danščina (obe 0,5%), latinščina, avstralska angleščina, madžarščina, kitajščina, hrvaščina (vse 0,4%), in arabščina
(0,3%). ___
9	Ruščina je zastopana v obeh subvencijskih programih. Deset jezikov, ki jih vključujeta oba programa, se je leta 2008 uvrstilo na Seznam 20 izhodiščnih jezikov za prevode v nemščino: angleščina, francoščina, španščina, arabščina, kitajščina, ruščina, češčina, poljščina, madžarščina in hrvaščina.
10	V Programu prevodnih subvencij, ki ga izvaja litprom, so v vzorčnem primerku subvencioniranih besedi zastopani še naslednji jeziki: perzijščina in indonezijščina (obe 3%), drugi jeziki skupaj 5% (afrikanščina, farsi, hindujščina/urdujščina, kmerščina, svahili, korejščina, maratščina, ruščina, kečuanščina, turščina in vietnamščina.)
11	V Programu za promocijo prevajanja srednje- in vzhodnoevropske literature, ki ga izvaja LCB, so v vzorčnem primerku subvencioniranih prevodov zastopani še: albanščina (4%), romunščina in ukrajinščina, (obe 3%), drugi jeziki pa skupaj 6% (bolgarščina, beloru-ščina, estonščina, litovščina, letonščina, slovaščina, slovenščina in jid^š).
12	Leta 2004 se je arabščina uvrstila na dvanajsto mesto Seznama 20 izhodiščnih jezikov za prevode v nemščino.
ZBIRKE PODATKOV IN PREVAJALSKIH STATISTIK
Vzorčni primerek prevodnih naslovov, ki jih je subvencioniral litprom: hhtp://www.lit-
prom.de/64.html (23. 8. 2009). Vzorčni primerek prevodnih naslovov, ki jih je subvencioniral LCB: http://www.lcb.de/uebersetzer/uebersetzungen/buecherliste.htm (14. 12. 2009). Buch und Buchhandel in Zahlen. Börsenverein des deutschen Buchhandels (ur.). Frankfurt ob Majni: MVB - Marketing und Verlagsservice des Buchhandels GmbH, zv. 1999-2009.
LITERATURA
Bachleitner, Norbert, in Michaela Wolf. »Auf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie der literarischen Übersetzung im deutschsprachigen Raum.« Internationales Archiv zur Sozialgeschichte der deutschen L^tei-atur 29.2 (2004): 1-25. Bourdieu, Pierre. »A Conservative Revolution in Publishing.« Translation Studies 1.2 (2008): 123-153.
---. »Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idees.« Actes de la recherche
en sciences sociales 145 (2002): 3-8.
---. »Une revolution conservatrice dans l'edition.« Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales
126-127 (1999): 3-28.
Casanova, Pascale. »Consecration et accumulation de capital litterraire. La traduction comme echange inegal.« Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144 (2002): 7-20.
---. The WorldR^epublic of Atters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Dücker, Burckhard, in Verena Neumann. »Literaturpreise. Register mit einer Einführung: Literaturpreise als literaturgeschichtlicher Forschungsgegenstand.« Forum Ritualdynamik. Diskussionsbeiträge des SFB 619 Ritualdynamik der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg 12. Ur. Dietrich Harth in Axel Michaels, 2005. Dostopno na: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidel-berg.de/ojs/index.php/ritualdynamik (10. 3. 2010). Hagestedt, Lutz. »Autorenpräsentation und -förderung: Lesungen, Ausstellungen, Preise.« Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Band 1: Gegenstände und Grundbegriffe. Ur. Thomas Anz. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2007. 296-306. Heübron, Johan. »Towards a Sociology of Translation. Book Translations as Cultural
World-System.« European Journa^l of Social Theory 4.2 (1999): 429-444. Heübron, Johan, in Gisele Sapiro. »Outline for a Sociology of Translation.« Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Ur. Michaela Wolf in Alexandra Fukari. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. 93-108. Kessel, Markus. »Importartikel Buch: Zwischen Nischengeschäft und heißen Titeln.« Literaturbetrieb in Deutschland. Ur. Heinz Ludwig Arnold in Matthias Beilein. Munich, 2009 (3. izdaja). 421-432. Mendelssohn, Peter de. S. Fischer und sein Verlag. Frankfurt ob Majni: S. Fischer Verlag, 1970. Poupaud, Sandra. »Agency in Translation. Hispanic Literature in France, 1984-2002.« Translation Research Projects 1. Ur. Anthony Pym in Alexander Perekrestenko. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, 2008. 37-48. Pölzer, Rudolf. Kein Land des Übersetzens? Studie zum österreichischen Übersetzungsmarkt 20002004. Dunaj: LIT Verlag, 2007. Sapiro, Gisele. »The Literary Field between the State and the Market.« Poetics 31.4-5 (2003): 441-464.
---. »Translation and the Field of Publishing. A Commentary on Pierre Bourdieu's A
Conservative Revolution in Publishing.« Translation Studies 1.2 (2008): 155-166.« Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 130 (1999): 29-47.
Stock, Ricky: »Sechs Fallstudien zur literarischen Übersetzung: Deutschland.« Übersetzt werden oder nicht. Berichtdes PEN/IRL über die internationale Lage der Literaturübersetzung. Ur. Esther Allen. Barcelona: Institut Ramon Llull, 2007. 70-82.
Wolf, Michaela. »Dem Publikum neue Werte aufdrängen ^ Macht und Ohnmacht von literarischen ÜbersetzerInnen in übersetzungssoziologischer Sicht.« Lebende Sprachen 2 (2008): 61-66.
---. »Zum 'sozialen Sinn' in der Translation. Translationssoziologische Implikationen
von Pierre Bourdieus Kultursoziologie.« Arcadia 34.2 (1999): 262—275.
Rušenje mitov: leposlovne uspešnice v Evropi in Sloveniji
Miha Kovač, Rüdiger Wischenbart
Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Slovenija; Inštitut za germanistiko Univerze na Dunaju, Avstrija miha.kovac@siol.net; ruediger@wischenbart.com
Članek se ukvarja z analizo leposlovnih knjižnih uspešnic v Evropi v letih 20082009. Avtorja razvijeta metodo, s katero izmerita dejavnik vpliva posameznega avtorja uspešnic v Evropi ter opišeta mehanizme, ki vplivajo na to, da se posamezna knjiga spremeni v uspešnico; obenem tudi opozorita na velike razlike pri nastajanju lestvic in na to, da sam način sestavljanja lestvic lahko vpliva na to, katere knjige se uvrstijo na lestvico. Analiza pokaže, da na lestvicah uspešnic v večini obravnavanih držav v obravnavanem obdobju prevladujejo izvirna leposlovna dela in prevodi, ki prihajajo iz največjih evropskih jezikov in švedščine; ta proces je hkrati izrazito enosmeren, saj na lestvicah uspešnic na evropskem zahodu ni prevodov iz manjših evropskih jezikov in iz vzhodne Evrope. V zadnjem delu članek nekoliko podrobneje analizira razmere v Sloveniji in opozori na precejšnjo razliko med strukturo knjižnične izposoje in lestvicami uspešnic.
Ključne besede: knjigotrštvo / knjižni trg / uspešnice / lestvice uspešnic / knjižnice / knjižnična izposoja
UDK 655.42
I.
Na vprašanje, kaj je knjižna uspešnica, ni enostavnega odgovora. Ox-fordov angleško-angleški slovar navaja, da je izraz »bestseller« prvi uporabil časnik K^ansas Times and Star leta 1889, prvi poskusi natančneje opredeliti, kaj je knjižna uspešnica, pa segajo v čas po drugi svetovni vojni. Definicije so nihale od različnih statističnih opredelitev (»knjižna uspešnica je knjiga, ki jo v desetih letih po izidu kupi 1% prebivalstva«: F. L. Mott) do tav-tološke definicije (»knjižne uspešnice so knjige, ki se uvrstijo na lestvice uspešnic«: R. Dudovitz), ki se zdi, kot bomo videli, z današnjega zornega kota še najbolj smiselna (oboje cit. po Miller).
Vsak razmislek o knjižnih uspešnicah v drugem koraku zahteva še razmislek o tem, kaj so lestvice uspešnic in kako nastajajo. Običajno jih razumemo kot odraz prodaje knjig na trgu — več izvodov posamezne knjige
je prodanih, višje na lestvici uspešnic je knjiga. Vendar ni vedno tako: ena najuglednejših lestvic, ki jo objavlja New York Times (od 1931) namreč že od svojih začetkov nastaja tako, da uredništvo razpošlje v izbrane knjigarne vprašalnike, v katerih povpraša po najbolje prodajanih knjigah. Na teh vprašalnikih navede skupino knjižnih naslovov, za katere predpostavlja, da se najbolje prodajajo, knjigarnarji pa potem na podlagi prodaje v svoji trgovini določijo njihov vrstni red. Seveda imajo knjigarnarji tudi možnost, da dopišejo knjižni naslov, za katerega ocenijo, da se v danem tednu izjemno dobro prodaja, a ta rubrika pogosto ostaja prazna (več o tem gl. Miller 290—291, ki sicer navaja podatek 4000 knjigarn, in http://wikipedia. org/wiki/New_York_Times_Bestseller_List).
Tak način sestavljanja lestvic seveda omogoča manipulacije in ni natančen. Morda najbolj znamenita tovrstna zgodba je vezana na sodni spor, ki ga je sprožil William Peter Blatty na začetku osemdesetih let: potem ko je njegov roman Izganjal^ec hudiča (The Exorcist) v sedemdesetih letih kar nekaj časa preživel na vrhu lestvice New York Timesa, je bilo realno pričakovati, da se bo nekaj podobnega zgodilo tudi njegovemu naslednjemu romanu Legija (Legion), a se je knjiga pojavila na lestvici z nekajtedensko zamudo, na njej pa je ostala le en teden, s čimer naj bi Times založbo in avtorja oškodoval, saj naj bi tako kratko bivanje knjige na lestvici negativno vplivalo na njeno prodajo. Blatty in njegov založnik sta se odločila za tožbo, a sta spor gladko izgubila: založniki New York Timesa so namreč trdili, da niso nikoli razglašali svojih lestvic za natančen odraz razmer na knjižnem trgu. Še več, na sodišču so priznali, da je lestvica v bistvu uredniški konstrukt, kar je njihovim odvetnikom omogočilo, da so se sklicevali na prvi amandma ameriške ustave, ki govori o svobodi tiska. Sodišče jim je v celoti prisluhnilo in zavrglo Blattyjevo tožbo — s čimer je ena najbolj slavnih lestvic uspešnic na svetu tako rekoč dobila sodni certifikat, da ni odraz prodajnih razmer na knjižnem trgu (Miller 297—298).
II.
Pravo revolucijo pri razvoju lestvic knjižnih uspešnic je povzročil sistem Bookscan, ki ga od leta 1995 razvija in upravlja korporacija Nielsen, ki se sicer ukvarja z spremljanjem dosega različnih medijev predvsem v anglosaških državah. Sistem poenostavljeno rečeno deluje tako, da se vsaka prodaja knjige v knjigarni računalniško zabeleži na blagajni; posledično to pomeni, da sistem z lekarniško natančnostjo beleži knjigarniško prodajo knjig. Sistem trenutno deluje v devetih državah, v ZDA, Veliki Britaniji, Avstraliji, Irski, Danski, Italiji, Novi Zelandiji, Španiji in Južnoafriški re-
publiki (več o tem gl. http://www.nielsenbookscan.co.uk). Za pripravo svojih lestvic uspešnic ga uporablja tudi najuglednejša britanska strokovna revija za založnike in knjigotržce Bookseller.
Z razvojem tega sistema je postalo očitno dvoje: prvič, dejanska prodaja na knjižnih trgih je nekoliko drugačna od tiste, kot so jo dotlej slikale lestvice, urejene kot denimo tista v New York Timesu, in drugič, kot je opozorila že Laura Miller, tudi same lestvice posredno vplivajo na knjižni trg in so zato svojevrstno marketinško orodje. To se je po uvedbi Nielsenovih lestvic zelo jasno pokazalo na avstralskem knjižnem trgu. Do leta 2000 je namreč tam lestvico z največjo težo in odmevnostjo objavljala Australian Book Review (ABR). To (in njej podobne lestvice v nekaterih avstralskih dnevnikih) so urejali in zbirali uredniki kulturnih strani ter njihovo vsebino »notorično filtrirali« (Davis, The Decline 116) — in to ne samo tako, da določenih knjižnih zvrsti sploh niso uvrščali na lestvice, ampak tudi tako, da so o tem, katere knjige se prodajajo in katere ne, povpraševali predvsem po knjigarnah v mestnih središčih ali na univerzitetnih kampusih, kamor je zahajalo zahtevnejše bralno občinstvo. Posledično so na avstralskih lestvicah prevladovali avstralski avtorji resnejših leposlovnih in esejističnih del, na njih pa ni bilo »kuharskih knjig, ne knjig o tem, kako na hitro obogateti, niti biografij športnikov« (Davis, The Decline 117).
Ko pa so po letu 2000 avstralski mediji začeli objavljati lestvico Nielsen Bookscan, se je začela kazati drugačna slika avstralskega knjižnega trga: tako so denimo med prvimi 130 najbolje prodajanimi naslovi v božični prodajni sezoni leta 2004 bila le 4 leposlovna (na devetem, petinšestdesetem, sto-tretjem in stočetrtem mestu) ter tri esejistična dela avstralskih avtorjev (na petintridesetem, štiriinsedemdesetem in stoštirinajstem mestu). Nenadoma je bilo torej videti, kot da bi Avstralci spremenili svoj bralni okus in namesto domačih leposlovnih del začeli brati lahkotnejše tuje avtorje, kakršen je denimo Dan Brown (ki se dotlej na avstralskih lestvicah sploh ni pojavljal!), ter začeli množično kupovati »kuharice ter knjige o igralcih kriketa« (Davis, The Decline 118) — in to ne glede na to, da ni empiričnih dokazov, da bi se v tem času prodaja resnejših in izvirnih leposlovnih del drastično spremenila.
Seveda pa ta videz ugašana leposlovja ni le posledica pojava bolj natančnih lestvic knjižnih uspešnic, ki so v avstralskih medijih kazale realnejšo sliko prodajnega dometa domačih leposlovnih avtorjev: Davis opozarja, da se je v tem času v Avstraliji pomembno spremenil vrednotni sistem in obenem celotna medijska krajina (leposlovje naenkrat ni bilo več razumljeno kot eno od osrednjih orodij pri vzdrževanju avstralske identitete, zaradi česar so se zmanjšale državne podpore avtorjem in založnikom tovrstnih del; branju in knjigam so v šolskih kurikulih začeli odvzemati prostor drugi mediji; delež branja je med vsemi prostočasovnimi aktivnostmi upadel z 29% na
25%; prevladujoča družbena paradigma tistega časa je bil neoliberalizem, ki je tudi v knjižnem založništvu vzpostavil nenormalno visoka kapitalska pričakovanja, zaradi česar so se založniki usmerjali predvsem v produkcijo knjig, za katere so verjeli, da bodo prinesle visoke dobičke; gl. Davis, The Decline 120-127). Povedano drugače, nove, natančnejše lestvice uspešnic so se v Avstraliji pojavile v času, ko je zaradi spremenjenih družbenih okoliščin domače leposlovje že tako ali tako izgubljalo družbeni ugled in vpliv: stare lestvice torej niso izgubile merodajnosti zgolj zato, ker so se pojavila natančnejša informacijska orodja, ampak tudi zato, ker domače in/ali bolj zahtevno leposlovje naenkrat ni bilo več osrednji književni žanr. Tehnologija, ki je omogočala pripravo drugačnih lestvic, je torej prišla do izraza predvsem zato, ker so spremenjeni družbeni paradigmi nove, drugačne lestvice bolj ustrezale. Ta obrat k novim lestvicam, na katerih so prevladovala lahko-tnejša dela, pravi Davis, je trend izrivanja leposlovja še dodatno pospešil in deloval kot samoizpolnjujoča prerokba: ko je postalo natančno vidno, kateri knjižni žanri se dobro prodajajo, so se založniki v skladu s prevladujočim vrednotnim okoljem in duhom časa še bolj usmerili vanje, saj se je zdelo, da le tako lahko dosežejo želene dobičke. Ta spremenjena podoba je imela povraten vpliv na poslovno strategijo založb, ki so v skladu z prodajnimi trendi, kot so jih kazale lestvice, začele spreminjati svoje programske strategije. Avstralska podružnica založbe Simon & Schuster je denimo leta 2004 napovedala, da ne bo več objavljala prvencev avstralskih avtorjev, največja avstralska založba Allen & Unwyn, ki je leta 1996 objavila 60 leposlovnih del domačih avtorjev, pa jih je leta 2004 samo še 28. Ta obrat je bil še toliko bolj možen, opozarja Davis, ker se je v tem času vrednotni obrat zgodil tudi znotraj avstralskih založb: oddelki za trženje so začeli postajati pomembnejši od uredniških oddelkov, hkrati pa se je prodaja knjig začela množično širiti na netipična maloprodajna mesta (Davis, The Decline 120).
III.
S tem smo prišli do še enega pravzaprav šokantno neraziskanega vprašanja znotraj založniških študij: namreč, na kakšen način poteka v založbah način odločanja o tem, kako in kaj objaviti, ter ali imajo te odločitve posreden vpliv tudi na samo oblikovanje lestvic uspešnic. Eden doslej najbolj prepričljivih opisov delovanja mehanizmov, po katerih se knjige spreminjajo v uspešnice, je nastal v neznanstvenih krogih: ameriški esejist Malcolm Gladwell je v knjigi Prelomna točk^a postavil tezo, da se knjižne (pa tudi filmske in glasbene) uspešnice in modni trendi skozi družbo širijo podobno kot epidemična obolenja. Pri slednjih, pravi Gladwell, je ponavadi tako, da
jih sproži ozka skupina posameznikov, ki ima veliko družabnih stikov; kot zgled tovrstnega širjenja nalezljivega obolenja navaja epidemijo gonoreje v Colorado Springsu iz leta 1986, ki se je razširila na vse mesto, analize pa so pokazale, da je daleč največ ljudi okužila skupina 168 oseb, ki so bile sicer med seboj nepovezane, a so obiskovale iste lokale in imele ogromno stikov. Podobno je tudi z uspešnicami in modnimi trendi, pravi Gladwell: ne glede na vložke v oglaševanje se začnejo knjiga, glasbeni izdelek ali pa modni dodatek intenzivno širiti skozi družbo šele, ko jih za svoje vzame peščica, ki pa ima zaradi takih ali drugačnih vzrokov velik vpliv na razmeroma širok krog ljudi. Seveda pa bi bili ti ljudje pri širjenju knjig, modnih trendov in glasbenih sporočil neuspešni, še dodaja Gladwell, če ne bi imeli opraviti z izdelkom, ki tako rekoč po svoji naravi prenaša sporočilo, ki se tistih, ki jim je namenjeno, prime bolj kot ostala - podobno kot so tudi nekateri virusi nalezljivi bistveno bolj kot drugi. Pri čemer je seveda logično, da se epidemična obolenja v nekaterih okoljih širijo hitreje kot v drugih: spremenjene higienske razmere so konec koncev praktično iztrebile kugo in kolero v Evropi, podobno kot so spremenjene kulturne razmere povzročile, da danes viteške romane ali trubadursko liriko prebirajo predvsem še literarni zgodovinarji.
Skratka, po Gladwellu je širjenje vsake uspešnice odvisno od moči njenega sporočila, od okolja, ki omogoča širjenje določene vrste sporočil, in od ljudi, ki to sporočilo širijo. Ceprav pomenijo osnovo za večino Gladwellovih prodajno izjemno uspešnih esejističnih knjig in člankov v New Yorkerju znanstvene študije, ki jih »prevede« v tekoč in običajnim bralcem razumljiv jezik, je več kot značilno, da v Prelomni točki ni citiral niti ene raziskave, ki bi se ukvarjala z mehanizmi širjenja knjižnih uspešnic, ampak je svojo teorijo utemeljil - recimo temu tako - metaforično s pomočjo socio-medicinske študije o epidemiji gonoreje v Colorado Springsu. Tako je slej ko prej zato, ker resnih študij o programskih mehanizmih odločanja v knjižnih založbah ni. Na tem področju torej orjemo ledino, pri čemer velja Gladwellov opis razumeti zgolj kot izhodišče za nadaljnje raziskave, ki bi lahko podrobneje opisale mehanizme ustvarjanja knjižnih trendov.
IV.
Tvegajmo hipotezo, da gre v svetu knjig tisto peščico ljudi, ki prva sproži širjenje določenega »knjižnega virusa« iskati med knjižnimi profesionalci: med uredniki (v večjih založništvih tudi med literarnimi agenti), tržniki, knjigarnarji, knjižničarji, drugimi avtorji in tistimi, ki v takih ali drugačnih medijih pišejo o knjigah in s tem svoje so-bralce usmerjajo k knjižnim vsebinam. Taka hipoteza se zdi logična: če delo samo po sebi ne prepriča urednika ali
literarnega agenta, da je objavljivo, ga urednik pač ne bo uvrstil v program založbe, oziroma ga literarni agent ne bo začel ponujati založbam. Še več, če bo urednik ali literarni agent nad delom navdušen - rečeno z Gladwellovo prispodobo, če ga bo delo okužilo - se bo za ustrezen status dela v programu založbe potrudil bolj kot za druga dela, ki se mu bodo sicer zdela vredna objave, a z manjšim bralnim dometom in manjšim »okužbenim« potencialom. To primarno navdušenje urednika nad knjigo ni zanemarljivo, saj je pri vsaki knjižni založbi, ki izda letno več kot nekaj deset knjig, praktično nemogoče, da bi bila vsa dela deležna enake promocijske in prodajne podpore. Še huje je v knjigarnah, kjer je med nekaj deset tisoč naslovi možno prodajno posebej izpostaviti le omejeno število knjig, način, na katerega so v knjigarni razporejene knjige (kako so zložene po žanrih, katere so v ospredju in katere ne, na kakšen način so izpostavljeni avtorjih) pa, kot je pokazala Claire Squires, posredno pomembno vpliva na kupce knjig in na njihovo percepcijo knjižnih žanrov (Squires), hkrati pa pomeni tudi odraz mnenja knjigarnarjev o prodajljivosti posameznega naslova.
Skratka, poleg sposobnosti prepoznati zanimivo in prodajljivo knjižno besedilo je eden od pogojev za uspešno opravljanje uredniškega poklica zmožnost vplivanja na druge založniške in knjigotrške profesionalce in s tem posredno na bralce; bourdieujevsko rečeno, uredniškega poklica ni brez ustrezne količine socialnega in kulturnega kapitala. Od tu se v naslednjem koraku ponujata še dve hipotezi: prvič, obstoj knjižnega trga je eden od predpogojev kulturne odprtosti. Ce namreč v nekem jezikovnem okolju obstoji več založb, ki so sposobne med širši krog bralcev pošiljati knjižna besedila in v katerih delajo uredniki z različnimi stopnjami in različnimi oblikami resistence na različne »knjižne viruse«, obstoji bistveno več možnosti, da bo inovativno in nekonvencionalno knjižno delo našlo pot do bralcev in morda postalo knjižna uspešnica, kot pa, če je takih založb in urednikov le nekaj. Drugič, če privzamemo Gladwellov okvirni opis širjenja uspešnic, je na mestu predpostavka, da se v različnih družbenih okoljih različni »knjižni virusi« širijo na različne načine. Ob tem velja opozoriti še na to, da je, kot je pisal Greco (The Book Publishing Industry), način organizacije knjižne založbe in s tem razmerja moči znotraj nje odvisen predvsem od velikosti in strukturiranosti trga, na katerem založba deluje: na različno velikih trgih in v različnih tržnih nišah (leposlovje, priročniki, otroške knjige ipd.) bodo posledično različne založbe strukturirane različno, to pa bo v njih vzpostavilo različna razmerja moči. Tako stališče se zdi logično: na visoko strukturiranih knjižnih trgih, kot je slovenski, kjer obstoji ogromno prodajnih poti, kot so denimo knjigarne, telefonska prodaja, akviziterska prodaja, prodaja preko knjižnega kluba in v megamarketih (Kovač, »Meje rasti«), bo prodajni uspeh knjige odvisen tudi od uspešne koordinacije
prodaje, zato bo v slovenskih založbah moč prodajnega oddelka ne glede na vrednotno nastrojenost okolja zelo verjetno močnejša kot denimo v danskih, kjer prodajo večino knjig v knjigarnah. To seveda pomeni, da knjižne uspešnice v kulturno različnih okoljih ne bodo različne le zato, ker sta denimo slovenski knjižni okus in prevladujoča družbena paradigma drugačna od danske, ampak tudi zato, ker je danski knjižni trg večji in drugače strukturiran od slovenskega, posredno pa so tudi mehanizmi odločanja v danskih založbah delujejo drugače kot v slovenskih.
Če bi torej hoteli bolje razumeti logiko nastajanja evropskih knjižnih uspešnic, bi morali vedeti, kakšne založbe jih izdajajo in kako v njih potekajo formalni in neformalni procesi programskega odločanja, raziskati »osebne zgodovine« različnih uspešnic v Evropi in preveriti, ali so si tudi vsebinsko podobne. Vse skupaj bi seveda zahtevalo bistveno večji raziskovalni projekt, kot ga lahko zaobjamejo naše trenutne kadrovske in finančne možnosti, zato se bomo v drugem delu pričujočega besedila posvetili temeljni — recimo temu tako — infrastrukturni raziskavi, brez katere tak projekt sploh ne bi bil mogoč: preverili bomo, kakšne so razlike med različnimi evropskimi lestvicami knjižnih uspešnic in vsaj okvirno nakazali, v kakšne žanre sodijo dela, ki se pojavljajo na njih. To nam bo omogočilo preveriti še eno hipotezo o sodobnih zabavnih industrijah: v delu raziskav o sodobni popularni kulturi namreč prevladuje prepričanje, da med uspešnicami prevladujejo anglosaška dela, ki naj bi bila, tako kot vsi proizvodi kulturne industrije, med sabo zamenljiva in nadomestljiva, zaradi česar je eden od ciljev sodobnih založniških industrij vzpostaviti skupnost uporabnikov s prilagojenim množičnim, skupnim okusom, ki konzumi-rajo uniformirane izdelke (značilna zagovornica tovrstnega razumevanja knjižnih trgov je denimo Breznik 59-61). Ker je angleščina osnovni jezik komunikacije tudi v založniškem svetu (Thompson 40—44), je seveda ob tem na mestu še predpostavka, da zaradi jezikovnih in širših družbenih razlogov evropske knjižne trge obvladujejo tako imenovani »hollywoodski bestsellerji«, za katere bi bilo v skladu z zgoraj povedanim smiselno pričakovati, da tudi takrat, kadar niso izvorno napisani v angleščini, pridejo na različne evropske knjižne trge prek angleških prevodov, saj je skupni jezik komunikacije vsaj navidez eden od predpogojev uniformnega delovanja založniških industrij.
Skozi primerjavo in analizo evropskih knjižnih uspešnic bomo torej preverili, kako unificirani so v resnici evropski knjižni trgi, oziroma ali res delujejo po zgoraj opisanih kriterijih kulturne industrije, ali pa so, tako kot nakazujejo ugotovitve Gladwella in Greca, ti trgi in nanje vezani bralni okusi bolj raznoliki kot verjamejo nekateri analitiki, na njih pa delujejo kompleksnejša pravila kulturne industrije, ki jih ni možno ujeti v nekaj preprostih formul.
Glede lestvic knjižnih uspešnic obstojijo v Evropi precejšnje razlike: medtem ko imajo na evropskem zahodu te razmeroma dolgo tradicijo, je na evropskem vzhodu tradicija objavljanja lestvic bistveno krajša, za povrh pa — z delno izjemo Slovenije — nikjer ne deluje sistem, ki bi bil primerljiv z Nielsen Bookscanom. Zaradi tako različnih tradicij in sistemov zajema podatkov bomo knjižne uspešnice v obeh delih Evrope obravnavali ločeno.
Prve rezultate raziskave evropskih lestvic knjižnih uspešnic, ki je potekala med marcem 2008 in aprilom 2009, sva avtorja pričujočega besedila objavila v reviji Publishing Research Quarterly (Kovač in Wischenbart). Za osnovo sva vzela lestvice, kot jih v Angliji objavlja strokovna revija za založnike in knjigotržce The Bookseller, na Nizozemskem Boekblad, v Nemčiji Buchreport in Spiegel, v Španiji El Cultural (Spain), v Franciji Livres Hebdo/Ipsos in na Švedskem Svensk Bokhandel. V drugem delu raziskave, ki je potekala med oktobrom 2008 in septembrom 2009, smo naštetim dodali še italijansko lestvico. Z izjemo britanske, ki temelji na sistemu Nielsen Bookscan, te lestvice niso povsem natančen odraz prodaje na trgu; a ker nastanejo na reprezentativnem vzoru, ki pokrije približno 30% trga, vključno z megamarketi (a brez spletne prodaje), lahko domnevamo, da tako dobljeni podatki ne odstopajo bistveno od tistega, kar bi pokazal sistem Nielsen Bookscan.
Razlogov, zaradi katerih smo izbrali ravno te trge, je kar nekaj: čeprav so si razmeroma podobni po tistih demografskih kazalcih, ki so ključni za oceno velikosti in absorpcijske moči knjižnega trga (kot so stopnja izobraženosti prebivalstva, družbeni bruto proizvod, razvitost medijske infrastrukture ipd.; več o tem gl. Kovač, Meje rasti), se pomembno razlikujejo glede na število prebivalcev in glede na jezikovne meje in izvozne potenciale. Tako je denimo britanski knjižni trg za evropske razmere razmeroma velik, z ogromnim izvoznim in uvoznim potencialom in tudi z ogromnim realiziranim izvozom; španski in francoski trg sta podobno velika kot britanski, pri čemer ima španski podobno velik izvozni potencial, a manjšo izvozno realizacijo, francoski pa relativno manjši izvozni potencial od obeh. Na drugi strani sta podobno velika kot britanski tudi italijanski in nemški trg, a v primerjavi z britanskim trgom z majhnim in tudi nerealiziranim izvoznim potencialom, nizozemski in švedski trg pa sodita med manjše zahodnoevropske knjižne trge, ki pa ju hkrati zaznamuje relativno velik odstotek ljudi, ki so sposobni branja v tujih jezikih (Kovač in Wischenbart). Poleg tega sodijo ti trgi v različne jezikovne skupine in delujejo v okoljih z zelo različnimi kulturnimi in političnimi tradicijami. Skratka, med seboj so si dovolj različni, da pomenijo reprezentativen vzorec za celoten zahodnoevropski knjižni trg.
Uporabili smo razmeroma preprosto metodologijo: v vseh državah smo analizirali prvih deset del na lestvici uspešnic, pri čemer smo se osredotočili na avtorje, saj so se nekateri na različnih lestvicah pojavljali z več različnimi naslovi. Za vsak mesec na prvem mestu lestvice je avtor dobil 50 točk, za drugo mesto 49 in tako do desetega mesta. Za tako visoko število točk smo se odločili, ker upamo, da bomo raziskavo v prihodnosti lahko razširili s prvih 10 na prvih 50 del na lestvicah. Tako zbrane točke imenujemo dejavnik vpliva posameznega avtorja.
Že na prvi pogled nam lestvica najbolj uspešnih avtorjev v obdobju oktober 2008 — september 2009 v zahodni Evropi pokaže presenetljivo sliko: dobro tretjino vseh točk sta zbrala dva avtorja, prva deseterica pa je zbrala kar 60% vseh možnih točk v obravnavanem obdobju:
Oktober 2008 / September 2009 Dejavnik vpliva Delež zbranih točk
1	Stieg Larsson	3697	19,13%
2	Stephenie Meyer	3012,5	15,59%
3	Carlos Ruiz Zafon	1161,5	6,01%
4	Paolo Giordano	805,5	4,17%
5	Roberto Saviano	552,5	2,86%
6	Charlotte Roche	527	2,73
7	John Grisham	497	2,57%
8	James Patterson	384,5	1,99%
9	Herman Koch	368	1,92%
10	Simon Beckett	360	1,90%
			Najboljših deset: 58,83%
			Najboljših 5: 47,76%
Če te podatke prevedemo v graf, dobimo skorajda šolsko sliko dolgega repa, kot ga je v svoji študiji opisal Anderson {Dolgi rej})\
Že na prvi pogled je torej očitno, da je bilo v obravnavanem obdobju na več lestvicah izrazito uspešnih le nekaj avtorjev/-ic, iz spodnje preglednice za obdobje med marcem 2008 in aprilom 2009 pa je - kljub nekaj izjemam - mogoče razbrati še, da je dejavnik vpliva posamezne/-ga avtor-ja/-ice obratno sorazmeren s številom lestvic, na katerih se pojavlja:
Avtor/-ica	Naslov	Jezik izvirnika	Lestvice uspešnic	Skupne točke
Stieg Larsson	Millennium (3 deli)	Švedščina	F, SP, SE, NL, UK	2601,5
Stephenie Meyer (*)	4 titles + The Host (adult UK)	Angleščina	I, SP, D, UK	2156,5
Khaled Hosseini	2 titles	Angleščina	NL, SE, D	1172
Roberto Saviano (**)	Gomorra	Italijanščina	I, D, F, SP, NL, SE	1104
Carlos Ruiz Zafon	El juego del angel	Španščina	SP, NL, I , D	893,5
Ken Follett	World Without End	Angleščina	F, D, SE, SP	825
Muriel Barbery	L'elegance du herisson	Francoščina	F, D, SP	786
Charlotte Roche	Feuchtgebiete	Nemščina	D, NL, UK	709
John Boyne	Boy with the Striped Pajamas	Angleščina	SP	527
Cecelia Ahern	The Gift	Angleščina	UK, D	465
Elizabeth Gilbert	Eat, Pray, Love	Angleščina	NL	430
Henning Mankell	Kinesen	Švedščina	SP, SE, D, NL	404
Anna Gavalda	La consolante	Francoščina	F, D, SP	401
Liza Maklund	En plats i solen & Livsstid	Švedščina	SE	374
Paolo Giordano	La solitudine dei numeri primi	Italijanščina	I, SP, NL	368
Jean-Marie Le Clezio	Ritournelle de la faim; L'Africain	Francoščina	SE, F	334
Jens Lapidus	Snabba Cash	Švedščina	SE	321
Andrea Camilleri	Mehrere Titel	Italijanščina	I, SP, D, UK	289,5
Jean-Louis Fournier	Qu on va, papa?	Francoščina	F	287
Eduardo Mendoza	El asombroso viaje de Pomponio Flato	Španščina	SP	285
Mark Levengood	Hjärtat far inga rynkor	Švedščina	SE	285
Katie Price	Angel Uncovered	Angleščina	UK	284
Siegfried Lenz	Schweigeminute	Nemščina	D,	282
J.K. Rowling (*)	Beedle the Bard; Deathly Hallows	Angleščina	SP, D	243
Jan Guillou	Men inte om det gäller din dotter	Švedščina	SE	243
Jeroen Smit	De Prooi	Nizozemščina	NL	241
Marc Levy	Toutes ces choses qu'on ne s'est pas dites	Francoščina	F	240
Simone van der Vlugt	Blauw water	Nizozemščina	NL	239
Guillaume Musso	Je reviens te chercher	Francoščina	F	234
* naslovi so namenjeni vsem starostnim skupinam; ker se v nekaterih državah pojavljajo na lestvicah uspešnic otroških ali mladinskih knjig, smo jih iz nadaljnih primerjav izločili ** v Italiji klasificirano kot leposlovje, drugje kot reportažno delo
Ta tabela nas opozarja še na dve jezikovni dejstvi: prvič, od 30 avtorjev na zgornji tabeli jih 8 piše v angleščini, ostali pa v drugih evropskih jezikih. Podobna razmerja je pokazala tudi tabela za obdobje oktober 2008 - september 2009, na kateri jih je od 40 avtorjev z najvišjimi dejavniki vpliva 19 pisalo v angleščini, 21 pa v drugih evropskih jezikih (gl. http://www.wi-schenbart.com/en/cac/index_cac_en.htm). Seveda pa tu ne gre kar za vse evropske jezike: poleg uspešnic, napisanih v največjih evropskih jezikih, so v obravnavanem obdobju kot uspešnice preskakovale jezikovne meje le še knjige, napisane v švedščini.
In drugič, tudi brez podrobne vsebinske analize lahko zapišemo, da je prvih deset avtorjev na obravnavanih lestvicah uspešnic pisalo knjige, ki sodijo v zelo različne žanre: če njihovo vsebino poskusimo povzeti s preprostim, tako rekoč marketinškim opisom, je denimo Eleganca ježa Muriel Barbery roman z močno filozofsko noto, romani Stiega Larssona so družbeno kritične kriminalke, Stephenie Meyer je avtorica žanrskih uspešnic, po katerih snemajo še uspešnejše hollywoodske filme, Samotnost praštevil Paola Giordana je roman o zapletenih medčloveških odnosih, Charlotte Roche pa je avtorica del z dokaj esplicitno seksualno vsebino itd. Prav tako je podrobnejši pregled lestvic uspešnic pokazal, da se tiste knjige, ki preskočijo z ene lestvice na drugo, gibljejo po dveh različnih modelih. Pisci, kot so Ildefonso Falcones, Stieg Larsson, Muriel Barbery, Carlos Ruiz Zafon in drugi so bili najprej izrazito uspešni v svojem domačem okolju, saj so na domačih lestvicah po več mesecev vztrajali na prvem mestu. Ko pa so njihove knjige prevedli in izdali na drugih evropskih trgih, sta se izkristalizirala dva modela gibanja knjig po lestvicah uspešnic, ki ju bomo opisali na dveh najbolj izrazitih primerih, na Morski katedrali Ildefonsa Falconesa in na trilogiji Mil^^enium Stiega Larssona.
Kot je razvidno iz spodnjega grafa, se je Morska katedral^a Ildefonsa Falconesa v večini držav uvrstila na lestvice uspešnic, nato pa je z njih zelo hitro izginila. Iz tega lahko domnevamo, da so njeni založniki več kot pri drugih knjigah investirali v njeno promocijo, saj so upali, da bo knjiga na njihovih trgih povzročila podobno »okužbo« kot na španskem: a se to ni zgodilo in knjiga je na vseh obravnavanih trgih sicer priplezala na lestvice uspešnic, nato pa z njih razmeroma hitro izginila.
4U LU
o



/ ^^ / / .j;?' / / / / //
Češka
Francija
Nemčija
Italija
Slovenija
Španija
Švedska
^
č-
Povsem drugačno usodo so imeli romani Stiega Larssona: potem ko so dobesedno zavladali na vrhu švedske lestvice uspešnic, so se preselili na večino preostalih evropskih knjižnih trgov in se tam zasidrali skoraj enako uspešno kot na švedskem. Vsaj kot smo uspeli raziskati ustno, skozi pogovore z urednikom francoskega prevoda Larssonove trilogije Marcom de Gouvainom, je francoski uspeh za sabo potegnil nemškega, saj so nemški mediji temu delu začeli posvečati pozornost šele, ko je zavladalo francoskim lestvicam uspešnic.
Češka
Francija
Nemčija
Madžarska
Italija
Nizozemska Poljska Španija Švedska Velika Britanija
ZDA
Iz teh dveh primerov lahko torej sklepamo, da sta imeli obe deli različno »okužbeno moč«: če je Falcones uspešno okužil španske bralce, nato pa se je izkazalo, da sporočilo njegovega dela ni tako, da bi za sabo množično potegnilo bralce v drugih evropskih okoljih, je Larsson ravno obratno svoja dela napisal tako, da so imela izjemno visoko odzivnost ne le v Evropi, ampak tudi v ZDA, saj gre za prvo prevodno delo, ki se je v novem tisočletju uvrstilo na prvo mesto ameriške lestvice uspešnic v reviji Publisher's Weekly.
Razglabljanje o tem, kaj je tisto, kar je v Larssonovih knjigah tako množično »zagrabilo« evropske in ameriške bralce, v Falconesovih pa ne, seveda presega domet pričujočega besedila. Za našo trenutno rabo zadostuje ugotovitev, da marketinška podpora ni dovolj za to, da knjiga postane prava uspešnica: rečeno v Gladwellovem jeziku je za to potrebno pravo sporočilo v pravem okolju - in vsaj v primeru Falconesovih prevodov ta dva dejavnika očitno nista sovpadla na ustrezen način.
Že kratek pogled na oba grafa nam pokaže še to, da sta deli potovali iz izvirnika v različne evropske jezike brez posredniške vloge angleščine, podobno kot pri ostalih avtorjih pa tudi njuna dela v Evropi izdajajo različno velike založbe (več o tem Kovač in Wischenbart)1. Na podlagi takih podatkov se sklep vsiljuje kar sam od sebe: zahodno evropski knjižni trg je dovolj odprt, da lahko na njem z uspešnicami prodrejo tudi majhne založbe, hkrati pa na teh knjižnih trgih angleščina ne igra (iz)ključae posredniške vloge pri prehajanju uspešnic iz ene knjižne kulture v drugo. Ob tem so tudi bralna okolja, knjižni trgi in mehanizmi odločanja v založbah v različnih zahodnoevropskih državah tako različno strukturirani, da je to območje v obravnavanem obdobju imelo le nekaj zares skupnih knjižnih uspešnic.
VI.
Skoraj identične razmere so tudi na češkem, madžarskem, poljskem, srbskem in slovenskem knjižnem trgu, saj jih je tudi tu v obravnavanem obdobju med 40 pisci z največjim dejavnikom vpliva le 13 pisalo v angleščini, 10 v ostalih evropskih jezikih, 17 pa je bilo domačih avtorjev:
	angleščina	13
	domači jezik	17
	drugo	10
	Najbolje prodajanih 10: PL/CZ/HU/SLO/SRB	
1	Stephenie Meyer (prevod: angleščina)	2419
2	Rhonda Byrne (prevod: angleščina)	1289
3	Khaled Hosseini (prevod: angleščina)	1349
4	Zdenek Sverak (domači jezik)	674
5	Michal Viewegh (domači jezik)	674
6	Carlos Ruiz Zafon (prevod: španščina)	610
7	Paulo Coelho (prevod: portugalščina)	576
8	Roberto Saviano (prevod: italijanščina)	550
9	Jaroslav Kmenta (domači jezik)	548
10	Stieg Larsson (prevod: švedščina)	546
11	Gorica Nesovic, Jelica Greganovic (domači jezik)	397
12	Goran Vojnovic (domači jezik)	393
13	Vladimir Pištalo (domači jezik)	384
14	Marie Poledäakova (domači jezik)	378
15	Hugh Laurie (domači jezik)	376
16	Marija Jovanovic (domači jezik)	369
17	Malgorzata Kalicidska (domači jezik)	363
18	Felix Francis (prevod: angleščina)	300
19	Sherry Jones (prevod: angleščina)	326
20	Laszlo L. Lorincz (domači jezik)	276
21	Bernhard Schlink (prevod: nemščina)	268
22	Helen Exley (prevod: angleščina)	267
23	Wojciech Cejrowski (domači jezik)	262
24	Randy Pausch (prevod: angleščina)	234
24	Jeffrey Zaslow (prevod: angleščina)	234
25	Raymond Kluun (prevod: angleščina)	227
26	Tone Pavček (domači jezik)	220
27	William P. Young (prevod: angleščina)	192
28	Muriel Barbery (prevod: francoščina)	196
29	Lenka Lanczova (domači jezik)	194
30	Agatha Christie (prevod: angleščina)	194
31	Stephen Clarke (prevod: angleščina)	192
33	Vlastimil Vondruška (domači jezik)	190
34	Spiro György (domači jezik)	188
35	Csernus Imre (domači jezik)	188
36	Jostein Gaarder (prevod: norveščina)	186
37	Haruki Murakami (prevod: japonščina)	186
38	Jonathan Littell (prevod: francoščina)	182
39	Kate Mosse (prevod: angleščina)	181
40	Dana Cermakova (domači jezik)	180
Malce presenetljivo imajo na lestvicah na evropskem vzhodu domači avtorji še bolj dominantno vlogo kot na evropskem zahodu, pri čemer je, podobno kot na evropskem zahodu, opaziti prevode le iz nekaj evropskih jezikov, med katerimi močno prevladuje angleščina, sledijo pa ji španščina, nemščina, švedščina, italijanščina in nizozemščina. Prav tako so, kar zadeva vodilne prevodne avtorje, na evropskem vzhodu uspešni skoraj isti pisci kot na evropskem zahodu. Še več: podobno kot na evropskem zahodu tudi na vzhodu uspešnih domačih piscev ni možno strpati v iste žanre: Marija Jovanovic denimo piše nekakšno srbsko verzijo »chick-lita«, Goran Vojnovic piše o marginalcih v sodobni Sloveniji, Zdenek Sverak je humorist, Michal Viewegh na lahkoten način opisuje medčloveške odnose v sodobni Ceški, Vladimir Pištalo pa je avtor romansirane biografije o Nikoli Tesli.
Seveda je naša raziskava opozorila na pomembno razliko med zahodno- in vzhodnoevropskimi lestvicami uspešnic: v obravnavanem obdobju na zahodnoevropskih lestvicah uspešnic nismo opazili niti enega dela,
ki bi bilo izvorno napisano v kakem od vzhodnoevropskih jezikov, prav tako pa na vzhodnoevropskih lestvicah nismo odkrili niti ene uspešnice, prevedene iz vzhodnoevropskih jezikov. Povedano drugače, na obravnavanih lestvicah so bili — poleg samoumevne angleščine — dominantni prevodi le iz največjih evropskih jezikov in švedščine2, pri čemer so tudi tu — kot smo videli — dela najuspešnejših avtorjev sodila v izjemno različne žanre. Vsaj gledano s širšega evropskega stališča pomeni torej govorjenje o knjižni kulturni uniformnosti precej poenostavljen pogled na kompleksen niz odnosov med različnimi evropskimi književnostmi in knjižnimi industrijami, saj se dominantna vloga nekaterih knjižnih kultur v Evropi kaže kot kompleksen preplet knjižnih žanrov in založniških praks.
VII.
Kakšne pa so razmere v Sloveniji? Društvo knjigotržcev od junija 2009 pripravlja lestvico slovenskih knjižnih uspešnic tako, da zbira podatke iz 15 izbranih knjigarn, pri čemer ne uporabljajo vprašalnikov, ampak vsaka knjigarna pošlje svoje podatke o 10 najbolj prodajanih knjigah. Lestvica tudi ne ločuje med neleposlovnimi in leposlovnimi besedili, tako da se na njej včasih znajdejo publikacije, ki v skladu z Unescovo klasifikacijo sicer so knjiga, bi pa po načinu trženja bolj sodile v papirno galanterijo, kot so denimo prevodi darilnih knjižic britanske založbe Exley.
Če slovensko lestvico za čas od junija do decembra 2009 premerimo s podobnim vatlom kot ostale evropske lestvice, je med pisci leposlovnih besedil na njej premočen zmagovalec domači avtor Goran Vojnovic (135 točk), sledijo mu Nizozemec Ray Kluun (105 točk), pa dve anglosaški avtorici, Kate Mosse (72 točk) in Elisabeth Gilbert (56 točk), zaključijo pa jo Finec Aarto Paasilinna (48 točk), Srbkinja Mirjana Mojsilovic (26 točk), Španec Carlos Ruiz Zafon (22 točk), Američanki Kathleen Woodiwiss (16 točk) in Julie Garwood (13 točk), zašpili pa jo domači avtor Feri Lainšček (12 točk).
Zanimivo sliko da tudi preglednica založb, ki v Sloveniji izdajajo avtorje uspešnic v vseh, tudi neleposlovnih žanrih: če namreč ne glede na knjižno zvrst seštejemo vse točke vseh uspešnic, ki jih je izdala posamezna založba, je premočni zmagovalec največja založba Mladinska knjiga, sledita ji dve založbi v družinski lasti, Vale Novak in Učila ter Študentska založba, ki je v javni lasti:
založba / mesec	junij	juli/	avgust	september	oktober	november	december	skupaj
MLADINS^CA ^KNJIGA ZALOŽBA	59	64	50	29	39	41	46	328
VALE-NOVAK	49	31	19	30	15		20	164
UČILA INERNATIONAL			13	31	30	33	33	140
študents^ka ZALOŽBA	20	20	20	20	20	20	15	135
IS^CANJA		13	14	18	18	19	16	98
SANJE			11	27	16			54
MODRIJAN	12				17	16		45
DIDAKTA	15	16						31
ARA		11	12					23
ANU ELARA			16					16
FINANCE						14		14
AZIMUT							13	13
TEHNIŠ^CA ZALOŽBA SLOVENIJE						12		12
CZ							12	12
Ta razmerja postanejo še bolj intrigantna, če seštejemo zgolj točke leposlovnih avtorjev: Mladinska knjiga prvo mesto ohrani, saj ima med nele-poslovnimi uspešnicami le štiri razmeroma nizko uvrščena dela, na drugo mesto pa se premočno prebije Študentska založba s svojo mega uspešnico Cefut^i raus, s katero je zbrala še enkrat več točk kot Učila z vsemi svojimi leposlovnimi deli na lestvici.
V seštevku to seveda pomeni, da je bil, kar zadeva knjigarniške uspešnice, slovenski knjižni trg enak ostalim evropskim trgom: na njem se je pojavljala paleta žanrsko izjemno različnih avtorjev (kot so denimo Zafon, Paasilinna ali Mojsilovic), le tri avtorice, ki bi jih pogojno lahko stlačili v kategorijo »hollywoodskih bestselerjev« (Woodivis, Mosse, Garwood), premočan zmagovalec lestvice pa je domač avtor Goran Vojnovic. Še več: na absolutni lestvici uspešnic je sicer res premočan zmagovalec največja založba v državi, vendar uspeh male Študentske založbe dokazuje, da sta tako slovenski knjižni trg kot slovenski kulturni prostor dovolj odprta, da lahko mega uspešnico proizvedeta tudi »marginalna« založba in avtor, ki je tako rekoč marginalec po nazoru. Skratka, kar zadeva odprtost knjigarniške lestvice uspešnic, je stanje v Sloveniji povsem enako kot drugje v Evropi.
Pred večino ostalih evropskih držav imamo v Sloveniji to prednost, da lahko zelo natančno spremljamo knjižnično izposojo, kar je izjemno pomembno zaradi tega, ker je mreža knjižnic neprimerno bolje razvita
kot mreža knjigarn, knjižnična izposoja pa je precej višja od prodaje knjig (več o tem gl. Kovač, Patterns and Trendss). Podatki o knjižnični izposoji, dostopni na spletni strani Izuma http://home.izum.si/cobiss/top_gradi-vo za leto 2009 nam pokažejo precej drugačno sliko kot podatki o knji-garniški prodaji: če odštejemo obvezno branje, mladinsko leposlovje in neleposlovna dela, so med prvimi desetimi najbolj pogosto izposojenimi sami anglosaški avtorji, med katerimi prevladujejo avtorice ljubezenskih romanov. Na premočnem prvem mestu je Kathleen Woodiwiss s 52690 izposojami, sledijo pa ji Julie Garwood (35911 izposoj), James Patterson (27082 izposoj), Amanda Quick (26595 izposoj), Nora Roberts (23199 izposoj), Danielle Steel (20149 izposoj), Nicholas Sparks (19767 izposoj), Dan Brown (19240 izposoj), Anita Shreve (19077 izposoj) in Stephenie Meyer (17897 izposoj). Najbolje prodajani in hkrati tudi najbolj izposojani slovenski avtor, Goran Vojnovic, je šele na enaindvajsetem mestu.
Sestava lestvice najbolj pogosto izposojenih knjig je torej precej drugačna od lestvice prodajnih uspešnic: na njej več kot očitno dominira ena sama anglosaška avtorica, Kathleen Woodiwiss, ki ima med desetimi najbolj pogosto izposojenimi deli kar pet knjig; če dodamo še Julie Garwood, sta dve avtorici »hollywoodskih bestsellerjev« v slovenskih splošnih knjižnicah prisotni kar s sedmimi knjigami med desetimi najbolj pogosto izposojenimi deli, na lestvici najbolj izposojenih avtorjev pa je kar šest avtoric in en avtor, ki pišejo ljubezenske romane. To seveda pomeni, da je stopnja žanrske pluralnosti med knjižničnimi uspešnicami bistveno nižja kot med knjigarniškimi, saj kar sedem od desetih najbolj pogosto izposojenih del v slovenskih splošnih knjižnicah sodi v kategorijo ljubezenskih romanov, prevedenih iz angleščine, ki bi jih med vsemi deli, obravnavanimi v pričujočem besedilu, daleč najlažje označili kot »hollywoodske bestsellerje«. Vsaj na prvi pogled se torej zdi, da smo glede knjižnih uspešnic v Sloveniji proizvedli precejšen paradoks: medtem ko, vsaj glede na najbolj uspešne prodajne uspešnice, slovenske knjigarne in založbe vzdržujejo razmeroma solidno stopnjo vsebinske in nazorske pluralnosti, so knjižnice v »špici« izposoj vzpostavile skoraj popolno kulturno uniformnost. S tega zornega kota je torej videti, da je, kar zadeva knjižno industrijo, zasebni sektor v Sloveniji žanrsko bolj odprt in pluralno naravnan kot javni.3
Že vnaprej pa velja opozoriti, da velja biti pri tovrstnih razmišljanjih previden. V Sloveniji namreč za razliko od mnogih drugih držav članic EU število knjižničnih izposoj daleč presega prodajo knjig (več o tem gl. v Kovač, »Patterns«): medtem ko je denimo število knjižničnih izposoj del Kathleen Wodiwiss v letu 2009 preseglo številko 36.000, je bila po dostopnih ustnih informacijah prodaja njenih del skoraj desetkrat manjša, največja prodajna knjižna uspešnica, Čefurji raus, pa je v dveh letih komaj dosegla prodajo
10.000 izvodov, kar je za skoraj 2000 manj od števila izposoj največje izpo-sojevalne uspešnice zgolj v letu 2009. Tako stanje po eni strani potrjuje hipotezo, ki smo jo zapisali že leta 2002, da so namreč v Sloveniji knjižnične izposoje prevzele tisto vlogo, ki jo na velikih in bolj razvitih trgih imajo mehko vezane knjige; da so, povedano drugače, knjižnične izposoje v Sloveniji nadomestilo za množični knjižni trg. Pri čemer velja opozoriti še na to, da v Sloveniji praktično ničesar ne vemo o prodaji knjig na bencinskih črpalkah, megamarketih in kioskih: če bo tudi ta prodajna mesta nekoč povezal sistem, podoben Nielsenovemu, je povsem mogoče, da bo tudi lestvica prodajnih leposlovnih uspešnic postala podobna lestvici knjižničnih izposoj.
A to je zgolj ugibanje: o tem, na kakšen način knjižnične izposoje dopolnjujejo knjižno prodajo drugje v Evropi, namreč ne vemo skoraj ničesar, saj tovrstnih raziskav praktično ni, zato si tu ne moremo pomagati z analogijami. Povedano drugače, navedeni podatki so nas postavili pred novo raziskovalno vprašanje, namreč, kaj je tisto, kar proizvaja tako različne prevladujoče bralne okuse v slovenskih knjigarnah in knjižnicah: ali so te razlike posledice tega, da te ustanove delujejo v različnih družbenih mi-krookoljih in da v njih obstajajo različni načini odločanja, vrednotne usmeritve in notranja razmerja moči, zaradi česar so knjigarnarji in knjižničarji prenašalci zelo različnih »knjižnih virusov«, ali pa imamo opravka s povsem specifično slovenskim fenomenom, ki ga moramo šele začeti analizirati?
Ne glede na to pa je povsem na mestu, če pričujoče besedilo zaključimo z ugotovitvijo, da je slovenskih trg knjigarniških uspešnic podobno odprt in pluralen kot evropski, namreč tak, da ga je nemogoče opisati s po-enostavljujočo analogijo na fordistično delujočo industrijo kulture, hkrati pa je prevladujoč okus obiskovalcev knjigarn drugačen od prevladujočega okusa obiskovalcev knjižnic. To nas seveda vrača k osnovni hipotezi, da o bralnih navadah Evropejcev in s tem tudi Slovencem vemo izjemno malo in da smo se tu znašli na še skoraj povsem neobdelanem raziskovalnem polju. To z vso svojo prepletenostjo razlik in oblik dominacij morda uteleša tisto najboljše, kar Evropo dela drugačno od ostalega sveta in je zato še toliko bolj vreden raziskovanja.
OPOMBE
1	Larssona denimo v Franciji izdaja Actes Sud, srednjevelika založba iz Arla, v Angliji pa ga MacLehose Press, majhna neodvisna založba, specializirana za prevode, v Nemčiji pa je njegov založnik Heyne, ki je del največjega medijskega konglomerata Random House. Podobno sliko nam pokaže tudi analiza založnikov drugih evropskih knjižnih uspešnic.
2	To dejstvo slej ko prej nakazuje, da je bila v obravnavanem obdobju v Evropi švedska književnost v svojevrstni ekspanziji. Vzroki zanjo bi zahtevali posebno analizo, ki jo v pričujočem besedilu puščamo ob strani.
3 Izraz zasebni sektor velja tu vzeti z določeno mero rezerve. Založbe, ki izdajajo leposlovne knjige, so v mnogih primerih prejemnice subvencij, ki jih za svojo dejavnost občasno dobijo tudi knjigarne, ki hkrati dobršen del svojih prihodkov ustvarijo s prodajo knjižnicam. S tega zornega kota bi tu morda lažje govorili o specifični obliki javno-zaseb-nega partnerstva.
SPLETNI VIR
Nielsen Bookscan: http://www.nielseabookscaa.co.uk/coatroller.php?page=48.
LITERATURA
Anderson, Chris. Dolgi rep. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2009.
Breznik, Maja. »Slovensko založništvo med taylorizmom in onkraj njega.«
Rugelj, Samo (ur.). Izgubljeno v prodaji. Ljubljana: Umco, 2005. 59-84.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Prelomna točka. Ljubljana: Orbis, 2004.
Greco, Albert N. The Book Publishing Industry. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, Mark. »The Decline of Literary Paradigm in Australian Publishing.«
Carter, D., Galligan, A. (ur.). Making Books. Contemporary Australian Publishing.. St.Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 2007.
Kovač, Miha. »Meje rasti. Nekaj korakov k metodologiji raziskovanja knjižnega založništva.« ¥Mj^een^ca 46.4 (2002): 43-63.
---. »Patterns and Trends in European Book Production and Consumption: Some Inital
Observations.« Javnost 11.4 (2004): 21-36.
Kovač, Miha, in Rüdiger Wischenbart. »End of English (British?) Empire? Or Something Else?« Publ^sh^ng R^esea^chQua^r^fly 25.2 (2009): 118-127.
Miller, Laura. »The Bestseller List as Marketing Tool and Historical Fiction.« Book History 3 (2000): 286-304.
Squires, Claire. Marketing Books. The Making of Contemporary Writing in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.
Thompson, John B. Books in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2005.
»Je mogoče podeliti šest od petih zvezdic?«: izbor in priporočanje knjig v dobi interneta
Margrit Schreier
Jacobs University Bremen, Nemčija m.schreier@jacobs-university.de
Da bi raziskali dejavnike, ki vplivajo na izbiro lahkotnejšega čtiva, smo na spletni strani Amazon.com izbrali petindvajset knjižnih uspešnic in preučili petinsedemdeset »najuporabnejših« ocen bralcev. Preučili smo, zakaj bralci priporočajo v branje določene knjige. Rezultati so pokazali, daje za bralca najbolj pomembna možnost vživetja, sledijo pa razlogi, povezani z avtorjem ali s temo. Izbira knjig se torej ravna po določenih vzorcih.
Ključne besede: literarno posredništvo / knjižni trg / uspešnice / knjižne recenzije / bralec / internet
UDK 655.4:028.8
Veliko je bilo že zapisanega o vlogi, ki jo založniki, uredniki in drugi »selektorji« igrajo pri izboru knjig in posredovanju čtiva širši javnosti (Bourdieu; Coser et al.; Janssen; Powell). Ti posredniki so vsekakor zelo pomemben člen, saj odločajo, katere knjige bodo sploh ugledale luč sveta. Res pa je, da je bralec na koncu tisti, ki se odloči, kaj bo kupil, kaj si bo izposodil, kaj bo bral. O dejavnikih, ki vplivajo na bralčevo odločitev, ne vemo kaj dosti (Seegers in Verdaasdonk). Še toliko težje je priti do trdnih zaključkov, kadar pomislimo na spletne vire, saj se nam tam z enim samim klikom miške razgrne nešteto informacij o novih knjigah. Splet vpliva na način iskanja in uporabe informacij o tem, kaj in kako brati. Referat na kratko oriše pretekle raziskave dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na bralčev izbor literature. Dotakne se tudi raziskave spletnih virov, ki usmerjajo bralca pri izbiri čtiva. Sledi kratka študija, ki pregleda ocene knjižnih uspešnic na strani Amazon.com, ki so jih prispevali bralci, in ki ponujajo tudi podatek, zakaj se določena knjiga priporoča v branje tudi drugim.
Dosedanje raziskave
Izbor in nakup določene knjige smo postavili v primerjalno razmerje s potrošniškimi navadami, ki v sebi združujejo kompleksen proces iskanja informacij, oblikovanja preferenc in pa končno odločitev o nakupu ali branju določene knjige (prim. Janssen in Leemans; Kamphuis; Leemans in Stokmans; Leemans in Van Doggenaar). Janssen in Leemans opisujeta knjige kot produkte z visoko stopnjo povezave, ki se formira med knjigo in bralcem; s tem mislita na to, da imajo knjige za bralca osebni pomen in da je nakup podkrepljen z reševanjem osebnim problemov, ali pa naborom ključnih informacij in posledično s preučitvijo opcij, ki jih te informacije prinašajo s seboj (glej tudi Stokmans in Hendrickx).
Le peščica raziskav se ukvarja s kriteriji, po katerih se (potencialni) bralci odločajo za nakup knjig, ki so pritegnile njihovo pozornost. Ena od študij je vključila vprašalnik, ki je bil posredovan dvesto osemnajstim kupcem leposlovja. Kamphuis je ljudi spraševal, zakaj so se odločili kupiti določeno knjigo, pri tem pa je uporabil trinajst kriterijev, ki jih je predhodno izoblikovala testna študija. Izsledki so pokazali, da se večina razlogov nanaša na avtorja knjige; kupci so bodisi imeli v lasti knjige določenega pisca ali pa so jih pač nekoč že brali. Vprašanci so kot razlog za izbiro navedli tudi tematiko, vendar je prevladoval avtor. Kamphuis velik pomen avtorja povezuje z dejstvom, da je na današnjem založniškem trgu avtor pojmovan kot blagovna znamka. To pa ima za posledico tudi »zvestobo blagovni znamki«.
Tudi študija Leemansa in Stokmansove je pokazala, da igra avtor poglavitno vlogo pri odločitvi za branje določene knjige. Petdesetim sodelujočim v raziskavi sta dala vzorec s šestdesetimi naslovi leposlovnih del, ki so obsegala različne žanre. Od ljudi sta zahtevala, da najprej izločijo knjige, ki jih niti malo ne zanimajo, potem pa izmed preostalih naslovov izberejo eno knjigo. V obeh fazah je avtor odigral pomembno vlogo, vendar je bil ta kriterij še izraziteje poudarjen v prvi fazi eliminacije. Dodatni razlogi za izbiro so bili v obeh fazah povezani s tematiko ali pa z žanrom, v drugi fazi izbiranja pa so nekateri izpostavili tudi pripovedni slog. Avtorja in temo izpostavlja tudi kasnejša analiza, ki so jo skupaj pripravili D'Astous, Colbert in Mbarek. Opozarjajo še, da je knjižna naslovnica prav tako magnet, ki pritegne bralca. Vzorec, po katerem bralci izbirajo knjige v knjigarnah in knjižnicah, odkrivajo tudi Duijx, Cees van Rees in Hugo Verdaasdonk. V svoji razpravi poudarjajo pomen pretekle izkušnje z branjem del določenega pisca ali pa določenega žanra (gl. tudi Verdaasdonk).
Spletni pripomočki za izbor čtiva
Bralci lahko izbirajo le med tistimi knjigami, ki so tako ali drugače pritegnile njihovo pozornost. Knjige so proizvodi, pri nakupu katerih se med potrošnikom in blagom vzpostavi tesna povezava oziroma vživetje (»involvement«).1 Raziskave so pokazale, da bralci uporabljajo veliko število virov pri izboru; med drugim iščejo informacije na razstavnih policah knjigarn, kjer predstavljajo novitete, berejo reklamne letake, recenzije, literarne kolumne, na televiziji gledajo oddaje o knjigah ter se ravnajo po priporočilih družinskih članov in prijateljev (Janssen in Leemans; Kamphuis). V zadnjem desetletju je svetovni splet postal pomemben vir informacij o različnih kulturnih proizvodih, še posebej o knjigah (Hargittai; Rohmer). Viri digitalnih informacij vključujejo:
—	Domače spletne strani avtorjev: tam najdemo opise knjig, intervjuje z avtorji, biografske podatke o avtorjih, knjižne recenzije, informacije o literarnih večerih, bralnih skupinah in drugih dogodkih ter vrsto dodatnih informacij, ki spremljajo literarno delo in ustvarjalca.
—	Spletne strani oboževalcev: te strani ponavadi delujejo kot tesno sodelovanje med različnimi posamezniki in skupinami. Osredotočene so tako na »uporabnika« kot na bralca. V primeru, da spletne strani vključujejo tudi literarne poizkuse ljubiteljev določenega avtorja in druge projekte, kot na primer kolaborativne pisateljske podvige, se meja med bralcem in piscem zamegli. Spletna stran ponuja: možnost komunikacije (dopisovanja) v živo, različne igre, povezavo na Twitter, povezovanje s podobnimi skupinami na socialnih omrežjih MySpace in Facebook, uporabo avatarjev, grafik in podob, ki izražajo različna čustvena stanja; najdemo tudi umetniške izdelke oboževalcev (ki jih lahko v uporabo dobijo tudi drugi oboževalci), odlomke literarni poizkusov posameznih oboževalcev itn.
—	Spletne strani založnikov: tam najdemo informacije o novih izdajah, o literarnih branjih, možnost naročila na okrožnice in prejemanje informativnih brošur, informacije o bralnih skupinah, multimedijske vsebine, ki jih lahko prenesemo na svoj računalnik, povezave do odlomkov posameznih del in možnost dodajanja teh odlomkov na druga socialna omrežja (s pomočjo orodja OpenBook) itn.
—	Spletne strani knjigotržcev: Amazon, ki velja za največjo in najbolj priljubljeno spletno trgovino, ponuja sledeče opcije: knjižne recenzije urednikov, povezave na spletne strani avtorjev, povezave na spletne portale različnih skupin in debatnih forumov, povezave k podobnemu čtivu, ključne besede (tags), s katerimi kupci označujejo določeno delo, seznam podobnega čtiva, ki so ga pripravili drugi uporabniki, podatke o tem, katere knjige so kupili drugi kupci, ki so si ogledovali knjigo, ki se izpostavlja, ocene bralcev, itn.
To, kar je izjemno pri takšnih podatkovnih bazah v primerjavi z informacijami o novih knjigah, ki jih najdemo v brošurah, časopisnih recenzijah in televizijskih oddajah, je njihov princip delovanja, ki je izrazito interaktiven in kolaborativen. Včasih so kot glas »stroke« delovali le kritiki in recenzenti; vplivali so na bralstvo in obenem sodelovali pri oblikovanju literarnega statusa in ugleda določenega literarnega dela (Janssen; Van Rees, »How«; Verdaasdonk). Danes, ko imamo na voljo Twitter, Facebook, izmenjavo odlomkov preko OpenBook in pisanje ocen na strani Amazon. com, bralci po vplivu, ki ga imajo na okus in izbiro drugih bralcev, začenjajo presegati kritike. Kot smo že omenili, priporočila prijateljev in kolegov že kar nekaj časa služijo kot pomemben vir informacij pri izboru bralnega čtiva. Vendar pa se je vloga bralca v procesu prenosa vseh naštetih orodij na internet in končne implementacije vseh teh elementov spremenila iz neformalne v institucionalizirano: bralec, ki opisuje, interpretira in ocenjuje knjigo ter svoje mnenje deli s širšo javnostjo, postane del »literarnega polja« (Van Rees, »Introduction«). To k Van Reesovi (»How«) razliki med primarnimi, sekundarnimi in terciarnimi kritiki doda še četrto plast; bralci, ki delujejo kot recenzenti, oblikujejo nov primarni sloj, ki pa se mu pripisuje še manj kredibilnosti in ugleda kot novinarjem in nekdanjim primarnim kritikom.
Tako kot ostali kritiki so tudi bralci pri objavljanju svojih knjižnih priporočil omejeni z institucionalnim kontekstom, v katerem delujejo. Prav te okoliščine uporabijo tudi za to, da svoj način ocenjevanja in svoja priporočila predstavijo kot sprejemljiva za druge (Van Rees, »The Institutional«). Res je, da bralci, ki se na spletu pojavljajo kot recenzenti, ne predstavljajo bralstva v celoti, vseeno pa domnevamo, da lahko razlogi, ki jih navajajo pri svojih priporočilih, nudijo delen vpogled v razloge, ki se tudi drugim bralcem zdijo pomembni pri izboru čtiva. V nadaljnji analizi bomo tako recenzije bralcev iz spletne strani Amazon.com uporabili kot vir informacij o razlogih, ki vplivajo na izbor določenih knjig znotraj širšega bralskega kroga. Za razliko od preteklih raziskav se ne bomo osredotočili na literaturo v ožjem pomenu in na njihove avtorje; zanimale nas bodo knjige, ki pritegujejo najširši možni krog bralcev - to pa pomeni velike knjižne uspešnice in čtivo, ki velja za lahkotnejše branje.
Metode
Pri izboru ocen bralcev, torej pri naboru vzorčne mase smo uporabili dvostopenjski postopek. V prvi fazi smo izbrali petindvajset uspešnic. Pri tem smo domnevali, da se uspešnice iz različnih časovnih obdobij med
seboj ne razlikujejo dosti. To pa pomeni, da je nabor knjižnih uspešnic v katerem koli trenutku precej standarden. Na podlagi tega predvidevanja smo s pomočjo podatkov na strani Amazon.com iz dne 20. julija 2009 (to ni bil vikend) sestavili seznam petindvajsetih uspešnic na področju beletristike. Seznam je prvotno vseboval precej knjig iz iste serije (na listi se je znašlo na primer več knjig Stephenie Meyer iz serije Twilight — Somrak), zato smo seznam popravili in iz prvega nabora izločili vsa tretja in četrta nadaljevanja, ki so bila del ene serije in jih nadomestili z naslednjo knjigo, ki je bila na amazonovi listi (gl. končni seznam petindvajsetih uspešnic v prilogi).
V drugem koraku smo izdelali natančno domišljeno vzorčno bazo. Domnevali smo, da bodo na mnenje bralcev najbolj vplivale tiste ocene, ki so najbolj bogate z informacijami. Da bi se dokopali do te karakteristike zapisanih ocen, smo uporabili pripomoček, ki ga nudi Amazon: bralci namreč lahko zabeležijo, kako uporabna oziroma koristna se jim je določena ocena zdela. Pri vsaki knjižni uspešnici smo tako izbrali tri kritike, ki so jih bralci označili kot najbolj uporabne. Posledično smo dobili vzorčni primer petinsedemdesetih ocen.
Petinsedemdeset ocen smo nato razčlenili na podlagi informacije o tem, kaj je bilo bralcem všeč pri določeni knjigi in zakaj jo priporočajo v branje tudi drugim bralcem. Tovrstno razčlenjevanje in grupiranje je zelo fleksibilna induktivna metoda, ki dovoljuje analizo pomena tekstualnega gradiva z izbrane perspektive - v tem primeru je šlo za razloge, zakaj je nekomu všeč določena knjiga in zakaj jo priporoča. Pri tem smo uporabili program Weft QDA (http://www.pressure.to/qda/, 14. marec 2010).
Iz gradiva so bile po nizu zaporednih branj izluščene kodifikacije za vsak nov razlog, ki se je pojavil. Končni seznam nabranih kodifikacij smo večkrat natančno preučili, združili podobne kategorije in uvedli podpoglavja oziroma pod-kodifikacije, kjer se nam je zdelo potrebno. Končni seznam, ki ga sestavlja dvajset kategorij (vključno s pod-kodifikacijami), smo potem uporabili na izbranih petinsedemdesetih recenzijah (za podroben prikaz gl. spodnjo tabelo).
Rezultati
Seznam petindvajsetih knjižnih uspešnic, ki so bile zajete v naš vzorec, govori o neverjetni žanrski raznolikosti posameznih knjig. Najbolj prodajana knjiga, ki je na vrhu naše liste, je delo The Help (Služkinja) Kathryn Stockett, (sodobni) zgodovinski roman, postavljen v 60. leta prejšnjega stoletja v državo Mississippi. Na drugem mestu je delo Hatry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Harry Potter. Svetinje smrti) J. K. Rowling; to je delo, ki
primarno cilja na mlado bralstvo (vendar knjigo z zanimanjem prebirajo tudi odrasli). Rowlingovi sledi religiozni roman Williama P. Younga The Shack (Koliba). Drugi žanri, ki so se znašli v izboru, so vampirska zgodba (serija Somrak Stephenie Meyer in roman Charlaine Harris iz serije Sookie Stackhouse), spomini (delo Franka McCourta Anger's Ashes - Angelin pepel), znanstvena fantastika (Audrey Niffenegger: The Time Traveller's Wife — Zena popotnika v času), triler (Stieg Larsson: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo — Dekle z zmajskim t^atujem) ter tako imenovana »chick lit« ali lahkotno branje za »punce« (kot je na primer delo Sophie Kinsella Twenties Girl — Neugnano dek/e). Ta pestra mešanica naslovov in žanrov kaže, da recenzije bralcev, ki se nanašajo na nabor petindvajsetih knjig (seveda pa te ocene še ne predstavljajo reprezentativnega vzorca občega mnenja bralcev) resnično pokrivajo širok spekter mnenj in tudi karakteristik, ki jih bralci izpostavljajo kot tiste, ki jih pritegnejo k branju določenih knjig.
Izpostaviti je treba še eno značilnost seznama petindvajsetih uspešnic — precej knjig je del serij: od petindvajsetih kar enajst (na prvem, nepreči-ščenem seznamu jih je bilo kar trinajst). To dokazuje, da so nadaljevanja zelo priljubljena in kaže na vzrok za priljubljenost pri bralcih — poznavanje opisanih svetov in likov, ki jih naseljujejo (za podrobnosti gl. spodaj).
Poglejmo rezultate kodifikacije recenzij. Tabela 1 prikazuje pogostost kodifikacije pri najvišje uvrščenih kategorijah.
Kodifikacija	Pogostost
Možnost povezave (vživetje)	157
Primerjava z drugimi knjigami	58
Kvaliteta pisanja	28
Tematika in žanr	26
Smisel za humor	17
Realistični opisi	10
Vnovično branje	10
Dogajalno ozadje (prostor, čas)	6
Splošen pozitiven vtis	5
Deljenje čtiva z drugimi bralci	4
Literarna klasika	2
Tabela 1: Razlogi za priporočanje knjig v branje: Kodifikacije in frekventnost
Prva tabela jasno kaže, da pri razlogih še posebej izstopa »vživetje« v napisano — gre torej za način in stopnjo, do katere določena knjiga pritegne bralca v svoj svet. »Vživetje« je širok pojem in vključuje veliko načinov
povezovanja z gradivom, ki ga prebiramo. Zato smo izločili devet podkate-gorij, ki opisujejo različne oblike povezave med bralcem in knjigo. Te pod-kategorije so (skupaj s frekventnostjo pojavljanja) navedene v Tabeli 2.
Kodifikacija	Pogostost
Prevzetost z zgodbo, fabulo	39
Povezanost z liki	38
Čustvena povezava	30
Kognitivna povezava	25
Neopredeljena povezava	9
Zabava	7
Estetska povezava	7
Identifikacija	2
Tabela 2: Podkategorije povezave in frekventnost
Prva oblika povezave, ki se omenja pri vseh žanrih, je prevzetost z zgodbo. Bralec želi vedeti, kaj se bo zgodilo v nadaljevanju, medtem ko bere, pa čuti suspenz. Nekaj se gotovo skriva v izrazu »neodložljivo« ali pa »knjigo sem kar požiral«, kakor lahko beremo v opisu knjige Dekle z ijem: »[Vjerjemite mi, da če iščete branje, ki ga ne boste mogli
odložiti iz rok, če iščete biser med knjigami, je to knjiga za vas.«
Bralci se ne povežejo le z zgodbo ampak tudi z liki, kot nam dokazuje sledeči citat (spet smo ga vzeli iz recenzije knjige Dekle z zmajskim tatujem):: »Preprosto izjemna je: skoraj pretirano je neizprosna in drzna, a vendar notranje ranljiva in v neprestanem naprezanju, da bi razumela svoje lastne emocije. Ima privlačnost, ki bralca pritegne, ga priklene nanjo in bralec si jo preprosto želi razumeti. Lisbeth, za razliko od številnih drugih likov, ki se pojavljajo v trilerjih, ne moremo pozabiti. V sebi nosi prav posebno globino.« Tu gre še za eno karakteristiko, ki smo jo našli v recenzijah različnih žanrov. Res pa je, da je povezava s posameznim karakterjem najmočneje izražena v romanih, ki so del serije, kot na primer Harry Potter: Svetinje smrti ali pa vampirski romani iz serij Somrak in Sookie Stackhouse. Znotraj »Povezave s karakterji« najdemo tudi podmnožico, ki združuje recenzije, napisane na bolj razmišljujoč, analitičen način. Velika večina ocen, ki izpostavljajo povezavo z literarnimi junaki, je napisanih iz perspektive nekoga, ki se je z liki poistovetil. Podmnožica, ki jo omenjam, pa se ukvarja bolj z načinom, kako je avtor oblikoval posamezen karakter: »Lik ima takšno globino, da me je ob branju navdajal občutek, da je avtorica morala 'spoznati' in poznati določene aspekte tega lika v realnem življenju ali pa je v svojem življenju izkusila podobno usodo - literarne
osebnosti in njihove medsebojne interakcije so oblikovane z veliko mero psihološke globine« (odlomek iz recenzije dela Jennifer Weiner Best Friends Forever — Najboljši prijateljici za vedno). Znotraj našega vzorčnega nabora takšnega analitičnega pogleda ne zasledimo pri nobeni oceni romanov, ki so del serije.
Sledeči dve kategoriji povezave se nanašata na bolj emocionalno in pa na kognitivno plat doživljanja. Emocionalno vez ponazarja odlomek iz ocene knjige z naslovom Olive Kitteredge: »Pripovedi o podeželskem življenju v Mainu, ki jih med seboj povezuje junakinja Olive Kitteridge, so tako čustveno iskrene in odzvanjajo tako globoko, da sem se po koncu branja počutila popolnoma krhko in ranljivo.« Kognitivna povezava pa se ponavadi odraža skozi pripovedi bralcev o tem, kako so se skozi knjigo naučili nečesa novega in kako jim je knjiga spremenila videnje in razumevanja določene stvari. Knjiga, pri kateri se je pojavila visoka stopnja kognitivne povezave, je religiozni roman: »To je ena najbolj miselno stimulativnih knjig, ki sem jih kdajkoli prebral. Knjigo sem prebral v enem samem večeru. Romana preprosto ne morete odložiti. Poskrbi tudi za presenetljiv in nepričakovan preobrat, ki izzove vse bralčeve teološke postavke, ki jih je imel za neizpodbitne. Trenutno ravno zaključujem vnovično branje (drugo po vrsti); ko bom bral naslednjič, nameravam imeti pri roki tudi svinčnik in podčrtati misli, o katerih bi rad podrobneje razmislil.
Emocionalna vpletenost, na primer povezanost s samo zgodbo, je kategorija, ki se pojavlja v ocenah knjig vseh žanrov. Kognitivna povezanost pa se ni pojavila v prav nobeni oceni romanov iz serij, saj prevladuje v romanih, ki imajo bolj »literarne aspiracije« (na primer The Shacks, Eleganca ježa, The Book Thief, Olive Kitteredgi).
Preostale oblike povezav z literarnimi deli so v ocenah bistveno manj navzoče. Kategorija »neopredeljena povezanost« se nanaša na ocene, ki so sicer omenjale vez z literarnim delom, vendar niso ponudile nobenih podrobnosti o izstopajočih lastnostih knjige ali pa o obliki vezi, ki se je vzpostavila med delom in bralcem. To ponazarja ocena knjige Breaking Dawn (Jutranja zarja):: »Zaključka serije, ki me je zares pritegnila in ki sem jo vzljubila, si vsekakor nisem predstavljala tako, kot je prikazano v romanu Jutranja zarja. Vendar pa nisem bila razočarana. Mislim, da je Stephanie Meyer napisala knjigo, ki je polna pisateljičinega zadovoljstva, da ustvarja nekaj, kar bo bralcem v resničen užitek.« »Zabava« označuje še eno dokaj nedefinirano kategorijo. To karakterizacijo smo uporabili povsod tam, kjer so bralci uporabili izraz »zabavno«, »razvedrilno«. Beremo na primer: »Kakorkoli že, knjiga je vse od začetka do konca izvirno in zabavno branje.« Opazka se nanaša na delo The Guernsey Litet^ary and Potrato Peel Pie Society (Guerneysko društvo za književnost in pito iz kr^ompirjevih olupkoi).
Še ena oblika povezave med besedilom in bralcem se nanaša na uporabo jezika; to smo poimenovali »estetska povezava«. Takšna vez se izpostavlja na primer v sledečem odlomku, ki se nanaša na delo South of Broad: »Conroy uporablja res čudovit jezik — določene stavke sem si želel večkrat prebrati. Nekatere dele sem bral celo naglas, saj sem želel slišati zven besed.« Tudi estetska vez (tako kot kognitivna) ni bila izražena v ocenah, ki so se nanašale na knjige iz določene serije; omenjena je bila v bolj izrazito »literarnih« delih (Angelin pepel^, South of Broad, The Book Thief in Eleganca ježa).
Zadnji tip povezave s tekstom, ki ga imenujemo »identifikacija« (uporabljamo terminologijo iz recenzij), se je pojavil le dvakrat. Ta tip vključuje tudi povezavo z literarnimi liki, a obenem sega preko neke splošne simpatije, saj vključuje tudi specifične analogije med fikcionalnim likom in bralcem: »Še posebej z užitkom sem prebrala tisti del knjige, ki se ukvarja z Olivo v letih po upokojitvi; predvsem me je pritegnil njen način ukvarjanja z drugimi ljudmi in tudi s seboj. Predvsem se lahko identificiram z Olivino jezo, ki jo kaže v neprijetnih situacijah, prav tako pa tudi z njeno nežnostjo in rahločutnostjo, ki ju razkrije v drugih trenutkih. Tako kot Oliva sem bila tudi sama že tako norec kot modrijan« (ocena se nanaša na delo Olive Ketteridge).
Poleg »vživetja« bralci kot pogost razlog za naklonjenost, ki jo čutijo do določene knjige, navajajo tudi primerjavo z drugo knjigo, ki jih je bila všeč (glej Tabelo 1). Primerjave, ki smo jih zasledili v ocenah, bi lahko razdelili na dva tipa: nanašale so se bodisi na drugega pisatelja ali pa na druge knjige istega avtorja. Primerjave z drugimi avtorji imajo širok obseg in segajo vse od Charlesa Dickensa do Trumana Capoteja; omenja se celo Biblija, najdemo pa tudi reference na zelo priljubljena dela, kot je na primer Da Vincijeva šifr^a. Takšne primerjave se pojavljajo pri vseh uspešnicah, ki so prišle na lestvico najboljših petindvajset. Žanr pri tem ni igral nobene vloge. Včasih pri takšnih primerjavah bralci pokažejo prav osupljivo visoko raven poznavanja literature. O tem priča ocena dela Fr^om Dead to Wor^se - (roman je del serije Sookie Stackhouse)::
Kot bralec si vedno znova zadajam nove bralne izzive oziroma projekte. Lansko leto sem se odločil, da se želim posvetiti tako bolj pomembnim in uveljavljenim imenom (na primer Bram Stoker, Theodore Sturgeon, Richard Matheson, Poppy Brite, George R. R. Martin) kot tudi kritiško manj spoštovanim, a sicer zelo priljubljenim piscem (Anne Rice, Laurell K. Hamilton, Stephenie Meyer). Naletel pa sem tudi na nekaj piscev, ki jih nikakor nisem mogel umestiti v nobeno od teh dveh skupin. Eden takih je bil F. Paul Wilson, ki ga še nisem »obdelal«, naslednja je Charlaine Harris. Sprva me je bilo strah, da bo postala nova Laurell K. Hamilton, ki je na začetku kariere ogromno obetala, potem pa je kar naenkrat začela tavati v temi in delati en napačen korak za drugim. Tako je uničila nekaj, kar bi lahko
postalo čisto berljiva serija romanov (v nekaterih knjigah, kot je na primer delo OBSIDIAN BUTTERFLY - ki je začuda popolnoma nepovezano z obupnim St. Louisom, ki je uničil večino njenih knjig - je pokazala neizkoriščeni potencial, ki ga njena serija Anita Blake nosi v sebi). Našel sem celo vrsto zanimivih vzporednic, med drugim tudi protagonista, ki ima nadnaravne moči in prihaja tudi iz takšne rodbine. Druži se z vampirji in podobnimi bitji in se v njihovem krogu zaljubi. Ampak kot so knjige iz serije Anita Blake postajale vedno manj domiselne in vedno bliže pornografiji, so romani iz serije Sookie Stackhouse postajali vedno bolj izvirni, zabavni in polni presenečenj. Vse tisto, kar je bilo v Aniti Blake nepo-srečeno, je bilo v Sookie Stackhouse odlično zastavljeno in izpeljano.
Primerjave z drugimi knjigami istega avtorja so v ocenah knjig, ki so del serije, zelo pogoste. V oceni dela New Moon (M/ada luna) beremo tole: »Čeravno večina bralcev ni pričakovala ravno takšnega nadaljevanja, je nadaljevanje romana Twilight (Somr^ak) preseglo pričakovanja z neverjetno nepredvidljivo zgodbo, v kateri pa se pojavijo junaki, ki smo jih že prej vzljubili!« Še posebej je vprašanje o tem, ali je knjiga dosegla pričakovanja, ki jih pogojujejo pretekli romani v seriji, izpostavljeno v ocenah zadnjega dela Harryja Pottra. Beremo: »Popolnoma me je prevzelo tole: Nekateri so imeli prav pri opažanju, kdo je dober, kdo slab, kdo bo živel in kdo bo umrl - ampak skoraj nihče ni zadel vzroka, torej zakaj je temu tako. Pričakoval sem razburljiv, a tudi predvidljiv konec. Vendar me je na koncu popolnoma vrglo iz tira. Že leta smo vedeli, da je Rowlingova vražje bistra, a vseeno si nisem mislil, da je t^ako zelo pametna.«
Kot prikazuje Tabela 1, sta bralčeva vzpostavitev občutka povezanosti z besedilom in pa primerjava z drugimi knjigami daleč najbolj pogosta razloga, ki ju bralci omenjajo v priporočilih in ocenah. Manj pogost razlog je kvaliteta pisanja. To kategorijo zasledimo v komentarju h knjigi Sar^ah's Key — (Sarin »Tatiana de Rosnay je oblikovala dobro spisano knjigo, ki se časovno giblje med letom 1942 in sedanjostjo.« Bralci knjigo lahko priporočajo tudi zaradi teme: »To je knjiga o ljubezni in trpljenju, sovraštvu in veri, strahu in pogumu. Pripoveduje o ženskah ter njihovi moči in dostojanstvu, o njihovi sposobnosti, da, navkljub nepravičnemu in represivnemu sistemu preživijo in skrbijo tudi za druge« (odlomek iz ocene dela The Help). V tematsko kategorijo smo umestili vsa priporočila, ki so omenjala določeno temo ali pa žanr (kot na primer opredelitev romana Zenapopotnik^a v času za znanstveno-fantastični roman). Kvaliteta pisanja in tematika sta se omenjali približno enako pogosto in obe kategoriji sta se pojavili v vseh ocenah bralcev ne glede na žanr izbranega dela.
Bralci so pri nekaterih knjigah kot razlog, zakaj jih je bila knjiga všeč, izpostavili tudi avtorjev smisel za humor: »Ganljivo branje, a na trenutke tudi neverjetno duhovito. Kar naenkrat se v pripovedi pojavi izvirni
humor, to pa naredi branje še bolj prijetno in ublaži nekoliko trše, grenke situacije« (opis se nanaša na El^egancoježa). Kot še en razlog za priljubljenost določenih knjig se navajajo tudi realistični opisi. Ta kategorija se nanaša tako na opise resničnih dogodkov kot tudi na psihološki realizem v pripovedi: »Liki so izzveneli tako resnično, da je kar težko verjeti, da so izmišljeni« (o romanu The Help). Tudi občutek, da bi si želeli knjigo še enkrat prebrati je ena izmed navedenih karakteristik, ki se je pojavila v ocenah: »Povem vam, da je to izjemna knjiga, čudovita knjiga; to je knjiga, ki si jo želim znova in znova brati ^« (opis se nanaša na The Book Thief). Vsi našteti razlogi se omenjajo pri vseh žanrih.
Preostale razloge pa smo zasledili manj kot desetkrat v vseh recenzijah, a jih vseeno predstavljamo, saj je bil naš vzorčni nabor knjig dokaj majhen. Ti razlogi so: način opisa izbranega prostora in časa (»Charlaine Harris je nedvomno krasna avtorica. Piše na izredno očarljiv, nazoren in tudi zabaven način; že če preberem eno samo stran, se takoj preselim v kraj Bon Temps v Louisiani«); splošen pozitiven vtis, kjer ni navedenih nobenih specifičnih razlogov (»Že leta in leta nisem bral tako odlične knjige! Absolutno jo priporočam v branje! Čudovita je in mislim, da bodo po njej posneli tudi film«; opis govori o romanu The Help); želja po deljenju bralne izkušnje z drugimi bralci (» ^ v zadnjih letih sem naletel le na par knjig, po branju katerih sem se resno zamislil, komu lahko pošljem izvod v branje in z njim/ njo delim čudovito izkušnjo. Tu mislim na knjige, ki si jih potem, ko jih preberem, želim takoj spet vzeti v roke«; odlomek ocene iz The Book Thief); knjiga ima lastnosti, ki ji dajejo pridih velike literarne klasike (»Knjiga Angelin pepel je novodobna klasika«). Naj še enkrat poudarim, da vse te kategorije najdemo pri vseh žanrih, čeprav smo izbor omejili na majhno število knjig.
Razprava
Pretekle raziskave faktorjev, ki vplivajo na izbor določene knjige, so poudarjale predvsem avtorja, torej pisateljsko osebnost, ki je vplivala na odločitev bralca, in pa tematiko; do neke mere se je izpostavljal tudi pripovedni slog (glej D'Astous et al; Kamphuis; Leemans in Stokmans). Tudi v naši analizi so se zgoraj navedeni razlogi izkazali za pomembne. Iščemo jih lahko tako v bolj strogo literarnih (bolj umetniških delih, na katera so se osredotočale pretekle raziskave) kot tudi v lažjem čtivu (ki je prevladovalo v našem naboru petindvajsetih uspešnic). Vendar pa v primerjavi s preteklimi analizami naša študija poudarja pomen stopnje povezave med besedilom in bralcem in tako ta element bralne izkušnje
postane najpomembnejši faktor oziroma vzrok za branje in priporočilo drugim bralcem.
A če natančno pogledamo zapisane rezultate, vidimo, da ključni pomen, ki ga naša študija pripisuje različnim oblikam vživetja v knjigo, ni v nasprotju z izsledki prejšnjih analiz. Ko so v prejšnjih raziskavah bralci poudarjali pomen povezave z literarnimi liki, so omenili tudi izkušnje z istimi liki v predhodnih knjigah (ki so bile del serije istega avtorja): »Menim, da je knjiga namenjena tistim privržencem, ki so se že v preteklosti zaljubili v like. Odkar je pred letom dni izšel roman A// Together Dead (Povsem mrtvi), se sprašujem, kaj se bo zgodilo v nadaljevanju in spekuliram o tem, po katerih poteh se nemara odpravijo protagonisti. Nadaljevanje z naslovom From Dead to Worse s seboj prinaša kar nekaj odličnih zgodb, bralcu omogoči uvid v marsikatero podrobnost, o ozadju katere smo se vsi spraševali, hkrati pa pripravi tudi odličen teren za, vsaj upam tako, veliko novih nadaljevanj.« Povezava z liki se navezuje na povezavo, ki jo bralec čuti do pripovednega sveta. Naš nabor petindvajsetih uspešnic vsebuje tudi veliko knjig, ki so del serij in ta rezultat poudari dejstvo, ki ga je izpostavila že pretekla raziskava (Duijx idr.) - izbira knjige pogosto temelji na prepoznavanju določenega vzorca. Občutek domačnosti, poznavanja teritorija je za bralca zelo privlačna lastnost; občutek povezanosti in pa potencial »zaščitne znamke«, ki ga določeni literarni svetovi nosijo v sebi, pa sta pri izbiri knjige še posebej izpostavljena na spletu, in sicer s pomočjo povezav z domačimi stranmi avtorjev in s spletnimi stranmi ljubiteljev določene knjige.
Poleg omenjenih razlogov, ki vplivajo na izbiro knjig vseh mogočih žanrov, naša študija pokaže tudi na dodatne faktorje, ki pridejo v ospredje le pri določenem tipu bralcev in pa samo pri določenih žanrih. Tu mislimo na oblikovanje literarnih likov ter na kognitivno in estetsko povezavo. Naštete kategorije se navajajo kot razlogi za izbor predvsem pri »napol-lahkem« čtivu, kot je na primer delo Angelin pepel. Pretekle raziskave niso vključevale faktorjev, ki jih tu omenjamo: na primer avtorjev smisel za humor, želja po vnovičnem branju in želja po tem, da čtivo delimo z drugimi. V bodoče se bo treba posvetiti tudi temu, kakšno vlogo bralec in njegova ocena sploh igrata pri odločitvah drugih bralcev.
Naša analiza je zaobjela majhen, a vseeno z informacijami bogat vzorec knjižnih ocen. V prihodnje se bomo morali lotiti obširnejših naborov ocen, ki bodo prišle iz različnih obdobij, iz različnih dežel in od različnih založniških hiš. Le tako bomo lahko preverili, kako trdne so naše postavke. Morali bomo ugotoviti tudi, ali se za različne vrste čtiva pojavljajo različni razlogi; analize bi lahko preverjale razloge za priporočila »umetniških« knjig ter »lažjih« čtiv, obenem pa med seboj primerjale razloge za priporočila različnih žanrov. Internet nam ponuja nepregledno polje
informacij o bralski recepciji. Te raziskave so v domeni študij recepcije in
študij bralčevega odziva. Izsledki so odvisni od tega, kako se bomo lotili
analize gradiva, ki je na razpolago.
Prevedla Leonora Flis
OPOMBA
1 Angleški izraz »involvement« slovenimo z »vživetjem« ali »povezavo« (prev. op.).
LITERATURA
Bourdieu, Pierre. »The market of symbolic goods.« Poetics 14.1-2 (1985): 13-44.
Coser, Lewis A., Charles Kadushin in Walter W. Powell. Books. The culture and commerce of publishing. New York: Basic Books, 1982.
D'Astous, Alain, Francois Colbert in Imene Mbarek. »Factors influencing readers' interest in new book releases: An experimental study.« Poetics 34.2 (2006): 134-147.
Duijx, A., Cees van Rees in Hugo Verdaasdonk. »Choice behaviour of purchasers and borrowers of books.« Poetics 20.5-6 (1990): 439-469.
Hargittai, Eszter. »Open portals or closed gates? Channeling content on the World Wide Web.« 27.4 (2000): 233-253.
Janssen, Susanne. »The empirical study of careers in literature and the arts.« The psychology and sociology of literature. In honor of Elrud Ibsch. Ur. Dick Schram in Gerald Steen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. 323-357.
Janssen, Susanne, in Hein Leemans. »Differences in consumer behaviour between buyers of literature.« Poetics 17.6 (1988): 563-575.
Kamphuis, Jan. »Satisfaction with books: Some empirical findings.« Poetics 20.5-6 (1990): 471-485.
Leemans, Hein, in Mia Stokmans. »Attributes used in choosing books.« Poetics 20.5-6 (1990): 487-505.
Leemans, Hein, in J. van Doggenaar. »Subdivisions of book supply made by individual buyers of literature.« Poetics 16.3-4 (1987): 255-268.
Powell, Walter W. Getting into print: The decision-making process in scholarly publishing Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Rohmer, Ernst. »Linkliste und Leselust. Möglichkeiten der Literaturvermittlung im Internet.« Jahrbuch für Computerphilologie 3 (2001): 43-54.
Seegers, G., in Hugo Verdaasdonk. »Choice patterns of adult users of a public library.« Poetics 16.3-4 (1987): 353-368.
Stokmans, Mia, in M. Hendrickx. »The attention paid to new book releases on a display table.« Poe^^ic^s 22.3 (1994): 185-197.
Van Rees, Cees. »Introduction: Advances in the empirical sociology of literature and the arts.« Poe^^ic^s 12.4-5 (1983): 285-310.
---. »How a literary work becomes a masterpiece: On the threefold selection practised by
literary criticism.« Poetics 12.4-5 (1983): 397-418.
---. »The institutional foundation of a critic's connoisseurship.« Poetics 18.1-2 (1989):
179-198.
Verdaasdonk, Hugo. »Effects of acquired readership and reviewers' attention on the sales of new literary works.« Poetics 16.3-4 (1987): 237-254.
PRILOGA: SEZNAM NAJBOLJŠIH LEPOSLOVNIH DEL NA STRANI AMAZON. COM Z DNE 20. JULIJA 2009
1.	Kathryn Stockett: The Help
2.	J. K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Harry Potter. Svetinje smrti)
3.	William P. Young: The Shack (Koliba)
4.	Charlaine Harris: Sookie Stackhouse
5.	Mary Ann Shaffer: The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (Guernseysko društvo za
književnost in pito iz krompirjevih olupkov)
6.	Audrey Niffenegger: The Time Traveler's Wife (Žena popotnika v času)
7.	Stieg Larsson: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Dekle z zmajskim tatujem)
8.	Frank McCourt: Angela's Ashes: A Memoir (Angelin pepel: spomini)
9.	Stephenie Meyer: Breaking Dawn (^Jutranja zarja)
10.	Elizabeth Strout: Olive Kitteredge
11.	Muriel Barberry: The Elegance of the Hedgehog
12.	Jennifer Weiner: Best Friends Forever
13.	Stephenie Meyer: New Moon (Mlada luna)
14.	Stieg Larsson: The Girl Who Played with Fire (Dekle, ki seje igralo z ognjem)
15.	Pat Conroy: South of Broad
16.	Tatiana de Rosnay: Sarah's Key
17.	Janet Evanovich: Finger Lickin' Fifteen
18.	Charlaine Harris: From Dead to Worse
19.	Sophie Kinsella: Twenties Girl (Neugnano dekle)
20.	Seth Grahame-Smith: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
21.	Markus Zusak: The Book Thief
22.	Rack Riordan: The Last Olympian
23.	Lisa See: Shanghai Girls
24.	Stephenie Meyer: The Host (Duša)
25.	James Rollins: The Doomsday Key
Kdo izbere, kaj bralec bere? Kibertekstualna perspektiva
Aleš Vaupotič
Visoka šola za dizajn, Ljubljana, Slovenija ales@vaupotic.com
Predmet literarne vede je področje, ki zajema avtorja, literarni izdelek in bralca, literarna komunikacija pa poteka v družbenozgodovinskem kontekstu. Za knjižno ali revijalno objavo besedila je v institucionalnem smislu odločilen urednik kot subjektna pozicija, ki izbirajoč odloča, katera besedila bodo v natisnjeni obliki javno dostopna. To besedilo bo osvetlilo problem izbora na drugi ravni, ki se nazorno pokaže v okvirih računalniško podprtih literarnih del. Espen Aarseth pokaže s kibertekstualnega gledišča na pomembno razliko med literarnoestetskimi doživljaji in materialnimi kofiguracijami materialnega substrata, denimo črk na ekranu, ki jim estetske konkretizacije šele sledijo. Med novomedijskimi besedili so pogosta dela, ki se interaktivno prilagajajo bralcem. Sami znaki, ki vstopajo v bralno dejanje, so variabilni. Vtis, da se vnovič vzpostavlja substancialnost besedila, je napačen, saj posledica »tekstualnega stroja« ni »brezavtorsko« stanje, ampak razcep avtorja, pogosto dobesedno na dve osebi, na konstruktorja aparata in njegovega uporabnika. Izbira postane eden ključnih postopkov. Besedilo tako zastavlja literarni vedi pomembna vprašanja o »digitalnih skupnostih« in kolaborativnem avtorstvu, o možnosti strojnega generiranja besedila ali poezije. Poseben problem so teksti, kijih proizvajajo informacijske tehnologije same, vendar črpajoč iz družbenozgodovinsko ! izjav.
Ključne besede: informacijska tehnologija / novi mediji / avtorstvo / interaktivna literatura / kibertekstualnost
UDK 004: 82
Izjava in govorna komunikacija (Mihail Bahtin)
Za Bahtinov koncept govorne komunikacije, ki opisuje v prihodnost odprto dialoško izmenjavo izjav,1 je konstitutivna izmenjava govorcev. Ko govorec zgradi izjavo, ji hkrati podeli posebno »energijo«, ki specifično učinkuje v polju oblasti-vednosti.2 Izjava je vedno konkretna, neločljiva od kulturnega konteksta (znanost, umetnost, politika in posamezne osebne življenjske situacije. Bahtin se je pri raziskavah literarnih pojavov
osredotočal na dialog, tj. na izmenjavo govorcev, ki poteka v okviru in prek meja posameznih literarnih umetnin.
»Običajna« objava tiskane knjige - pisanje in izbiranje
Če je meja med izjavami trenutek konca zavestnega dejanja izjavljanja, je »govorec« knjige oseba, ki sprejme odgovornost za natisnjeno knjigo kot kompleksno izjavo, ki jo bodo brali. Da bi tovrstna »sekundarna izjava« nastala, so potrebne tri institucionalno podprte pozicije subjekta (pojem Michela Foucaulta): (a) avtor, ki fiksira besedilni material na izbran materialni nosilec, recimo črnilo na papirju, (b) avtor-urednik, ki (kritično) prebere verzije besedila, ki obstajajo pred objavo, in (c) urednik-založnik, ki posreduje med »zasebno« dokončanim besedilom in obstoječim stanjem literarnega sistema, njegovimi ekonomskimi in političnimi vidiki (oboje v najširšem pomenu izraza). Omenjene vloge oziroma pozicije subjekta pri nastajanju in objavi knjige lahko obstajajo v mejah ene osebe, vendar so kot dejavnosti nujno razločene (na primer avtor lahko sam financira, objavi in oglašuje svoje besedilo). Običajno urednik, potem ko izbere, katero besedilo bo objavljeno, vpliva na spremembe samega besedila, pri tem pa se bralno dejanje, izbiranje in pisanje ter predelovanje zgostijo v dinamično polje interakcij. Šele to polje zgradi končni besedilni objekt,3 ki določa svojo mejo v odnosu do naslovnika, bralca (pri tem se seveda predvidi tudi njegove možne odzive).
Shema komunikacije v besedilni pustolovski igri
Espen J. Aarseth v knjigi Cyber^text s pomočjo izrazov »kibertekst« in »ergodična literatura« (ergodic literature) teoretsko pojasni, kako dinamična besedila konstruirajo verzije besedila, ki jih bralec kasneje konkretizira v literarno-estetskih doživljajih (Ingarden). Izraz »ergodičen« je Aarseth sestavil iz starogrških besed za »dejanje« ^pyov, ergon) in »pot« (öööq, hodos), da bi opisal uporabnikova dejanja in odločitve, ki vplivajo na vsakokratno podobo besedila. Njegova metoda poudarja bistveno razliko med besedilom, katerega materialna eksistenca se ne spreminja in pri katerem bralci venomer berejo iste črke, in kibertekstom, ki je besedilni stroj, sestavljen iz (i) tekstonov (texton), arhiva besedilnih fragmentov, (ii) funkcij prečenja (traver^sal function), algoritmov, ki regulirajo njegovo delovanje, in (iii) skrip-tonov (scriptons), elementov, ki se dejansko prikažejo pred bralcem, potem ko so jih funkcije prečenja izbrale iz arhiva tekstonov in na določen način
uredile (v sekvenco ali v kompozicijo). Primer kiberteksta, namenjenega enemu uporabniku, je besedilna pustolovska igra — hkrati literarno besedilo in igra. Bralec ga bere ergodično, aktivno konstruira svojo pot skozi delo, tako da se ravna po pravilih, ki so integralni del besedila. Uporabnik navigira lik (avatarja) skozi labirint s pomočjo besedilnih vnosov. Značilen primer tega žanra je Adventure (Pustolovščina, 1976) Williama Crowtherja in Dona Woodsa.4
WELCOME TO ADVENTURE!! WOULD TOU LIKE INSTRUCTIONS?
SOMEWHERE NEARBY IS COLOSSAL CAVE, WHERE OTHERS HAVE FOUND FORTUNES IN TREASURE AND GOLD, THOUGH IT IS RUMORED THAT SOME WHO ENTER ARE NEVER SEEN AGAIN. MAGIC IS SAID TO WORK IN THE CAVE. I WILL EE YOUR EYES AND HANDS. DIRECT HE WITH COMMANDS OF 1 OR 2 WORDS. I SHOULD WARN YOU THAT I LOOK AT ONLY THE FIRST FIVE LETTERS OF EACH WORD, SO YOU'LL HAVE TO ENTER "NORTHEAST" AS "NE" TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM "NORTH". (SHOULD YOU GET STUCK, TYPE "HELP" FOR SOME GENERAL HINTS. FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO END YOUR ADVENTURE, ETC., TYPE "INFO".)
THIS PROGRAM WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED BY WILLIE CROWTHER. HOST OF THE FEATURES OF THE CURRENT PROGRAM WERE ADDED BY DON WOODS (DON 13 SU-AI) . CONTACT DON IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMHENTS, ETC.
YOU ARE STANDING AT THE END OF A ROAD BEFORE A SHALL BRICK BUILDING. AROUND YOU IS A FOREST. A SHALL STREAH FLOWS OUT OF THE BUILDING AND
YOU ARE INSIDE A BUILDING, A WELL HOUSE FOE A LARGE SPRING. THERE ARE SOHE KEYS ON THE GROUND HERE.
Slika 1. Adventure (William Crowther in Don Woods)
Spodnja shema prikazuje tri ravni, na katerih se uporabnik srečuje s ki-bertekstom. (Branje običajne knjige opisuje vrstica »bralec«, medtem ko v vrstici »ergodični bralec« prepoznamo morebitni razmislek bralca o ideologiji založbe. Običajna statična knjiga praviloma ne kodira plasti »branja« kot »igranja igre«, ki je za ergodično besedilo zelo pomembna.)
dialoška eksistenca (pozicije subjekta)	točke materialnega stika z izjavo	dialoški proces razumevanja (od leve proti desni predstavljeni glas izgublja svoj ideološki potencial in postaja pasivni objekt)		
bralec	skriptoni	literarno-estetski doživljaj (Ingarden)		/
	implicitni bralec — implicitni avtor: interpretacija (vzajemni vpliv besedila in bralca)	aktivni glasovi (pripovedovalci)	glasovi kot objekti	
	kibertekst »kaznuje« tmezo (Barthes))"	avatar (utelešenje bralca) kot lik v pripovedi	pasivna podoba avatarja	
Igralec igre	—	skriptoni igre —	dokumentacija: funkcija prečenja, tekstoni	igralni dofivljaj		
	implicirani igralec — implicirani ustvarjalec: igranje (uporabnikova akcija, mofno^-t neuspeha)	tarča spletke (intriguee) — spletkar (intrigant)	spletka (intrigue)	ergodični dnevnik (ergodic log)
		razumevanje igre	strateška akcija (pogajanje s splekarjem prek glasu igre in avatarja)	zaporedje stanj igre (delni uspeh ali neuspeh, »sated desire for closure«)
ergodični bralec	algoritmi igre — programer	kritični premislek ideologije igre	/	/
	nepredvideno »emergentno vedenje«, šum, avtor-kiborg, tehno-imaginacija (Flusser)			
Slika 2. Shema komunikacije v besedilni pustolovski igri
Shema združuje branje in igranje igre. Medtem ko se v primeru knjige bralec sooča s statičnim besedilom, zvezanim v knjigo, in s tem z izbirami avtorja in urednika, uporabnik besedilne igre »igra« oziroma »izvaja« besedilo, s tem pa (tudi) njegove odločitve vplivajo na potek in rezultat branja. Dejavnosti branja in igranja ni mogoče obravnavati ločeno, saj vidik igranja strukturno preoblikuje bralno dejanje. (Na te spremembe na zgornji shemi opozarja kurziva v vrstici »bralec«.)
Večuporabniški diskurz
Vendar si je kibertekst, ki je namenjen enemu samemu uporabniku, mogoče zamisliti kot izjavo v kontekstu tradicionalnega koncepta avtorstva. Dodane so zgolj plasti avtorstva: pripovedni vidik dela postane plast poleg plasti igre (game). (Zadnja vrstica v shemi, tj. »ergodični bralec«, kaže v smer problemov »emergentnega vedenja«, ki se jim bo treba v nadaljevanju posebej posvetiti.) Kako pa je z avtorstvom in izmenjavo izjav v kiber-tekstu, ki je namenjen več uporabnikom? Aarseth opiše zanimiv zgodnji primer večuporabniškega diskurza (multiuser discourse), t. i. »večuporabniško ječo« (Multi-User Dungeon, MUD). Tokrat so uporabniki povabljeni ne samo k skupnemu igranju igre, ki ga praviloma spremlja »klepetanje« (chai), ko se uporabniki, običajno prek spleta, sporazumevajo med seboj, ampak tudi h gradnji in programirajnu novih spletk (intrigue) in pripovedi v prostoru MUD zase in za ostale udeležence.6 V tej situaciji se pojem avtorstva še bolj spremeni.
Aarseth poimenuje z izrazom »netiketa« (netiquette) pravila, ki urejajo vedenje uporabnikov v večuporabniškem diskurzu in omogočajo, da posamezni projekt kljub odprtosti za spremembe in intervencije sploh obstaja. Dvojnost jezikovne plasti in plasti igre iz besedilne pustolovske igre zamenja osredotočenost na gradnjo skupnosti uporabnikov. Za to so na voljo vsa sredstva.
»Digitalne skupnosti«
Linški festival novomedijske umetnosti Ars Electronica je leta 2004 uvedel novo tekmovalno kategorijo: »Digital Communities« (»Digitalne skupnosti«). Leta 2007 so vzporedno kategorijo »Net Vision« (»Vizija spleta«: ime cilja na spletno umetnost) ukinili in jo zamenjali s »Hibridno umetnostjo« (»Hybrid art«). »Interaktivna umetnost« (»Interactive art«) kot stalnica festivala je manj zanimiva, zgovorna pa je okoliščina, da je delitev področja na nemedmrežne projekte in projekte na medmrežju zamenjala nova delitev: na projekte, ki gradijo skupnosti, in projekte, ki hibridizira-jo medije. Kategorija »Digitalne skupnosti« je pravzaprav vključila vase vse projekte, katerih osrednji gradnik je internetna povezava (hkrati pa je »Hibridna umetnost« začela izrivati zastarelo kategorijo »Interaktivna umetnost«). Slogan tega obrata v programu festivala je bil »Internet naj zopet postane družbeni prostor« {Cyberarts 2004 196, Cyberart^s 2006 192). Avtorstvo večuporabniškega diskurza se v teh pogojih določa skozi svoj učinek, tj. digitalno skupnost kot novo obliko družbe.
Alvar Freude, Dragan Espenschied: Assoziations-Blaster (Minirane asociacije, 1999-)
^ C	w\™',a55ciz at ons-b aster.de
0.0043 {□.0025, 0.0002) sek. ~ 290732352
Slika 3. Assoziations-Blaster (Alvar Freude in Dragan Espenschied)
Assoziations-Blaster' Alvarja Freuda in Dragana Espenschieda, primer večuporabniškega diskurza, ki gradi besedilno izkušnjo z literarnimi kvalitetami, je zanimiv z dveh vidikov. Uporabnike povabi, naj napišejo asociacije k danim ključnim besedam ali celo predlagajo nove ključne besede. Vendar obstaja nadzorni sistem, katerega namen je ohraniti literarno-umetniški značaj dela: uporabnik mora najprej »izkazati interes« ob stiku s projektom in šele nato dobi posebne privilegije, da lahko ocenjuje besedila drugih uporabnikov ali da lahko sam dodaja nove ključne besede za asociacije. Ta podsistem kvantificira uporabnikovo dejavnost: če nekdo dodaja v projekt daljše besedilne fragmente, potem dobi večji nadzor v okvirih celote projekta. Obstaja tudi poseben filter, ki omogoča, da uporabniku ni treba videti besedil, ki so jih drugi uporabniki označili za nekvalitetna. Drugi zanimiv vidik projekta pa je, da verzija projekta v nemškem jeziku ustvarja pomenske tokove besedilnih fragmentov zares uspešno, medtem ko angleška
verzija ostaja zgolj neuspeh. To opozarja na pomen literarnih novomedijsk-oumetnostnih sistemov za obstoj novomedijskih literarnih del, kakršno je Assoziations-Blaster, v posameznih jezikovno-geografskih regijah.8
Večuporabniški diskurz zahteva vzpostavitev družbenega omrežja, na katerem temelji. Personalistični teoretski pristop, kakršnega ga ponuja Bahtinova filozofija jezika, ponuja možnosti za razlago deljenega avtorstva, ki obsega (a) avtorja sistema sodelovanja, (b) pravila njegovega delovanja, ki pa jih je po navadi treba ves čas preverjati in po potrebi spreminjati (to počnejo sistemske vloge administratorjev in hierarhije uporabnikov), ter (c) uporabnike, ki čim bolj dejavno sodelujejo v projektu.
Emergentne lastnosti kibernetskega sistema?
Emergentistična paradigma iz znanosti9 je pogosto teoretsko orodje za pojasnjevanje značilnosti novomedijskih objektov, ki jih programer algoritmov ni predvidel. Vendar na področju računalništva ni mogoče govoriti o emergentizmu v t. . »močni«, ontološki različici, ampak samo v »šibkem«, gnoseološkem pomenu (O'Connor in Wong). Poleg tega se zdi homogena kontinuiteta vednosti od fizike prek kemije do biologije in naprej, ki jo privzema znanstvena paradigma (recimo nereduktivni fizikalizem), neprimerna za opis neobičajne, umetniške rabe jezika. Umetnost praviloma nasprotuje pojmovanju, da je viabilni sistem. Zato se Hans Magnus Enzensberger odloči v svoji teoretski analizi »avtomata za poezijo« (Poesie-Automai), da bo s pomočjo kompromisa premostil prepad med primarno strukturo jezika in sekundarno, poetsko strukturo, ki prvi pravzaprav nasprotuje.
Tehno-imaginacija (Vilem Flusser)
Izhodišče Vilema Flusserja pri raziskavi problema dekodiranja tehno-slik je opažanje, da večina laikov ne more pravilno dekodirati tehnoloških slik (med drugim novomedijskih besedilnih objektov), saj ne razumejo, kako so bile izdelane.
Primer tehno-slike je spletni iskalnik Google (1996), katerega avtorja sta Sergey Brin in Lawrence Page.10 Sistem Google izdeluje »smiselne« sezname spletnih povezav, ki ustrezajo iskalnim nizom, ki jih vnašajo uporabniki. Vendar kvaliteta rezultatov ni »emergentna« kvaliteta stroja, ampak računska kvantifikacija vrednosti spletnih strani na podlagi povezav kot cita-tnih odnosov. Enosmerna narava povezav današnjega Svetovnega spleta (Wor^l^d Wide Web) namreč implicitno11 vsebuje tudi že vrednosti spletnih
strani. Za dostop do njih je nujno obrniti povezave, to pa je mogoče le prek analize vseh spletnih povezav. Vrednosti spletnih strani so rezultat kvantitativne analize vseh dejanj vzpostavljanja povezav na Svetovnem spletu. Kvalitativni »preboj« Googla v primerjavi s sočasnimi spletnimi iskalniki je bil prenos sistema vrednotenja na podlagi citiranja iz akademskih publikacij na analizo Spleta.
NACIJA - KULTUäA
Sli^ro strrma wwtv.lipa,-coni ihejaznl www,J!, Goreojs sex ^ww.dnevDit.ai siilu fbg	fib (lite ta Pttij,
Gäf^jper cäjnef inetLi&ä Laietn^ itclan PafJqLAa tule^aiti injlzltciica jtsly Sales,
TU profoetno tehniii inntiltil srnuiEriiia, Tl^radä Jiskratoc fLriiLLiirü Imenit,
älLElfT	heliLd^tt^rlLi lüCiJcii.
K[(mBq jobs prva TKtiAJPK porno, ITISOM I]ut]jsinä moI»[t£j vww.nijitn^ ST^'^ravstvü erbija rtn trvavec VErit,
Skis studi okrog smrkolj iflAČE ppd^ Sutcr sv.ündfi-t	oxplöiivi,
Slika 4. Nacija - Kultura (Vuk Čosič)
Slovenski literarni primer je Nacija — Kultura (2000) Vuka Cosica, spletna prostorska postavitev, ki v realnem času projicira »tok iskanja« na tedaj popularnem slovenskem portalu M^at'Kur^cf^ v obliki soneta na steno Narodne galerije poleg razstavljenega izvoda Prešernovih Poezij na razstavi ob dvestoti obletnici pesnikovega rojstva. Cosicev naslov je treba brati matematično, kot »nacija minus kultura«, saj so tok iskanja sestavljale predvsem obscenosti. Pomembno je upoštevati, da je Cosicevo delo tehno-slika: to ni ne tradicionalna vidna slika ne pripovedno besedilo, temveč slika pojma iz teorije. Teorija Vilema Flusserja v tem kontekstu ponudi možno razlago avtorstva z delitvijo na programerja (konstruktorja aparata) in uporabnika aparata.
Računalniško transformiranje jezikovnih znakov
Novomedijski umetnik in teoretik David Link je v svoji monografiji Poesiemaschinen/M^aschinenpoesie pregledal zgodnja dela s področja računalniške izdelave jezikovnih znakov. Po pretresu več poskusov konstrukcije umetne inteligence je odkril teoretsko prepreko pri programiranju jezika. Informacija je namreč z vidika računalnika ali Turingovega stroja določena na ravni, umeščeni pred razločitvijo simbolov na številke in črke. To se pokaže ob možnosti, da se informacija lahko spremeni v drugo informacijo, ne da bi bila pri tem upoštevana katera zunajsistemska pravila. Stroj preoblikuje materialna stanja medija, da bi umetno razdelil eno amorfno materialnost na več zapisov, ki pa so sami po sebi nesmiselni.
Sklep
Opis stanja mehanskih literarnih sistemov ponuja dva pomembna sklepa. Po eni strani je treba računalniško produkcijo pomena omejiti na konstruiranje odnosov med singularnimi enotami (računalnik lahko izvaja logične operacije na danih podatkih zelo hitro, a ne more simulirati zavesti ali jezika). Po drugi strani pa se ponuja sklep, da je smiselno osredotočiti analizo novo-medijskih literarnih objektov na množico pozicij subjekta, ki sodelujejo pri njihovi izdelavi. Posebna pozornost bi bila pri tem namenjena mejam med izjavami, ki jih določa izmenjava govorcev v govorni komunikaciji.
OPOMBE
1	Izjava je enota govorne komunikacije in s tem tud^ temeljni element Bahtinovih teorij. Konstituirajo jo štiri določila: (i) izmenjava govornih subjektov, (ii) zaključenost (tematska izčrpnost, povezana z govorčevim namenom; predmetno-smiselna vsebina), (iii) ekspresiv-nost (govorčev subjektivni emocionalno-aksiološki odnos do predmetno-smiselne vsebine izjave) in (iv) naslovljenost (upoštevanje konkretnega naslovnika). (Bahtin 229—282)
2	Bahtinov pojem izjave (eucKasueaHue) ustreza Foucaultovemu (I'enonce).
3	Materialna podlaga za literarno-estetski doživljaj, kakor ga razume Roman Ingarden v Literarni umetnini^ »plast jezikovnih zvenskih tvorb«.
4	Gl.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADVENT_--_Crowther_Woods.png (30. 8. 2009). Prvi primer je Hunt the Wumpus (1971) Gregoryja Yoba, prvi slovenski primer pa Kontrabant Žige Turka in Matevža Kmeta (RTV Ljubljana & Radio Študent, 1984).
5	Figura branja. »Tmeza [(l^ai^) je] vir ali figura užitka ne nastaja v strukturi jezikov, ampak samo v trenutku njihove potrošnje; avtor je ne more predvideti: ni si mogoče želeti napisati tega, kar se ne bo bralo« (Barthes 20—21). Če bralec preskoči dele teksta, tedaj ne napreduje po ergod^čnem besed^u kot igri, saj igra zahteva strogo upoštevanje pravil.
6	Npr. TinyMUD Jamesa Aspnesa (1989—1990).
7	Gl.: http://www.asso2iations-blaster.de (30. 8. 2009).
8	Tovrstno ugotovitev je zelo težko podkrepiti s strogimi raziskavami, saj bi te zahtevale jasno opredelitev merljivih ali vsaj čim bolj nedvoumno opisljivih vplivov, ki vodijo v trajnostno literarno družbo. Hkrati je zelo težko najti primerljive uspešne večuporabniške medmrežne literarne projekte.
9	»[E]mergentne entitete (lastnosti ali substance) 'izvirajo' iz bolj temeljnih entitet, a so vendar 'nove' ali 'nezvedljive' nanje. (Na primer včasih rečemo, da je zavest emergentna lastnost možganov.)« (O'Connor in Wong)
10	Gl.: http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf (30. 8. 2009).
11	Ti podatki so »implicitni« zgolj za omejenega uporabnika, ne pa tudi za sisteme, ki so sposobni pregledati ves Svetovni splet.
12	Gl.: www.matkurja.si (30. 8. 2009), http://web.archive.org/web/20030401083528/ www.matkurja.com/slo/ (2. 4. 2003, 21. 8. 2009).
LITERATURA
Aarseth, Espen J. Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Bahtin, Mihail. Estetika in humanistične vede. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 1999.
Barthes, Roland. Le plaisir du texte. Pariz: Seuil, 1973.
Battelle, John. Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin, 22006.
Bovcon, Narvika. Umetnost v svetu pametnih strojev. Ljubljana: Institut Akademije za likovno umetnost in oblikovanje, UL, 2009.
O'Connor, Timothy, in Hong Yu Wong. »Emergent Properties«. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ur. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emer-gent/ (18. 8. 2009).
CyberArts 2004: International Compendium Prix Ars Electronica 2004. Ur. Hannes Leopoldsleder, Christine Schöpf in Gerfried Stocker. Ostfildern: Hantje Cantz Verlag, 2004.
CyberArts 2006: International Compendium Prix Ars Electronica 2005. Ur. Hannes Leopoldsleder, Christine Schöpf in Gerfried Stocker. Ostfildern: Hantje Cantz Verlag, 2006. [DVD.]
Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2004.
Enzensberger, Hans Magnus. Einladung zu einem Poesie-Automaten. Frankfurt ob Majni: Suhrkamp, 2000. http://jacketmaga2ine.com/17/en2-robot.html (1. 5. 2007).
---. »Zum Projekt eines Poesie-Automaten.« Im Buchstabenfeld. Ur. Peter Weibel. Gradec:
Literaturverlag Droschl. 137—141.
Flusser, Vilem. Digitalni videz Ljubljana: Študentska založba, 2002.
Foucault, Michel. Arheologija vednosti. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 2001.
Hayles, N. Katherine. »Electronic Literature: What is it?«. The Electronic Literature Organisation [2. 1. 2007]. http://eliterature.org/pad/elp.html (19. 8. 2009).
Ingarden, Roman. Literarna umetnina. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 1990.
Link, David. Poesiemaschinen/Maschinenpoesie: Zur Frühgeschichte computerisierter Texter^eugung und generativer Systeme. München: Fink Verlag, 2007. http://www.alpha60.de/resear-ch/pm (26. 8. 2009).
---. »while(true): On the Fluidity of Signs in Hegel, Gödel, and Turing«. Variantology
1. On Deep Time Relations of Arts, Sciences and Technologies. Köln: König, 2005. 261—278. http://www.alpha60.de/research/while_true/ (20. 8. 2009).
Poesie-Automat. http://poesieautomat.com/ (23. Feb. 2007).
Vaupotič, Aleš. »Literarno-estetski doživljaj in novi mediji - prihodnost literature?« Pr^merjallna knji^sgvnost 30.1 (2007): 203-216. http://reelc.net/files/LNM.doc (30. 8. 2009).
---. »Narrative and New Media - Realistic Issues« [2005]. http://www2.arnes.si/
~avaupo2/files/NNM_21.doc (23. 3. 2009).
O AVTORJIH
Els Andringa predava literarno teorijo na komparativistiki Univerze v Utrechtu. Objavila je več raziskav s področij tekstne lingvistike, empirične literarne znanosti, študij branja in zgodovinske recepcije. Zadnja leta je preučevala predvsem recepcijo tujih literatur na Nizozemskem v širšem evropskem kontekstu.
Maja Breznik je raziskovalka na ljubljanski Filozofski fakulteti in Mirovnem inštitutu ter docentka za področje kulturne zgodovine. Je avtorica knjige o renesančni gledališki praksi in ideoloških mehanizmih, o neoliberalnem kulturnem revizionizmu in o moderni evropski kulturi kot ^»danajskih darovih«. Objavila je več knjig v soavtorstvu in člankov s področij kulturne zgodovine, sociologije kulture in kulturnih politik.
Roger Chartier je profesor na College de France in gostujoči profesor zgodovine na Univerzi v Pennsylvaniji. Pogosto predava v ZDA, Španiji, Mehiki, Braziliji in Argentini. Njegovo preučevanje zgodnje moderne evropske zgodovine izhaja iz ana-lovske historiografske šole in se posveča zlasti zgodovini izobraževanja, knjige in branja. Trenutno raziskuje razmerje med pisno kulturo kot celoto in literaturo v Franciji, Angliji in Španiji.
Darko Dolinar je predstojnik Inštituta za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZU. Občasno je predaval na oddelku za primerjalno književnost ljubljanske univerze. Raziskuje metodologijo literarne vede, literarno hermenevtiko in zgodovino literarne vede na Slovenskem. Bil je urednik ali sourednik vrste znanstvenih in strokovnih publikacij, soureja literarnovedno zbirko Studia litte-
Marijan Dovic, znanstveni sodelavec na literarnem inštitutu ZRC SAZU in docent na Univerzi v Novi Gorici, se ukvarja s sistemsko teorijo literature, z literarnim vrednotenjem, s kanonom, teorijo avtorstva in z zgodovinsko avantgardo. Objavil je monografije o sistemskih obravnavah literature, o razvoju vloge slovenskega literarnega proizvajalca in o slovenski zgodovinski avantgardi. Vodil je mednarodni simpozij o literaturi in cenzuri in druge strokovne posvete ter uredil več domačih in mednarodnih zbornikov.
Jernej Habjan je doktorski študent sociologije kulture in mladi raziskovalec na literarnem inštitutu ZRC SAZU. Pripravlja se na zagovor doktorske naloge o razmerju med dialogično strukturo literarnega teksta in družbenimi učinki literarnega dela. Tej temi se je posvečal tudi v knjigi o epistemološki polemiki v sodobni literarni vedi.
Miha Kovač je izredni profesor na Oddelku za bibliotekarstvo, informacijsko znanost in knjigarstvo ljubljanske Filozofske fakultete. Leta 1985 je postal odgovorni urednik Mladine, v letih 1990—1995 je bil glavni urednik pri DZS, nato pa do leta 2000 pri Mladinski knjigi. Sooblikoval je podiplomski program univerze Oxford Brookes. V slovenščini je objavil knjigo o tranziciji v slovenskem založništvu, v angleščini pa knjigo o sodobnih vlogah knjižnega medija.
Slavka Rude-Porubska je magistra germanistike in novinarstva. Po diplomi na Univerzi Konstantina Filozofa v Nitri je leta 2002 kot štipendistka DAAD študirala germanske in slovanske književnosti na Univerzi v Regensburgu. V letih 2003—2007 je v Nitri predavala na oddelkih za germanistiko in prevajalstvo. V okviru mednarodnega doktorskega literarnovednega programa pripravlja doktorat na Univerzi v Münchnu. Prevaja sodobno nemško in slovaško poezijo.
Margrit Schreier je predavala angleško književnost na New College v Oxfordu in psihologijo na Univerzi v Heidelbergu; habilitirala se je na Univerzi v Kölnu. Od leta 2003 je profesorica empiričnih metod na Jacobsovi univerzi v Bremnu. Ukvarja se z empiričnimi raziskavami literature in s psihologijo medijev ter pri tem uporablja kvalitativne raziskovalne metode. Je sourednica revije Journal of Media Psychology.
Jola Škulj je raziskovalka na literarnem inštitutu ZRC SAZU. Znanstveno se posveča zlasti modernizmu in teoretskim, metodološkim in primerjalnim raziskavam literature; njena bibliografija šteje več kot 270 enot. Soorganizirala je več konferenc (npr. o postmodernizmu, dekonstrukciji, Bahtinu) pa tudi prvi komparativistični kolokvij v okviru Vilenice. Sodelovala je v številnih bilateralnih raziskovalnih programih in mednarodnih projektih.
Aleš Vaupotič je literarni komparativist in novomedijski umetnik. Je član izvršnega odbora Evropske mreže za primerjalno literarno vedo (REELC/ENCLS) in Slovenskega društva za primerjalno književnost ter predsednik Društva za povezovanje umetnosti in znanosti ArtNetLab. V svojem delu povezuje umetniške in raziskovalne pristope; ukvarja se z vprašanji teorije diskurza, teorije novih medijev ter teorije literarnega realizma.
Andrew Wachtel je profesor slovanskih književnosti in dekan podiplomske šole na Northwestern University. Napisal ali uredil je ducat knjig in več kot 70 člankov o ruski in južnoslovanski književnosti, kulturi, zgodovini in družbi; leta 2008 je založba univerze v Oxfordu izdala njegovo knjigo o Balkanu v svetovni zgodovini. Prevaja sodobno rusko, hrvaško, bosansko, srbsko, bolgarsko in slovensko književnost. Ureja ugledno zbirko prevodov sodobne literature Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope.
Primerjalna knjižei;iiost
Who Chooses?" Literatu^eand Literary
Edited byMarijan Dovic^Jernej Hab
Mediation
an, and AlfešVaupotič
Primerjalna književnost, Volume 33, Number 2, Ljubljana, August 2010, UDK 82.091(05)
"Who Chooses?": Literature and Literary Mediation
Marijan Dovic
UDK 82:655.4
The question Who chooses? rarely comes to the fore of serious interest in literary studies. Quite the opposite; even in the traditional sociological perspective focused on the author-work-reader triangle, the question of mediation seems to be a bit suppressed, as though it were too trivial. Derivatives of Roman Jakobson's communication model offer better opportunities to conceptualize mediation, but truly promising approaches are only offered by newer systemic views on literature.1 Among the four types of action roles that the participants in the literary system can adopt, in his empirical theoretical model Schmidt has justifiably grounded the role of a literary mediator as one of the constituent pillars of intra-systemic communication. Similarly, in Bourdieu's sociological model of the cultural and literary field, the mediating function turns out to be the crucial spot where the trajectories of two antagonistic types of capital - economic and symbolic - most obviously intersect; and it is art in particular where such crossings produce the most contradictory effects. The importance of literary mediation in the formation of national literary repertoires has also been clearly indicated in research on the dynamics and interactions of literary polysystems - especially regarding the innovations and influences that reach target systems through the corpus of translated literature (cf. Even-Zohar, Codde).
Traditional institutions of literary mediation in modern European literatures seem to be the literary magazine and (literary) publisher. Literary sociology (e.g., Norbert Groeben, Hugo Verdaasdonk, Kees van Rees, etc.) has systematically investigated how new works travel through the mechanisms of the literary market and media and has offered an empirical description of these dynamics. The journey of literary works through editorial filters, reviews, critiques, and essays, and later through the post-processing of literary studies (which the procedures of canonization can return to the cultural space in various ways) has been a legitimate field of research at least since literary studies became intrigued by the literary canon. However,
if we remain faithful to our initial question Who chooses? we must seriously
consider all that takes place before - precisely that which often becomes a topic of cafe conversations, but seldom a subject of systematic reflection.
Primerjalna književnost, Volume 33, Number 2, Ljubljana, August 2010
It comes as no surprise that many answers will be connected to a figure; that is, to the function of an editor. We are interested in the "editor" both as a theoretical model and as a historical figure in various social, political, and economic circumstances. The "editor" is a point where the art world makes contact with the economic world; with one foot he stands in the world of unlimited freedom of authorial creation characteristic of modern artistic systems, and with the other foot he is firmly anchored in a specific structure and specific hierarchy (economics and politics). Indeed, the editor represents the figure through which an artist - if he does not want to remain obscure - must actually meet the economic order of the society that merely enables his artifacts to be brought into the world.
In the first place, an editor is an individual with a specific aesthetic taste, and good editors are often also ideal midwives of a text, sometimes even its (co)authors. However, in this particular case we are not so much intrigued by this "maieutic" role of the editor; of far more interest is his position as a decision-marker. In practice, a fairly complex network of factors plays into the process of "co-deciding" with the editor, which therefore define what is to be "chosen" in a certain situation and, eventually, what is to be "read" in a certain culture. The concept of toaste, complicated and problematic in itself, turns out to be insufficient and a set of other parameters must be considered.
One of these is connected to the fact already alluded to that a modern editor is always part of a publisher's organizational structure; part of its internal hierarchy, which is ultimately limited by the market economy — that is, by a positive financial balance. An editor therefore always thinks with his "sixth sense" for sales success. However, when the system is regulated differently, not only left to the free market but subsidized in various ways, the question arises in what ways and to what degree active or passive politics choose instead of an editor, or with him. Here, a wide range of problems can be envisioned, ranging from the quiet exclusion of anti-regime works in the regulated presses of totalitarian systems to contemporary cases of positive discrimination in favor of marginal social groups; from expert readers and committees, their structure and methods of nomination, to lists of works that ensure the translating publisher a certain subsidy - all of these are the ways that (cultural) politics are translated into practice in the production of an unstable intra-systemic boundary between "artistic" and "trivial." Another parameter that needs to be considered carefully in this context is censorship, which again can be understood in a broad range: from its explicit authoritarian form and perfidious communist (self)censorship to the contemporary legalistic variation, which comes under the threat of unpleasant defamation lawsuits.
These ways of ^"helping" the editor in the selection process are relevant for both the corpus of literature created by domestic authors as well as the corpus of translated literature, which itself is also always mediated through editorial choices. However, these two corpuses also differ in several significant ways. Regarding the choices of transl^ated literature - which actually has enabled the spiritual space of the world "republic of letters" - the role and motifs of the cultural mediators (i.e., enthusiastic translators) that often motivate and trigger certain publishers in the target systems have to be considered at the micro level. On the other hand, the growing role of national and international literary awards and the phenomenon that turns writers into media icons are also among the unavoidable questions. Another problem that should be addressed is international cultural strategies, active promotional politics, and the obvious lack of symmetry in the formation of trans-national canonical structures, "world" or "global" literature, which has been discussed passionately in contemporary comparatism (e.g., Franco Moretti, Pascale Casanova, David Damrosch, etc.).2
Regarding domestic literatures, one should not overlook the fact that the participants in the literary system usually adopt several different action roles simultaneously so that they remain in mutual tension, which is particularly true for the mediatory role. The combination of a literary producer and an (influential) mediator is especially interesting from the viewpoint of the concentration of symbolic capital and power in the cultural field. In the past, such combinations have often effectively promoted certain literary streams, groups, generations, or simply ambitious cliques. Its inherent (potential) conflict of interests can also affect translation politics while it encourages linked sales and "compensatory" under-the-table deals about mutual translations and editions in the spirit of one hand washing the other. The impact of the distribution of power and the operation of informal social networks within the literary field on the careers of individual authors and groups - which is often reflected at a pre-theoretical level - is far from being investigated sufficiently.
Finally, the mediatory role has to be put into a time perspective. We have to acknowledge the fact that the practices and models of literary mediation as well as the functions of editors and other mediators were not at all constant in different times and circumstances. This is why we need to carefully consider the historical evolution of the mediatory sector, the influence of various models of regulating book markets, the impact of political systems and their changing ideological foundations (e.g. liberalism, capitalism, communism, or democracy) and the specific problems of literary mediation in small (peripheral) and large (dominant) systems. Finally, it is hardly possible to avoid the question of whether the literary mediation
in modern literary systems such as we have known since the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries will preserve its typical features in the future, or whether more fundamental modifications are to be expected.
Contributions
By putting our initial question, the apparent simplicity of which may be deceptive, into a historical perspective, it turns out quite clearly to what degree the setting of this question is bound to a particular epoch - the epoch of the printed book. The papers in this thematic issue of Vrimerjc^lna književnost are arranged as chronologically as possible3 and are bracketed by four papers that go beyond or deviate from the above framework to a certain degree. They either reach back into the times when the book had just begun its triumphant conquest of the Occident and when the relations among the systemic action roles - productive, mediatory, and receptive - were still being established (cf. Chartier, as well as Habjan in part); or they are already announcing the inevitable changes in the modes of literary mediation introduced by the internet revolution (Schreier) and even more radically by the new media literary practices (Vaupotič).
The path then leads us from printers and typesetters from the beginning of the modern age that try to understand the text "better then its authors" to the interactive ergodic literature of the twenty-first century, in which the delimitation of the roles of the author, the mediator, and the receiver loses clear-cut contours. This path shows that answers to the question Who chooses? are not necessarily only to be sought at the level of mediation. From this perspective, it is precisely the papers on the "edge" that also properly contextualize the question of mediation - by placing it sense-wise between the issue of production/authorship (cf. Chartier, Vaupotič), which was in the focus of the thematic issue of Primerjalna književnost last year, and readers' reception (cf. Schreier), planned for such an issue next year.4
Thus in the opening paper, the distinguished researcher of the history of modern written culture Roger Chartier turns his attention to the complex mediatory role of editors, copyists, typesetters, correctors, and other individuals that were involved in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century printing and publishing in addition to the authors. Such mediators have contributed substantially to the collective dynamics of publishing and by changing the materiality of texts they also affected their meanings and interpretations. If Chartier's contribution challenges both the presumption of the mediator's neutrality and its separation from authorship, Jernej
Habjan — even if focusing on texts from the same period — tackles the problem of selection from an entirely different aspect. He examines the discourses and the ideologies of (academic) literary criticism, which reproduces canonical interpretations and evaluations of literary works and in this way maintains and reinforces both the vernacular canons (as the institutional pillars of nations) and the canon of world literature. Following the meanders of Shakespeare studies, Habjan attempts to show that literary criticism's choices are made in advance and enforced by its social and institutional context.
Such a context is also one of the problems that occupy Els Andringa. With empirical precision, she presents an almost palpable picture of the extraordinarily vigorous publishing activity of exiles that fled from Hitler's Germany and settled in Holland between 1930 and 1940. Her basic question is how this parallel literary field affected the domestic one and what kind of traces this coexistence left behind. Although her research results show a surprising impact of politicization of the literary field on the behavior of mediators, the fact that the particular focus of Dutch literary history has basically ignored this coexistence hardly comes as a surprise — simply, this is a fact that exposes the problem of selection in its ideological dimension one more time.5
The contributions by Marijan Dovic and Darko Dolinar introduce a set of papers that share at least two features: they deal with contemporary literature and art (after the Second World War) and try to grasp the selective aspects of literary mediation more directly. In his theoretical-typological paper, Dovic focuses on the mediatory function of the book editor in modern literary systems and attempts to classify the network of various factors (economic, political/ideological, and networking) that affect his mediatory choices and activities. Dolinar emphasizes the significance of readers' initial freedom of choice at the beginning of his paper, but later on points to the complexity of the selection processes at all levels of literary communication, and by analyzing some successful publishing enterprises also turns attention to the specificity of the Slovenian literary field in transition from predominantly ideological regulation in the communist period to more market-oriented environment.
Each in their own way, the contributions by Maja Breznik and Jola Škulj demonstrate that a certain degree of antagonism between the market and the ideologies is not at all an exclusive feature of authoritarian regimes. Commenting on examples from the Slovenian neo-avant-garde arts, Breznik deals with contemporary "artistic procedure" and the crucial role of institutions in maintaining and reproducing the art system (especially after the technological turn that cut artworks off from their "documentary" function
and stimulated the production of "anti-art works"). Even though the institution of art has proven its self-restorative potential many times, Breznik resignedly concludes that art can no longer cope with the "hidden structures" of the market that turn the production into predictable and banal. Departing from Bourdieu's views as well, Škulj examines the idea of the literary field and its position within the cultural production with Lotman's semiotic approach to literature. Like Breznik, she is highly critical of the effects of the exclusively market-driven regulation of literary production.
Instead of theory, Andrew Wachtel offers insightful reflection on his own editorial practice. His perspective is hybrid: he writes as a professor at a distinguished American university and at the same time as the editor of a series of literature in translation that obviously co-creates the canon of eastern European literature in the United States. To the introductory question Who chooses? he can simply answer I do, and then go on to critically reflect on the facets of his role as a selector and intercultural mediator. Wachtel is well aware that in a system with low regulation that is (consequently) extremely closed to translations, his choices do have immediate canonizing effects.6 From a slightly different angle, literature in translation is also one of Slavka Rude-Porubskä's topics, who carefully examines the translation selection mechanisms in Germany — especially those that are meant to correct the effects of the law of supply and demand. In her paper, Porubskä also addresses the problem of asymmetry between the center and the peripheries, and somewhat skeptically concludes that the programs that support literature in translation do not manage to affect the prevailing trends to a significant degree.
The tone of the contribution presenting the results of a collaborative research project by two distinguished experts on contemporary book markets, Miha Kovač and Rüdiger Wischenbart, is quite different. Their analysis dispels some of the stereotypes and myths regarding best-sellers in Europe. By scrutinizing bestseller lists (2008—2009) in many European countries, Kovač and Wischenbart show that among bestsellers original literary works and the translations from major European languages prevail (and not, for example, only translations from English). Among the lessons of this study is definitely the insight that the "unifying effects" of the market cannot be overemphasized, and also that the practice cannot be interpreted satisfactorily only by using simple binarisms (such as the opposition commer^cial vs. qualitj).
The concluding two papers depart from studying the mediatory role in its traditional context. Margrit Schreier deals with book selection and recommendation in the internet age and explores the factors that influence the choices of "popular" reading. By empirically analyzing the "most
useful" user reviews at the Amazon.com internet site, she shows that the strongest impact factor is involvement, followed by author- and topic-related reasons. Thus, she concludes, the choices in the internet age still follow certain patterns but, with the change of the mediatory role of readers from the informal towards more "institutional," the traditional mechanisms of mediation are loosing significance. This process is even more evident in the cybertextual perspective of Aleš Vaupotič. Vaupotič starts by exposing the crucial difference between the rigidity of the classic printed text and the interactive new-media and ergodic literature. Such literature strives to structurally incorporate the reader into the process of both production and mediation. In this way it turns the laws of traditional literary communication upside down and raises a set of important theoretical questions, such as the issue of digital communities, collaborative authorship, automatically generated texts, and so on.7
The bilingual thematic issue entitled Who Chooses? — subtitled L^t^erature and L^ter^ary Mediation — was created through the collaboration of twelve scholars from various European countries and the United States and three editors. Its ambition was never to cover the problems of selection and mediation in the age of the printed book in their entirety. However, even if the majority of contributions deal with cases from the twentieth century, all of the crucial questions that can be posed in this respect are present here; at the same time, theoretical sensors have been oriented towards new areas that must still become a subject of reflection. The value of such focus on the mediatory role in literature — which is actually not frequent, neither in Slovenian nor international literary studies — is historical and theoretic-analytical in the first place. At the same time, though, the results may already have a certain applicability: European cultures — especially small ones such as Slovenian — will probably have to regulate literary production and book markets to some extent in the coming decades. The materials and ideas presented by this issue — if read properly — can serve as an excellent expert basis to inform cultural policy when planning for the future.

NOTES
1	Such as those in the works of Niklas Luhmann, Pierre Bourdieu, or Siegfried J. Schmidt (see also Dovic).
2	See also Juvan.
3	Most of the papers deal with actual cases that enable such arrangement. Nonetheless, some of them are predominantly theoretical, and so the selected order is not the only one possible.
4	The significance of the readers' reception is also emphasized by other papers, such as Darko Dolinah s.
5	The "methodological nationalism" of traditional historiographical approaches has by now become commonplace in discussions on renewing literary historiography; cf. Dolinar and Juvan (eds.).
6	At the same time, his contribution demonstrates how the market orientation stimulates publishers to contextualize their products (the name of the series, Writings from an Unbound Europe, is a good example), even when speaking of a comparatively less turbulent academic publishing environment (see also Sapiro and the papers by Kovač and Dovic in this issue).
7	The new media literary practices have not only turned the mediatory role upside down, but even more radically problematized the authorial role (see also Hartling, Lessig).
WORKS CITED
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Transl. Susan
Emanuel. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. Codde, Philippe. "Polysystem Theory Revisited: A New Comparative Introduction." Poetics
Today 24.1 (2003): 91-124. Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2004. Dolinar, Darko, and Marko Juvan (eds.). Writing Literary History. Selected Perspectives from
Central Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006. Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11.1 (1990, special issue). Hartling, Florian. "Digitalni avtor? Avtorstvo v digitalni dobi." Primerjalna književnost 32
(2009, special issue): 41-48. Juvan, Marko. "Svetovni literarni sistem." Primerjalna književnost 32.2 (2009): 181-212. Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin Press, 2004.
Luhmann, Niklas. Art as a Social System. Transl. Eva M. Knodt. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2000. Rees, Kees van. "How a Literary Work Becomes a Masterpiece: On the Threefold Selection Practised by Literary Criticism." Poe^^cs 12.4-5 (1983): 397-418.
---. "The Institutional Foundation of a Critic's Connoisseurship." Poetics 18.1-2 (1989):
179-198.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Grundriss der Empirischen Literaturwissenschaft. Braunschweig: Vieweg,
1980.
Sapiro, Gisele. "The Literary Field between the State and the Market." Poetics 31.4-5 (2003): 441-464.
Verdaasdonk, Hugo. "Social and Economic Factors in the Attribution of Literary Quality." Poetics 12.4-5 (1983): 383-396.
Papers
Literature and Textual Mediations: Pauses and Pitches in Early Modern Texts
Roger Chartier
College de France, Paris, France chartier@ehess.fr
Authors do not write books, not even their own books, because books are not the reproduction of an autograph manuscript. The publication of any text, literary or not, implies in Early Modern times multiple mediations and multiple mediators: copysts, editors, compositors, correctors. Following the example of punctuation in English, Spanish, and French texts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this article would like to show that the process of publication is always a collective one, supposing multiple decisions, and, also, that these decisions, which affect the materiality of the text, are decisive for the construction of the text's meaning.
Keywords: authorship / publishing / editorship / punctuation / corrections UDK 808.2
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. These are the six words written on the paper that Mortimer gives to Lightborne as he sends him off to Berkeley Castle, where Edward is held prisoner. Six words. But what is their meaning? If Lightborne marks a pause after the first four, he must kill the monarch: "Feare not to kill the king / tis good he die." But if the reader divides the sentence into two equal parts, the order must be understood differently, and the king's life must be protected: "Kill not the king / tis good to fear the worst." Through the punctuation of this Latin sentence, no less than the life or death of a sovereign is at stake, or, to state it more "cunninglie," as Mortimer says, the attribution of the crime not to the one that wrote the sentence and commanded the murder, but to the one that received the order and gave it one of its two possible meanings.1
Fortunately, punctuation is not always so dramatic. However, it does always construct the meaning by guiding the eye - or the voice. As Yves Bonnefoy suggests in a short text entitled "Les deux points, c'est un peu,
en prose la poesie" (The Colon in Prose Is a Little Poetry; see Bonnefoy), we must distinguish between two systems of punctuation:
La ponctuation qui degage les articulations d'un texte, c'est celle que reclame la syntaxe, je suppose ; et qui tend ainsi a coincider avec les structures de la pensee ? Tandis que celle qui aiderait la lecture serait la plutot pour comprendre les besoins de la voix, ou mettre en evidence des rythmes, des sons : en somme, non pour penser mais pour seduire ? (The punctuation that makes visible the articulations of a discourse is the punctuation that is required by the syntax and tends to coincide with the structures of the thought. On the other hand, the punctuation that would help reading would be there for understanding the needs of the voice, or for bringing to the ear rhythms and sounds: in a word, not for thinking, but for seducing.)
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was this second punctuation that was the aim of all reformers of orthography both in England and France. As shown by Jeffrey Masten, far from a mere standardization of spelling, their purpose was to approach the perfection, or at least lesser imperfection, of the Castilian language. As Antonio de Nebrija wrote in Grc^matica, printed in 1492, "tenemos de escrivir como pronunciamos : I pronunciar como escrivimos" ('we must write as we pronounce, and pronounce as we write'; Nebrija 158—159). In all European languages, it was not easy to obtain such a correspondence between utterance and spelling. The first possible solution would be to pronounce all the letters of the words as is done in Latin. This pedantic manner of speaking English is praised by Holophernes who, in Loves Labour's Lost, accuses (paradoxically perhaps) the Spanish Don Adriano de Armado of being one of those "rackers of ortagriphie" that have the "abhominable" habit of suppressing letters in the English words they pronounce:
He draweth out the thred of his verbositie, finer than the staple of his argument. I abhorre such phanatticall phantasims, such insociable and poynt devise companions, such rackers of ortagriphie, as to speake dout fine, when he should say doubt; det, when he shold pronounce debt; d e b t, not det: he clepeth a Calfe, Caufe: halfe, haufe: neighbour vocatur nebour; neigh abreviated ne: this is abhominable, which he would call abominable, it insinuateth me of infamie: ne inteligis domine, to make frantique lunatique? (Shakespeare, A Pleafant 5.1.15—25)
A less extravagant solution turns to the opposite approach, and proposes to reform the spelling of the words in order to adjust it to their pronunciation. The titles of the books published in England that argued for an "amendment of orthographie" indicated clearly that their central aim was not a reduction in the diversity of spelling, but the harmony between writing and "the image of man's voice" (Hart, tile-page) or the accurate orthographic rendering of "English speech" (Bullokar title-page).
In France, the desire to mandate "oral writing," to use the expression of Nina Catach, went beyond the transformation of spelling. With Ronsard, it led to a profound revision of the alphabet itself, introducing a new character borrowed from the Spanish alphabet (the n or the ll) and rendering useless letters such as or q, which were systematically substituted with k and z (e.g., for writing kalite or roze;)
Quant a nostre escriture, elle est fort vicieuse et corrompue, & me semble qu'elle a grand besoin de reformation, & et de remettre en son premier honneur, le K, & le Z, & faire des caracteres nouveaux pour la double N, a la mode des Espagnols n, pour escrire Monseigneur, & une L double pour escrire orgueilleux. (Our manner of writing is deeply vicious and corrupted, and it seems to me that it needs a profound reform that would restore the K and the Z, introduce new characters for the double N, in the manner of the Spanish n, for writing Monseigneur, and a double L for writing orgueilleux.) (Ronsard, 'Treface").
The practices of printing houses proved not to follow such radical and audacious propositions. However, they did introduce a decisive innovation for developing better correspondence between textual inscription and oral delivery: they did determine the different lengths of the pauses. The fundamental text is that of printer (and author) Etienne Dolet, entitled La punctuation de la langue fr^anfojse (Punctuation of the French Language) and printed by Dolet himself in 1540 in Lyon. Each sentence or periode addressed to "human breathing" is structured by three lengths of pauses, each indicated by different punctuation marks: the point a queue ou virgul^e (i.e., the English comma), the comma (which for Dolet is a colon "placed in a suspended sentence"), and the poinct rond or period, which "is always placed at the end of the sentence":
Tout argument, & discours de propos, soit oratoire, ou poetique, est deduict par periodes. Periode est une diction Grecque, que les Latins appellent clausula, ou compraehensio verborum: c'est a dire une clausule, ou une comprehension de parolles. Ce periode (ou aultrement clausule) est distingue, & divise par les points dessusdicts [poinct a queue ou virgule, comma, poinct rond]. Et communement ne doibt avoir que deux ou membres: car si par sa longueur il excede l'aleine de l'homme, il est vicieux. (Every argument or discourse, be it oratory or poetic, is divided into periods. Period is a Greek word that the Romans called clausula, or compraehensio verhorum, viz. a sentence. This period or sentence is complete and divided by the afore-mentioned punctuation marks: comma, colon, and period. Usually, it must have only two or three parts because it is vicious if its length exceeds the capacity of human breathing.) (Dolet)
A similar nomenclature, with different manners of designating punctuation marks, was proposed by Jean Gerard in his edition of Olivetan's
Instruction des enfans (Instruction of Children) published in 1537 in Geneva. Gerard distinguished between the virgul^e oupoint a queue, the deuxpoint^s, and the point final.
French dictionaries from the end of the seventeenth century exhibited the success of the system imposed by sixteenth-century printers, which included greater use of the semicolon, a rarity until 1550 that indicated a pause whose duration was intermediate in comparison to those indicated by the comma and the colon. These dictionaries, however, showed that a distance had been established between what the reader says and the punctuation, which was formerly considered by Furetiere's dictionary as a "grammatical observation" marking the syntactic and logical divisions of discourse.
What was missing in this system of punctuation was the ability to indicate not the lengths of the pauses, but the intonations of the voice — hence the unexpected usage of some punctuation marks, deprived of their original meaning and appropriated instead for indicating vocal emphasis. In such a manner, Ronsard used the exclamation mark in his address to the reader that opened the first of four books of his epic poem La Fr^anciade in 1572:
Je te supliray seulement d'une chose, lecteur, de vouloir bien prononcer mes vers & accomoder ta voix a leur passion, & non comme quelques uns les lisent, plustost a la fa9on d'une missive, ou de quelques lettres Royaux que d'un Poeme bien prononce : & te suplie encore derechef ou tu verras cette marque ! vouloir un peu eslever ta voix pour donner grace a ce que tu liras. (Reader, I will ask you but one thing: to pronounce carefully my lines and to accommodate your voice to their passion, not as some read them, in the manner of a letter or some Royal edict, but more of a well-read poem — and I also ask you once again that whenever you see this mark ! you raise your voice a little so as to give grace to what you are reading.) (Ronsard, "Au lecteur".)
In the case of Racine, as suggested by George Forestier (lix—lxiii), the unexpected presence of a question mark in a sentence that is not interrogative may indicate the exceptional use of this punctuation mark as a signal of intensity; for example, in the first edition of La Thebaide (III, 3): "Parlez, parlez, ma Fille ?" Conversely, the absence of a question mark at the end of an interrogative sentence indicates that the voice must remain without any emphasis at all: "Ma Fille, avez-vous vu l'exces de nos miseres" (I, 2).
Another manner for "toning and laying" emphasis upon a word in printed text was to set the word in italics and give it a capital letter. Moxon emphasizes the point in Mechanick Exercises on the Whol^e Art of Printing:
Words of great Emphasis are also Set in Italick, and sometimes begin with a Capital Letter: If the Emphasis bear hard upon the Word to be exprest as well as the Thing to be exprest, it ought to begin with a Capital. I shall bring for instance an
Observation I made above forty years ago on the Word that, viz. that that Word may be reiterated five times, and make good Sense: If it be set thus it will seem nonsense, that that that, that, that; but if it be Set thus, that that That that that Man would have stand at the beginning of the Line should stand at the end; it will, by toning and laying Emphasis on the middlemost That become good Sense. Now all the thats ought to be Set in Italick, and the middlemost That ought to begin with a Capital, because it is both the Thing and Word. (Moxon 216—217)
Such use of capital letters to indicate that the readers or players should raise their voices and detach the word is given in the first editions of Racine's plays; for example, in this line from Bajc^zet: "J'ai cede mon Amant, Tu t'etonnes du reste" (see Forestier lxi, note 4).
A superb example of musical use of pause lengths and capital letters is given in the last edition of La Bruyere's Caracteres, revised by the author and published in 1696. The original aim of this edition, as followed by Louis Van Delft's edition of the text, shows clearly that La Bruyere regarded the composition of all carc^teres or remarques as a sole musical phrase, unbroken by periods and alternating agitated and stable sequences. The rhythm of the phrase was shown through a rapid succession of commas along with longer sequences without punctuation. The text was treated as a score with punctuation marking the different "tempi" of the arias: staccato, allegro, largo. This mode of textual composition, in which punctuation marks must guide "breathing" and vocal tone, was clearly intended for reading aloud, or for parts of it to be read aloud, either for oneself or for a selected audience of listeners.
La Bruyere's musical punctuation, however, was not the only device that governed the aesthetics and reception of his text. The capital letters of words within sentences affected the construction of meaning by giving dignity to some words — and consequently to the individuals, institutions, or concepts they designated. The capital letters also suggested that the reader must set those words apart by making a pause before them or raising the voice when reading them. These capital letters thereby contributed to the visual and semantic effect produced by the various forms of text inscription and attested to La Bruyere's typographic sensitivity. In order to perceive such a sensitivity, it is necessary to return to the punctuation of seventeenth-century editions and free Les Car^acteres from the anachronistic, misleading, and heavy punctuation that since the nineteenth century has introduced periods and quotation marks while suppressing the capital letters.2
Can we suppose that all the authors were as attentive as Ronsard or La Bruyere to the punctuation of the printed editions of their works? Is punctuation the task and responsibility of the author? As Malcolm Parkes stated, "Printed punctuation may reflect that of the author, that of the
person who prepared the copy for the press, that of the compositor, or all three" (5). We could add to this list the reader, who was often invited to correct the punctuation of a book according not only to a list of errata printed in the edition but also to his or her own judgment, as in the 1543 London edition of Saint Chrysostom's H^omiliae: "Whenever you find punctuation missing and accents either wrongly positioned or else omitted altogether, it will be an act of kindness on your part, gentle reader, to emend them according to judgement" (Binns).3
During Spain's Golden Age, this pointing or apuntuc^cion was the task of the compositors or correctors. In 1619, Gonzalo de Ayala, himself a printing-shop corrector, affirmed that a corrector "must know grammar, spelling, etymologies, punctuation, and the position of accents" (Ayala). In 1675, Melchor de Cabrera, writing in defense of fiscal exemptions for printers, emphasized:
El componedor percibe el concepto, y discurso. [^ Debe] hazer interrogacion, admiracion, y parentesis porque muchas veces la mente de los Escritores se con-funde, por falta de estos requisitos, necessarios,e importantes para el entendimien-to y comprehension de lo que se escrive, o imprime; porque qalquiera que falte, muda, trueca, y varia el sentido. (The compositor understands the meaning as well as the argument. [^ He must] take care of the question marks, exclamation marks, and parenthesis because often the writer's expressions become confused if these elements, which are necessary and important for the intelligibility and comprehension of what is written, are missing; because, if they are absent, the meaning is transformed, altered, and different (Cabrera)
Some years later (around 1680), Alonso V^ctor de Paredes in Institucion yy origen del arte de la imprenta writes,
[El corrector debe] entender el concepto del Autor en lo que manda imprimir, no tan solamente para poner la apuntuacion legitima; sino aun para ver si padecio algun descuido el dueno, para advertirselo. ([The corrector must] understand the intention of the author of the text he sends to the printing house, not only for marking the right punctuation, but also for checking the author's mistakes in order to advise him.) (Paredes)
Decisions concerning the materiality of the text were clearly assigned to multiple agents involved in the publication process. Today, however, according to differing traditions in textual criticism, the main responsibility is not given to those same individuals.
The bibliography emphasized the role of the compositors. The compositors of early modern printing shops did not have the same manner of spelling words or marking punctuation. This is precisely the reason why
"spelling analysis" allows one to attribute the composition of a book form to a specific compositor, and it constitutes the basis for reconstructing the actual process of making a book as either seriatim or according to formes. From this analytical perspective, punctuation is like spelling in that it results from the decisions of compositors that, according to Moxon, must "make the Indenting, Pointing, Breaking, Italicking [of a work] the better sympathize with the Authors Genius, and also with the capacity of the Reader" (211—212). As recorded by Alonso V^ctor de Paredes, spelling and punctuation can also be guided by necessity when the copy creation has been wrongly done because "no son Angeles los que cuentan" ('they are not Angels who cast off the copy'). In this case, compositors must alter the layout of the page, the size of the type, and the punctuation for saving space or filling space left for composition of the last page of the quire (see Masten 75—107). To resolve these difficulties, sometimes the compositors used what Paredes called "medios feos y no permitidos" ('ugly and forbidden means'). That is, they added or left out words or sentences in the text they were composing.
From another, more philological perspective, the essential role in punctuation was played, not by the composition process, but in copy preparation by correctors that added accents, capital letters, and punctuation marks. Whereas this work was linked with the printing-house, the choices regarding punctuation were assigned to clerics, university graduates, or schoolmasters employed by publishers and printers. Paolo Trovato emphasized how important it was for publishers of the Cinquecento to insist upon the "correctness" of books published by them. On many title pages was the expression con ogni diligenzu corretto, 'corrected with utmost diligence' (Trovato). This was the decisive role of these copyeditors, sometimes called proofreaders, whose textual interventions are shown throughout the several stages of the publishing process: copy preparation, proofreading, stop-press corrections, and the compilation of various errata (i.e., pages of errata printed in the book, on loose slips of paper, or handmade corrections in each copy). At every stage of the process, the text could be enriched and transformed.
In the sixteenth century, texts that underwent pointing by correctors belonged to various repertoires: classical works from Greek or Latin (see Grafton), texts written in the vernacular that circulated as manuscripts and were standardized in terms of spelling and sometimes language (as is the case in Italy with Tuscan; see Richardson), and works by contemporary authors whose handwriting was often very difficult to read. In his Orthotypographia, printed in 1608 in Leipzig, Hieronymus Hornschuch complained about the negligence and carelessness of authors that gave printers:
faulty manuscripts that cannot be read except with extreme difficulty [.]. Therefore I should like, not so much in the name of the correctors as of the printers, earnestly to advise and request all those that ever intend to publish anything in print to present it in such a way that the question need never be asked in the printer's office that the slave in comedy [in Plautus' Pseudolus] asked: "Do even hens have hands?") (Hornschuch)
Going against the usual distribution of roles, Hornschuch urged authors to be mindful of their punctuation:
What is almost the most important of all, let him punctuate his writing. For every day many mistakes are made by many people because of this; and in poetry nothing is more tiresome or blameworthy than the number of people that leave out punctuation marks. [.] Moreover, correct punctuation produces great elegance and leads more than anything else to a clear understanding of subject matter, whereas inconsistent punctuation seems to be the product of a disorderly mind. (Hornschuch)
The author is thus asked to send the printing house not his autograph manuscript ('actual rough copy') - the foul papers - but a clean copy "rewritten as neatly as possible either by himself or an amanuensis, on firm, non-absorbent paper, and checked again with utmost care" (Hornschuh).
During Castile's Golden Age, a manuscript handed to the Royal Council to receive license and privilege was never an autographed copy but a copia en limpio, or fair copy written by a professional scribe. Once approved and later corrected by censors, the manuscript was given to the publisher and then to the printer. This copy, which was not the author's foul papers but a clean copy, was called the "original" in Spanish and submitted the text to a series of alterations either in spelling or punctuation. Although authors' autographs generally had very few punctuation marks and showed great irregularity in spelling, the scribes' "originals" (which in fact were not at all original) needed to allow for better readability when given to censors and when destined for the printing house (see Rico 53-148).
In the examples he gave in his Dictionnaire, Furetiere proposed, as expected, that "Ce Correcteur d'Imprimerie entend fort bien la ponctuation" ('This corrector understands punctuation perfectly well'), and also, more surprisingly, that "L'exactitude de cet Auteur va jusques la qu'il prend soin des points et des virgules" ('The exactness of this author is such that he even pays attention to periods and commas').4 The first example assigned punctuation to the technical skills of copy editors employed by printers, and the second referred back to the authors' typical lack of interest in punctuation. The second also indicated that, in some rare cases, authors were attentive to the pointing of their texts; for example, Ronsard or La Bruyere.
Let us take another case: Moliere. Is it possible to find traces of his use of punctuation in the printed editions of his plays? As we know, it would be risky to attribute very directly to him the choices of punctuation found in the first editions of his plays. For example, in the 1660 edition of Les Precieuses Ridicules, punctuation varies from sheet to sheet, even from forme to forme, according to the preferences or habits of their compositors (see Veyrin-Forrer 338-366). Nevertheless, the differences in punctuation between the first editions of the plays (each printed shortly after their first Parisian production) and later editions allow one to reconstruct, if not his intention, at least the implied purpose of the text and its relation to the theatrical performance.
The punctuation of the first editions of Moliere's plays is clearly linked with the oral delivery of the text, either because it recalled the text as it was recited on stage or because it guided a possible reading-aloud of the play. As a consequence, the original punctuation marks are more numerous and often used to portray the characters in different ways. Consider for example the comma - present in the 1669 edition of Le Tar^tuffe and suppressed thereafter - after the first word of the line: "Gros, et gras, le tent frais, et la bouche vermeille" ('Stout, and fat, with blooming cheeks and ruddy lips'; I, 4). See also the accumulation of commas and capital letters that distinguishes the Master of Philosophy character from the Master of Dance in Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme (II, 3; see Hill 125-141).
This original punctuation also placed an emphasis on words charged with particular significance. A spectacular example can be found in the last two lines of Le Tar^tujfe. Modern editions print these lines of Orgon without any pauses: "Et par un doux hymen couronner en Valere / La flame d'un amant genereux et sincere" ('With wedded happiness reward Valere, / And crown a lover noble and sincere'; 5.7.1961-1962). However, the first, 1669 edition of the play - as well as the following in 1673 - put a comma just before the last words: & sincere: "Et par un doux hymen, couronner en Valere, / La flame d'un Amant genereux, & sincere." The last word of the entire play is thus clearly detached and serves as the antonym to the play's title Le Tar^tujfe ouL'lmposteur"5 Whoever was responsible for this expressive and theatrical punctuation (Moliere himself, a scribe, a corrector, or the compositors), it indicated a strong relation to voice, be it the voices of the actors on the stage or the voices of those that read the play out loud and shared with their listeners the pleasure of the text.
In early modern England, there were frequent games played with pointing. One example is the "punctuation poem," whose meaning changes depending on the reader's choice between pauses indicated by commas and pauses indicated by periods (see Parkes 210-211). Another was the effect,
either comical or dramatic, produced on stage by faulty punctuation. A more famous example is of course the prologue recited by Quince before the performance of the "Comedy of Pyramus and Thisbea" by the artisans of Athens at the court of Theseus:
Prologue
If wee offend, it is with our good will.
That you should thinke, we come not to offend,
But with good will. To shew our simple skill,
That is the true beginning of our end
Theseus:
This fellow doth not stand upon points.
Lysander:
He hath rid his Prologue, like a rough Colt : hee knowes not the stoppe.
A good morall my Lord. It is not enough to speake ; but to speake true.
(Shakespeare, A Midfommer 5.1.1951—1964)6
The captatio benevolentim was given the opposite meaning because of Quince's incorrect use of pauses during his speech. The compositors of the Quarto edition of 1600, and after them those of the Folio edition, have typographically translated the artisan's comical clumsiness by putting full stops in incorrect places and thereby reversing the intended meaning of the text without a single word changed. As Theseus concludes, when punctuation is wrongly distributed the speech is "like a tangled Chain, nothing impaired, but all disordered."
"Mortimer the treacherous" and "Quince the clumsy" remind us that punctuation affects the meaning. Must we accept the classical thesis, according to which since the eighteenth century grammatical and syntactic punctuation has replaced rhetorical punctuation that indicated pauses and sometimes intonation (see Nelson)? Or are we to consider, together with Malcolm Parkes (Parkes 5), that the balance between "delineating the rhetorical structure of a period and drawing attention to the logical relationships expressed by its syntactical structures" has dominated the use of punctuation since the Renaissance, so that both the rhetorical and the syntactical can be found in the same period or even in the same text?
Is it legitimate to assume that all individuals to whom punctuation decisions were assigned shared the same norms and the same expectations? Or, should we follow the hypothesis formulated by Philip Gaskell (Gaskell 28—61) and trace variations in punctuation within the "same" work to various text purposes or uses? Such a hypotheses might be confirmed by examining the profound difference between the actor's part and the printed edition in the case of Edward Alleyn's role of Orlando in Robert Greene's The Historie of Orl^ando Furioso, published in 1594, or the
manuscript punctuation added by John Ward in his printed copy of the 1676 edition of Haml^et (see Chartier).
The final question might be how to elucidate the reasons and modalities for the attempts to restore oral and rhetorical punctuation during the eighteenth century. It was in 1754, and only in 1754, in the second edition of its Ortograf^a de l^a l^engua espanol^a, that the Real Academia introduced the inverted question mark and exclamation mark to Spanish in order to guide the reader's intonation:
Despues de un largo examen ha parecido ä la Academia se pueda usar de la misma nota de interrogacion poniendola inversa antes de la palabra en que tiene principio el tono interrogante, ademas de la que ha de llevar la cläusula al fin de la forma regular, para evitar asi la equivocacion que por falta de alguna nota se padece comunmente en la lectura de los periodos largos. (After a long examination, the Academy thought it was possible to use the same question mark turned upside down and put it before the word that begins the interrogative intonation, in addition to the regular question mark at the end of the clause, in order to avoid the confusion that the lack of such a punctuation mark often produces during the reading of long sentences; Ortografia.)
Thirty-five years later, in 1789, Benjamin Franklin proposed to English a question mark at the beginning of interrogative sentences, as Spanish printers do, so that an "expressive typography" could properly order the modulation of the voice:
Farther to be more sensible of the Advantage of clear and distinct Printing, let us consider the Assistance it affords in Reading well aloud to an Auditory. In so doing the Eye generally slides forward three or four Words before the Voice. If the Sight clearly distinguishes what the coming Words are, it gives time to order the Modulation of the Voice to express them properly. But if they are obscurely printed, or disguised by omitting the Capitals and long s's, or otherwise, the Reader is apt to modulate wrong, and finding he has done so, he is obliged to go back and begin the Sentence again; which lessens the Pleasure of the Hearers. This leads me to mention an old Error in our Mode of Printing. We are sensible that when a Question is met with in Reading, there is a proper Variation to be used in the Management of the Voice. We have therefore a Point, called an Interrogation, affix'd to the Question in order to distinguish it. But this is absurdly placed at its End, so that the Reader does not discover it, 'till he finds he has wrongly modulated his Voice and is therefore obliged to begin again the Sentence. To prevent this the Spanish Printers, more sensibly, place an Interrogation at the Beginning as well as at the End of a Question. The Practice of our Ladies in meeting five or six together to form little busy Parties, when each is employed in some useful Work; while one reads to them, is so commendable in itself, that it deserves the Attention of Authors and Printers to make it as pleasing as possible, both to the Reader and Hearers. (Franklin)
Consequently, not only ladies' parties can be organized around the oral delivery of a speech, but also, or mainly, a public space based on reproduction of oral speeches and not necessarily enclosed within the confines of the city state of Antiquity. On stage, the life or death of a king could depend on the placement of a comma. But punctuation's importance does not end there. It is also important in framing the new democratic sphere.
NOTES
1	"Mortimer:
The king must d^e, or Mortimer goes downe,
The commons now begin to pitie him,
Yet he that is the cause of Edwards death,
Is sure to pay for it when his sonne is of age,
And therefore will I do it cunninglie.
This letter written by a friend of ours,
Containes his death, yet bids them save his life.
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
Feare not to kill the king tis good he d^e.
But read it thus, and thats an other sence:
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
Kill not the king tis good to feare the worst.
Unpointed as it is, thus shall it goe,
That being dead, if by chaunce to be found,
Matrevis and the rest may beare the blame,
And we be quit that caused it to be done." (Marlowe 86)
2	One example of is Arrias' speech in the chapter "De la Societe et de la conversation" (On Society and Conversation). The modern edition reads:
"Quelqu'un se hasarde de le contred^re, et lui prouve nettement qu'il d^t des choses qui ne sont pas vraies. Arrias ne se trouble point, prend feu au contraire contre l'interrupteur : Je n'avance, lui d^t-il, je ne raconte rien que je ne sache d'original : je l'ai appris de Sethon, ambassadeur de France dans cette cour, revenu a Paris depuis quelques jours, que je con-nais familierement, que j'ai fort interreoge, et qui ne m'a cache aucune circonsance." Il reprenait le fil de sa narration avec plus de confiance qu'il ne l'avait commencee, lorsque l'un des convies lui d^t : "C'est Sethon a qui vous parlez, lui-meme, et qui arrive de son ambassade." (La Bruyere, Les Caracteres de Theophraste 150—151)
And the 1696 edition:
"quelqu'un se hasarde de le contred^e et lui prouve nettement qu'il d^t des choses qui ne sont pas vraies ; Arrias ne se trouble point, prend feu au contraire contre l'interrupteur ; je n'avance, lui d^t-il, je ne raconte rien que je ne sache d'original : je l'ai appris de Sethon ambassadeur de France dans cette Cour, revenu a Paris depuis quelques jours, que je con-nais familierement, que j'ai fort interroge, et qui ne m'a cache aucune circonstance ; ü reprenait le fil de sa narration avec plus de confiance qu'il ne l'avait commencee, lorsque l'un des convies lui d^t, c'est Sethon a qui vous parlez, lui-meme, et qui arrive de son Ambassade." (La Bruyere, Les Caracteres 206)
The English translation reads:
"Somebody presumes to contradict him, and clearly proves to him that what he says is untrue. Arrias is not disconcerted; on the contrary, he grows angry at the interruption, and
exclaims: 'I aver and relate nothing but what I know on excellent authority; I had it from Sethon, the French ambassador at that court, who only a few days ago came back to Paris, and is a particular friend of mine; I asked him several questions, and he replies to them without concealing anything.' He continues his story with greater confidence that he began it, till one of the company informs him that the gentleman whom he has been contradicting was Sethon himself, but lately arrived from his embassy." (La Bruyere, The Characters)
3	Another example can be found in Binn: "The Printer to the Reader. Both the inversion and transposition of letters is very frequent; and the punctuation marks are either wholly omitted or else badly placed. You should therefore attribute the errors which have crept in to my haste and to the poorness of my type. I have listed below the errors which spoil the meaning of the poem, so that you can excuse the smaller ones and correct those that are more serious" (see also Hartwell).
4	See the articles "Ponctuation: Observation grammaticale des lieux d'un discours, ou on doit faire de differentes pauses, & qu'on marque avec des points & petits caracteres pour en advertir les lecteurs. Il y a plus de difficulte qu'on ne pense a faire bien la ponctua-tion. Ce Correcteur d'Imprimerie entend fort bien la ponctuation" and "Virgule: Terme de grammaire ^ L'exactitude de cet Auteur va jusques-la, qu'il prend soin des points et des virgules" in Furetiere.
5	Seventeenth-century editions: "Et par un doux hymen, couronner en Valere, / La flame d'un Amant genereux, &sincere." (Moliere, L^ Tartuffe [1669]); "Et par un doux hymen, couronner en Valere / La flame d'un Amant genereux, & sincere." (Moliere, Le Tartuffe [1673]). The modern edition: "Et par un doux hymen couronner en Valere / La flame d'un amant genereux et sincere." (Moliere, Oeuvres 180)
6	The modern English rendition of the Prologue reads: "If we offend, it is with our good will / That you should think, we come not to offend. / But with good will to show our simple skill: / That is the true beginning of our end."
WORKS CITED
Ayala, Gonzalo de. "Informacion en drerecho hecha por Gonzalo de Ayala." V^ctor Infantes: En el Siglo de Oro. Estudiosy textos de literatura aurea. Potomac (MD): Scripta Humanistica, 1992.
Binn, James. "STC Latin Books: Evidence for Printing-House Practice." The Library 32.1 (1977): 1—27.
Bonnefoy, Yves. "Les deux points, c'est un peu, en prose la poesie." La petite phrase et la longue phrase. Paris: La Tilv Editeur, 1994. 15—22.
Bullokar, William. Booke at large, for the Amendment of Orthographie for English Jpeech wherein, a mojtperfect Jupplie is made, for the wantes and double Jounde of letters in the olde Orthographie. London: Henrie Denham, 1580.
Cabrera Nunez de Guzman, Melchor de. Discurso legal, historicoy pol^tico en prueba del origen, progressos, utilidad, noble^a y excelencias del Arte de la Imprenta. Madrid, 1675.
Chartier, Roger. "Hamlet 1676. Les temps de l'oeuvre." Le Temps des oeuvres. Memoire et prefiguration. Ed. Jacques Neefs, Vincennes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 2001. 143-154.
Chrysostom, John. Homiliae duae. London: Reginald Wolfe, 1543.
Dolet, Etienne. "La maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en aultre. D'advantage. De la punctuation de la langue Fran^oyse. Plus, Des accents d'ycelle" [Lyon: Dolet, 1540]. Nina Catach: L'Orthographe franfaise a l'epoque de la Renaissance (auteurs, imprimeurs, ateliers d'imprimerie). Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1968.
Forestier, Georges. "Lire Racine." Jean Racine, Oeuvres completes. I, Theatre-Poesie. Ed. Georges Forestier. Paris: Gallimard, 1999. lix-lxiii.
Franklin, Benjamin. "To Noah Webster, Jr. (unpublished) Sat Dec 26, 1789." The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp (30 Apr. 2010).
Furetiere, Antoine. Dictionnaire Universel. The Hague, 1690.
Gaskell, Philip. From Writer to Reader: Studies in Editorial Method. Winchester: St. Paul's Bibliographies, 1984.
Grafton, Anthony. 'Trinters' Correctors and the Publication of Classical Texts." Grafton, Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as Revelation. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard UP, 2001. 141-155.
Hart, John. An orthographie, conteyning the due order and reajon, howe to write or paint thimage of mannes voice, most like the life or nature. London: William Serres, 1569.
Hartwell, Abraham. Reginae literae sive de Elizabethae Reginae in Academiam Cantabrigiensem ad-ventu. London: William Serres, 1565.
Hill, Gaston H.. ^"Ponctuation et dramaturgie chez Moliere." La bibliographie materielle. Ed. Roger Laufer. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1983. 125-141.
Hornschuch, Hieronymus. Orthotypographia. Ed. Philip Gaskell and Peter Bradford. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1972.
---. "Orthotypographia Hoc est: Instructio operas typographicas correcturis et Admonitio
scripta sua in lucem edituris" [Leipzig, 1608]. Jerome Hornschuch: Orthotypographia. Instruction utile et necessaire pour ceux qui vont corriger des livres imprimes et conseils ä ceux qui vont lespublier (1608). Trans. Susan Baddeley, ed. Jean-Francois Gilmont. Paris: Edition des Cendres, 1997.
La Bruyere, Jean de. Les Caracteres. Ed. Louis Van Delft. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1998.
---. Les Caracteres de Theophraste traduits du grec avec Les Caracteres ou les moeurs de siecle. Ed.
Robert Garapon. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1964.
---. The Characters of Jean de la Bruyere. Trans. Henri van Laun. New York: Brentanos, 1929.
Marlowe, Christopher. "Edward II." Marlowe, The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe. Ed. Fredson Bowers. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1973.
Masten, Jeffrey. "Pressing Subjects; or, The Secret Lives of Shakespeare's Compositors." Language Machines: Technologies ofLiterary and Cultural Production. Ed. Jeffrey Masten, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy Vickers. New York and London: Routledge, 1997.
Moliere. Le Tartuffe ou L'Imposteur. Comedie. Paris: Jean Ribou, 1669.
---. Le Tartuffe ou L'Imposteur. Comedie. Paris: Claude Barbin, 1673.
---. Oeuvres completes collationnees sur les textes originaux^ t. 6. Ed. Louis Moland. Paris:
Garnier, 1880-1885.
Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises on the whole Art of Printing (1683—4). Ed. Herbert Davis and Harry Carter. Oxford and London: Oxford U P, 1958.
Nebrija, Elio Antonio de. Gramatica Castellana. Ed. Miguel Angel Esparza and Ramon Sarmiento. Madrid: Fundacion Antonio de Nebrija, 1992.
Nelson, William. "From 'Listen Lordings' to 'Dear Reade^." University of Toronto Quarterly: A	Jou^rna^l of ^he H^u^ma^ni^^ie^s XLVI.2 (1976-1977). 110-124.
Ortograf^a de la Lengua espanola Castellana Compuestapor la Real Academia Espanola. Nueva edicion corregida y aumentada. Madrid, 1754.
Paredes, Alonso Victor de. Instituciony origen del arte de la imprentay reglas generales para los componedores. Ed. Jaime Moll. Madrid: Calambur, 2002.
Parkes, Malcolm. Pauses and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1993.
Richardson, Brian. Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular 1470—1600.
Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1994. Rico, Francisco. El texto del 'Quijote', Preliminares a una ecdotica del Siglo de Oro. Barcelona:
Ediciones Destino, 2005. Ronsard, Pierre de. "Au lecteur." Ronsard, Oeuvres completes. Eds. Jean Ceard, Daniel Menager, and Michel Simonin. Paris: Gallimard, 1993. 1180—1186.
---. "Preface sur la Franciade touchant le poeme heroique." Ronsard, Oeuvres completes.
1177-1180.
Shakespeare, William. A Midfommer nights dreame. London, 1600.
---. A Pleafant Conceited Comedie called, Loues labors loft. London: Cuthbert Burby, 1598.
Trovato, Paolo. 'Con ogni diligen^a corretto': La stampa e le revisioni dei testi letterari italiani (1470—
1570). Bologna: Il Mulino, 1991. Veyrin-Forrer, Jeanne. "A la recherche des 'Precieuses'." Veyrin-Forrer, La lettre et le texte: Trente annees de recherches sur l'histoire du livre. Paris: Collection de l'Ecole Normale Superieure de Jeunes Filles, 1987.
Who Chooses the One Who Chooses? On a Forced Choice of Shakespearean Epistemology and Textology
Jernej Habjan
ZRC SAZU, Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies, Ljubljana, Slovenia jernej.habjan@zrc-sazu.si
The choices made by the dominant literary criticism on behalf of the readership are themselves made in advance by institutions that reproduce this criticism. The impact of such choices on the selections made by current Shakespeare studies is analyzed and an alternative reading of Romeo and Juliet is outlined.
Keywords: literary criticism / literary canon / Shakespeare, William / deconstruction / multiculturalism
UDK 82.09
Far from being a neutral system, institutional literary criticism is no less than its audience determined by relations within a given social formation. Rather than merely choosing on behalf of the readers via school, canon, or, say, book market, criticism itself has to abide by forced choices made in advance in order to reproduce itself as a part of these apparatuses and institutions. Hence, within the school as the dominant modern ideological state apparatus (Althusser 152), the book market as a part of the essential institution of the capitalist world-economy (Wallerstein 25), and the canon as a privileged mechanism of the institution of nation (Močnik 175), the domain of literary criticism is not so much selection as combination. The hegemonic criticism does the work of syntagmatization, be it sympathetic dissemination or critical evaluation, of paradigmatic forced choices that serve to reproduce the world-system.1
A recent clear example is the 1993 report to the American Comparative Literature Association. Known as the Bernheimer Report, it subjectivated such a forced choice as a dilemma between contextualism and non-con-textualism instead of negating it by reclaiming textualism as its theoretical,
rather than ideological, practice. The authors of the report viewed the issue as an antinomy between contextual culturalistic approaches to literature and non-contextual hermeneutic or semiotic approaches; more precisely, the antinomy regarded the very status of literature as the object of literary studies. However, what seems to be a disjunction from the comparatists' point of view (in this case, "the native's point of view") can be theoretically grasped as a conjunction. From the perspective of the larger world-system processes, within which such a debate on the future of university departments and programs is placed, the contextualism/non-contextual-ism dilemma merely draws the limits of the field of comparative literature "in the age of multiculturalism," to use Bernheimer's own dating.2
In light of both the paradigmatic and syntagmatic contradictions of the report, one should assert not an opposition, but an identity between con-textualism and non-contextualism. At the paradigmatic level, the report itself unwittingly resolves this seeming opposition as it tries to strengthen it by deeming contextualism pluralistic. However, because this pluralism designates both the positive pole, contextualism, and its relation to the negative one, it overdetermines the opposition, making it a non-antagonistic contradiction. At the syntagmatic level, this paradox of the report is articulated, for example, in the contradictory references to the economic situation. On the one hand, by replacing national literatures as an object of criticism with various minority identities, the report implicitly follows the interstate systemic apparatuses of world capitalism (e.g., the EU, NATO, and the WTO) in their substitution of neoliberal identity politics for the social democratic politics of class compromise. On the other hand, by recommending that literature departments make a conservative move back to national literatures, the report's closing "word of caution" explicitly acknowledges "the shifting economic and sociopolitical landscape" (Bernheimer et al. 47). Thus, the world-economy is used as an argument for opposite conclusions: the need to expand (41-43) as well as preserve (47) the object of comparative literature.3
We can resolve this contradiction between the report's general multicultural pluralism and particular nationalistic exclusivism if we view it as an instance of a general process of the modern world-system. This system, Wallerstein writes, ^"has made a central, basic feature of its structure the simultaneous existence, propagation, and practice of both universal-ism and anti-universalism. This antinomic duo is as fundamental to the system as is the core-peripheral axial division of labor" (Wallerstein 41). Within publishing and copyright-protected cultural production in general, to which the report pertains in its contextualistic reduction of art to culture, this "symbiotic" (38) relation between universalist liberalism and
anti-universalist racism and sexism is reproduced as a relation between the protectionist cultural politics of "l'exception culturel^l^e" and the neoliberal politics of "cultural diversity" (Breznik 33, 37-38) - the relation projected into the latter of its own poles, represented therein as the ethnistic and even biologistic presuppositions of the pole's multiculturalism (31-32, 42). This projection, repetition of the protectionism/neoliberalism dyad within neoliberalism, turns the dyad into "symbiosis" and, moreover, indicates that this symbiosis is achieved by the typical institutional mechanism of disawoving knowledge in the name of belief. The knowledge of the antisocial effects of neoliberal politics is disawoved on behalf of, and has made peace with, the belief in neoliberalism, so that the institutions can endorse "cultural diversity" when normally practicing their belief as well as employ "l'exception culturel^^e" in the exceptional cases when that belief cannot be sustained by knowledge (see, e.g., 37).
The dependency of the 1993 ACLA report on this symbiosis is a result of the report's pre-theoretic, ideological practice. Namely, the report derives its guidelines from the current institutional situation of Complit, rather than from any epistemological break with institutional constraints. University departments should learn to switch between pluralistic multi-culturalism and exclusivist nationalism in order to follow either the economic situation as such or all the other departments that are supposed to already be following this situation. Hence the report itself not only fails to produce such a break, but it reproduces the institutional contextualism/ non-contextualism dilemma and, by extension, the universalism/anti-uni-versalism conjunction. This spontaneous embeddedness of the report in identity politics is condensed in its belief that university teachers should make use of the multicultural composition of their classrooms for "class discussion" (Bernheimer et al. 46). That is, students should be addressed as natives of particular minority identities, not as Cartesian subjects able to participate in the production of knowledge.
That this replacement of the modern subject of science with postmodern identities has led to the emergence of the super-ego injunction to enjoy is evident, for example, in the Shakespeare and Schools Project, founded in 1986 at the University of Cambridge (Gibson 144). This project compels pupils to relish acting out on the loose basis of Shakespeare as script, instead of "grinding through the Notes" (142); that is, reading Shakespeare as subjectivizing text: "[T]ext implies the solitary, individual, desk-bound scholar. A script, like a rehearsal, implies that learning about and enacting drama arises from shared experience" (145).4
This substitution of "class discussion" for cl^ass struggle places the report within what Badiou dismisses as "cultural sociology" (Badiou 23),
the academic proponent of multiculturalism. For Badiou, multiculturalism enforces a nihilistic conjunction of, a false choice between, the conservative "external constraint" of the logic of Capital (31) on the one hand and the death drive of biopolitics on the other (30, 33—34, 38). A similarly radical critique of this conjunction was also put forward in Julia Reinhard Lupton's Citizen-Saint^s, a study of Shakespeare and political theology. Interpreting The Tempesfs Caliban as a creature rather than a minority identity of anti-universalist New Historicism, Lupton claims that "in response to the forced choice between universalism and particularism, the creature takes shape as their negative intersection, equal to neither" (Reinhard Lupton 177). Shakespeare's "decisive crystallization of a certain material moment within the theology of the creature might help us find a post-secular solution to the predicament of modern humanity, trapped in the increasingly catastrophic choice between the universalism of global capital on the one hand and the tribalism of ethnic cleansing on the other" (178). Following Lupton, we might add that this identity between universalism and particularism is achieved by their promotion, not of subjectivity, but precisely of "identity, whether subsumed in the macrocosmic totality of 'humanity' or the local habitation of 'culture'" (177).5
Although Lupton's identification of humanist and multiculturalist Shakespeare scholarship with respective positions in the contemporary ideological struggle may seem mere activism, it can be easily backed up by an analysis of the epistemological impasse of current Romeo and Juliet studies.
Since Kristeva's (Kristeva) and Derrida's ("Aphorism") readings of the play, the politics of Romeo and Juliet have become a t^opos of Shakespeare criticism. However, rather than subscribing to Nicholas Royle's claim that the balcony scene "isn't the same again after Derrida" (Royle 23), I am inclined, on the contrary, to concur with Derrida's own assurance that "everything is in Shakespeare: everything and the rest" (Derrida, "This" 67). "The rest," I claim, is a lack in Shakespeare studies inscribed in them as contradiction, a fidelity to a lack the ignorance of which makes Shakespeareans contradict themselves. On the one hand, Kristeva's and Derrida's "anti-essentialist" readings of the play inspire diametrically opposed further interpretations (from Greenblatt's to Bloom's); on the other hand, as I will try to show, they themselves form an identity with Girard's "essentialist" reading, for example. This false alternative should be rejected by the claim that the play is political precisely in its intimacy.
Under the influence of "a few French naysayers," to use Bloom's label (The Westlern 59), Shakespeareans are becoming "apostles of Resentment" (53). Their vicissitudes can be summed up in an antinomy between extrinsic and intrinsic approaches to the theme of naming.6 The extrinsic approach
(Schalkwyk 151—177, Belsey, Ryan, Maguire 50—73) regards naming in Romeo and Juliet as external to, yet constitutive of, the self; and the intrinsic approach (Kristeva, Leggatt 29—58, Davis) projects this dualism into the self as ridden with ambivalent love-hatred. However, because both approaches unwittingly regard the lovers as victims of a certain constructed other (be it naming or love-hatred), they continually pass into each other (Leggatt 29—58, Davis).7 As such they condense their own relationship to their essentialist adversary as they pass into them as well: reducible to each other, they can also be identified with essentialism. Namely, the victimization of the lovers is no less at work in Bloom, Girard, or Frye, who naturalize the constructed other of anti-essentialism as eternal "time's ironies" (Bloom, Shakespeare 87), "mimetic desire" (Girard 48—49), and "the tragic heroic" (Frye 33) respectively.8
Consequently, the play itself is victimized, absent from both Bloom's center of the Western canon [King Lear, Ham^t, Othel^lo, Macbeth) and the multicultural Shakespeare of The Tempest, The Merchant of Venice, and, again, Othel^I^o? A way out of this forced choice between the humanistic univer-salism of Bloomian deconstructive literary criticism and the humanistic particularism of Derridean deconstructive multiculturalism would traverse the very dichotomy of Bloomian "self-centered" non-contextualism and Derridean "other-centered" contextualism.10
If Shakespeare criticism is to avoid the double bind of the romantic cult of the Bard — due to which Bloom can write on Shakespeare extensively but does not identify himself as "a Shakespeare scholar" (Bloom, The Western 50), whereas Derrida wanted to become "a 'Shakespeare expert'" (Derrida, "This" 67) but wrote only "Aphorism" — it should radicalize, rather than transgress, the romantic cult in the direction of Lupton's political theology, for example. Only then would the universality of Shakespeare be conceptualized as something more than either a sum of particular selves (from Hamlet to Falstaff: Bloom Shak^espeare 4—5, 745) or a particular universality among other universalities (from Plato's to Celan's: Derrida "This" 67). This would require, far from merely negating Bloomian or Derridean post-structuralism, fidelity to the event of structuralist psychoanalysis.11
Therefore, by regarding Romeo and Juliet as victims of particular naming, the contextualist readings unwittingly reiterate non-contextualist subsumptions of the character's action under universal fate. The lovers' missed encounter — the problematic of the play — is reified into an effect of either the Derridean "[i]rony of the proper name" (Derrida, "Aphorism" 432) or the Bloomian "time's ironies." Moreover, these multiculturalist interpretations reproduce the even more traditional exclusion of the play from the corpus of "mature tragedies" as well as the textological dilemma
between "any other name" and "any other word." They unknowingly collaborate with their conservative opponents in maintaining the commonplaces of Romeo and Juliet as a bad tragedy (Oz) and of its first quarto edition as a "bad" quarto (Farley-Hills).
Regarding the bad tragedy, the multiculturalists seem to agree with the standard judgment that the play is unable to meet the criterion of "character as destiny - the 'great man' undone from within either by an innate weakness or a fallible moral decision" (White 1). And as for the "bad" quarto, it is the sole version of the play among five quarto and four folio editions published between 1597 and 1685 that reads, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, / By any other name would smell as sweet," not "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, / By any other word would smell as sweet" (2.2.43-44). The editor of the 1980 Arden Shakespeare, Brian Gibbons, glosses the second line, "Shakespeare calls a name, as a thing apart from a person, a word . Q2 makes sense and should stand, despite the irrational pressure of proverbial familiarity attaching to name as the choice in many earlier editions" (Shakespeare 129).
This rendition has since prevailed, with the Riverside, the 2007 RSC, the Cambridge, and other prominent editions choosing "any other word" over "any other name." It is worth noting that among conservative exceptions there is Bloom again, this time as author of the afterword to the 2004 Yale edition. Instead of taking sides and trying to solve a mystery that may as well have been a mystery to the Author himself,12 let me stress that what has also prevailed is the notion already mentioned that this "thing apart from a person," be it "name" or "word," victimizes the lovers and thus makes the play a bad tragedy devoid of the "'great man' undone from within."
It can now be seen that particularist multiculturalism, far from refuting the universalist humanism of Bardolatry, reproduces the latter's choices regarding genre criticism, character analysis, and textual criticism. Instead of theorizing Bloom's center of the Western canon, these "power-and-gender freaks," to use yet another of Bloom's labels {Shakespeare 10), merely supplement it with the Jew or the Moor of Venice. It is this supplementary operation that makes the antinomy between Bloomian and Derridean Shakespeareans uncannily similar to the conjunction of universalism and anti-universalist racism and sexism that Wallerstein, Badiou, or Lupton attribute to today's ideological hegemony.
In order to negate this false alternative, one should replace the institutional antinomy with a theoretical debate by outlining a structuralist, anti-de-constructive and anti-humanistic, interpretation of the play as text. A return to text would allow readers to choose beyond the canon as well as its transgressions, which reproduce the notion of the canon instead of analyzing it.
Let me quickly revisit the problem of naming.13 The action of the play is informed by Juliet's mistaking a name for a word, an empty signifier for an ordinary, relational element of the signifying chain. The initial hailing by both the Father's demand for marriage with Paris and the Nurse's transgression, the super-ego injunction to enjoy regardless of this demand, introduces to Juliet a lack within the Name-of-the-Father. She sutures this lack by following the binary logic of the signifier that brings her to Romeo, which in her mother's tongue (but not her mother tongue — that is, the Prince's) signifies "Montague, ergo the enemy of the Capulets, ergo Juliet's enemy, ergo not allowed, ergo non-Paris." The ego-ideal, symbolic Other, for whom she is acting out, is then her Father, Romeo remaining but her imaginary ideal ego. In the families' discourses that govern Juliet, if not Verona, Romeo signifies either "Montague, ergo friend" or "Montague, ergo enemy"; in the Prince's impotent "Third Way" it signifies "citizen." What remains a blind spot in this dispositif, and is as such retroactively instituted by it, is object as absence of any positive object: for Juliet, Romeo's signified is ultimately "Juliet's lover"; that is, the object-cause of Juliet's desire is herself as "Romeo's lover," as Real-impossible.
Due to this retroactive activation of Romeo's appeal by the Father's demand, Juliet cannot address Romeo without reaching the Father. When the Father is present for the first time, feebly attached to the Name-of-the-Father, and Romeo banished, detached from his name (3.5.124—195), she tries to promote Romeo to the position of the ego-ideal. Her attempt to bypass the Father's discourse by enforcing her own discourse of apparent death upon Mantua, where the banished Romeo dwells, structurally fails. She blinds herself to the fact that her utterances depend on the Other, which in turn depends on Bakhtin's "arena of the struggle of two voices," on Vološinov's "arena of class struggle," in which Romeo is a peon. As subject to Verona, unable to insert the phallic signifier of Juliet's apparent death into the signifying chain of her letter, Romeo reads her acting out as conventionally as her Father. Only now, when the failure of Juliet's discourse of love is reiterated in the failure of her discourse of apparent death, does she subjectivate the nothing that her own question "What's in a name?" was referring to. Her final suspension of her acting out for her Father's gaze — that is, her refusal to escape to Paris or a convent — leads to suicide as a Lacanian suicide, the only possible passage from a signifer to an act.
Read as an element of a text, which, for Jakobson, is precisely a syntag-matic elaboration of the paradigmatic logic of the signifier, Juliet does become a tragic "character as destiny" and as such the quintessential textual critic and editor of her own utterance regarding any other name/word.
NOTES
1	"'[H]istorical systems' ^ had existed up to now in only three variants: minisystems; and 'world-systems' of two kinds - world-economies and world-empires." (WaHerstein 16) "The world in which we are now living, the modern world-system, had its origins in the sixteenth century. This world-system was then located ^ primarily in parts of Europe and the Americas. It expanded over time to cover the whole globe. It is and has always been a world-economy. It is and has always been a capitalist world-economy ^ [A] world-economy is a large geographic zone within which there is a division of labor and hence significant internal exchange of basic or essential goods as well as flows of capital and labor ^ [A] capitalist system ^ gives priority to the endless accumulation of capital" (23-24).
2	An account of how nationalism supplemented with cosmopolitanism has recently been replaced by multiculturalism as the dominant ideology of comparative literature is given in the closing arguments of Juvan, "'Peripherocentrisms.'"
3	In her response to the Bernheimer Report, Mary Louise Pratt (59-61) also mentions the institutional compromises suggested by the authors of the report in order to embrace globalization without giving up Eurocentrism. However, what she effectively prescribes is simply more globalization.
4	As part of the project, an edition of Romeo and Juliet was published that invites the pupils "to bring the play to life in your classroom, hall or drama studio through enjoyable activities that will increase your understanding ^ [Y|ou are encouraged to make up your own mind about Romeo and Juliet, rather than having someone else's interpretation handed down to you" (Gibson 144). Hence the question, say, of Paris' honesty in 5.3.12-17 "is left open for students to decide for themselves rather than emphasizing the weight of critical judgement of the lines. In the same scene students are invited to experiment with speaking ^ in different order to that of the script ^Student judgement is similarly encouraged in the invitation to challenge longstanding stage conventions" (148). See also note 5 below.
5	Another key reference for me is Moretti (42, 68-69), for whom Elizabethan and Jacobean tragedy stages the sovereign as split by an insolvable conflict of will and reason. With this negation of, on the one hand, the classical tragedy's sovereign as the neutralizing supplement to social contradictions and, on the other, the future of tragedy as such, Moretti's Shakespeare is among those that paved the way for Cromwell.
6	By the early 1990s, the theme reached as far as the postmodern permissive High School Shakespeare: "The instabilities of post-structuralism, the problematics of language and reference, naming and identity, underlie an activity on 'What's in a name' where students speculate on what would happen if they habitually 'misnamed' either themselves or coaveatioaally accepted signifieds" (Gibson 151).
7	Again, the problem can be imputed to Kristeva's unmotivated move from Shakespeare's text (as informed by love-hatred) to biography (in which the love of Romeo and Juliet - suddenly detached from hatred - is the hapless Bard's fantasy).
8	Girard's basically humanistic "mimetic desire" is the truth of both Kristeva's supposedly antihumanistic "love-hatred" and his own attacks on the "old humanistic" (Girard 45) Shakespeareans. Moreover, according to R. S. White, it has been so throughout the twentieth century, when the predominant appropriations of Romeo and Juliet, revisions of either Freud or Marx, unknowingly shared the presupposition that human freedom is impossible (White 4).
9	Again, Girard is telltale: he explicitly (Girard 42) gives arguments for excluding Romeo and Juliet from his book, A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare.
10	As a humanistic, caaoa-upholdiag appropriator of French transgressive deconstruc-tion, Bloom is presented in Juvan, History 116.
11	Bloom's Western Canon cultivates the traumatic polyphony of its object, the corpus of the Western canon, by condensing it in a single opus: Shakespeare is the center of the canon because by "inventing the human" (Shakespeare xx, 4, 714) it introduced all key Western commonplaces. Their polyphony is thus sublated in Shakespeare - which is itself rendered readable by Bloom himself, who in turn admits "Bardolatry" (728). As the center, Shakespeare must remain empty, a master-signifier, organizing the canon as its own context. Hence Bloom's aversion to "French" contextualizations of Shakespeare as merely one of the signifiers in the signifying chain. This quasi-structuralism of Bloomian canonizations and multicultural contextualizations alike can be suspended not by disavowing structuralism, but by radicalizing it via the theory of the Real as the impossible cleft between the master-signifier and the chain. This entails (re)turning to text as the object of analysis, something that has been ignored by Eagleton's or Greenblatfs syntheses, as well as Bloom's, Kermode's, and Girard's syntheses; more precisely, by the very contextual-ism/non-contextualism controversy.
12	In his refutation of the commonplace that the first quarto is a memorial reconstruction of the play and that it was published by the printer, John Danter, without the authority of its owners, David Farley-Hills (43-44, 27) maintains that Q1 derives from Shakespeare's own working drafts, known as his foul papers, entertaining even Jay L. Halio's claim that Q1 is not a reported text, but an abridged version of Shakespeare's original.
13	For a more detailed analysis of the play, see Habjan, "Canonization."
WORKS CITED
Althusser, Louis. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." Althusser, Lenin and
Philosophy a^n^d O^her Essays. London: NLB, 1971. 127-186. Badiou, Alain. Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. London and New York: Verso, 2001.
Belsey, Catherine. "The Name of the Rose in Romeo andJuliet." Romeo andJuliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. Ed. R. S. White. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. 47—67.
Bernheimer, Charles, et al. "The Bernheimer Report, 1993." Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Ed. Charles Bernheimer. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1995. 39-48. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books, 1998.
---. The Western Canon. London and Houndmills: Macmillan, 1995.
Breznik, Maja. "Culture between 'L'exception Culturelle' and 'Cultural Diversity'." Aldo Milohnic et al., Culture Ltd. Material Conditions of Cultural Production. Ljubljana: The Peace Institute, 2005. 15-43.
Davis, Lloyd. "'Death-marked love': Desire and Presence in Romeo and Juliet." Romeo and
Juliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. 28—46. Derrida, Jacques. "Aphorism Countertime." Derrida, Acts of Literature. Ed. Derek Attridge. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 414-433.
---. "'This Strange Institution Called Literature': An Interview with Jacques Derrida."
Derrida, Acts of Literature. 33—75. Farley-Hills, David. "The 'Bad' Quarto of Romeo and Juliet." Shakespeare Survey 49 (1996): 27—44.
Frye, Northrop. Northrop Frye On Shakespeare. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1986. Gibson, Rex. "'O, what learning is!' Pedagogy and the Afterlife of Romeo and Juliet." M 49 (1996): 141-152.
Girard, Rene. "The Passionate Oxymoron in Romeo and Juliet." Shakespeare et l'exces. Eds. Pierre Kapitaniak and Jean-Michel Deprats. Paris: Societe Fran^aise Shakespeare, 2007. 41-56.
Habjan, Jernej. "Canonization — Culturalization — Sanctification: Romeo and Juliet in the Western Canon, the 'French Resentment,' and Lacanian Ethics." (a): The Journal of Culture and the Unconscious (Fall 2010) [forthcoming].
Juvan, Marko. History and Poetics of Intertextuality. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 2008.
---. "'Peripherocentrisms': Geopolitics of Comparative Literatures between
Ethnocentrism and Cosmopolitanism." Les identites relatives des litteratures. Ed. Jusit Maar. Paris: Harmattan, 2010 [forthcoming].
Kristeva, Julia. "Romeo and Juliet: Love-Hatred in the Couple." Kristeva, Tales of Love. New York: Columbia UP, 1987. 209—233.
Leggatt, Alexander. Shakespeare's Tragedies: Violation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005.
Maguire, Laurie. Shakespeare's Names. New York: Oxford UP, 2007.
Močnik, Rastko. "Toward a Materialist Concept of Literature." Cultural Critique 4 (1986): 171-189.
Moretti, Franco. "The Great Eclipse." Moretti, Signs Taken For Wonders. London and New York: Verso, 2005. 42—82.
Oz, Avraham. "'Whaf s in a Good Name?' The Case of Romeo andJuliet as a Bad Tragedy." "Bad"Shakespeare: Revaluations of the Shakespeare Canon. Ed. Maurice Charney. Rutherford, Madison, and Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson UP; London and Toronto: Associated UP, 1988. 133-142.
Pratt, Mary Louise. "Comparative Literature and Global Citizenship." Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. 58-65.
Reinhard Lupton, Julia. Citizen-Saints: Shakespeare and Political Theology. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 2005.
Royle, Nicholas. Jacques Derrida. London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
Ryan, Kiernan. "'The Murdering Word.'" Romeo andJuliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. 116128.
Schalkwyk, David. Speech and Performance in Shakespeare's Sonnets and Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.
Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. Ed. Brian Gibbons. London and New York: Methuen (The Arden Shakespeare, Second Series), 1980.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. World-Systems Analysis. An Introduction. Durham and London: Duke UP, 2005.
White, R. S. "Introduction: What is this thing called love?" Romeo and Juliet: Contemporary Critical Essays. 1-27.
"Literary criticism is not justiriec. if a cry from the heart for millions is at stake": German Exile in the Netherlands, 1930-1940
Els Andringa
Faculty of Arts, Utrecht University, the Netherlands e.b.andringa@uu.nl
After Hitler came to power in Germany and the books of rejected writers were burned in 1933, many writers, publishers, and critics fled. The Netherlands became a center
place in Dutch literary history? This paper examines how the reactions in the press reflected positions and changes in the established Dutch literary field. It also addresses the question why exile literature, even if it was closely connected with Dutch history, almost completely disappeared from sight.
Keywords: literature in exile / World War II / German literature / Netherlands / literary
reception
UDK 821.112.2.09(492)»1930/1940«
When National Socialism came to power in Germany in 1933 and the books of unwanted writers were publicly burned, many writers, scientists, and intellectuals fled. Most of them first went to neighboring countries, hoping for a change for the better. Amsterdam became a central meeting place and business center, where two of the largest publishers of exile literature were founded in cooperation with prominent Dutch publishers: Allert de Lange and Emmanuel Querido. Book production started in 1933 and continued until the German invasion of the Netherlands in May 1940. From 1933 to 1940, Querido published 137 titles by fifty-seven different authors (Walter 237—266), and de Lange published ninety-one titles by forty-nine different authors (Schoor 85). Apart from these two, there were about fifty other Dutch publishing houses which occasionally produced works by exile writers. They published not only literary works, but schol-
arly ones as well. Publishing the work of exiled writers meant that the texts appeared in German and were shipped to German-speaking areas, mainly Switzerland, Bohemia, and, until the Anschluss in 1938, Austria (Landshoff; Navrocka; Schoor). In the Netherlands, however, there was a relatively large market because about 75,000 people of German origin — expatriates and refugees - lived there in 1937 (van Roon 43). Moreover, the German language had been taught at the secondary-school level since about 1850; it shared with French the prestige of a language of "culture"; English, the third foreign language that was part of Dutch education, was considered a more practical language for business. Consequently, there was a well-educated Dutch "elite" with an interest in German books, and critics had been paying attention to German literature for decades. Moreover, the most successful authors were translated into Dutch: Stefan Zweig, Jakob Wassermann, Thomas and Heinrich Mann, Joseph Roth, Vicky Baum, and Lion Feuchtwanger, to name the most popular of that time. All of them went into exile, even the Nobel Prize winner Thomas Mann, whom the Germans were reluctant to give up.
This migration of German literature took place within a very short time, which makes it an interesting case to study how an established literary system and a new one interact under the conditions of political pressure, social urgency, and a highly complicated market. Not only were the books written in a foreign language, but they also reflected the writers' agonizing experience and situation. In terms of chemistry, it is an opportunity to observe the reactions that take place when new elements enter an existing milieu under certain conditions. It is not possible to fully unravel the intricate processes that took place here; therefore I focus on how the established Dutch polysystem was reflected in the early critical reception of the exile literature and how the first cracks appeared in this system. Finally, I briefly address how this exile literature has been preserved in Dutch literary history.
The polysystem theory developed by Itamar Even-Zohar serves as a heuristic instrument to describe the structure and dynamics of the changing literary field. Even-Zohar defined a polysystem as a system of subsystems that relate to each other in a hierarchical order according to social prestige and economic power.1 The way I use the basic concepts, a literary subsystem is defined as a group of actors — writers, publishers, critics, and readers — that share a repertoire of literary knowledge, standards, and values. Literary knowledge comprises, for example, titles of works and names of writers that serve as a frame of reference. Standards and values determine the criteria of judgment and selection. A polysystem is principally unlimited and constantly changing as a consequence of factors outside and
inside the literary field. External factors are predominantly what this study deals with: political and social constraints; examples of internal factors are the resistance against worn-out conventions, the urge to innovate, and the struggle for recognition.2
From the end of the nineteenth century onwards, Dutch literature was characterized by ideological segregation. Four main streams or subsystems were most prominent: two were religion-based (Catholic and Protestant); one was a confessionally "neutral," liberal segment; and, partly running across the others, there was a socio-politically driven socialist current.3 The four established segments penetrated all domains of society from politics to school education and health care, and, furthermore, they were reflected in cultural life. In the domain of literary activity, there were publishers, writers, readers, and mediators producing and reading books, journals, reviews, and essays that represented each segment. The various repertoires differed in the values underlying the literary programs and judgments. The most obvious value criterion of the Catholics was that a literary work should express a balance between aesthetic form and a spiritually inspired positive attitude towards life. The Protestants' program was based on the intention "to test a literary work against the Truth that is revealed to us by God's Word";4 they required a rather puritan ethics. The socialists valued the realistic depiction of social problems and dilemmas. The Dutch "liberals" of that period distinguished themselves by a preference for individual expression and an emphasis on intrinsic, aesthetic values. The various repertoires distinguished themselves not only by the values underlying their literary programs and judgments, but also by the strategies of recommendation and warning to guide their readers. Catholic priests, for example, were appointed by the church to make lists of works that should not appear in Catholic libraries and schools — a mild, but nonetheless strict form of censorship.
In the period after the First World War, pragmatic coexistence of the parties prevailed, although they profiled themselves in polemic battles. Such battles took place not only between the segments, but sometimes also within them. Differing opinions about the balance between aesthetics and confessional expression, for example, divided the editors of the most prominent Catholic journal De Gemeenschap (The Community). In 1934 the disagreement escalated and two editors launched the alternative journal De nieuwe Gemeenschap (The New Community). It soon turned out that the difference was not simply in the degree of confessional engagement, but also in the orientation of this engagement: the new journal's contribution to what was called "Catholic reconstruction" came very close to the Nazis' nationalistic ideology.5 No wonder that the latter journal ignored the exile
literature and even showed signs of anti-Semitism, whereas the former included, for example, essays by Joseph Roth and poems by Hans Keilson under the pseudonym Alexander Kailand.
These four separate currents lasted until secularization transformed Dutch society in the 1960s; they still form the backbone of traditional Dutch historiography and are mirrored in literary history. During the 1930s, however, the reception of contemporary German literature not only reflected this established system, but also induced developments that cut across the segments. In search of an approach to find boundaries in a literary polysystem, procedures in critical discourse analysis inspired me to carefully examine linguistic indications in critical texts.6 Differing positions and perspectives particularly come to the fore in contrastive and comparative constructions. Let me give an example. In 1935, the critic Johan Winkler wrote in a review: "Literary criticism is not justified if a cry from the heart for millions is at stake."7
The combination of the negation and condition in "not if draws a boundary between a normal and an exceptional situation that is coupled with the standard norm of "literary" criticism versus a different norm. If Johan Winkler exclaims that a situation of agony requires a deviation from the accepted standard, he implies a shift of literary function. This quotation precisely indicates the debate that started running across the various segments as soon as exile literature started to appear. When sticking to strictly aesthetic criteria, critics would reject a range of exile works that expressed the actual situation; when shifting to loyalty and empathy, they would embrace a vision of literature as an expressive witness of contemporary history. This dilemma was articulated in different ways and with different emphases. The prominent liberal critic Anthonie Donker, for example, wrote an essay on "Literature and Politics in Germany" in 1934, arguing that
literature on a political basis is normally doomed to destroy the nature of art as a consequence of too glaring colors, emphasis, and contrasts, and by having too little distance from its subject. The propagandistic effect easily dominates the pure, undisturbed atmosphere of concentrated creation that is at the core of the often abused I'art pour I'art mentality.8
Nonetheless, the same critic praised Heinz Liepmann's "reality novel" about Germany for its integrity, and Ernst Toller's autobiography of his youth in Germany for its honesty and authenticity. Another factor still complicated the debate, as, through the emphasis on actuality and political implication, critics sometimes noticed a similarity between works written inside and outside Germany. Writing about the exiled writer Lion
Feuchtwanger, an anonymous critic observed: "Art requires, as a matter of fact, a certain maturity: direct Zeit^-Kunst has hardly produced anything of lasting quality; the new 'national' German art, paradoxically, suffers from the same weakness as Feuchtwanger in the second half of his novel."9
Holland's most prominent liberal critic Menno ter Braak gave the arguments yet another twist. He hoped that writers that had lived through threat and fear would go through a process of inner revolution that would free them from worn-out conventions, spiritual sterility, and the dictates of the market. In 1934 he published an essay about German exile literature in the exile weekly D^s Neue Tage-Buch (The New Daily) in which he blamed the exile writers for continuing to write in the traditional way; moreover, he criticized the exile press for blindly praising new works instead of judging them for quality and innovation. In the first paragraph, he set out his position against the background of the existing discourse:
When the "National Revolution" took place in Germany in 1933, not only the German writers were forced to take sides, since German literature was a European matter, not simply a German one. In the present Europe, it is no longer possible to speak of national literatures	Although it may be foolish to exclude the
national character entirely and regard European literature as a kind of "collective Esperanto," it is a thousand times more foolish to turn the national into the central standard.10
The literature of emigration, ter Braak emphasized, "should be more than continuation. It should have the courage to understand its European task and should not be driven by the necessity to fight against the false mysticism of the Blubo-devotees."11 Ter Braak's vision, inspired by Nietzsche's "good Europeanism," was a transnational, innovative literature that would surpass any narrow nationalism.
The oppositional structures in these quotations reflect cracks and changes in the repertoires of critical values of that period. Contrastive figures are everywhere: aesthetics versus veritability, aesthetics versus loyalty and compassion, ideology versus anti-ideology, and internationalism versus nationalism. Returning to the structure of the Dutch polysystem, one may wonder how these positions were connected to the four segments. I first rely on a study by Paul Buurman, who investigated the reception of German literature in prominent Dutch daily newspapers before and after the Second World War. He selected one representative newspaper for each of the social segments and counted how many contemporary exile writers, writers that were on the list of Nazi-favorites (contemporary NS), and other writers that could not be classified or identified were reviewed. The results for the period from 1930 to 1940 are shown in Table 1:
	Newspaper			
Writers	Liberal	Socialist	Catholic	Protestant
	(NRC)	(Het Vo^k)	(De Tijd)	(Standaard)
Contemp. exile	83 (14.5%)	66 (40.5%)	17 (15.4%)	5 (18.5%)
Contemp. NS	82 (14.3%)	17 (10.4%)	17 (15.4%)	2 (7.4%)
Contemp. other	408 (71.2%)	80 (49.1%)	76 (69.2%)	20 (74.1%)
Total	573	163	110	27
Table 1: Number of reviews of three categories of German writers in four Dutch newspapers, 1930-1940 (adapted from Buurman)
Three outcomes are striking. In the first place, the liberal newspaper paid far the most attention to German literature; however, it equally divided this honor between exile writers and writers that belonged to the NS-camp. Looking more closely at the reviews, it transpires that most reviewers either did not see or did not want to see the NS-ideology in these works. Sometimes they just seemed to be naive, and sometimes they were clearly sympathetic to the Nazi ideology. The same pattern is visible for the Catholic newspaper, although with less impressive figures. Hence, not all literary critics in the Netherlands favored the exile writers — a fairytale that Dutch society readily wanted to believe after the war. Second, the Protestant newspaper showed very little interest in German literature. Third, the socialist newspaper definitely had a preference for the exile literature. A closer look at the reviews revealed that the socialist reviewers favored writers with a socialist or pacifist profile such as Erich Maria Remarque, Andreas Latzko, and Lion Feuchtwanger.
Examining the literary journals, a similar pattern becomes visible. I checked three liberal, three Catholic, and one Protestant journal for the years 1933 to 1935.12 The centrality of the liberals and the Catholics became visible in the simple fact that they dominated the market of journals. A comparable socialist journal was not available for those years. The Protestant journal Opwaartsche wegen (Upward Ways) paid little attention to foreign literature anyway, and none at all to German exile literature. German exile literature was non-existent in two of the Catholic journals. The third, De Gemeenschap, included exile writers, even in German, as observed before, after 1935. A pattern of divided interest was found for the liberal journals: two of them regularly paid attention to exile production, and one of them, Forum, by exception only. All in all, it can be established that most of the liberal, a small part of the Catholic, and practically none of the Protestant press paid critical attention to the new "subsystem." Hence, the confessional segments can be interpreted as an inhibiting factor in the reception
processes. The socialist critics did their best for the exile literature; however, they had a less prominent position in the literary polysystem.13
The Netherlands became a center of literary production and distribution, and there was a readership for German books. Reviews appeared in central newspapers and journals; moreover, the most successful works appeared in Dutch translation in the same or different publishing houses. However, were these conditions powerful enough to provide exile literature a lasting position in Dutch literary history? The answer is short: no. Among those works that were translated into Dutch in the 1930s, only very few were reprinted or translated a second time. However, the most remarkable fact is that Dutch literary histories have so far not included any exile writers, not even those that continued to live in the Netherlands and eventually started writing in Dutch.14 I will briefly sum up a few hypothetical explanations. They do not answer the question of who chooses, but point to some social constraints that governed the exclusion processes.
The historical situation in the Netherlands was, of course, embedded in a broader international context. A few factors played a role in this international polysystem at large. The war disrupted social and cultural life all over Europe. After it was over, most people tended to look forward and there was a general reluctance to look back — it was a period of silence and suppressed memories that lasted for decades. The literature and art that reminded people of the dark period just overcome was not very welcome. Moreover, there was a disinclination towards German language and culture in the occupied countries, whereas the interest in English, the language of the liberators, greatly increased, as can be seen for the Netherlands in Figure 1. The number of reviews of German literature decreased dramatically, as Buurman concluded.
1950 1958 ISfiG 1974 1
19BD
Figure 1: Percentage of translated titles of the total title production, 1950-1990 (Heilbron)
Another general factor is that the inclusion of literature written in a foreign language is highly unusual in the tradition of writing national literary histories.15 I believe this is universal. The question why this is the case is not explicitly addressed by Pascale Casanova, but could have to do with the struggle to maintain a position of one's own dominant language and identity internationally. Even if literary scholars since Russian Formalism, Czech Structuralism, and French Sociology of Culture have been well aware of external social factors in literature, national literary histories tend to keep to traditional formats, thus reproducing selections once made. Among the specific causes for leaving out the German exile literature in the Netherlands may be the division of attention due to the segmentation of the polysystem. In addition, the poetics of engagement and solidarity was not generally accepted and faded soon after the war in favor of artistic autonomy and innovative form; the consequence was an increasing interest in the cohort of the European "modernist" writers. The fact that some of the exile writers had also experimented with new forms to express their experience was easily overlooked.
NOTES
1	For Even-Zohar' s own slightly different definition, see Even-Zohar 11. For a critical discussion of Even-Zoha^s concepts and an operational adaptation of his definitions, see Andringa, "Penetrating" 522-529).
2	Even-Zoha^s model is partly rooted in earlier theories developed by Russian Formalists such as Jurij Tynjanov and Roman Jakobson, and Czech Structuralists. In his ideas about a sociology of the aesthetic, Jan Mukarovsky repeatedly pointed out the interaction of the immanent dynamics of art's breaking away from tradition and the effects of changes in social structures on aesthetic value (Mukarovsky, Aesthetic 22-23, 67).
3	Actually, there was still another segment (though relatively small) present in Dutch society: a Jewish community had been formed since the sixteenth century. Although its social and cultural role had been considerable since the second half of the nineteenth century, Dutch historiography has failed to recognize it as a substantial segment of Dutch society, nor has Dutch-Jewish literature, which had a signature of its own since the late nineteenth century, found a place in Dutch literary history. For the impact on the reception of exile literature, see Andringa, "Begegnung."
4	Roel Houwink in the literary journal Opwaartsche wegen (1936/1937: 66).
5	The controversy is documented in Van Faassen, Chen, and Asselbergs.
6	An explanation and exemplification of this procedure is given by Andringa, "Grenzübergänge."
7	Johan Winkler, in a review of Verse der Emigration (^"Verses of Emigration"), an anthology of poetry written by exiled poets, in the daily newspaper Het Volk (16 May 1935). Winkler and Het Volk belonged to the socialist segment. Actually, Winkler appeals to the readers and critics in the liberal camp as well, urging them to give up an exclusive and individualistic aesthetics in such an agonizing situation. I translated Dutch quotations as literally as possible. The quotations from Dutch sources were translated by myself as liter-
ally as possible. No attempt was made to do justice to the stylistic features that were typical
for that period.
8	Anthonie Donker in Critisch Bulletin (1934, 43-47: 43). This critic was representing the liberal camp.
9	Anon., "Nieuwe Duitsche romans. Emigraateauitgavea," in the right-wing liberal daily newspaper De Telegraaf (1 March 1934).
10	Menno ter Braak in Das Neue Tage-Buch (29 December 1934: 1244-1245).
11	"Blubo" refers to the "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil) ideology of the National Socialists.
12	The liberal journals were Forum, Critisch Bulletin (Critical Bulletin), and De Gids (The Guide), the Catholic ones De Gemeenschap^ De nieuwe Gemeenschap, and Roeping (The CaHing), and the Protestant one Opwaartsche wegen.
13	Even if there was no representative literary journal with a socialistic profile, a few individual socialist critics (Nico Rost, A. M. de Jong, and Jef Last) energetically took sides with the exile literature. They published not only in the daily and weekly socialist newspapers, but also in various liberal literary journals. Moreover, they played a role as translators.
14	Elisabeth Augustin, for example, had already learned Dutch before she emigrated; she started writing in Dutch immediately and did so well that her novels were published and treated as if they were written by a Dutch writer. Nevertheless her recognition was iasufficieat to render her a place in literary history.
15	Not even minority languages within the same geopolitical space are included in standard literary histories. In the north of the Netherlands, the province of Friesland has its own language; its literary tradition may be modest, but even the fact that it exists is not mentioned in current Dutch literary histories. This is another example of the convention that the centrality of a literature in terms of recognition and intellectual power dominates literary history, not its interface with the history and society it reflects.
WORKS CITED
Andringa, Els. ^"Penetrating the Dutch Polysystem. The Reception of Virginia Woolf, 1920-2000." Poetics Today 27.3 (2006): 501-568.
---. "Grenzübergänge. Das niederländische Polysystem im Spiegel der Rezeption ausländischer Literatur." Grenzen der Literatur. Zu Begriff und Phänomen des Literarischen. Eds. Simone Winko, Fotis Jannidis, and Gerhard Lauer. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. 455-488.
---. "Begegnung jüdischer Literaturen. Bedingungen der Rezeption deutscher
Exilliteratur im niederländischen Polysystem." Arcadia 44.2 (2009): 289-316.
Buurman, Paul. Duitse literatuur in de Nederlandse dagbladpers 1930-1955. Een historisch-documen-tair receptie-onderzoek. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 1996.
Casanova, Pascale. The World Republic of Letters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004 (19991).
Even-Zohar, Itamar. "Polysystem Theory," "The Literary System," and "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem." Poetics Today 11 (1990): 9-26, 27—44, and 45—51.
Heilbron, Johan. "Nederlandse vertalingen wereldwijd - Kleine landen en culturele mon-dialisering." Waarin een klein land: Nederlandse cultuur in internationaal verband. Eds. Johan Heilbron, Wouter de Nooy, and Wilma Tichelaar. Amsterdam: Prometheus, 1995. 206-252.
Landshoff, Fritz H. Amsterdam Kei^ersgracht 333 Querido Verlag. Erinnerungen eines Verlegers.
Berlin: Aufbau Verlag, 2001 (19911). Mukarovsky, Jan. Aesthetic Function, Norm, and Value as Social Facts. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1979 (19361). Navrocka, Irene. "Kooperationen im deutschsprachigen Exüverlagswesen." Exilforschung.
Ein in^rnationa^es Jahrbuch 22 (2004): 60-83. Roomse ru^ie: de splitsing tussen "De Gemeenschap" en 'De Nieuwe Gemeenschap." Eds. Sjoerd van
Faassen, Salma Chen, and Bernard Asselbergs. Nijmegen: Vantilt, 2007. Roon, Ger van. "Het beleid van de Nederlandse regering tegenover Hitler-Duitsland, 1933-1940." Nedei-land en het Dui^^se Exil 1933-1940. Eds. Kathinka Dittrich and Hans Würzner. Amsterdam: Van Gennep 1982. 40-48. Schoor, Kerstin. Verlagsarbeit im Exil: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der deutschen Abteilung des Amsterdamer Allert de Lange Verlages 1933-1940. Amsterdam: De Lange/Rodopi, 1992. Walter, Hans-Albert (ed.). Frit^^ H. Landshoff und der Querido Verlag 1933-1950 [=Marbacher Magazin 78]. Marbach am Neckar: Deutsche Schillergesellschaft, 1997.
he Editor and the Mediatory Function in a Literary System
Marijan Dovic
ZRC SAZU, Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies, Ljubljana, Slovenia marijan.dovic@zrc-sazu.si
The paper deals with the role of a book editor as a key mediatory function in the literary system. It strives to outline the complex network offactors and constraints that have an impact on editors' mediatory activities and choices. Three categories of such constraints are analyzed in greater detail: economic factors, political (ideological) factors, and networking effects.
Keywords: literary system / literary mediation / publishing / book market / editor / editorial policy
UDK 808.2
In this contribution I focus on the function of an editor and sketch out the network of factors that influence his mediatory choices and decisions. Such a focus can be well justified. Generally, the role of mediators - not only editors, but all those involved in the complicated process of book production (printers, typesetters, proofreaders, copy-editors, publishers, librarians, booksellers, and distributors) - is underestimated or completely ignored both regarding their contribution to the final version of texts1 and regarding their complex role in shaping the totality of available reading material in given historical situations. Remaining deliberately in the age when the printed book has been a predominant material carrier of mental content, it is possible to say that mediators have significantly helped shape the stock of ideas in cir^cul^ation, in both vernacular literary fields and international exchange (cf. St Clair, The Reading Nation; Chartier).
In modern literary systems such as have evolved in the general process of social differentiation, especially from the eighteenth and nineteenth century onwards, the central mediatory position is obviously occupied by the editor (cf. Dovic, Slovenski pi^satelj; Schmidt).2 The editor seems to be a "gatekeeper"; his function can be understood as an entrance-filter, but not as some kind of indifferent sieve - he directs the author's creativity from the outset, defines the ultimate version of the text, conceives the issuing, marketing, and promotional strategies, and so on (Glas 386). By accepting
a certain text, he simultaneously connotes the author and attaches new (external) identity layers to both of them (Nooy 514). This is especially the case with book editors: research has proven that the role of magazines for literary text is more transitory. It is true that most authors start in magazines, but the majority of them never get to a book; and without a (continual) book opus there can be no durable accumulation of symbolic or economic capital (Verdaasdonk, "Literary Magazines" 230-231; see also Janssen).
Although there are plenty of good reasons for studying the function of the book editor and its equivalents in different historical circumstances, there is little theoretical and methodological support to be found for such an enterprise. Typically, researchers also complain because of the lack of exact data and difficulty of their interpretation in given contexts. Only gradually, literary sociology - from the classical school of Escarpit and evolving interdisciplinary research on the history of books or the political economy of reading to newer information-system-based study of book markets - has managed to offer more serious research instruments for exploring the mediatory role.3
The editorial function: The impact factors
The figure of an editor may come to mind first when asking the question Who chooses? However, it is hard to ascertain whether the editorial function is actually as autonomous as it may first seem and whether it is not necessary to seriously consider - along with the editor's primary enthusiasm - a number of other potential factors. Imagine for a moment the figure of an editor that many agents in contemporary literary systems would consider ideal. The motives of such a figure would probably be adjusted with the logic of autonomy - that is, the request that is essential for artistic systems of recent centuries. An autonomous editor would strive to choose exclusively such works - both original and in translation - that would meet his expectations about the desired special literary or aesthetic quality of the text.
In practice, such high principles face various kinds of constraints that the traditional editor as a decision-maker has to negotiate all the time. Such constraints can be classified in various ways. One of them is represented in Figure 1: it includes economic,political/ideological^, and networking categories.
Political/ideological constraints
/	Y	\
Editor	\
Aesthetic preferences, education, "habitus," etc. \ ^ \
Economic constraints	Networking effects
Figure 1. The editorial function and its constraints
It is not necessary to emphasize that in practice the three groups are not always easy to delimit; the model in Figure 1 therefore remains theoretical. Separate factors interfere, combine, and in the end always connect with economics. This is why one should never forget — even when dealing with other kinds of factors — that the editorial function always intersects with economics; the production of books as the material bearers of intellectual content has its own specific logic, but as a branch of business it inevitably remains part of a larger social order. This means that any publishing enterprise in the long term has to find an equilibrium for its financial balance (expenses should not exceed the total income, regardless of how this is collected: sales, monopolies, subsidies, benefactors, etc.). The editor is therefore obliged to help preserve st^abilily: he should not endanger the long-term existence of the company (and his own position) with his editorial choices. This is almost an axiom, valid regardless of the degree of historical differentiation of mediatory functions, the size of the market, or other parameters.
Apart from this, it is important to note that, in book publishing, sales success is never entirely predictable: only a small number of titles yield a high profit whereas the majority hardly cover the production costs. For the stability of publishers — and even more so of those that deal with literature — the continuity of opuses of renowned authorial names is therefore crucial.4 Publishers strive to shape the recognizable group of "house" authors, but the more predictable sales of their repertoire opens space for risky enterprises (Glas). Such practical remarks have also been confirmed by one of the few empirical studies of publishers' lines of literature, which showed that under the pressure of the market Dutch publishers shape structurally similar lines with an emphasis on prose and the works of domestic authors (Verdaasdonk, "The Influence"). At their very center were books by "successful" authors that form a backlist for a particular publisher. In general, the core of successful authors and the continuity of
their opuses are crucial for long-term success while providing a basis for better planning and also for more innovative policies. However, if reader demand is the factor that forces publishers towards unification — and this does not seem surprising — the more interesting finding of this study is that at the same time the market stimulates a certain kind of diversity: it forces publishers to swiftly respond to the activities of their rivals and to shape a selection that is recognizable and distinguished by a certain dijfer^-entia specifica, a distinction that raises it from the monotony of structurally similar material.
Economic factors
Let us now examine the economic factors in greater detail. In the completely liberal economic model, the decisive factor is obviously the book market.. The demand of readers (or, more precisely, purchasers) that are willing to take their wallets out of their pockets (the question of whether they will eventually read the book is irrelevant here) would represent the only authoritative framework of estimating the quality of editorial decisions. It is quite obvious that the historical parameters of the actual book markets were highly diverse and need to be considered in their various contexts. Such parameters are the size of the market, the degree of differentiation of publishing and bookselling functions, the prevailing types of sales channels (the structure and branching of bookstore networks); types of publishing companies, the potential range of editions and average print runs, purchase prices and price policies in general (defining the demand curve and the timing of access for different social strata), modes of regulating book sales (taxation, unified book prices, and subsidies), the role of public or private library networks,5 and of course buyers' habits, general education and literacy rates, available information systems, and so on. Historically, all of these factors have substantially influenced the behavior of not only readers, but also authors and mediators.
It has turned out that the structure of books in circulation was notably determined both by manufacturing techniques and intel^l^ectuc^l property regimes (St Clair, "The Political Economy" 10—13). The economics of print and physical limitations in general have determined print runs, the extent of books (the length of novels or poetry collections), and also their selec-tion.6 On the other hand, the question of intellectual property (authorial rights) — while belonging primarily to the realm of ideology or policy — has (at least from the publishers' point of view) always been an economic question with a clear and immediate impact on editorial decisions.7 In fact,
the economic dimension is very important for any other factor that comes from policy regulation, such as various subsidy programs, ways of taxing (or tax exemptions), supporting various segments of the book chain, public repurchasing of books, supporting library networks, and so on; all of these factors have a common feature: they attempt to diminish or mitigate the law of economic demand.
When thinking of economic constraints, it must be acknowledged that the space of editorial autonomy is very much confined within the broader framework of the organization of the publishing company. In this respect, it is by far not irrelevant whether the publisher is organized as a joint-stock company, obliged to anonymous investors interested exclusively in profit, or whether the company is organized in a different way: while pursuing other aims in society, it may for example be quite satisfied with bare "survival" in terms of business. As Miha Kovač has demonstrated with cases from the Slovenian transition, in the first type the sales sector inevitably narrows down the space of editorial decisions (Kovač, Skrivno življenje knjig). The reasons that this does not happen at any time and any place must be sought in those factors that try to diminish the operation of exclusively economic logic in the literary field. Let us take a closer look at these.
Political and ideological factors
When thinking of the political and ideological constraints of the autonomy of editorial judgments — setting aside the presumption that yielding up book production to the "invisible hand" of the market is non-ideological in itself — the first thing that comes to mind is the mechanisms
of textual control and censorship (together with the corresponding dose of self-censorship). Historically divergent modes of such control reached their extreme form especially in the totalitarian regimes that attempted to establish full control over the cultural field; endangered in its autonomy, the latter evolved various interesting strategies of opposition.8 Compared with the liberal market model, authoritatively regulated literatures are determined by entirely different parameters. The role of the market is seriously limited, institutions tend to be centralized, artistic production is bureaucratized, and mechanisms of ideological control such as censorship and supervision of the means of consecration are established (cf. Dovic, "Totalitarian and Post-Totalitarian Censorship"; Neubauer).
Nevertheless, in such circumstances the answer to the question "who chooses," or at least who is assisting the editorial choices, is an easy one. In general, it is possible to agree with Gisele Sapiro's finding that the de-
limitation between liberal (democratic) and totalitarian regimes is relatively sharp. In democracies, the tendency towards total control is obviously absent; but this does not mean that political and ideological factors are set aside entirely. On the contrary, on closer inspection it turns out that such factors have very often tailored the behavior of the mediatory sector to a significant degree. This is quite evident in situations in which actual political relationships are reflected in the cultural field: in this case, the explicit political, philosophical, or other orientation of a certain mediatory institution becomes an important factor of choice.9 The impact of intel^l^ectual property regimes has already been mentioned. Once again, this is a highly complex and delicate issue that has been a subject of friction and quarrel ever since; and we cannot even tackle all of its various dimensions (cf. Chartier's Inscription and Erasure and Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture). Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that means of legal regulation of authorship rights do affect the choices of editors and publishers: to illustrate this, one only has to think of countless cases of publishing outbursts that followed the expiration of copyright for particular works.10
Apart from this, ideological impact factors must be sought in the policies of regulating book markets. Such policies are always derived from certain ideological value presumptions. Based on such presumptions, countries implement a set of passive or active interventions that have immediate effects on editorial practices and in this way help shape the literary field. Quite often, these policies take the form of direct subsidies to individual elements of the book chain (authors, translators, publishers, or booksellers); the funding of (public) libraries also counts here. From this perspective, the declared aims of support programs, their structure, and the mechanisms of deciding (committees, priority lists, special categories, etc.) need to be examined in order to ascertain the leading motives of such policy regulation. Is it ideological control, which is characteristic of totalitarianism? Are there any nationalistic motives in the background that have their roots in the times of creating national literatures and nation-states? Is it the prestige of expansionist cultural policy that attempts to surpass the confines of its own culture, or is it following and promoting different values and ideologies — for example, tolerance, integration of minorities, protection of marginal social groups, and so on? All such motivations structure the support regimes and in this way influence decisions in the mediatory sector.11
In this respect, special attention must be devoted to one of the motives that seem to help direct the regulation of modern book markets — namely, the ideology of literary autonomy. National regulatory mechanisms are most often understood as a necessary corrective of the market and its con-
straints, the latter supposedly being responsible for the "uniformity" of production. Interventionist policies are therefore legitimized as assistance to the literary field to preserve a certain degree of autonomy with regard to the market and its inherent tension towards standardization; as such, it should contribute to the diversity and quality of the goods on the "market of ideas."12
To a considerable degree, contemporary interventionist mechanisms can be explained from the ideology of artistic autonomy. Apart from that, however, another ideological presupposition might be even more important - which is definitely the case in peripheral and semi-peripheral literary systems: namely, the idea of the crucial importance of the written corpus and especially of literature for establishing and sustaining linguistic and national identic. From this perspective, not only special attention dedicated to the literary life of small linguistic communities, but also the phenomenon of mediators that understood their role as a special cultural and national mission, can be much better understood. The faith in this apostolic vocation has sometimes been so strong that particular editors and publishers continued printing and publishing books in spite of their financial failure. As Kovač has pointed out, their decisions were motivated by specific cultural presuppositions rather than by the economic interest (Skrivno živ
At this point, one might already see a certain conflict that makes it impossible to treat publishing as just another branch of business. The transitory position in the intersection between the worlds of business and artistic and intellectual life has turned publishing into the kernel of the conflict between two types of capital: symbolic and economic. This conflict has always been constitutional for contemporary art and culture (see Pierre Bourdieu's influential analysis in The Rul^es of Art). This friction is the main reason for the evolution of the subfield of "restricted production" in publishing. This subfield seeks to distance itself from the "commercial" and, instead of the profane taste of masses, enthrones the judgment of peers as its value criterion. In this way, in publishing the delineation between the domains of "elite" and "trivial" are reproduced - a boundary between the world of short-term profit (which at the same time means farewell to symbolic capital) and the world that temporarily ignores profit to invest into the stock of works that may once become "classic" (which is actually the way to translate accumulated symbolic capital into economic capital).
The appeal of the theoretical distinction that Bourdieu illustrates by contrasting the French publishers Laffont and Minuit is quite manifest. However, in practice it turns out that the borders are not at all that sharp. The relations between "commercial" and "non-commercial" are complex:
although the "commercial" publishers are never completely immune to the charms of symbolic capital (especially when it is about to "translate" into real money; for example, after the work has been awarded), on the other hand the small "non-profit" publishers never complain if their sales figures are good from the start. In addition, the publishing of bestsellers often provides financial backup for more risky enterprises; as many examples have shown, the predictable income from the backlist of the "stable" of writers serves to enable experimentation (cf. Sapiro; Verdaasdonk, "The Influence"). The mechanical application of Bourdieu's distinction has been critically tackled by Frank de Glas, who used an empirical example to show that there are no sharp boundaries and that the picture in which on one side there are those that only care for the profit and on the other those that exclusively aim for quality (symbolic capital) is far too simplified. However, it is possible to agree with him that Bourdieu's distinction between symbolic and economic and his analysis of the mechanisms of approval have notably improved the understanding of the literary fields.
Networking effects
In an area in which the accumulation of symbolic capital is so important, one should also consider the effects of social networks — and even more so when considering the fact that they have seldom been discussed and have mostly remained outside the methodological horizon of literary criticism.13 Only on the basis of actual diagrams of network relations can the restoration and distribution of symbolic capital in certain cultural situations be properly explained - but such research is scant and its results cannot be mechanically transferred to other situations.14
However, it is possible to hypothesize that networking effects are much more important when the role of the market is being diminished by various kinds of regulation. At the same time, the general tendency among agents - for example, the connections among publishers, media, universities, juries, committees, and cultural politics - is to keep the network somewhat concealed. Publishers and editors are certainly inclined towards creating a systematic network of relations and positioning themselves within the prestigious core of such a network (betweenness) with many links (density) to other influential agents and cliques and also other areas of social life (a bridge), all of which offers them better control over the "means of controlling the intermediaries: publicity in the media, close relations with the critics and the members of literary juries, representation of their houses in the juries" (Sapiro 451).
For editors of literature, the quality of relationships with authors is of vital importance. The symbolic capital of an editor is primarily reflected in the capability to maintain friendly and often very personal ties with authors; this also contributes to establishing and preserving the group of loyal authors indispensable for the survival of the publisher (cf. Verdaasdonk, "The Influence"; Glas). The central position within dense networks also enables editors to discover new literary talents more promptly.15 Although the majority of literary publishers also act as international cultural mediators (by publishing literature in translation), editors of some merit must also be included in broader networks — in this case not so much directly with foreign authors, but mostly with professional literary agents or with cultural "scouts," the connoisseurs of certain (source) literatures that are often the potential translators into the target languages at the same time. This micro-network of mediators and enthusiastic initiators often affects the choices of literature in translation. In general, the dense and quality international network of an editor broadly opens the space for successful translation policies and at the same time also heightens the risks of questionable uses of decisive power.
It is furthermore in the vital interest of an editor to establish more than only professional links with media agents: cultural reporters, reviewers, critics, radio and television editors (and managers), especially in the mass media that can greatly contribute to promoting a book.16 Similarly, the editor is highly motivated to assure himself a chance to influence the (non-market) means of approval: for example, to members of the award-giving juries and subsidy committees, to professional associations, leading editors, critics, or essayists, and even to university humanities programs, through his network. With his endeavors, the editor strives to consolidate the symbolic capital and prestige of the publisher he represents and to promote and strengthen its specific identity: it is not irrelevant whether the publisher has a reputation of being a discoverer of new names, an issuer of classical works, a supporter of a certain quality literary group, of being only interested in sales and profit, and so on. The symbolic capital of the publisher affects the books of the authors that publish under its label. The role of the editor is crucial here: his proper name becomes a third pillar of identity in addition to the names of the author and publisher — sometimes even with the aura of a mediatory "genius." In any case, by regulating the distribution of symbolic capital, networking factors have a significant influence on the behavior of the mediatory sector — even when there is no evidence of their immediate impact on particular editorial decisions.
Conclusion
The model described here — focusing on the role of the book editor and the numerous factors that direct his choices — can serve as a point of departure that offers greater insight into the behavior, evolution, and specificity or anomalies of the mediatory sector in various historical circumstances. In the Slovenian case, for instance, one could discuss the comparatively high importance of nationalist ideology for publishing organization and operations — which was already the case at the beginnings of Slovenian belles letter^s in the nineteenth century and has remained so to the present day, when modified elements of such an ideology still contribute significantly to the regulation of the book market. Other issues of interest would be the role of communist ideology and censorship under totalitarianism, or exploring the greater or lesser role of the market (economy) in certain periods. Considering all three categories presented above also makes it much easier to explain the condition of the Slovenian literary system, which seems to be quite specific in many respects.17 In general, the role of mechanisms that are meant to correct barely market-driven production is quite strong — which obviously gives strength to political and ideological factors and heightens the impact of what have been denominated here as "networking effects." The analysis of the contemporary Slovenian mediatory sector should therefore take into account the ideologies that direct the selections of different financers (in addition to the parameters of the book market) 18 and should study the complex social networks that influence the distribution of symbolic capital and access to the means of approval. Based on such an analysis, the entire regulative policy could be corrected — especially in those segments that do not operate optimally.
NOTES
1	The question of the share of those "overlooked" is especially intriguing from the perspective of theory of authorship (cf. Bennett; Chartier, this issue).
2	This very central position of the classic book editor was not challenged until the information-technology revolution (cf. Kovač, Od katedrale do palačinki; Schreier, this issue; Vaupotič, this issue).
3	Pioneering work is represented by the study of the Dutch literary field, inspired by Bourdieu's sociology. Such systematic collection and interpretation of empirical data was only possible with the backup of the Tilburg department of Marketing and Sociology of Books, closely linked with the work of Hugo Verdaasdonk and also with the journal Poetics, which has published a substantial corpus of empirical research since the 1980s.
4	The value of a recognizable group of authors for a publisher is evidenced by metaphorical denominations from the field of horse breeding (Eng. stable, Fr. ecurie, Srb.
5	An excellent example is the role of Mudie's private commercial chain of libraries and its impact on editorial choices, described by William St Clair ("Following Up" 725). Authors rejected by this library for repurchase had much smaller chances of building a great career.
6	When a particular technique (because of the tendency to maximally exploit the means of production) stimulates production of a fixed number of copies, it thus structures the supply. On the other hand, the high costs of translating (and printing) very long books motivate editors to choose shorter texts.
7	The economic roots of authorial rights are demonstrated by their historical evolution (cf. Bennett; Rose; Lessig; St Clair, "The Political Economy").
8	Sapiro mentions metaphorical and allegorical deviations, illegal publishing, and publishing abroad. As she points out, the long struggle of the arts against the censorial control has contributed significantly to laying the foundations of the autonomy of the field (Sapiro 499).
9	In this way we are obtaining mediatory institutions that more or less obviously declare themselves to be Catholic, conservative, liberal, socialist, and so on. Some cases show that politicization is more characteristic or explicit for magazines compared to book publishers. This may at least partly depend on the evolutionary phases of the system (cf. Dovic, Slovenski pisatelj; Andringa, this issue). Exploring this interesting problem could prove very fruitful.
10	In this sense, St Clai^ s analogy with the pharmaceutical and information-technology industry is quite justified ("The Political Economy" 5).
11	At this point, discussions on "zero tax' for books should be mentioned. Its advocates presuppose that taxing books is actually taxing ideas - which makes it highly unreasonable.
12	The utmost example of deregulation is supposed to be the US, where the production of standardized, cliche genres is predominant, whereas poetry, drama, and even translated literature (due to high initial costs) are marginalized (Sapiro 450).
13	Social network analysis has especially developed in empirical sociology and anthropology. It conceives of individuals as nodes in a network of mutual ties; its basic interest is to explore how the structure of these ties affects individuals' norms and behavior.
14	For example, Wouter de Nooy and Frank de Glas have explored how Dutch publishers acquire and maintain symbolic capital, and Susanne Janssen has empirically investigated how authors' parallel activities (in addition to publishing books) affect their chances of success: it turned out that networking effects do play an important role here. Her analysis includes three categories, and the network - the ability to engage influential colleagues/ peers, critics, committee members, and so on - turns out to be crucial especially for accumulating social capital (Janssen 277-78).
15	In larger markets, this role is increasingly taken over by specialized literary agents.
16	As Sapiro has noted, the approval power of mass media is increasing. However, the brevity of media focus usually redirects attention from content to the author as a "star"
(456).
17	In general, the Slovenian book market is characterized by the following features: it is relatively small (two million potential readers), the degree of differentiation of publishing and bookselling is comparatively low, direct book sales have a high market share compared to the bookstore chain, lending in public libraries is very high compared to sales, and there are not many cheap paperback editions. The number of titles is constantly increasing, but the average print runs are becoming smaller. Due to numerous means of support, publishing of literature is least bound to the law of supply and demand. The share of fiction titles is high (decreasing from almost a quarter of the total title production in 2004 to approximately one-
fifth in 2008, or 1,274 out of 6,385 titles published that year), but the print runs are lower than average. With regard to genre, prose is dominant (63%), followed by poetry (20%; all data refer to 2008). The share of translated literature is very high (44% or 565 out of 1,274 fiction titles); such "openness" is a consequence of both the restricted production base and subsidies that eliminate the initial difference in costs. As elsewhere, translations from English dominate (55%) and other languages do not exceed 10% (cf. Statistični letopis 2009; Grilc).
18 Regarding the initial question, it is not irrelevant how calls for applications are structured or how the external specialist committees that evaluate projects and programs are organized. In Slovenia, the most important co-financer of literature is currently the JAK (Slovenian Book Agency), but there are also other subsidy programs and opportunities (especially for publishers).
WORKS CITED
Bennett, Andrew. The Author. London, New York: Routledge, 2005.
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Transl. Susan Emanuel. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Chartier, Roger. Inscription and Erasure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2007.
Dovic, Marijan. Slovenski pisatelj. Razvoj vloge literarnega proizvajalca v slovenskem literarnem sistemu. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2007.
---. "Totalitarian and Post-Totalitarian Censorship: From Hard to Soft?' Ed. Marijan
Dovic. Literature and Censorship. (= Primerjalna književnost 31, special issue, 2008). 167178.
Glas, Frank de. "Authors' ffiuvres as the Backbone of Publishers' Lists: Studying the Literary Publishing House after Bourdieu." Poetics 25 (1998): 379-397.
Grilc, Uroš. "Knjiga v presečišču javnega in zasebnega: primeri Francije, Finske, Hrvaške in Slovenije." Knji^žnica 50.4 (2006): 49-80.
Janssen, Susanne. "Side-Roads to Success: The Effect of Sideline Activities on the Status of Writers." Poe^^ics 25.5 (1998): 265-280.
Kovač, Miha. Skrivno življenje knjig. Protislovja knjižnega založništva v Sloveniji v 20. stoletju. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 1999.
---. Od katedrale do palačinke: Tisk, branje in znanje v digitalni družbi. Ljubljana: Študentska
založba, 2009.
Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin Press, 2004.
Neubauer, John. ^"Publishing and Censorship. Introduction." Ed. Marcel Cornis-Pope and John Neubauer. History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe. Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Volume III: The Making and Remaking of Literary Institutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. 39-61.
Nooy, Wouter de. "Social Networks and Classification in Literature." Poetics 20.5-6 (1990): 507—537.
Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Sapiro, Gisele. "The Literary Field between the State and the Market." Poetics 31.4—5 (2003): 441-464.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Die Selbstorganisation des Sozialsystems Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989.
St Clair, William. "Following Up the Reading Nation." The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vo^. VI, 1830-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 704-735.
---. "The Political Economy of Reading." 24 Jun. 2009. <http://ies.sas.ac.uk/Publi-
cations/johncoffin/stclair.pdf>.
---. The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004.
Statistični letopis 2009. Ljubljana: Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, 2009. 17 May 2010. <http://www.stat.si/ letopis/>.
Verdaasdonk, Hugo. "The Influence of Certain Socio-Economic Factors on the Composition of the Literary Programs of Large Dutch Publishing Houses." Poetics 14.6 (1985): 575—608.
---. "Literary Magazines as Media for Publishing Literary Texts." Poetics 18.1—2 (1989):
215-232.
Who Chooses and Who Offers Texts for Selection?
Darko Dolinar
ZRC SAZU, Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies, Ljubljana, Slovenia darko.dolinar@zrc-sazu.si
When faced w^^h the que^^ion "Who chooses?' one usually thinks of readers facing a large corpus ofhighly diverse texts, trying to reconstruct, understand, or explain their internal mechanisms and selection procedures as well as external instances that are more or less involved. However, this selection takes place not only in the area covered by reception theory and reader-response criticism, but also, in various ways, throughout the entire literary communication cycle, from production to distribution and reception. This paper illustrates some key aspects of this issue, especially the intermediary function between supply and selection, by giving typical examples of Slovenian publishing and bookselling practices during recent decades and the "transition' into a capitalist market economy. It mainly focuses on examples that far
Keywords: literary mediation / publishing / bookselling / editorial policy / reader / reading process / literary system / book selection
UDK 028.02:655.4
The answer — or at least the beginning of an answer — to the question posed by the title does not seem difficult: the reader, of course, is the one that selects the text.1 Imagine the reader in a typical situation; for example, when he goes to the Frankfurt book fair, or to a national or university library, or when he accesses the website of a large online bookstore: all of these situations offer a wide range of various reading materials. At first glance it may seem that he enjoys the complete freedom to choose from among a multitude of available texts. However, exactly the opposite effect can often be observed: this broad extent of available texts is practically unmanageable for individual readers; they are practically buried beneath the multitude of texts. The opportunity to independently and freely choose the texts turns into strain and torment,2 forcing him to seek some sort of assistance.
In this apparently paradoxical situation, my initial notion of the reader's choice was overly simplified. It is necessary to take into account that
both readers and reading material are very different from one another. Experienced and professional readers that are clearly aware of what they need will seek and select the right book from among those in their area of interest with much more accuracy and effectiveness than non-professionals. This is most obvious with scholarly and technical literature; however, the difference between higher or lower levels of competence in better informed or more naive readers is very important even in the case of hel^^es l^ettres, although here the motifs and mechanisms of choice differ considerably from those applied to nonfiction. In both areas and in both groups of readers there is thus a similar need for assisting, guiding, and advising the selection. This is, however, delivered in various ways. Informed readers rely upon information on the authors, book reviews, and papers, and their familiarity with the publishers' profiles and book collections. An opposite opportunity is illustrated by a typical situation often encountered in public libraries: many visitors would like "something nice to read," but they cannot say what that might be. Thus, they do not exercise their right to free choice on their own, but leave it to someone else — in this case, the librarian — or, putting it more generally, to an expert or authority that knows more about the matter. The act of choice, which was first assumed to be something individual, and independent in this individualism, becomes multi-layered and more complex.
This is a good moment to remember that the reader's choice is only the last act among an entire series of previous and similar acts; that the process of choice takes place in a diachronic sequence and synchronic mixture of a multitude of individual and group acts of selection, and that selection is present in the entire course of communication, from the author's production of texts, through various ways of their transmission and distribution, to various modes of reception. However, there is no selection without supply; they always go together. Simplifying the matter in the extreme yields a basic model: the authors offer their products to the readers, who choose among them. However, this only occurs in exceptional cases in which direct contact is established between them; normally an intermediary provides the most obvious link between the functions of selection and supply.
In its basic form, intermediation existed even in oral cultures; it has become more important since texts began to be written down and reproduced. Since the time that books began to be produced and distributed as market goods, intermediation has grown into the complex forms known today, which are divided among various institutions. In modern times, intermediation is a permanent and indispensable component in the operation of the entire literary system, especially in publishing and bookselling;
however, it is also complex and internally inconsistent. Several external circumstances are relevant to its course and results, including the scope and structure of literary or linguistic and cultural space, and the related but not completely equivalent scope and structure of the book market. However, its structure is decisively influenced by a combination of economic, ideological, cultural, and artistic lines of force functioning in this space.
It is generally held that economic principles are universally valid. However, in large language areas, including English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Russian, and probably also Arabic and Chinese, which extend beyond the boundaries of individual national literatures, cultures, and states, these principles undoubtedly have different impacts than in small language and cultural spaces, which are the domiciles of literatures of small and politically non-independent nations. In centralized planned economies, the relation between the impacts of ideological and economic factors on the selection of book production is completely different than in market economies; in authoritarian societies with a pronounced role of the ruling political ideology, this relation is different than in democratic societies.
The selection process connected with the intermediary function is concentrated in publishers and specialized publications, and in part also in the mass media (if they publish literary texts); in addition, this process is also influenced by various external factors. As a rule, a number of protagonists are involved in it, including editors, internal reviewers, literary advisors, economists, marketers, sellers, librarians, censors, critics, and educators, all of whom follow various and sometimes even contradictory criteria. The most evident contrast here is that between the logic of the operation and goals of economic capital on the one hand, and symbolic (cultural, artistic, ideological, or ethical) capital on the other. This complex interactive process ends in the joint formation of the reading material supply that seeks to convince the readers to accept it to the greatest extent possible. Intermediation thus fulfills its purpose, with greater or lesser success.
In publishing and bookselling, success is usually measured using information on book printings, reprints, print runs, and sales, although this narrows the concept of reception down to the single dimension of goods production and distribution. A more appropriate criterion for measuring reception success would be the actual readership; the first step to an approximate estimation of this can be made by at least taking library circulation in account, in addition to sales. However, all of these data can only become informative when their normal values and exceptional deviations from them are identified, when they are placed in a chronological sequence, and a broader referential framework is outlined for them as a starting point, including some relevant aspects such as the size of the potential reading
population, the range of the overall book production (by the number of titles and copies printed), and the ratios between original and translated books. In addition to these general features, the following two aspects are relevant to literature in particular: the share of art literature in overall book production and the ratio between individual literary genres.
The basic quantitative descriptions are mainly already available in public statistics. They can be further developed and improved using data on actual readership structure broken down by age, sex, education, occupation, reading habits, taste, preferences according to various literary areas, genres, and so on. These types of data can be gathered through empirical studies, such as surveys using representative samples of (actual or potential) readers, various case studies, and so on. Their findings must of course be critically confronted with reception theory, literary system, and sociologically principled views. However, this already leads to a more thorough study of reception. This is why I will stop here and return to the intermediary formation of the reading supply; I will discuss it using a few typical examples illustrating the operation of the Slovenian literary system from the end of the Second World War until the present.
This chronological restriction is justified for several reasons. War and revolution caused such a shakeup that the literary system valid until then was considerably transformed, forcing its institutions (i.e., publishers, literary and cultural magazines, and mass media) to be established completely anew. The following decades saw gradual ideological and aesthetic changes that brought Slovenian culture closer to (western) Europe once again; in addition, economic, social, and political processes also took place during these decades and led to Slovenia's economic and social transition, and political independence. All of this directed the operation of the literary system from the outside.
The literary system's fixed features also include the fact that it is relatively small. Slovenia's population has grown (in rough numbers) from 1,450,000 in 1945 to its current 2,000,000. During this period, its occupational and educational structure changed so much that the number of potential readers increased considerably faster than the population itself.
The number of books published annually grew from an initial 550 to nearly 3,500 in 1970, and then began falling considerably until 1990, when it again grew to over 6,300 (the latest data released refer to 2008).3 Among them, original Slovenian books predominate. The share of translated books in overall production varies between 20 and 30%; the lowest share was around 14% (in 1950 and 1980), and the highest was just over 40% (in 1970).
Such an increase in book production draws attention to great changes in the publishing industry. From the fewer than 10 state or nationalized
publishers at the start of this period, the number has grown to approximately 500 legal entities registered under publishing, of which over 160 issue books. Major shifts began with the economic and social transition towards the late 1980s, when large publishers began to be privatized, merge, take over smaller publishers, change their focus, and close down, and a number of new publishers arose next to them, including some that only publish one title a year. Today approximately 50 professional publishers, institutions, and societies can be considered part of the Slovenian publishing core; together they publish more than half of the annual book production. Similar growth, although with some typical differences, could also be established in other methods of publishing literature, especially literary journals, and the mass media or their literary sections.
The average share of original and translated art literature in overall book production is slightly above 20%, the lowest being 15% (in 1950) and the highest 29% (in 1960). In terms of absolute figures, this means approximately 100 titles a year in the late 1940s and slightly fewer than 1,300 titles today (in 2008). Here as well, the numbers reached their first peak in 1970 (628 titles), falling thereafter and again reaching a higher level only towards the end of the 1990s. It is interesting that the average share of literary books is smaller among all Slovenian books (i.e., below 20%, the extremes being 9 and 24%), and higher among the translated ones (the average varying between 25 and 42%, the extremes being 13% in 1970 and 56% in 1950).
Among literary books, the ratio between Slovenian and translated works is of course in favor of the Slovenian ones. The average share of translations among all literary books has been 38%, varying unevenly between 29 and 50% (the second percentage refers to 1950, which was obviously critical for original production); the latest data cite 762 Slovenian and 512 translated literary books (in 2008). In the last decade, the number of translations has been increasing dramatically; considerably faster than the number of original Slovenian editions.
Supply and choices
Based on everything established so far, several conclusions can be reached about the formation of the supply of reading material and the choices made available through it.
In the past decades, book production has made great progress since its modest beginnings in terms of range and content diversity. During the overall deprivation after the war, after many old public and private book collections were also ruined on top of everything else, and readers tended
to accept, read, and buy practically all new books. Only when increasingly more books were published year after year could readers begin choosing between them; however, when the supply exceeded a certain threshold size, which was difficult to establish, choice became inevitable because it is practically impossible even for professional readers to read everything that is published in Slovenian.
The increase in the number of book titles published was accompanied by a decline in the number of copies printed. Some of the first postwar editions exceeded 10,000 copies; in the first decade the following print runs printed began to be considered normal: 3,000 to 6,000 for novels, and 800 to 1,500 for poetry; after that they gradually declined (most dramatically during the economic transition in the 1980s), and since then have only reached a third of the previous levels. This limits the distribution of individual literary genres, but does not have a significant negative impact on the actual reading results because lower sales are compensated by increasing library circulation.
The scope of library circulation is naturally largely determined in advance by the supply (i.e., the available library stocks), and the number of library visitors. However, even if the gradual increase in both of these factors is taken into account, it turns out that the actual scope of library circulation is increasing considerably faster than the supply and the number of visitors. Among other things, this is clearly testified to by the latest statistical data on general libraries. To illustrate this, some data on the number of registered members, the number of visits, and the number of books borrowed (provided in thousands; cf. Statistični l^etopis 2009, online edition) are provided in Table 1.
Year	No. of members	Membership index	No. of visits	Index of no. of visits	Books borrowed	Index of books borrowed
1995	427	100	5.352	100	12.812	100
2005	515	121	8.925	167	20.888	163
2007	526	123	9.572	179	25.644	200
Table 1: Library members, visits, and books borrowed
The number of visits increased much faster than the number of members, and the number of books borrowed increased the fastest. In other words, an average library visitor borrowed 30 books in 1995, slightly over 40 books in 2005, and nearly 49 books in 2007, which clearly testifies to a reading increase.
With regard to the content structure of the book production, it can be claimed with a considerable generalization and simplification that it has been formed through the interaction between artistic, aesthetic, ideological, and economic criteria. The ideological aspect, supported by state policy actions, predominated in shaping publishers' agendas in the first postwar decade. The economic and commercial aspect began to be placed at the forefront after the economic reforms in the second half of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, assuming one of the main roles during the reestablishment of the capitalist market economy (at the expense of the political-ideological aspect, which lost its main role). Despite all this, the policy was to maintain a system of state subsidies to preserve at least a minimal opportunity to influence the content of publishers' agendas, although this opportunity is taken advantage of on fairly rare occasions.
The play between these conflicting lines of force had a slightly different impact on the publication of Slovenian literature than on the publication of translations. Publishers felt more committed to domestic literature and, for aesthetic, artistic, cultural, political, and nationalistic reasons, mitigated the commercially substantiated tendencies of their marketing and sales departments towards a different design of their book lines. They found it more difficult to resist internal and external ideological pressures, especially in the first postwar decades. Irrespective of all of this, nearly all of the old Slovenian literary classics and important works from the first half of the twentieth century (except for the ideologically most controversial ones, especially those written by political emigrants) were published in new editions. By taking into account these reservations, publishers issued modern literature on a continuous basis or with only short delays following the creation of texts and their publication in periodicals. If the publishers lacked planned support, it would be, for instance, difficult to explain why so many poetry collections are published in Slovenia and why poetry has been taking the lead for some time now even among the literary genres according to the annual number of titles published,4 although the sales of the great majority of poetry books usually do not even cover the production costs.
In translated literature, the situation is slightly different. In terms of genre structure, novels absolutely predominate in it, with short prose and poetry far behind, and drama at the very end; this probably also corresponds to the interests and predominant tastes of general readers. With drama, it is vital to take into account the fact that a considerable number of plays have been translated for theaters, as well as radio and television; they have not been published in books, but reached their target audience through different channels.
With regard to the literary or linguistic and cultural origin of texts, the majority of translations published after the war were from Russian, whereas in the mid-1950s the lead was taken by translations from English, which have overwhelmingly maintained this position until the present, at which point they are far ahead of all other translations. They were first followed by translations from Serbo-Croatian or other South Slavic languages, and later the second and third places alternated between translations from French and German. This kind of structure is undoubtedly connected with the gradual conceptual, philosophical, and social reorientation that was given its initial thrust by the 1948 political conflict between Yugoslavia and the Soviet bloc. However, this is only one of the observable features. In addition, translated literature was connected to tradition through reprints of a number of older translations. Publishers and translators selected new texts to translate from major European and North American literary works, especially prominent works from the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries; in addition, they also used works of small European literatures, such as Dutch or Flemish, Scandinavian, West Slavic, and Balkan literatures. These were joined by a new interest in Latin-American, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and African literature (especially works written in European languages for practical reasons - i.e., greater accessibility). A number of classic European authors from older periods ranging from Antiquity to the Renaissance and Baroque, as well as the basic works of the old orient, were translated. The majority of translations of modern literatures were made out of a desire to get to know the latest literary directions and currents, but they performed these functions in a very diverse scope and tempo and with varying success.
The features described here are revealed to an expert view from the perspective of literary criticism and literary studies. However, in this one must not neglect another perspective that shows that a number of translations have been purely commercially motivated. In their desire to achieve the best possible sales results, publishers selected appropriate texts for translation among books that were already best-sellers in their home environment; they relied most upon those books that had proved successful on the English, German, and French markets. The majority of these bestsellers are "light," popular, or trivial literature, which by definition is more easily accessible to wider circles of readers and buyers than "art literature." Even as early as the beginning of the 1950s, some Slovenian publishers experimented with the proven older, "classic" examples of trivial literature5 such as the works of Alexandre Dumas, pere, and Arthur Conan Doyle. They published and distributed them in the form of direct book peddling, getting past the conventional promotional and distribution routes used for
serious book editions, which is why this did not provoke a significant reaction in the public discourse on the literature for translation and publishing issues of that time. Best-sellers, most often contemporary ones, just became a regular component of many publishing lines and at the same time a subject of repeated polemic debates during the period of transition to a capitalist market economy.
The emergence of best-sellers raises again the question of what else, in addition to the general features of the book supply described so far, could specifically address the readers and pave the way to above-average reading and sales results for certain books. Returning to the initial premise regarding typical reader behavior, one can conclude that readers prefer to choose books about which they receive detailed information, advice, or guidance. Such incentives come from various sources, but especially the publishers themselves followed by other, primarily cultural and educational, institutions, or circulate freely in the media dealing with books and writers. For example, the publishers' editorial boards form book collections of various profiles, thus offering readers specific types of texts with regard to content and form and guaranteeing readers a certain quality level of the reading supply in advance. In general, works and authors' oeuvres that belong to the canon of domestic or world literatures and those that have recently experienced an aesthetic and literary-history revaluation provoke a stronger public reaction. In promoting books included in compulsory or recommended reading material in schools, a certain degree of official compulsion that cannot be overlooked is involved. With less compulsion, readers are encouraged and motivated more by various literary awards, ranging from the national ones to those presented by authors' associations, professional societies, companies, and newspaper publishers (which know how to turn the nomination and selection of candidates into an attractive media event or even a series of events such as the ones that have accompanied the Kresnik Award for the best Slovenian novel in recent years). With each extensive journalistic treatment of a literary work or oeuvre or its author, especially if it is considered a representative example in any way, readers' interest in it usually broadens and deepens. With regard to texts, the reason for this can be ideological or moral issues, or any kind of controversy of the topic, themes, and motifs. With regard to the life and work of authors, Russian and Eastern European dissidents and, on the other hand, Western writers that acted as opinion leaders in political and civil social matters can serve as examples. The transfer to another medium (i.e., film or television) can arouse additional interest in a book and provide new groups of readers; a good example of this is the highly professional television screenings of English literary classics produced and
successfully marketed by the BBC. Such incentives are accompanied by both traditional and new marketing methods, such as studies of the reading population, and the consequent various forms of promoting books and writers, various sales channels (e.g., advance orders, through personal contacts with agents, or by mail, telephone, or Internet), membership in publisher's clubs and literary associations, which is associated with certain benefits, and so on. All of this is part of the basic supply - that is, the selection of published books with additional emphases that try to persuade potential customers to read (or, more precisely, buy) a specific book.
Examples of practices
I will illustrate some of the practices followed to date with three examples: one is familiar and has already been mentioned a number of times, whereas the other two have probably already been forgotten. All three are taken from the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the Slovenian publishing industry was expanding and began its transformation from a planned economy to a market economy.
From 1964 to 1977, Cankarjeva Založba published the collection Sto Romanov (One Hundred Novels; cf. Munda and Grum). The selection of titles included a felicitous combination of the best-known classic works of international novel production as well as those less known in Slovenia, together with several representatives of non-European literatures in addition to artistically representative twentieth-century texts classified under modernism, existentialism, and the "nouveau roman," and some of the most widely read and popular novels with a more traditional structure. The selected literary works were accompanied by essays written by the leading Slovenian literature experts. The collection's chief editor was Anton Ocvirk, the founder of Slovenian comparative literature as an independent scholarly discipline. The collection, which even in its very design showed many indications of excellence, was printed in a pocket-book format with a quality layout. The publisher took special care of its promotion and offered it through advance orders for an affordable price. The general public, the critics, the mass media, and specialist publications declared the collection a cultural event of central importance. Readers also accepted it with open arms: the first volume had a print run of 24,000, which is hardly imaginable today, and sold out completely. Thirteen years later, it ended with 6,300 copies, which was still a noteworthy achievement. This was followed by two other commercial moves: soon after the collection was completed in 1977, the ten most popular works selected by the read-
ers were reprinted, and just over a decade later (from 1986 to 1989), the entire collection was reprinted in hardback with a new design; however, it no longer achieved a comparable marketing effect. The collection was considered an example of an important editorial and publishing achievement and provided the incentive for two or three later similar collections, whose content was oriented more towards the present.
At approximately the same time as the collection Sto romanov was issued, the novel Ukana (The Deception) by the Slovenian writer Tone Svetina, and the Angelique series of novels by Anne and Serge Golon, translated from French, were by far the most popular.
Svetina, known until then as the author of popular short stories, wrote an extensive book on the Second World War, the occupation, and the Yugoslav resistance movement. Its plot contains a number of descriptions based on historical facts. The main narrative thread presents the conflicts between the intelligence agents of the occupation army and the police on the one hand, and the resistance movement on the other. The main characters are not presented in a black-and-white manner, but in a differentiated manner; the text reflects a sense of the difficult situations of people that happened to end up between the opposing fronts in the military conflict, and an understanding for even the most negative characters. The book also discusses some delicate and taboo matters, such as treason among the partisans and massacres of captured collaborators. The extensive and gradually growing novel was published from 1965 to 1987 by Borec in various editions and reprints. In addition to its three parts, its author later wrote a book on how it had been written ("a novel on the novel"), and the text was reworked into an illustrated picture book; the only thing that was not carried out was its planned film adaptation.
Angelique, a series of historical adventure novels focusing on late-seventeenth-century topics, is a good example of trivial writing. The title heroine is a young, pretty, erotically talented, bright, and characteristically untamable French noblewoman from a country estate that experiences all kinds of adventures that drive her across at least half the known world at that time; sudden twists of fate elevate her to the highest ranks of society, where she enjoys great esteem and wealth, and then cast her down to the lowest depths of society. Her exceptional skills help her escape numerous deadly perils, and she always achieves a happy ending — until the next entanglement in the next book. The recipe is relatively simple: the story maintains a high level of narrative tension, and the social-psychological outlines of the characters and their interpersonal relationships are adjusted to modern mentality; descriptions of the developments and the environment skillfully rely on the relatively fair use of quite extensive historical
knowledge. In light of all this, the desired success was fairly well accomplished. From 1963 to 1977, Lipa published nine novels from this series, of which the first three were printed four times; the interest faded somewhat with the subsequent volumes. In spite of this, the collection experienced a new publication featuring three additional novels towards the end of the 1980s. However, all of these achievements, which were quite impressive for Slovenian publishing and bookselling circumstances, were only a small fragment in the great world bestseller business. In slightly more than fifty years since 1955, the Angelique books have been translated into more than thirty languages and published in more than sixty countries, with a total of more than 150 million copies sold worldwide. The book's market success was supported by a series of five movies, which were also often broadcast on television and released on DVD in addition to being screened in movie theaters. The popularity of the collection was further enhanced by the usual accompanying phenomena such as fan clubs, Internet presentations and discussions, and so on. On the other hand, public interest was also aroused by the long-lasting court dispute over the books' copyright. The case has not been resolved yet: a while ago, the eighty-eight-year-old author was reported to be preparing a reprint and even a sequel to the series (cf. "The World of Angelique").
These three examples of an exceptionally effective supply of reading material with great marketing success are based on various reasons. The collection Sto romanov knew how to offer elite literature and make it accessible to a wider circle of readers as an attractive opportunity to participate in "cultural capital." Many readers could associate the realistic thematic and conceptual components of Svetina's war novel, especially at the level of collective events, with their own experiences and memories; its problematic historical and political motifs belong to the early examples of a treatment that spread and became one of the central themes of public discourse in later Slovenian literature and journalism; its narrative incidents provided the pleasurable tension known to readers of action stories; all of this enthroned Svetina's novel as an original Slovenian bestseller. In turn, the trivial adventure and love story of Angelique enabled readers to accept it at a purely hedonistic and escapist level, thus producing the desired response among them, through which they participated in the simultaneous developments on the international book markets and for which the Slovenian publisher did not have to make any special effort.
The intermediary apparatus
Summing up the practices to date, the Slovenian situation also reveals that an extensive, complicated, and non-transparent intermediary apparatus stands between the author and the reader, whereby the reading supply is shaped. On the one hand, the intermediary examines the authorial production and chooses from it; on the other hand, the intermediary determines the desires and needs of readers and seeks new market niches accordingly. The intermediaries are thus active in both directions. They wish to directly or indirectly influence both the authorial production and the readers' reception, and direct them in their own way. In extreme cases, authors are even expected to write according to the intermediary's proposals or even orders, and readers and buyers are to accept this kind of supply in a relatively disciplined manner.
In light of this, it is thus not surprising that both authors and readers often perceive the intermediary apparatus as an alienated, twisted force that threatens to grow out of control, and thus try to avoid it and establish direct contact with one another. One of the traditional ways to achieve this is authors' readings at various public events. A new phenomenon with similar tendencies is online postings, in which authors offer their new works to unknown or anonymous readers without publishers' mediation. The readings cannot surpass their marginal role within the overall distribution, and the online version may have better development prospects; however, by analogy with audiovisual and electronic media, it can be presumed that the new option of publishing works will not replace the old one, but will at best establish itself alongside it.
As I have already mentioned, in modern conditions the role of intermediation is indispensable in a developed literary system. Intermediary institutions seek to operate as effectively as possible to bring the readers to the desired decisions as reliably as possible. But no matter how thoroughly they study the readers, how they work them using various sophisticated methods and try to turn them in their direction, and how successful they are in doing this, they cannot always anticipate the results of their endeavors with certainty. Despite all the attempts to program them from the outside, readers always preserve at least part of their original freedom: the final decision is theirs; they are the ones that make the ultimate choice.
Translated by Simona Lapanja (DEKS)
NOTES
1	Even etymology testifies to this: the Slovenian words bralec 'reade^ and brati 'to read' are related to izbrati/izbirati 'to select^, nabrati/nabirati 'to pick',prebrati/prebirati 'to sort ouf both in the concrete and abstract sense (cf. Snoj); a similar relationship can be found with the Latin words legere and lector and their derivatives in Romance languages, as well as in German lesen and der Leser.
2	German, for example, has the aphorism in speech and journalism die Qual der Wahl 'the torment of choice'.
3	The majority of the data listed are taken from the Slovenian Bibliography and the Statistical Yearbook, and some of them are taken from the COBISS online bibliographic information system and other sources. With all due respect to statistics as a discipline, individual data must be taken with caution because the methodology of taking inventories changed over time and the databases used were already variously defined by both the publication genre (e.g., by including or excluding semi-literary genres) and the geographic and political space (e.g., by taking into account only Slovenian books published in Slovenia, or all the books written in Slovenian regardless of their place of publication). However, I am primarily interested in ratios and development trends, and so approximate and slightly rounded-off numbers can be used here.
4	According to the latest data available, 149 novels and 255 books of poetry were published in 2008 among 709 Slovenian belles lettres titles published (Statistični letopis, 2009).
5	Ten thousand copies of Dumas' The Three Musketeers and 18,000 copies of The Count of Monte Cristo were published by the Slovenski Knjižni Zavod press as early as 1952 (cf. Munda and Grum 163). This was not the first time these two works were published in Slovenia and also not the last; similar books were published from about 1900 at least until the mid-1990s in various editions and reprints and also various translations (cf. Hladnik).
WORKS CITED
Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature (= Studia litteraria). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2004.
Hladnik, Miran. Trivialna literatura (= Literarni leksikon 21). Ljubljana: SAZU, 1983.
Kocijan, Gregor. Knjiga in bralci I-IV. Ljubljana: [various publishers], 1974-1999.
Kovač, Miha. Skrivno življenje knjig (= BiblioThecaria 3). Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za bibliotekarstvo, 1999.
Kovač, Miha. Od katedrale do palačinke. Ljubljana: Študentska založba, 2009.
Munda, Jože and Martin Grum. Bibliografija Cankarjeve založbe 1945-1994. I. Bibliografija Cankarjeve založbe 1945-1974 in Slovenskega knjižnega zavoda 1945-1956. II. Bibliografija Cankarjeve založbe 1975-1994. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 1995.
"Nesmrtna Angelika." Delo 14 Sept. 2009: 24.
Rugelj, Samo, ed. Zgubljeno v prodaji. Sedem pogledov na prihodnost slovenske knjige (= Premiera 42). Ljubljana: Umco, 2005.
Rugelj, Samo, ed. Slovenska knjiga včeraj injutri. Osem pogledov na pomen domače knjige (= Premiera 62). Ljubljana: Umco, 2007.
Rupel, Dimitrij. Literarna sociologija (= Literarni leksikon 18). Ljubljana: SAZU, 1982.
Slovenska bibliografija 1945-. Ljubljana: Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, 1948—.
Smolej, Tone, and Majda Stanovnik. Anton Ocvirk. Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2007.
Snoj, Marko. Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1997. 2nd ed. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2003.
Statistični letopis Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana: Zavod za statistiko, 1953-; since 1994 also on
CD-ROM. Online edition: <http://www.stat.si/publikacije/pub_letopis_prva.asp>. Štefančič, Marcel. "'Živi nevarno, prikrito in hitro': umrl je Tone Svetina (1925-1998), avtor Ukane, edinega slovenskega partizanskega vesterna." Mladina 21 Apr. 1998: 47. "World of Angelique, The - The Official Website Celebrating Anne Golon's Historical Novels." 1 Apr. 2010 <http://www.worldofaagelique.com/> /I Apr. 2010)
General Skepticism in the Arts
Maja Breznik
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia maja.breznik@guest.arnes.si
This paper discusses the artistic procedure in general and the contemporary artistic procedure with "anti-art works," which opened up conditions for "general skepticism" in the arts. Here, the question "Who chooses" concerns art institutions that maintain the reproduction of the art system despite the revolt of "anti-artistic" production.
Keywords: cultural mediation / artistic procedure / art institutions / the OHO group / authorship
UDK 316.74:7
The principal question of the colloquium Who Chooses? relies on the ad hominem argument and the consequent presupposition that the selection of literary works is in the hand of a particular person or the institution he or she represents. This question immediately brings to mind editors and publishing houses, but certainly also, among many others, state committees and administrators that distribute state subsidies, teachers and university professors that prepare reading lists in textbooks, critics and editors of book reviews, and librarians that select books for public libraries. The question also suggests that decision-making relies on the personal affinities of the individual involved in the selection of literary works, and invites, through the back door, the question of "objectiveness," all the more so because the person in charge is supposed to be trapped into a particular institutional practice, either the hegemonic ideologies of the state apparatuses or the profit-seeking strategies of publishing houses. The question of the colloquium therefore presupposes a determination of the final selection of literary works by the political and economic context, which can become disconcerting if, at the same time, one adheres to the ideology of the autonomous art field, that is, if one believes in "real" literary production that can remain immune to political and economic demands, and, consequently, presuppose the possibility of "objective" selection.
The question of the colloquium then implicitly raises objections to the personal affinities of the people in charge or accusations of institutions' repressive nature, objections I would rather avoid. Instead, I develop an analysis of the artistic procedure and use some concrete examples to show
why dysfunctions among artistic and institutional practices (which raise the troubling question "Who chooses?") may sometimes happen.
The artistic procedure
Proceeding from Rastko Mocnik's analysis based on Voloshinov and Medvedev (Močnik, "Eastwest"), it can be seen that the artistic procedure belongs to the sphere of ideology because it is a form of ideological elaboration: artistic production works with a sign system actualized in interpersonal social communication, and so it is definitely "ideological." For this reason, the question of sign and sign system is important for understanding artistic practice. Voloshinov carried out an important intervention into Saussure's theory of the sign interpreted by Voloshinov as a mechanical connection of a signifier and a signified; although these converge accidentally or randomly in Saussure's linguistics, from then on, says Voloshinov, they are bound to each other in a steady fixed sign. In opposition to Saussure, Voloshinov developed a theory of a changeable sign or, as he also termed it, a "dialectical" sign. "Existence reflected in a sign is not merely reflected but r^efr^acted" (Voloshinov 23; see also Kržan). The conclusion drawn from this statement resolved the problem of why opposing social groups do not use different languages in expressing their disagreements: they use the same language, Voloshinov replies, but give the same signs different accentuations, different meanings. "A sign, in this sense," Močnik writes, "is a r^efr^action of differently oriented 'social interests,' it is an arena of class struggle" (Močnik, "Eastwest" 20). A sign that does not intersect various accents — and hence is not the arena of social struggles — loses its vitality, dynamism, and capacity for further development.
The artistic procedure starts from the ideological elaboration that is inherently attached to every sign system. According to Močnik, ideological elaboration is the primary ideological elaboration (the "primary refraction") by means of a sign that reflects social existence and, at the same time, facilitates constant refraction of various accentuations. This inner nature of signs is particularly active in a time of social crisis or revolutionary turmoil, when language is capable of following and reflecting social changes by accepting new accentuations. In comparison to primary ideological elaboration, artistic procedure is "secondary elaboration": "In this sense, artistic practices perform a sort of secondary el^ahoration upon ideologically already 'refracted' material." (Močnik, "Eastwest" 21)
One must pause here for a moment. If an ideological sign system facilitates and even demands a constant refraction of accentuations in the
sign, and if primary ideological elaboration is also depicted by and included in secondary elaboration, then one must pose the question when primary ideological elaboration stops and secondary elaboration begins. Pierre Macherey's book A Theory of Literary Production is helpful here. The author, says Macherey, works upon material that is "the vehicle and source of everyday ideology" (Macherey 72), something that corresponds to Voloshinov's "ideological material." This "everyday ideology" is a "formless discourse" (ibid.) — a continuous and unfinished discourse that is senseful and, at the same time, meaningless everyday speech: this is an amorphous language that tells something by conveying no meaning at all. The artistic procedure, according to Macherey, obstructs the continuous sense course of language by putting it into a frame. By enframing the course of language, the author gives it a certain form and meaning. The artwork therefore distinguishes itself from the ideological elaboration by enframing everyday speech, enabling the author to take control over free and unrestrained language. For this reason, the artistic procedure does not pertain to everyday ideology, although it proceeds from it; artistic procedure is able to produce an implicit critique of ideological content — by giving it form and meaning. The artistic procedure is ideological through the material it uses, and is, at the same time, outside the realm of ideology because it is able to detach and distance itself from the material it uses. Macherey described this situation in a nice pathetic phrase: "The artwork begins where formless 'life' ends" (Macherey 74; translation modified). The artistic procedure succeeds in establishing itself as autonomous; although it operates in ideology, it is at the same time different from ideology and capable of being separated from it. However, one important dimension of artistic procedure is still missing.
Hidden structures
Each field of art creates its own hidden (historical, social, and empirical) structure through which authors create representations and "tell their stories" without being able to considerably impact the way their stories are constructed. An author, consequently, always creates within a community because he or she creates in often unspoken and silent agreement with readers, commissioners, publishers, and critics that predispose common conventions, norms, and matrices of how amorphous everyday speech should be enframed and structured. Authors do not create by themselves or for themselves, but always with others and for others. The community provides processes of verification and assures the legitimation of genres,
styles, and canon, for example. Consequently, it establishes the social field of art containing a thin net of art mediators and intermediary institutions (publishers, critics, and commissioners).
The artistic procedure occurs at all three levels mentioned above: 1) the level of ideological el^ahoration represents the material of representation,
2)	this level is then subjected to secondary el^aboration as the artist revolts against formless everyday discourse and gives it shape and meaning, and
3)	the artistic procedure nonetheless also takes place within the social institution of art because it refers to the "inner normativity" provided by the art institution. From the viewpoint of its agents, "inner normativity" functions as hidden structures.
The three levels are interconnected in such a way that none of them can supersede the other two: secondary elaboration does not suppress the primary ideological elaboration without which art would be unable to offer anything sensual and tangible (presuming that art is supposed to make something "visible"). The artist's reliance on social codifications of artistic procedures, on the other hand, does not impede his or her critical intervention into primary ideological elaborations. The interconnection of all three levels produces a convergence of the "outer" and "inner" world: the "outer" world comes in through primary ideological material as everyday economic and political practice, whereas the "inner" art world comes in through established codifications or norms. Although inspirations come from incompatible sides, they can converge in the art world and finally produce the "cognitive aesthetic effect."
Secandary elaboration
ElabDi3tKin ar already r-e'TaclEd malenal: Euspenstcn [>r«indnu[»u& and rormlsEE eYeryday speech

H&uteiic eirecr
Primary elaboration
idHbgl&al elabaratbn (a Eign as rafracftin of dllfcrentty «1en:E>d "KKlal interKtE', tt Ig an arena i>r Gla&G Si-lmggle^
Social art institution
Hlfldsn ElnjcfirsE; Inrtemal norms, CDdincallonE,, cancriE., Eadal BOfKCIallDns, KKlal laste
Figure 1: The artistic procedure
The technological turn
Technological evolutions have constant effects on modifications of the artistic procedure yet, even with this in mind, the possibility of technological reproduction of images and motion in the nineteenth century seems to have had exceptionally fundamental effects on artistic production. The photographic reproduction of images in the first half of the nineteenth century, followed by the reproduction of voice by phonogram and the reproduction of movement by film, were supposed to change, as Walter Benjamin believed, "the entire nature of art" (Benjamin 220). The possibility of technological reproduction certainly rendered handmade reproduction obsolete, especially painting but also other art practices. It is important to note here that, with technological reproduction, the arts lost their monopoly over imitation and representation of reality.
Technological reproduction took away from the arts their most cherished function by which the arts have provided the preservation of (historical) memory to their audience. The essential function of the arts was the transformation of mortal into immortal by bestowing eternal memory onto transient subjects, that is, the monumental function of the arts that could be replaced by that time by photography and its "documentary function." Namely, photography is all the more convincing if it catches people at the right moment [kairos, happy moment), when they do not have time to strike a pose (Barthes, Camera):: in fact, the less artistic its representation, the stronger its validity. The monumental function appears unnatural with respect to direct technological representations, which can represent persons or situations at every moment and put forward the polyvalence of images reproduced, the polyvalence in which "representativeness" is lost as one of many valences. For this reason, it is hard to imagine a portrait painting in the age of photography, although in some cases one is deliberately displayed in order to oppose the documentary function of photography. In the senate room of the University of Arts in Belgrade, I was once astonished by portrait paintings of the rectors, which were actually charming, given the personal imprints of the artists under the influence of various artistic styles, but nevertheless conveyed heavy monumental meanings to visitors. It was evident why simple photographs would be inappropriate in this context, especially if they were real documentary photographs revealing the persons portrayed in a "weak" transient moment. The resistance against the documentary function of photography also exists in photography itself in the sense of changing photography into art and of forcing the monumental function upon it. The greatest danger for photography, says Barthes, would be to change it into an art, that is,
to suppress the immediate documentary function of photography and to replace it with the monumental function of painting.1
According to Walter Benjamin, the instruments of technological reproduction made the traditional role of art obsolete. The arts, he explains, were long attached to the religious cult, and when this was no longer demanded they developed their own "theology of art," the latest result of which was "pure art." This was understandable in the time of pre-modern artistic practices, which could make only a "superficial" presentation because of limited technological means, whereas technological reproduction could offer an "X-ray presentation" and conjunction of the artistic with the scientific approach. Benjamin even adds that an artwork will obtain completely new functions in the future, among which the artistic might be a mere coincidence, since its practice will derive from politics rather that from the occult artistic tradition.
The entrance of technological reproduction into the art scene changed the interrelation of the three levels of the artistic procedure, as shown in Figure 1. Art lost its connection with the immediate material by losing its monopoly over the representation of reality and its ability to bestow an eternal memory upon things and persons represented. From then on, the artistic procedure as secondary elaboration can only have a "dialogue" with its own conditions of existence, and question the existence of art, social expectations and taste, the rule of art institutions, and the formation of the canon. Questioning the very nature of art practices and art institutions, modern art can only produce "anti-art works," works that question and oppose the established social meaning of art, as shown in Figure 2.

Secondary elaboration anti-art yvorlis
V

DOCUMEHTARY FUNCTIOM
V_
Social art mstitution
Hidden EtniGluree: IntsmaJ namiE, HidfflcatloitG, cancrtG, SDClai e]if]e[:Ullon&, Edclal t^Ele

Figure 2: The artistic procedure in modern art
Who decides?
Most intriguing is the role of art mediators after the "technological turn" and their response to the inherent development of the arts. Intensification of the self-referentiality in the artistic procedure has opened a problematic that might be identified as "general skepticism" towards the arts. The connected term "specific skepticism" was created within anthropological research on witch-doctoring when Edward Evans-Pritchard discovered that members of the Azande people did not believe in witch-doctoring without a certain skepticism.2 They distrusted certain witch-doctors, identifying them as charlatans and abusers of human naivety, but nevertheless continued to believe in "real" witch-doctoring. Geoffrey Lloyd took up the argument in his book Magic, Reason and Experience (see Lloyd), examining the inevitable question of general skepticism that follows from the question of "specific skepticism." The conditions of "general skepticism" were fulfilled, Lloyd says, in Ancient Greece as the distrust in magic practices became general and opened the floor for the general doubt of modern sciences. Xenophanes, Heraclites, and many other Ancient Greeks introduced systematic doubt in magic with respect to medical treatment, legal processes, religious practices, and scientific approaches, and they contributed to the rise of Greek science. I believe that a similar conclusion can be drawn for modern art, which intervenes in the art field with a series of infringements on the presumed idea of the arts. Marcel Duchamp inaugurated such infringements by exhibiting a "found object" or "ready-made" (with Fountain, which had to be a urinal, sic) instead of a real art object; later, Piero Manzoni offered a piece of the artist's shit {^erda d'artist^a) as an art object, demystifying the social idea of art. They are important for being among the adherents of sacrilegious (secretory) art that interplays with people's revolt against the social institution of art.
Cultural mediators (museums, curators, and art reviews in this case) have a great merit in preventing the full consequences of this "interplay" and the possibility, proclaimed by the very "interplay," of general skepticism as unconditional and systemic doubt in the arts. They managed to avoid the possible outcome of general skepticism by establishing the "interplay" itself as an artistic procedure and canonizing it as modern and contemporary art. Art institutions impede artists in coming to an end with the consequences of their artistic interventions. Artists, in turn, find a constant source of inspiration for new artistic interventions and new criticism of art institutions in the strategies of impediment undertaken by art specialists and art institutions. In this way, the artist and art institutions remain enclosed in the perpetual game which concerns only those involved in the game.
Author or producer?
In order not to become lost in vain abstractions, let me take a concrete example and analyze inconsistent positions of artistic practice on the one hand, and of the social art institution on the other. My example derives from the production of OHO, a Slovenian avant-garde group that produced its own publications. My thesis can be too easily illustrated with an edition of Franci Zagoričnik's Opus nič (Opus Nothing), a book that contains five blank numbered pages in addition to the title and the colophon on the front and the back page. A collection of matchbox editions could also prove interesting in this perspective. I nevertheless take as an example a "conventional" poem from Tomaž Salamun's 1968 collection of poems Namen pelerine (The Purpose of the Cape; see Salamun 3):
football player massimo bianchi and clerk luciana carere barkeeper roberto lella and housekeeper graziela vrech driver enrico marsetti and seller floridia ruggiero driver enzo romano and seller ana maria pavani welder pier giuseppe spagnoli and dressmaker rita boffa radio mechanic fulvio merlach and clerk franca paren^an sailor marino vio and nurse anna franceschi architect nereo apollonio and hairdresser lucia pitacco hotel director renato raguzzi and teacher silva pilat finance officer luigi romanelli and housekeeper loredana parovel physician edoardo castelli and physician fiorella lanfre bank courrier fabio longaro and cler^k maria pia manin high cler^k alesandro castelnuovo and student petrina saina post agent gianfranco pangher and telephone operator diana bortolotti
The poem represents a list of male and female names with their professions that recall conventional newspaper announcements of marriage. Tomaž Salamun uses a method common to all OHO members in various art fields, by representing things as they are without any artistic elaborations or at least, if this is not possible, with minimal artistic intervention. In OHO works, the world appears as a (real) world of things contrary to an (artistic) anthropocentric vision. Salamun similarly takes words as things without foisting additional meaning upon words, without metaphors or rhetoric. The result of Salamun's poem is an inverted representation of romantic subject matter as has occupied the long tradition of modern European poetry: a love relation is represented here as an emotionless newspaper announcement. It is, as it seems, a mere quotation of everyday communication, but it nevertheless catches a peak moment of two lovers as they are ready to promise eternal fidelity to each other. The author pro-
vided only an excerpt from the newspaper, and yet routine phrasing produces meanings and associations without the intention of the author or even against his will because, as Rastko Močnik stated, language is creative by itself (Močnik, "Izpeljava"). The cognitive aesthetic effect of the OHO group's poetry, and of Salamun's poem in this case, is in the self-creativity of language itself, which escapes reification.
The OHO group went even further in seizing on (written) language as a thing in order to resist the inability of language to become a thing. David Nez and Milenko Matanovic (see the two illustrations below) represented writing as its minimal visual appearance, that is, a line. David Nez held a pencil over a piece of paper during his travels and let his hand produce random marks, and Milenko Matanovic made a line of wood and rope and let it drift in the current of the Ljubljanica River.
All three works also perverted the representation of the artist as the author. Salamun, Nez, and Matanovic are not the "creators" of really "new creations"; they only transferred something from its original context into another one (i.e., to the context of artwork) or they let themselves be manipulated as mechanical instruments in originating a new work (e.g., David Nez). They did not create something, but rather reused something or added new labor to a preexisting object, not having "created a new thing from nothing" as creators or authors are supposed to do. In this way, they made manifest the function of the "author" as Macherey described it: as a person through whom language and preexisting "recites" speak. As Roland Barthes ("The Death") says, the author usually has to forget himself or herself in order to make language practices resurge on the surface.
What the author does, Barthes explains, is to combine various "recites" and make the texture of "quotations" — if it were believed differently, he says, it would be the individualism of modern society that made the artist equal to the Creator Himself.3 "Artworks" therefore openly make a mock of originality and ingenuity of authors that were supposed to create without predecessors and the transfer of knowledge — the group overtly challenged and ridiculed the role of the creator. With the dissolution of the collective in 1971, most of its members in fact ceased to "produce art."
Institutions to decide
Notwithstanding the overt counter-game of artistic practice against mystification of authorship, art systems rely on this myth in the legal, social, and economic dimension. I briefly give only some examples which revive an already dead myth. First, the author's rights, a legal system that prescribes the modes of remuneration for authors, are based on the presumption of authors' creativity as justification of intellectual property rights. Second, the art market (i.e., the trade in artworks and copyrights as well as the system of donations and tax exemptions) would be handicapped without the "creative value" (Bourdieu's symholic alchemy) ascribed to artworks. Last but not least, the attitude of nation-states towards art institutions is also built upon the idea of the national artistic genius and the progress of character through creativity.4 Without this belief, the "cultural state" would dissolve into a dream and it would no longer be so generous in distributing subsidies for the arts or in protecting the author's rights. The art system would fall apart without the assumption of creativity, and so the assumption might be a wrong one, but is also a necessary one one for the preservation of the above mentioned art institutions. The artist as an "individual" might contradict the idealized image of a creator in concrete artworks, but as a member of the art community (i.e., of the art system) he or she must play the role of a creator. Illustrative of this is Tomaž Šalamun, the author of the poem cited above, who is today considered one of the greatest Slovenian poets of the postwar period. Consequently, the ones that "decide," the art institutions, impede the evolution of artistic practice and do not let it break the vicious circle of authorship. They enclose the debate about the author in artistic practice and transform the problem that tackles the social nature of art into a problem of artistic representation. What should be resolved at the social level becomes "tricky," unsolvable aesthetic subject matter, a game between two makers of the artwork, the producer and the creator:5 the one that denies the existence
of the author and refutes authorship, and the one that asserts all credit over creation as personal merit. This game becomes an artistic "trick" or "fun" that produces the aesthetic pleasure and the cognitive aesthetic effect.6
However, according to Bourdieu, "by refusing to play the game, to contest art accor^ding to the r^l^es of art [as they are set by art institutions], their authors are not questioning a way of playing the game, but challenging the game itself and the belief underlying it, and that is the only unforgivable transgression" (Bourdieu 170). Art institutions are nevertheless able to refute any "unforgivable transgression" and, moreover, revive the institution of art like a phoenix from the ashes by changing, for example, Barthes' prediction of the death of the author into a metaphor and an aesthetic problem. Art institutions take the role of guardians of the old rules of art that enable them to stick to literary doctrines (predominantly from the authors' point of view, as Barthes critically showed in the essay "The Death of the Author"), old-fashioned publishing strategies (in which the ghost of the author appears as the author's personal imprint in the literary works), and nationalistic cultural policies.
Life itself nonetheless strikes back. Commercialization of publishing imposes its rules of profit-seeking strategies and thereby forces authors against their will into the role of real "producers." Entrepreneurs are willing to let them keep the sacredness of the author, but in exchange for the real material exploitation hidden under the appearance of sacredness. Authors' material working conditions do not differ from the working and living conditions of the general "cognitariat," a new army of mass workforce that is replacing the withdrawing industrial proletariat. From the flexible workforce that offers its services to occasional employers and is forced to forget its political, social, and economic rights, the authors differ only with respect to potential entitlement of the author's rights, that is, that one day they may get a chance to enjoy rent revenues from the objects of author's rights. Yet in the everyday conditions of production the rent functions as a promise of resurrection, through which the employers keep authors humble and ready for sacrifices in the great expectation of becoming well-known and rich artists one day, although they know in advance that their chances are slim.
The system of author's rights is an illusion of fair remuneration for artists, but an illusion necessary for justifying the deregulation and privatization of public services, the globalization of the cultural market, and the commercialization and homogenization of cultural goods (Breznik). These processes yield new dominant "hidden structures" that authors have to take into consideration and through which they seek links to potential
readership. The market of cultural goods as the most important institution for the selection of literary works (and which decides which works the public will have access to) enforces banality and predictability through its "hidden structures," which give authors only the freedom to adapt to the expectations of mass consumers.
NOTES
1	How it was actually achieved is described from the judicial point of view in Bernard Edelman's book Le droit saisi par laphotographie.
2	Jack Goody described the evolution of the argument (68—69) starting with Evans-Pritchard's Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande and finishing with the term "general skepticism" in Lloyd's Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origins and Development of Greek Science.
3	See the important contributions on the subject in The Author: Who or What is Writing Literature?, a special issue of Primerjalna književnost (2009) edited by Vanesa Matajc and Gašper Troha.
4	Cf. Taja Kramberge^s (see Kramberger) and Braco Rota^s (see Rotar) critiques of the teleological approach in national historiography, which presumes the progress from uncivilized (savage) to civilized state with the support of "national culture" and "national artists."
5	Jernej Habjan provided a cogent concrete example of such interplay by identifying the playground of two "enunciators" as "art at zero-point" (Habjan 56).
6	For more about the important theoretical value of "fun," see Močnik, Extravagantia
113 ff.
WORKS CITED
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang, 1981.
---. "The Death of the Author." Barthes, Image Music Text. New York: Hill and Wang,
1977. 142-148.
Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Benjamin, Illuminations. London: Pimlico, 1999. 211—244.
Breznik, Maja. "Culture Between 'L'exception Culturelle' and 'Cultural Diversity.' " Breznik et al., Culture Ltd. Ljubljana: The Peace Institute 2005, 15—43. Available also at: http:// www2.mirovni-institut.si/eng_html/publications/pdf/MI_ekonomika_kulture_eng. pdf (13 Sept. 2010).
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art. Stanford: Stanford U P, 1992.
Edelman, Bernard. Le droit saisi par la photographie. Paris: Flammarion, 2001 [1973].
Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Alande. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1937.
Goody, Jack. The Interface between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
Habjan, Jernej. Janus, Prokrust, Bahtin: kvadraturaBahtinovega kroga. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura, 2008.
Kramberger, Taja. Historiografska divergenca: razsvetljenska in historistična paradigma. Koper: Annales, 2007.
Kržan, Marko. "V. N. Vološinov in teorija dejavne govorice." V. N. Vološinov, Marksizem
in filozofija jezika. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 2008. 223-247. Lloyd, Geoffrey E. R. Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origins and Development of
Greek Science. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1979. Macherey, Pierre. A Theory of Literary Production. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. Močnik, Rastko. Extravagantia. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis, 1993.
---. "Izpeljava poezije OHO." Pi^ohlemi. 25.277 (1987): 62-63.
---. "Eastwest." M^a^ska 19.3-4 (2004): 20-29.
Rotar, Drago Braco. Odbiranje izpreteklosti. Koper: Annales, 2007. Šalamun, Tomaž. Namen pelerine. Ljubljana: author, 1968.
Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York and London: Seminar Press, 1973.
Politics of Readings / Politics of Dissemination
Jola Škulj
ZRC SAZU, Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies, Ljubljana, Slovenia isk@zrc-sazu.si
The politics of readings and politics of dissemination of literature can be discussed against a background of the system of objective relations as comprehended in Bourdieu's idea of the literary field, or in Lotman's concept of the agency of the semiosphere. The views on Bourdieu's idea of the literary field and its situation within cultural production are reread from a semiotic angle of literature and in view of semiotic consideration of literary historical facts, which are implicitly comparatist in the proper sense
Keywords: editorial policy / literary field / semiosphere / Bourd^eu, Pierre / Lotman, Yuri Mikhailovich
UDK 82.0:655.41
The theme of the colloquium "Who Chooses?" refers to the economy of symbolic goods. Publishing embodies the initiatives of mediation and represents the significant edge of decisions in the making of cultural worlds. Editorial selections implement their own reading of symbolic and economic values and thus participate in a complex self-regulating functioning of literary life. Is the role of editorial politics actually so essential? Are editorial choices in fact a vital aspect of the ongoing event of literature? However, no one can assert that the recent shift in the publishing industry with its own interests actually also participates in the construction of the literary field; that is, that it helps construct the space of position-tak-ings1 and regulate the interests or pursuits of literature. In 1983, in discussing the issue of cultural production, Bourdieu wrote:
To be fully understood, literary production has to be approached in relational terms, by constructing the literary field, i.e. the space of literary prises de position that are possible in a given period in a given society. Prises de position arise from the encounter between particular agents' dispositions (their habitus, shaped by their social trajectory) and their position in a field of positions which is defined by the distribution of a specific form of capital. This specific literary (or artistic, or philosophical, etc.) capital functions within an "economy" whose logic is an inversion
of the logic of the larger economy of society. (Bourdieu, "The Field of Cultural"
311)
Cultural production is involved in an invisible network of objective relations, in a dynamic transmission of allocated and persistently rearranged symbolic capital. Cultural investments are confronted by resisting the literary or artistic field, which is a fiel^d of forces. The politics of reading and politics of dissemination do not cease to authorize this field and supply it with new conflicting and contradictory resources. By focusing on the politics of readings and politics of the dissemination of literature, this paper discusses some of the ideas introduced by Bourdieu and contrasts them with the semiotic ideas of culture and the agency of the semiosphere (Lotman, "The Semiosphere").
Only when manifested as a book or other publication - and thus involved in social space - is a literary product given life and allowed to enter the ongoing game that Bourdieu terms the liter^ary fiel^d. For any literary work, publishing thus represents an initial move in the long process of establishing the work within a literary institution. Through readings (the plural form is here used intentionally), a literary text is permitted to exercise its function and can position itself within the literary institution, which means that it is given access to social space, its modeling system (the structure of its literariness) can be realized, and it can be made an object of response, receiving honor or veneration. Readers, critics, mediators, and the institutional roles of publishers, magazines, schools, universities, academies, and research institutes are all constituents in constructing the literary institution and they assist literature in being identified as part of an organized system and even integrated into a canon.
The politics of editing and publishing thus participate in the "economy" of cultural capital, although in the neoliberal (free market) vein their primary interests are basically absorbed in another type of economy: making a profit. As a result of editorial choices, literary transactions as symbolic goods are only set in motion, whereas literary phenomena start doing the job within their own literary field and involve themselves in an economy in the sense of the orderly inter^l^ay between the parts of a system or structure. In the case of literature, economy (< Lat. oeconomia < Gk. oikonomia 'household management' < oiko(s) 'house' + -nomia 'law') also refers to the management of the resources of a community or country, especially with a view to its output, production, orpoiesis (< Gk. poiein 'to make') in the original Greek meaning of 'making, fabrication, formation'. Editions are thus a prerequisite to execute readings, a starting point for grasping a text's substance in reading negotiations, and a long process of reading responses and literary consecration.
Bourdieu claims that in the literary or artistic field there is
at all times the site of a struggle between the two principles of hierarchization: the heteronomous principle, favourable to those who dominate the field economically and politically (e.g. 'bourgeois art'), and the autonomous principle (e.g. 'art for art's sake'), which those of its advocates who are least endowed with specific capital tend to identify with degree of independence from the economy, seeing temporal failure as a sign of election and success as a sign of compromise (Bourdieu, "The Field of Cultural" 321; my emphasis).
Bourdieu's delimitation of the heteronomous and autonomous principles in literature is rather relevant in analytical discussion of widespread editorial and publishing politics in recent decades. Free-market-oriented publishing is certainly in favor of the production of books as consumer goods. Consequently, preoccupied with consumerism and wary of the book-buying public, publishers mostly continue to support bourgeois art, to employ the notion used in Bourdieu's sociology of cultural production. In the abstract to his article on studying the literary publisher after Bourdieu, Frank de Glas, when arguing that "further application of Bourdieu's concepts to literary publishing should take the form of a much more precise study of the way literary publishers exploit the work of authors," points to the results of his empirical study of two Dutch publishers and concludes "that the publishing house exerts a powerful guiding influence in this exploitation" of authors (Glas, "Authors' ffiuvres" 379). In fact, the outcome of his study confirms that "these houses have succeeded in steadily attracting new, productive authors to their lists" (Glas, "Authors' ffiuvres" 379); moreover, they have almost certainly encouraged a number of writers to give up their proclivity for uncompromising artistic writing.2 The publishing industry is attracted to best-sellers, and more often than not disfavors "the progressive invention of a particular social game" (Bourdieu, "The Field of Power" 163) labeled high literature with its autonomous principles and its own interests and largely promotes the consumerist taste for fiction. In addition, of course, there persist smaller, specialized (and now and then also subsidized) publishers that are overtly dedicated to bringing out books with more inventive writing and that cultivate the autonomous principle in literature. However, they usually cautiously print only a very limited number of copies. I have well in mind a conversation with the late John Gardner in the mid-1970s, who to my surprise told me that some early (and later well-known) postmodernist authors were published by smaller independent publishers in New York in no more than three hundred copies; in fact, the same number of books as an exclusive avant-garde serial edition of Znamenja reached in those years in Slovenia
with fewer than two million inhabitants. However, in the Slovenian press today one can hardly find titles such as that in The New York Times (of 15 February 2009), calling for "Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force" (Pogrebin), not because the situation in Slovenia would be good enough, but because the magic rule of the free market is also still haunting this area of business and remains deeply embedded in the logic of publishing policy. The view on cultural production as an economic force in times of economic crisis stated above demonstrates the potential of a more accurate cultural understanding of literature as poiesis and points to the factual commerce of publishing as a double interest of investments, in the heteronomous and autonomous principle of literature. In times of emerging trends of highbrow omnivorousness3 in reading, editorial and publishing policy demands a decision-making role that is to remain a task of greater professional responsibility beyond being "colonized by the market" (Lizardo and Skiles 20).
What qualifies the one that chooses? How can one map an aggregate of the qualities on hand for the best editorial choices in publishing? What is the basis for good, penetrating judgments, for an accomplished managerial viewpoint on which literary text to issue for sale and distribution? The editor's job needs a proficient professional profile, although it is certainly essentially operating through intuition and a great deal of experience. However, could one actually argue that the best literary agents unconsciously know that a manuscript can become a winning book, that they are able of having direct, quick insight to realize that a submitted text is of good quality, and that they are acting or comprehending immediately, without analysis, which work published will be a success? Cultural industry systems and patterns of cultural choice certainly change over the years (or decades), and a sensitive professional reader or editor with his thin-skinned feeling for a current publishing universe certainly knows how to act in response to given cultural transformations and interests. Through their refined, immediate cognition they instinctively recognize the distinction and merits of a text and know how to establish what comprises valuable and legitimate symbolic capital within the forthcoming world of literature. However, how can such knowledge be framed from the point of view of literary studies?
One can say that an experienced editor is well aware what constitutes legitimate cultural capital within a specific literary field because he is familiar with how to derive it from past symbolic capital. The theoretical framework I consider and the factors behind editorial and publishing strategies that I examine in greater detail certainly do not belong either to publishing st^udies and their interests in the book industry (as they are conceived at City
University of London4 or at The Oxford Publishing Centre for Publishing Studies, which is incorporated at the School of Arts and Humanities) or to the empirically focused sociological viewpoints of literary culture (as studied by Richard A. Peterson or Paul DiMaggio). My views on Bourdieu's idea of the literary field and its situation within cultural production can be reread from a semiotic angle of literature and in view of semiotic consideration of literary historical facts, which are implicitly comparatist in the proper sense. It means that Bourdieu's focus on how the field of cultural production has been established and how it connects to other fields, such as the fields of power and c^ss, will be more or less neglected here, although such a point of view from the sociological perspective unequivocally shows how culture is a symbolic struggle for the primacy of specific works, as well as the naturalization of certain practices. Those interested in a discussion of how Bourdieu "developed ideas on the way authors in publishers' lists structure both the material and the 'symbolic' production of a publisher's output" should see another of de Glas's papers written for the SHARP5 Conference 2008 in Oxford (Glas, "The Usability").
Any thought of cultural capital is essentially related to the basic concepts of fie^d and (in the case of literature) a writer's distinct hahitus, much discussed throughout Bourdieu's work. For him, the field represents the structure of social relations, a site of struggle for positions within it, and is in fact constituted by the conflict. In Bourdieu's analysis, the event of a writer and his achievements is inseparable from the phenomenon of the literary field. Bourdieu frames his clear-cut description thus:
What do I mean by "field"? As I use the term, a field is a separate social universe having its own laws of functioning independent of those of politics and the economy. The existence of the writers, as fact and as value, is inseparable from the existence of the literary field as an autonomous universe endowed with specific principles of evaluation of practices and works. In fact, the invention of the writer, in the modern sense of the term, is inseparable from the progressive invention of a particular social game, which I term the literary field and which is constituted as it establishes its autonomy, that is to say, specific laws of functioning, within the field of power. (Bourdieu, ^"The Field of Power" 162—163; my emphasis)
Any writer and reader of any text enters "the field of production, understood as the system of objective rel^ations between the[^] agents or institutions and as the site of the struggles for the monopoly of the power to consecrate, in which the value of works of art and belief in that value are continuously generated" (Bourdieu, "The Production" 78; my emphasis).
Explaining his complex idea of the literary field as defined by specific laws offunctioning and as an autonomous universe endowed with specific principles of evaluation of pr^actices and wor^ks, Bourdieu's scrutiny implicitly calls to mind
another similarly intricate holistic concept of the semiosphere introduced by Lotman first in 1984 and later much more semiotically and historically elaborated in his book Univer^se of the Mind (1990). The complicated idea of the semiosphere also inscribes in itself a space of possibles and suggests to the writer or reader "all that one must have in the back of one's mind in order to be in the game," to use the words of Bourdieu ("Principles" 176-177).
Here is an integral paragraph from Bourdieu clarifying a space of pos-sibl^es:
Fields of cultural production propose to those who are involved in them a space of possibles that tends to orient their research, even without their knowing it, by defining the universe of problems, references, intellectual benchmarks (often constituted by the names of its leading figures), concepts in -ism, in short, all that one must have in the back of one's mind in order to be in the game. This space of possibles is what causes producers of a particular period to be both situated and dated (the problematic is the historical outcome of the specific history of the field) and relatively autonomous in relation to the direct determinations of the economic and social environment. This space of possibles, which transcends individual agents, functions as a kind of system of common reference which causes contemporary directors, even when they do not consciously refer to each other, to be objectively situated in relation to the others, to the extent that they are all interrelated as a function of the same system of intellectual coordinates and points of reference. ("Principles" 176-177)
The field of production, the literary field, and the semiosphere are entities continuously generated; any of these ideas represent a constantly redefined, ongoing space of possib^s that is "a kind of system of common reference" or "the same system of intellectual coordinates and points of reference." Bourdieu explicitly remarks that space of possibles is the hisl^ori-cc^l outcome of the specific history of the fiel^d, relatively autonomous in relation to the economic and social environment. The field of production, the literary field, and the semiosphere all embody the system of objective rel^ations. They are models (representations of structure or configurations) that display cultural communications and internal processing of artistic dynamism.
This space of possibles, which transcends individual agents, functions as an autonomous live and active network of concrete traces derived from past symbolic capital, inscribing in itself all the conflicting and contradictory choices for the nascent stage of any writing and any reading of texts. It also authorizes the very locus of the struggles the text is subjected to in the long process for its consecration.
Systems and patterns of cultural choices certainly change over time due to new factors and rearrangements in the literary field or in the se-miosphere as systems of objective relations — pertaining to semiotic, cognitive, artistic, broadly anthropological, or social aspects. Bourdieu comments
on historical change as an advent of "the emergency of a group capable of 'making an epoch' by imposing a new, advanced position accompanied by displacement of the structure temporally hierarchized positions opposed within a given field" ("The Field of Cultural" 340) and offers a fine observation to the point about the ever-increasing complexities involved in literary matrixes, thus touching on the question of why, over the course of time, artistic and literary idioms and strategies became increasingly institutionalized6 (i.e. established as a convention in an organization of culture) and professionalized:
Because the whole series of pertinent changes is present, practically, in the latest (just as the six figures already dialed on a telephone are present in the seventh), a work or an aesthetic movement is irreducible to any other situated elsewhere in the series; and returns to past styles are never "the same thing", since they are separated from what they return to by negative reference to something which was itself the negation of it (or the negation of the negation, etc.).7
That is why, in an artistic field which has reached an advanced stage of this history, there is no place for naifs, more precisely, the history is immanent to the functioning of the field, and to meet the objective demands it implies, as a producer but also as a consumer, one has to possess the whole history of the field.8 (Bourdieu, "The Field of Cultural" 340-341; my emphasis)
The literary field and the semiosphere both imply, as t^extual meaning-generated mechanisms, the whol^e history of literature as an open set and represent exhaustive organizational patterns of transient schemes of objective relations. The literary field as well as the semiosphere entail "the whole semiotic space of the culture in question," as Lotman (Universe 125) says, having in mind semiotic space not only of creative writing in a territory, but also of translated works, of stage presentations, and so on. His claims about the role and functioning of the semiosphere are also relevant for a proper understanding of the role of the literary field understood as social space. Lotman asserts: "The semiosphere is the result and the condition for the development of culture, the totality and the organic whole for living matter [culture] and also the condition for the continuation of [cultural] life" ((Universe 125). To sum up, living culture is afunction of the semiosphere and literary fiel^d in theirparticul^ar space-time. Lotman maintains that "the semiosphere is marked by its heterogenei^'" [Universe 125) and the same is applicable to the literary field as well. (Bourdieu points to the existence of numerous subfields within it and of several distinct sub/cultures') A semiotic space is "at one and the same moment and uunder the influence of the same impulses" still "not a single coding structure, but a set of connected, but different systems^" Lotman says (Universe 125; my emphasis), and Bourdieu finds it "a
single field of the various socially specialized sub-fields" (Bourdieu, "The Production" 102).
The semiosphere, a semiotic entity, filled with structures of different types, and Bourdieu's notion, which refers to sociological aspects in the structure of the literary field, are both useful comparatist holistic ideas that can provide a better underpinning to those involved in their editorial and publishing choices on a daily basis. Both ideas embody the literary historical context — the (semiotic or social) effects of previous, shifting cultural realities — pertinent to shape synchronic understanding. Lotman considers the semiosphere "as a single mechanism" and argues "that all elements of the semiosphere are in dynamic, not static correlations, whose terms are constantly changing" (Lotman, Univer^se 127).9 Is it correct to say that readings are latent in the ever-changing semiosphere? Lotman concurs with the view:
In the history of art works which come down to us from remote cultural periods continue to play a part in cultural development as living factors. What 'works' is not the most recent temporal section, but the whole packed history of cultural texts. In fact, everything contained in the actual memory of culture, is directly or indirectly part of that culture's synchrony. (Universe 127; my emphasis)
The semiosphere — implying an entir^e packed history of cultural texts — represents a holistic world model behind actual cultural processes, although one should see it as a constantly r^e-r^ead entity, a rework^ed actuality, or an unceasingly re-defined network of cultur^al traces shaped through ongoing dia-logism. The idea of the semiosphere is an exemplary observation on trans-gressive realities in culture.
I can briefly conclude here by saying that reading policies and publishing strategies face the difficult task of better and more refined understanding of literary production processes at work. Those that make choices should be cognizant that they are caught up in an entirely serious and sophisticated game of culture, semiotically and socially transmitted through an accumulation of various past writings, poetological traces, and matrixes. Inscriptions in texts are scanned through our own being there, and they participate in building up the imminent stories of poiesis. Thus the event of the omnivorous highbrow reader may not be there by chance.
NOTES
1	In the words of Bourd^eu, "prises de positions."
2	"The struggle in the field of cultural production over the imposition of the legitimate mode of cultural production is inseparable from the struggle within the dominant class (with the opposition between 'artists' and 'bourgeois') to impose the dominant principle of domination (that is to say — ultimately — the definition of human accomplishment). In this struggle, the artists and writers who are richest in specific capital and most concerned for their autonomy are considerably weakened by the fact that some of their competitors identify their interests with the dominant principles of hierarchization and seek to impose them even within the field, with the support of the temporal powers. The most heterono-mous cultural producers (i.e. those with least symbolic capital) can offer the least resistance to external demands, of whatever sort. To defend their own position, they have to produce weapons, which the dominant agents (within the field of power) can immediately turn against the cultural producers most attached to their autonomy" (Bourdieu, "The Field of Cultural" 322).
3	Cf. Peterson, "Six Constraints," "Changing," "Problems"; Peterson and Kern; Li-zardo and Skües.
4	The following teaching modules can be found there: The World of the Book (10 credits), Publishing as a Business (15 credits), Publishing Law (15 credits), Digitisation and Publishing (15 credits), Selling Books (10 credits), Commissioning and Project Acquisition (15 credits), Book Marketing (15 credits), The Publishing Process (15 credits), Work Placement and Report (10 credits), and Dissertation (60 credits).
5	Society for the history of authorship, read^g, and publishing.
6	That art became more and more institutionalized and professionalized is argued by Siegfried Schmidt in Die Selbstorganisation des So^ialsjstems. Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert (1989).
7	Bourd^eu wrote about the question of returns and Duchamp's approach to it in "La production de la croyance."
8	Cf. note 18 in Bourd^eu ("The Field of Cultural" 341): "The perception called for by a work produced in accordance with the logic of the field is a differential, distinctive perception, attentive to the differences, the deviations from what is normal, usual, modal at the moment in question, i.e. from other works, contemporary and especially past ones — in short, a historical perception."
9	A corresponding view is found also in Bourd^eu ("The Production" 102) in his discussion on taste: "The field of cultural production is the area par excellence of clashes between the dominant fractions of the dominant class, who fight there sometimes in person but more often through producers oriented towards defend^g their 'ideas' and satisfying their 'tastes', and the dominated fractions who are totally involved in this struggle. This conflict brings about the integration in a single field of the various socially specialized sub-fields[.]"
WORKS CITED
Bourd^eu, Pierre. "The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed." Poe^^ics 12 (1983): 311—356.
---. "The Field of Power, Literary Field and Habitus." The Field of Cultural Production.
Essays on Art and Literature. Edited and introduced by Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. 161—175.
---. "Principles for a Sociology of Cultural Works." The Field of Cultural Production. New
York: Columbia University Press. 176—191.
---. "La production de la croyance: contribution a une economie des biens culturels."
Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 13 (1977): 3-44.
---. "The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods." The
Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press. 74-111. de Glas, Frank. "Authors' ffiuvres as the Backbone of Publishers' Lists: Studying the Literary Publishing House after Bourdieu." Poetics 25 (1998): 379-397.
---. "The Usability of Richard Peterson's 'Production of Culture'. Concept for the Study
of Publishers' Lists." Available at: http://www.let.uu.nl/~Frank.deGlas/personal/ FdG%20SHARP2008.pdf (31 Aug. 2009). Lizardo, Omar, and Sara Skiles. "Highbrow Omnivorousness on the Small Screen? Cultural Industry Systems and Patterns of Cultural Choice in Europe." Poetics 37 (2009): 1-23. Lotman, Yuri M. "The Semiosphere." Soviet Psychology 27 (1989): 40-61.
---. Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London and New York: I. B. Tauris
and Co. Ltd Publishers, 1990. Peterson, Richard A. "Changing Representation of Status Through Taste Displays: An Introduction." Poetics 25 (1997): 71-73.
---. "Problems in Comparative Research: The Example of Omnivorousness." Poetics 33
(2005): 257-282.
---. "Six Constraints on the Production of Literary Works." Poetics 14 (1985): 45-67.
Peterson, Richard A., and Roger M. Kern. "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to
Omnivore." American Sociological Review 61 (1996): 900-907. Pogrebin, Robin. "Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force." New
Yoi-k T^mes, 15 Feb. 2009.
Creating a Canon of Contemporary Eastern European Literature in the US: An Editor's Perspective
Andrew Wachte
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA a-wachtel@northwestern.edu
A description of the history, philosophy, and challenges facing the literary series Writings from an Unbound Europe (Northwestern University Press) by the general editor of the series.
Keywords: literary canon / East European literature / America / book market / literary reception / cultural stereotypes / editorial policy
UDK 821.161:655.4(73)
Fiction from eastern Europe. These words conjure up an immediate image in the mind of those few Americans that read literature in translation. We imagine first of all a long novel, dense, melancholy, and philosophical, probably focusing on the horrors of communism. Humor, if there is any, will be of the black variety, served up with heavy doses of alcohol and cigarette smoke. Stereotypes of this sort are hard to dispel, particularly when the number of titles available from a given region is limited. Of course, in this regard, eastern Europe in the American imagination does not differ enormously from other parts of the world: Latin American fiction, for example, is firmly identified with Magic Realism, and any novel from the Arab world that does not provide insight into "the Islamic mind" is apt to be rejected out of hand.
One reason for the difficulty of modifying literary/cultural stereotypes in the Anglophone world is the relative rarity of fiction in translation. Whereas translations make up more than 20% of titles in such major European languages as Italian and Spanish, and probably constitute an even larger percentage in smaller book markets, in the UK and US (the two countries that publish by far the greatest number of new book titles per year) the percentage of titles in translation is tiny: approximately 3% in the US, and perhaps a bit higher in Britain. In the "good old days," some
twenty-five or thirty years ago, the big prestigious New York publishing firms that traditionally served as tastemakers for the American reading public (Knopf and Farrar Straus & Giroux, for example) would, despite the relative unpopularity of translated fiction, nevertheless put out a few titles every year.1 Such firms, however, if they have not disappeared entirely, have pretty much succumbed to market pressures and can no longer afford to publish "prestige" books by less well-known foreign authors. Instead, translated fiction is published almost exclusively by small independent or quasi-independent houses that can keep their costs low and can sell primarily through the internet and the few remaining independent bookstores in the US. The most successful of them, Dalkey Archive Press (University of Illinois), Open Letter Books (University of Rochester), and Northwestern University Press also survive on subsidies from universities. However, because such subsidization is always dependent on the health of the overall university budget and the willingness of the university's leadership to support an enterprise not directly related to immediate educational activities, patronage of this type is inherently unreliable.
As the only even somewhat comprehensive collection of contemporary literary work from eastern Europe currently published in English, the series Writings from an Unbound Europe at Northwestern University Press has attempted to break down stereotypes of what eastern European literature should be, recognizing that writers from the formerly communist countries of eastern and central Europe produce work in many different styles and genres. Although we do not automatically refuse to publish novels that reflect stereotypical eastern European concerns (after all, communism was a reality for eastern Europeans for many years, so it would be strange if reflections about life under this system played no part in fiction from the region), we have more often sought to bring out novels written in a wide variety of styles and on a wide variety of topics, many having nothing at all to do with life under communism. Indeed, our only criterion is literary value.
The series began in the early 1990s, just as I arrived at Northwestern University. At that same time, Jonathan Brent, who had been director of the press for a number of years, was leaving Northwestern and the press discovered that under his leadership it had published a number of literary titles from central Europe (mostly Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland). This being the period just after the end of communism, there was a fair amount of interest in eastern Europe, and I was asked to take leadership of this publishing enterprise. I insisted that the series should be expanded to cover writing from any and all of the former communist countries of eastern, central, and southeastern Europe, and I constituted an editorial
board that could provide expertise on many countries (Clare Cavanagh for Poland and Russia; Michael Heim for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania; Roman Koropeckyj for Ukraine and Poland; and Ilya Kutik for Russia and Ukraine). With their assistance, I set out to identify the best fiction (and sometimes poetry) that I could find from this part of the world. Since our first publication in 1993, we have brought out more than fifty titles from nearly every country in eastern, central, and southeastern Europe (with the exceptions of Latvia, Moldova, and Belarus). In general, we have preferred living and younger writers, although we have on occasion published work posthumously (indeed, our all-time bestseller, Death and the Dervish by the Bosnian writer Meša Selimovic [1910—1982] was originally published in 1966).
Nevertheless, the titles I am most proud of tend to be those that represent the first publication of a given author into English, and even more so when the book does not conform to the stereotypes of eastern European fiction. In this regard, three recent titles that I fancy in particular are the Macedonian Goce Smilevski's novel Conver^sation with Spinoza, the Bosnian writer Muharem Bazdulj's The Second Book, and All This Belongs to Me by the Czech writer Petra Hulova. Smilevski's novel brings the thinker Spinoza, his inner life, into conversation with the outer, all-too-real facts of his life and his day — from his connection to the Jewish community of Amsterdam, his excommunication in 1656, and the emergence of his philosophical system to his troubling feelings for his fourteen-year-old Latin teacher Clara Maria van den Enden and later his disciple Johannes Casearius. From this conversation there emerges a compelling and complex portrait of the life of an idea — and of a man that tries to live that idea. Bazdul's short story collection, influenced by innovators Danilo Kiš, Milan Kundera, and Jorge Luis Borges, employs a light touch, a daring anti-nationalist tone, and the kind of ambition that inspires nothing less than a rewriting of Bosnian and Yugoslav history. Finally, and perhaps most breathtakingly, there is Hulova's novel, set entirely in Mongolia, which from its first sentence blows away the ideas we have come to hold regarding eastern European fiction: "Here at home when a shooroo hits, plastic bags go chasing each other round and round the ^er."2
At the beginning, we tended to acquire most of our titles from other publishers. Thus, our first two books, by the Croatian writer Dubravka Ugrešic, had originally been published in England in difficult-to-find hardback editions. These initial titles, however, already signaled a willingness to go against stereotypes of eastern European literature because both of them (Jn the J^ws of Life and For^ding the Strea^m of Consciousness) are light-hearted and meta-literary. Rather quickly, however, we moved from republish-
ing the work of other presses to commissioning our own titles. Given that we had little money available to pay for authorial rights or translations, this has always been a tricky business. We are helped, however, by the fact that most people involved in translation and reading translated literature in the US and UK are involved one way or the other in the academic world.
This starts, of course, with me. As opposed to my counterparts working for publishing houses in countries like Slovenia, I do not receive any salary from Northwestern University Press.3 Instead, my salary is paid by the university, which considers my work for the press to be part of my expected university service, which includes teaching, research, and a variety of other activities. As a result, I am not dependent on my books making a profit or even breaking even. Rather, the question the university asks is whether my books produce enough prestige for Northwestern University Press to justify the losses they generate.4 Prestige, of course, is notoriously difficult to measure, but a reasonable proxy for it is whether the books we publish are reviewed by leading journals, whether they are considered for translation prizes, whether they are used and known by colleagues in the field, and more generally whether publishing in a given area yields name recognition. Thus, the fact that Northwestern University Press authors Imre Kertesz and Herta Müller won Nobel Prizes (even though neither is published in my series) has helped keep us afloat.
The same sort of economics rules the work of the translators, without whom we could not survive. Most of them are either faculty members or graduate students at American universities that, for one reason or another, have fallen in love with the work of a given author and decide that they are willing to do the necessary labor to see him or her published in English. Regarding acquisition of titles, two methods are possible. In the case of those languages I know well (Russian, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, and Slovenian) and/or the literatures of countries I follow reasonably closely even if I do not know the language particularly well (Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Poland), I tend to know many translators. As a result, when I find a novel I would like to publish, I can usually find someone willing to translate it for me. When it comes to countries I know little or nothing about, I am dependent either on my editorial board or, more frequently, on individual translators that know about the series and approach me to ask whether we would like to publish a given work that they either are intending to translate or have already translated.
Given that I need to convince the press board of the quality of each book we propose to publish, it can be a challenge if we do not have a translation available for an outside reviewer to read (each book we select must receive a positive review from someone not on the series board before it
will be approved for publication). We get around this problem by asking the few academics working in fields like Hungarian to provide reviews before the translation is finished. Even more important, given that I will not publish anything that I do not personally like, it is crucial that I can read at least a good portion of the work in advance of its acceptance. However, there is usually a translation available in some language that I can read.
Perhaps the most elaborate and complicated situation we faced, and one that can give an idea of how complex this process can be, was with the publication of a novel by the Estonian novelist Jaan Kross (1920—2007). In this instance, I was approached by the translator Eric Dickens and asked whether we might be interested in publishing Kross's novel Vastutuulelaev (Sailing against the Wind), which tells the story of Bernhard Schmidt, the inventor of astronomical telescopes, born an Estonian. The novel has varied settings: the Philippines during a total eclipse, the island of Naissaar, where Schmidt was born, and 1920s and 1930s Germany under hideous inflation, plus some love interest, and also some technical matters to do with telescopes and lens grinding. As it turned out, there was a French translation, which I read and liked and we were able to find a reviewer that was also able to read the French. Given that Dickens has already published a number of novels translated from Estonian and that he has an excellent reputation, the press board was willing to accept the novel for publication without having read any portion of it. Because Dickens, unlike most of our translators, does not have an academic appointment and must make a living as a translator, he needed to receive a grant from the Estonian government before he could embark on the project. He has now received it and is working on the translation, which we expect to bring out next year.
Ultimately, the most satisfying and most humbling part of my editorial responsibilities is the recognition that the series Writings from an Unbound Europe is the de facto creator of the future world canon of authors from eastern, central, and southeastern Europe. This perhaps may sound mega-lomaniacal, but it is not far from the truth. After all, for the foreseeable future English will remain the world's second language. This means that, if authors in "minor literatures" are to escape the confines of national literature, they will need to be available in English. French and German are also important, to be sure, but it is far more likely that someone in, say, Spain, Norway, or Russia will read an Albanian author in English than in French or German. Moreover, Writings from an Unbound Europe is the only series in English that is specifically concerned with literature from this broad region.5 Some other excellent outlets, including the aforementioned Dalkey Archive Press and Open Letter Books, as well as numerous tiny independent operations that specialize in work from a single country and
may only release one book or so a year, publish contemporary literature from eastern Europe. In the end, however, Writings from an Unbound Europe plays a disproportionate canonizing role. It is one we take seriously, and we hope that we will be able to keep going, despite the increasingly difficult financial situation of publishing in the United States.
NOTES
1	In the area of eastern European literature, the most famous such series was Penguin's "The Other Europe" series, which published such important figures as Danilo Kiš and Tadeusz Borowski, among others.
2	Petra Hülova, All This Belongs to Me. Trans. Alex Zucker. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2009, 3. Ager is a felt-lined tent (a yurt), and a shooroo is a desert wind.
3	I do receive 1% of net sales of the books in my series, which amounts to $300 in a good year.
4	This paper is not the venue for a comprehensive discussion of university press finances, but I should note here that, like the vast majority of university presses (the only exceptions to this rule are thought to be the very biggest university presses: Chicago, Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge), Northwestern loses money on every book it publishes. In this regard, then, the books in my series are no different from others. Generally, what we hope is that each book generates sufficient sales to cover at least its fixed costs (printing, binding, and distribution) and some portion of its editorial costs. In the case of my series, the books are published in editions of 250 hardbacks, which are sold to libraries, and 750 to 1,000 paperbacks for general sale, these days mostly on-line either directly through the press or through middlemen such as Amazon.com.
5	There are a couple of series that have focused on creating a canon of older fiction from eastern Europe, perhaps the most ambitious of which is at CEU Press.
Who Chooses Literature for Translation? Translation Subsidies in Germany
Slavka Rude-Porubska
Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich, Germany slavomira.porubska@campus.lmu.de
practice, this article examines two German subsidy programs in order to illustrate the literature selection process within the context of asymmetric international translation patterns.
Keywords: book market / editorial policy / literary translation / international translation patterns / translation subsidies / Germany
UDK 655.4(430):81'255.4
Translation subsidies: "subordinate decisions"?
Discussions regarding the selection of literature for translation focus above all on the role of the editor and the publisher, agents that Michaela Wolf considers to be the main authorities in the literary field (Wolf, "Zum 'sozialen Sinn'" 266). Within the complex network of closely interrelated agents, editors act as both initiators of translations and gatekeepers with the ability to prevent translations from entering the book market. Their sphere of influence extends to the acceptance of new translations and to the readers themselves. German publisher Samuel Fischer once displayed how much influence he has over what is deemed worthy of being published and read by defining the editorial mission: "To impose new values upon the readers, which they do not want, that is the most important and beautiful task of the publisher" (Mendelssohn 5).1 Social decisions regarding the promotion of translations differ from editorial decisions. First, subsidy program selections are usually based on editors' decisions. Their selections can therefore be termed "subordinate decisions." Second, a promotion society's choice can affirm, correct, or even negate a publisher's decision. If the society and the editor share common values, only then is it more likely that both will decide in favor of an identical translation project.
Providing support for certain translation projects thus goes together with determining which titles are of special relevance. Subsidy distribution becomes a method of co-deciding the future of certain translated literature.
Arguing that the selection of literature for translation is a socially-conditioned process, this article addresses the preconditions for making those decisions regarding translations as well as the impact those decisions have upon the book and translation markets. The central question of my investigation is whether translation subsidy programs (especially those in favor of literary production by "small" languages and marginalized literatures) create a change in the asymmetric literary exchange between nations. Or, are the mostly state-funded translation assistance programs having no effect on the pattern of international translation? It is not the aim of this article to cover the entire range of subsidies available to publishers and those that support literary translations into German. On the basis of a preliminary analysis of two selected translation subsidy programs run by the Society for Promotion of Literature from Africa, Asia, and Latin America and by the Literary Colloquium in Berlin, which promotes translation of literature from central and eastern Europe, some general characteristics of the relationship between translated literature and mechanisms of international literary exchange are developed.
Choosing literature for translation and the illusion of autonomous choice
My opening argument concerns Pierre Bourdieu and his study of contemporary publishing activities in France entitled "A Conservative Revolution in Publishing."2 Bourdieu exposes the true mechanisms of decision-making in an allegedly autonomous literary field. All titles submitted to compete for translation subsidies are themselves the product of a selection process carried out earlier by translators, literary agents, editors, or (more generally) by "the structural constraints imposed by the field" (Bourdieu, "A Conservative" 137). By calling belief in the autonomous decision-making of publishers "an illusion that promotes ignorance of the field's many constraints" (124), Bourdieu draws attention to the main principles governing editorial strategies with regard to selection of (translated) works to be added to a publisher's list. By considering literary translations as having two "antagonistic functions" (147-152), he concludes that publisher strategies for selecting works to be translated correspond with both the publisher's status in the publishing field (which depends on the amount and composition of the publisher's capital) and with its "room for maneuver" (137).
Bourdieu's investigation of commonalities within French publishing as well as his study of social conditions within the international circulation of cultural goods (see Bourdieu, "Les conditions") uncovered new questions regarding the sociology of translation. In their article "Outline for a Sociology of Translation," Johan Heilbron and Gisele Sapiro create another framework for analyzing literary translation, describing it as a social practice embedded in a specific social context. Three dimensions must be taken into account. First, we must pay attention to the structure of the international field of cultural exchange. Literary translations must be placed within this space that is structured by hierarchical relations between nations, their languages, and literatures. Second, we must differentiate between various types of constraints that influence the processes of literary exchange. These are mainly political, economic, and cultural dynamics responsible for hierarchy development on the international translation market. Third, the reception of literature must be investigated according to the role of cultural and literary mediators, both institutional and individual, which have a role in the production and distribution of translated literature.3
In outlining the position of the funding bodies in their role as mediators, both the constraints of the market and the nation are crucial elements. From a broader perspective, Sapiro argues that state subsidies can be regarded as a system that protects cultural production (such as translated literature) and is based on merit, not on marketability: "Whereas the market has helped literary activity to free itself from the State control, in the liberal-democratic regime, the State has developed a cultural policy in order to support the pole of restricted production" (Sapiro, "The Literary" 460). The establishment of subsidy systems is therefore "designed in principle to curb the effects of economic constraints in a free-trade democracy, notably the risk of standardization and homogenization among cultural production aimed at the greatest number of consumers" (Heilbron and Sapiro 100). In the given situation, supply and demand are not simply left to the mechanisms of the free market but driven by specific agents and their interests. If the production and distribution of translated literature is subsidized in various ways, the effect on translated literature has to be seen as a social construction, created by translation funding commissions according to their values and preferences. Due to a system of supply based on funding instruments, decisions regarding translation subsidies then also become a force operating upon the translation market and shaping the literary field in general. Funding commissions participate in the establishment of a "historically variable ranking of literary trends, preferences, and movements" (Hagestedt 306). The "value-oriented agency"4 of institutions providing financial support becomes clear through choice of the source
language as well as the translation project, and it implies to a certain degree the significance of literary exchange between two specific languages by means of translations. Funding committees can change "the prevalent architectonics of literary and cultural positioning in favor of institutionalized values" (Dücker and Neumann 17). Translation funding bodies have the ability to confirm or negate an editor's choice. The translation of literature is therefore determined not only by editor's choices but also by nomination methods and the preferences of respective funding bodies.
The funding policy of translations: (re)producing the asymmetry of international translation patterns?
The following section examines the characteristics of the global translation market by focusing on the hierarchical (power) relations between nations, literatures, and languages. Studying funding programs that promote the translation of works of fiction requires making a shift from the national to the international book-market as well as a consideration of the models of this global space.5 By characterizing the world system of translation as "a transnational cultural field in Pierre Bourdieu's sense" (Heilbron 432), Johan Heilbron stresses that literary exchanges are always unequal and indicate cultural domination. In terms of both the intensity and direction of translation activities, special attention must be given to the macrostructure of the global translation market:
The intensity of translations, the cultural transfer they cause, as well as the directions they take depend on the position of a specific culture or language and its power in the international field. The translation patterns mirror the hierarchical relations of the global market, similarly to commodity flows (Bachleitner and Wolf 2).
Due to commonalities within the international translation system, the pattern of translations is highly unequal because more works head from the center to the periphery than the other way around. Within the hierarchical structure of hyper-central, central, semi-peripheral, and peripheral languages,6 German occupies a central role (Heilbron 434). Bachleitner and Wolf also count German among the languages that dominate the global translation market. Its status can be explained by a long tradition of literary production, an elaborate literary language, well established literary institutions, and a well-educated literary audience (Bachleitner and Wolf 3—4). A distinguishing feature of languages with a central role in the international translation system is their relatively high share of translations — in terms of both import and export of translated titles. Germany's publishing
market is open to translations from foreign languages and, as current statistics reveal,7 10% of Germany's book production is literary translations.
Figure 1: Number of translations into German and from German (according to license sales), 1998-2008
The establishment of subsidy programs that support the import of translations from marginalized languages into German, a central language, can be seen as a reverse of the mechanisms of the international circulation of translations. Here the question can be posed as to whether translation subsidies really operate as "measures in order to minimize the asymmetrical patterns of the translation market" (Bachleitner and Wolf 5). On the other hand, with respect to its degree of centrality, Heilbron also points out that German has "the capacity to function as an intermediary or vehicular language" (435) between semi-peripheral and peripheral languages. In this context, translation subsidies sustain the properties and the patterns of the global market and contribute to the accumulation of "transit profits" for German as an intermediary language. Translation subsidy programs, set up by various institutions, can therefore be seen as an expression of "the strategic effort to accumulate literary capital" (Pölzer 17).
Observing the market: facts about the book market and translations in Germany
Before moving on to direct analysis of subsidy programs, I should briefly describe the translation market in Germany. Having a rich history of tradition, the book market in Germany can be considered as fa-
vorable to translation of literature from foreign languages. According to book translation statistics, in 2008 the proportion of translations represented nearly 9% of total book production in Germany. In the subcat-egory of works of literary fiction, which includes narrative prose, poetry, and drama, this proportion reached almost 25% in 2008. Special attention must be paid to the source languages of translated literature. Translations from English represent the highest share on the market in Germany, with a total share of nearly 67% in 2008. French ranks second with over 11%. On the List of Top 10 Source Languages for translations into German, the other languages - Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, Japanese, Turkish, and Norwegian - trailed far behind in 2008. This list, as well as the List of Top 20 Source Languages for translations into German, generally changes very little. Languages such as Polish, Hungarian, Chinese, and Arabic belong to the List of Top 20 but the proportion of titles translated from these languages into German currently falls under 1% of all translations.8 Translations from English - still the dominant source language - increased ten percentage points between 2004 and 2008 (2004: 57%, 2008: 67%). Contrary to this sharp increase, the share of translations from languages not mentioned in the List of Top 20 dropped significantly during the same period. In 2004, nearly 20% (or 670 works) of translated works were from "small" or minor languages, but this percentage reached only 2% (or 149 works) in 2008.
Figure 2: Number of translations from English into German and from languages not included in the Top 20 List of Languages of Origin for Translations into German, 20042008
Combining these observations together, it must be stressed that the current rise in the number of translations into German is mostly due to literature being translated from English and not from other languages. The role of translation subsidies in favoring small or less regarded languages and literatures deserves closer examination.
Translation subsidies in Germany
The Program of Translation Subsidies, operated by the Society for the Promotion of African, Asian, and Latin American Literature (litprom), was founded in 1984 after the 1980 Frankfurt Book Fair's focus on Black Africa. Its founding represents the idea that works of literary fiction from the southern hemisphere are not sufficiently represented on the European book market. The society funds between twenty and thirty translation projects per year, including 573 works of narrative prose, poetry, drama, children's and youth literature, and essays. All were subsidized over the period from 1984 to 2009, among them many first translations of emerging authors from countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malawi, Kenya, and Uruguay.
In 1993, the Program for Promoting the Translation of Fiction from Central and East Europe was established at the Literary Colloquium Berlin (LCB) with the aim of making available new books from countries and regions which were behind the Iron Curtain until 1989 and now dwell on the fringe of Germany's public interest (e.g., Albania, Latvia, and Slovakia). This program subsidizes about fifteen translations of contemporary prose, poetry, and drama per year. Altogether, 251 titles were subsidized from 1993 to 2009.
The choice of these two translation subsidy programs for analysis is based on several factors. First, both programs can be regarded as examples of the political will to support translations from specific literatures. Or, put another way, "as the politico-cultural response to the relative economic weakness of the niche market" (Kessel 429) - the segment of the book market that enables marginalized literatures to reach German-speaking readers. Second, necessary financial resources are made available for their purposes by the state: in this case the Federal Foreign Office of Germany (Auswärtiges Amt) and the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia. The maximum possible subsidy amount can be up to 90% of the total cost of translation. Third, with regard to divisions between the northern and southern hemispheres and between western and eastern Europe, both subsidy programs touch upon the issues of cultural domination and the asymmetric circulation of works for translation. They claim to operate as a
counterbalance to the lack of literary recognition and asymmetric translation patterns. Samples of works subsidized by these programs (more than 800 titles) offer a useful base for examining the potential for state institutions to modify the translation pattern within the international translation system. The interesting questions are what the impact of these subsidy programs on the asymmetric pattern of translations is, and how different the languages represented by the subsidy program's agenda are. To answer these questions, I refer to three crucial aspects.
Initial findings and discussion
The proportion of subsidized translated works among all translations and all literary fiction translations published in Germany
Forty-five works per year, on average, were supported by both subsidy programs between 1998 and 2008. The percentage of works subsidized by litprom and LCB averages 0.67% of all translations published in Germany and 0.76% of all translations of works of fiction within that period. The subsidies' impact is marginal when compared to the number of all translations published. In Germany, literary production in peripheral languages from cultural areas with little capital remains marginal.
Figure 3: Proportion of subsidized translations by litprom and LCB among all translations / all translations of literary fiction, 1998-2008
The diversity of languages of origin involved in the subsidy programs
Works of fiction from thirty-nine different languages have been subsidized since the programs started in 1984 and 1993, respectively.9 By preparing a L^st of Top 5 Languages of Origin within the two subsidy programs, a strong focus on certain languages and language groups can be recognized. Among the titles supported by litprom: Spanish (28%), English (23%), Arabic (17%), French (13%), and Chinese and Portuguese (both 4%) are the most frequent source languages. The proportion of these top-ranking languages represents 89% of the program's subsidized translations.10 Similarly the proportions of the most frequent languages subsidized by LCB are Russian (40%), Polish (16%), languages of southeastern Europe including Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Macedonian (10%), Hungarian (9%), and Czech (8%); these account for 83% of the program's chosen source languages.11 By focusing on the small number of languages that dominate the lists of subsidized works, an analogy can be drawn to describe how languages of origin are chosen for literary translations on the German book market. Translation subsidy programs fail to counterbalance the increasing prominence of English as the source language for translations into German.
The proportion of subsidized translated works from a specific language among all literary translations from this language
Comparing the number of all literary translations with the number of only subsidized translations from a specific language, the following holds true for Russian, Polish, and Hungarian: from 1998 to 2008, the percentage of LCB subsidized works from these languages represents more than 10% of all literary translations published from those languages. 11.6% of all literary translations from Russian were subsidized, 14.1% of all Polish titles, and 17.4% of all Hungarian titles. The contribution of subsidy programs to translations from specific languages into German can therefore be considered statistically significant: they participate in forming a repertoire of works translated into German. Additionally, the number of literary translations from all three languages increased strongly when the country had guest-of-honor status at the Frankfurt Book Fair. At different times, the share of subsidized translations among all literary translations from these three languages reached its peak. In 2003, the share of subsidized literary translations from Russian rose to 15% of all published literary translations from Russian. In 2000, the share from Polish increased to
almost 30% of all literary translations from Polish. Hungary's participation as guest-of-honor at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 1999 led to an increase in its share of subsidized literary translations to over 85%.
A similar observation can be made in the case of Arabic. In 2004,12 when the Arabic-speaking world was guest-of-honor in Frankfurt, thirty-five translations (among them eighteen works of fiction) from Arabic were published in Germany. Litprom subsidized thirteen literary translations from Arabic in 2004, approximately twice as many as in previous years. The share of subsidized literary translations from Arabic rose to 72% of all translations of works of fiction from Arabic published that year. These findings demonstrate how the economy and international commercial events such as book fairs affect the book and translation market and translation subsidy programs that operate in favor of literary imports. Within the limits of the few parameters examined, these two examples of German subsidy programs can only serve as indicators of this tendency.
To sum up, against the background of international translation patterns a discrepancy can be observed in terms of the self-descriptions of the translation subsidy programs and their actual impact on the asymmetric circulation of translations. It has become almost commonplace to praise subsidy programs for securing the presence of or sustaining marginalized literatures in translations on the German book market. Nonetheless, this analysis has shown that subsidies' potential to modify the hierarchical order underlying international literary exchange is still very limited - both in terms of the quantitative proportion as well as the diversity of source languages for translations. The power imbalance and the unequal prestige of languages and literatures decisively determine how much is being translated as well as which translation flows are preferred. Finally, seen from the perspective of German as a target language for translations, one can ask whether subsidy programs actually reinforce the role of German as one of the central languages within the international circulation of translations even though they claim to broaden the appreciation of marginalized literatures. A further and more detailed study could therefore verify whether and to what extent German subsidy programs indirectly support the role of German as a vehicular language intermediating between literatures from the periphery and semi-periphery that benefits from this kind of "transit trade" (Heilbron 437) on the global translation market.
NOTES
1	The reference to Fischer can be found in Wolf ("Dem Publikum").
2	The French version of the article was published in 1999 (Bourdieu, "Une revolution"). As Bourdieu states, the literary or publishing field that makes itself part of the decision-making process regarding literature is like any other field of cultural production structured around opposition to large- and small-scale circulation. Having short-term economic gains and finding a large audience rule the subfield of large-scale production. With regard to literary translations, the drive of the market leads to the publication of successful international bestsellers translated mainly from English. Aesthetic criteria and innovation value are at stake in the subfield of restricted production, where publishers are more qualified in their role as discoverers of works from small languages. Although "accepting the risk inherent in cultural investment" (Poupaud 39), these publishers have a long production cycle and orient their production of translated titles towards hypothetical future profits. Bourdieu's article clearly argues "against the commercial constraints that are increasingly imposed on publishers in the wake of growing concentration around large groups. These constraints threaten the autonomy of the literary field" (Sapiro, "Translation" 155). According to Bourdieu, the potential for resistance to market forces and the standardization of literary production can be found within the subfield of restricted production. It is a matter of small, independent publishers with a coherent translation policy that refuse to treat literary translation simply as a commodity or commercial investment. In conclusion, Bourdieu stresses the importance of the "advocates" that support the role of small-scale circulation. Nevertheless, according to his critical observation, state funding in France usually goes to publishing companies that dispose of massive capital — both economic and symbolic.
3	For the purpose of my analysis, I focus on the first aspect suggested by Heilbron and Sapiro. In this way, I can link the role of translation subsidy programs in Germany to international literary exchange.
4	In their research on literary prizes, Dücker and Neumann connect this agency with the authority to determine what is considered a valuable cultural product. This observation can also be applied to other areas and subsidy measures.
5	To describe the translation market as being embedded in both the international book market and in relations between countries, Sapiro suggests combining Bourdieu's field theory and his theory of economy of symbolic goods with Heilbron's center-periphery model (see Sapiro, "Translation"; Heilbron). From the standpoint of literary exchange, Pascale Casanova's notion of "translation as unequal exchange" based on the asymmetric distribution of linguistic and literary capital among different countries and their literatures also contributes to the understanding of translation patterns as the background to national power struggles (see "Consecration" and The World).
6	According to Heilbron, English is the hyper-central language, and the central languages are German and French (and Russian). All other languages can be regarded as semi-peripheral and peripheral languages. The position in the world translation system, or the centrality of a language, depends on its share of the total number of translated books worldwide. The number of native speakers and the size of language groups are not determining factors.
7	For data on the current situation of translations into German see Kessel. Schalke and Gerlach analyze the literary translation sector in Germany with regard to the strategies publishers use. Stock's article deals with the relevance of translations for literary import and export in Germany.
8	In 2008, the Top 20 List of Languages of Origin for Translations into German featured the following languages: English (66.9%), French (11.5%), Italian (2.9%), Spanish (2.6%),
Dutch (2.3%), Swedish (2%), Russian (1.8%), Japanese (1.4%), Turkish (1.2%), Norwegian (0.8%), Finnish (0.7%), Polish (0.6%), Hebrew and Danish (both 0.5%), Latin, Australian English, Hungarian, Chinese, and Croatian (all 0.4%), and Arabic (0.3%).
9	Russian is represented by both subsidy programs. Ten of the languages used as sources within both subsidy programs were listed in the Top 20 List of Languages of Origin for Translations into German in 2008: English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Czech, Polish, Hungarian, and Croatian.
10	Within the Program of Translation Subsidies, operated by litprom, other languages of origin in the sample of subsidized works are represented as follows: Persian and Bahasa Indonesia (both 3%), other languages together 5% (Afrikaans, Farsi, Hindi/Urdu, Khmer/ Cambodian, Kisuaheli, Korean, Marathi, Russian, Quechua, Turkish, and Vietnamese).
11	Within the Program for Promotion of Translation from Central and Eastern Europe, operated by LCB, other languages of origin in the sample of subsidized works are represented as follows: Albanian (4%), Romanian and Ukrainian (both 3%), and other languages together 6% (Bulgarian, Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Slovak, Slovenian, and Yiddish).
12	In 2004, Arabic ranked twelfth in the Top 20 List of Languages of Origin for Translations into German.
DATA COLLECTION AND TRANSLATION STATISTICS
Sample of translated titles subsidized by litprom: http://www.litprom.de/64.html (23 Aug. 2009).
Sample of translated titles subsidized by LCB: http://www.lcb.de/uebersetzer/ueberset-
zungen/buecherliste.htm (14 Dec. 2009). Buch und Buchhandel in Zahlen. Börsenverein des deutschen Buchhandels (eds.). Frankfurt am Main: MVB — Marketing und Verlagsservice des Buchhandels GmbH, Vols. 1999— 2009.
WORKS CITED
Bachleitner, Norbert, and Michaela Wolf. "Auf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie der literarischen Übersetzung im deutschsprachigen Raum." Internationales Archiv zur Sozialgeschichte der Putschen ^te^a^tur 29.2 (2004): 1—25.
Bourdieu, Pierre. "A Conservative Revolution in Publishing." Translation Studies 1.2 (2008): 123-153.
---. "Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idees." Actes de la recherche
en sciences social^es 145 (2002): 3—8.
---. "Une revolution conservatrice dans l'edition." Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales
126—127 (1999): 3—28.
Casanova, Pascale. "Consecration et accumulation de capital litterraire. La traduction comme echange inegal." Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144 (2002): 7—20.
---. The World Republic of Letters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Dücker, Burckhard, and Verena Neumann. "Literaturpreise. Register mit einer Einführung: Literaturpreise als literaturgeschichtlicher Forschungsgegenstand." Forum Ritualdynamik. Diskussionsheiträge des SFB 619 Ritualdynamik der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg 12. Eds. Dietrich Harth and Axel Michaels, 2005. Available at: http://archiv. ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/index.php/ritualdynamik (10 March 2010).
Hagestedt, Lutz. "Autorenpräsentation und -förderung: Lesungen, Ausstellungen, Preise." Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Band 1: Gegenstände und Grundbegriffe. Ed. Thomas Anz. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2007. 296—306. Heilbron, Johan. "Towards a Sociology of Translation. Book Translations as Cultural
World-System." European Journal of Social Theory 4.2 (1999): 429—444. Heilbron, Johan, and Gisele Sapiro. "Outline for a Sociology of Translation." Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Ed. Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. 93—108. Kessel, Markus. "Importartikel Buch: Zwischen Nischengeschäft und heißen Titeln." Literaturbetrieb in Deutschland. Ed. Heinz Ludwig Arnold and Matthias Beilein. Munich, 2009 (3rd edition). 421—432. Mendelssohn, Peter de. S. Fischer und sein Verlag. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 1970.
Poupaud, Sandra. "Agency in Translation. Hispanic Literature in France, 1984—2002." Translation Research Projects 1. Ed. Anthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, 2008. 37—48. Pölzer, Rudolf. Kein Land des Übersetzens? Studie zum österreichischen Übersetzungsmarkt 20002004. Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2007. Sapiro, Gisele. "The Literary Field between the State and the Market." Poetics 31.4—5 (2003): 441—464.
---. "Translation and the Field of Publishing. A Commentary on Pierre Bourd^eu's A
Conservative Revolution in Publishing" Translation Studies 1.2 (2008): 155—166. Schalke, Claudia, and Markus Gerlach. "Le paysage editorial allemand." Actes de la recherche
en sciences social^es 130 (1999): 29—47. Stock, Ricky: "Sechs Fallstudien zur literarischen Übersetzung: Deutschland." Übersetzt werden oder nicht. Berichtdes PEN/IRL über die internationale Lage der Literaturübersetzung. Ed. Esther Allen. Barcelona: Institut Ramon Llull, 2007. 70—82. Wolf, Michaela. "Dem Publikum neue Werte aufdrängen ^ Macht und Ohnmacht von literarischen ÜbersetzerInnen in übersetzungssoziologischer Sicht." Lebende Sprachen 2 (2008): 61—66.
---. "Zum 'sozialen Sinn' in der Translation. Translationssoziologische Implikationen
von Pierre Bourdieus Kultursoziologie." Arcadia 34.2 (1999): 262—275.
A Myth Busted: Bestselling Fiction in Europe and Slovenia
Miha Kovač, Rüdiger Wischenbart
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia; University of Vienna, Institute of Germanic Studies, Austria
miha.kovac@siol.net; ruediger@wischenbart.com
The paper analyzes adult fiction bestsellers in Europe in 2008 and 2009. The authors develop a method that enables them to measure the impact factors of bestselling authors and describe the mechanisms through which a book becomes a bestseller. In addition, they describe the methods and differences in the creation of bestseller lists and their impact on book markets. The analysis shows that in all European countries analyzed the majority of the books on bestseller lists are written either in local languages or translated from the biggest European languages (English, French, German, Spanish) and Swedish. This is a one-way process because there are no authors from small languages on the bestseller list in the biggest European book markets. The final part of the paper analyzes the Slovenian book market and its special features
Keywords: bookselling / book market / bestsellers / bestseller lists / libraries / library loan UDK 655.42
What makes a bestseller?
There is no easy answer to the question of what makes a bestseller. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term hestseller was first used by The K^ansas Times and Star in 1889, and the first attempts to define a bestseller more clearly date back to the period after the Second World War. Definitions have varied from various statistical determinations ("a bestseller is a book that has been bought by 1 per cent of the total population within 10 years of its publication:" see Mott) to the tautological definition ("best-selling books are books that appear on bestseller lists," Resa Dudovitz), which appears - as will be seen later - to be the most sensible one from today's perspective (both quotes from Miller).
Any attempt to analyze a bestseller as a social phenomenon should consider bestseller lists and how they are compiled. As a rule, bestseller lists are considered to reflect the sales figures in a given market - the more copies of a book are sold, the higher it climbs on the bestseller
list representing that specific market. However, it is not always like this. Arguably the most famous bestseller list published today, the one published by The New York Times since 1931, is compiled by means of a questionnaire sent to selected bookshops asking about their bestselling books (see Miller 290-291). Bookshops of course have the option of adding a title that they think is selling remarkably well in a specific week, but this box often remains empty. On the basis of such sales figures collected from around 3,000 bookshops surveyed (see Miller 290-291, who otherwise states the number of 4,000 bookshops, and wikipedia.org/wiki/ New_York_Times_BestseUer_List), The New York Times then compiles the list. Such a methodology of list creation of course allows manipulations and is neither neutral nor accurate in an objective sense. The most famous anecdotal evidence for such questioning of the Times' methodology is probably the lawsuit filed by William Peter Blatty in the early 1980s: after his novel The Exor^cist had topped the list for a considerable time there was every reason to expect something similar to happen to his next novel as well, Legion. However, the book did not appear on the list until several weeks after its release, and then stayed there for only one week. In this way, The New York Times, according to the complaint brought to the court, had caused damage to the publisher and the author. Blatty and his publisher decided to file a lawsuit but they lost it outright because The New York Times publisher argued that their lists had never been claimed to represent the exact situation on the book market. Moreover, they confessed that the list is basically an editorial construct, which allowed their lawyers to refer to the first amendment to the US Constitution, which defines freedom of the press as one of the constitutional freedoms. The court accepted their argument in its entirety and dropped Blatty's case, which basically gave one of the most famous lists in the world a court certificate that it does not reflect the actual sales situation on the book market (Miller 297-298).
Compiling bestseller lists
A real revolution in the compilation of bestseller lists was brought about by the Bookscan system, developed and managed by the Nielsen Company since 1995. In simple terms, the system records each purchase at points of sale in a number and distribution of bookshops considered broad enough to statistically represent a given market. This means that the system records bookshop sales with unerring accuracy. The system currently operates in nine countries: the US, UK, Australia, Ireland,
Denmark, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, and South Africa (see http://www. nielsenbookscan.co.uk). It is also used to compile bestseller lists in the weekly British trade magazine The Bookseller.
With the introduction of this system, two things became clear: first, there is a systematic distinction to be made between a book market as portrayed by The New York Times and the actual performance of individual titles in terms of real sales, and, second, by making public concrete sales of individual titles at regular intervals bestseller lists both indirectly and directly influence the book market, which makes the lists a marketing tool in their own right.
This became apparent when Nielsen Bookscan was introduced to the Australian book market. Until 2000, the most significant and influential list "down under" had been published by the Australian Book Review (ABR). This (and similar lists in some Australian dailies) had been edited and compiled by editors of culture pages in the press, who "notoriously filtered" their content (Davis 116) - not only by not including certain book genres on the lists, but also by surveying the sales mostly in bookshops in downtowns and campuses, frequented by a more sophisticated reading audience. As a result, Australian lists were dominated by Australian authors of serious fiction and essays, whereas significant segments were missing altogether, notably "cookbooks, books on how to become rich in a few steps, ^ even athletes' biographies" (ibid. 117).
After Australian media began publishing Nielsen BookScan lists in 2000, a different picture of the Australian book market started to emerge. For example, in 2004, during the Christmas shopping season, only four fiction books (in 9th, 65th, 103rd, and 104th place) and three nonfiction books by Australian authors (in 35th, 74th, and 114th place) appeared among the top 130 titles. Suddenly, it appeared as though Australians had changed their reading preferences, swapping domestic fiction for easy reading by foreign authors such as Dan Brown (who had not even appeared on Australian lists until then!), and starting to buy en masse "cookbooks and books about cricket players" (Davis 118) - and all this without any empirical evidence that the sales of serious fiction changed dramatically during the same period.
However, the apparent decline of domestic fiction is not only a result of more accurate compilation of bestseller lists. Davis argues that this period saw a significant change in the system of values in Australia and the entire media landscape (suddenly, fiction was no longer understood as a major tool for maintaining Australian identity, resulting in reduced public subsidies to authors and publishers of such works; other media started eroding reading and school books; the share of reading among
all recreational activities dropped form twenty-nine to twenty-five percent; the prevailing social paradigm of the time was neoliberalism, which established unusually high profit expectations for the book industry as well, which led publishers to focus on titles that were expected to earn them higher profits; and so on; Davis 120—127). In other words, new and more accurate bestseller lists appeared in Australia at a time when domestic fiction was losing its social reputation and impact due to altered social circumstances. Therefore, former bestseller lists lost their authoritative status not only because more accurate information tools had appeared, but primarily because domestic and literary fiction suddenly ceased to be the mainstream book genre. The shift towards the new lists, in which genre titles were prevailing, says Davis, functioned as a self-fulfilling prophecy: once it had become obvious which book genres sell well, publishers — in accordance with the prevailing atmosphere of the time — placed increasingly more emphasis on them because it appeared that this was the only way to make desirable profits. In line with sales trends, as shown by rankings, they started to change their publishing strategies. For example, the Australian subsidiary of Simon & Schuster announced in 2004 that it would cease to publish Australian authors' first books, and the biggest Australian publisher, Allen & Unwin, published sixty fiction works by Australian authors in 1996, compared to only twenty-eight in 2004 (Davis 120). This shift was further facilitated, says Davis, by the internal shift of values within Australian publishers, as marketing departments were becoming more important than editorial departments (Davis 120).
Deciding what to publish
This leads to another barely explored issue within publishing studies: how publishers make decisions about what to publish and how this decision-making process indirectly affects the bestseller lists. One of the most convincing descriptions of the mechanisms that change books into bestsellers was written by Malcolm Gladwell, who came up with the hypothesis that book bestsellers (but also film and music hits) and fashion trends spread through society like epidemic diseases. Such diseases, says Gladwell, are usually triggered by a narrow group of individuals with many social contacts and with the ability to spread the virus. As an example of such a spread of an epidemic disease, he cites an epidemic of gonorrhea in Colorado Springs in 1986. An analysis revealed that by far the most people had been infected by a group of 168 individuals, who
were otherwise unrelated but frequented the same bars and had many social contacts. The situation is similar with bestsellers and fashion trends, says Gladwell: irrespective of marketing investments, a book, piece of music, or accessory begins to spread through society once it has been adopted by a handful of people that - for one reason or another - have a strong influence on a fairly wide circle of people. In addition, a bestseller starts spreading only if it conveys a message that will touch the intended recipient more deeply than others - similar to some viruses that are significantly more infectious than others. Furthermore, it is logical that epidemics in some environments spread more quickly than in others: altered hygienic conditions practically eradicated plague and cholera in Europe. Similarly, altered cultural circumstances in modern Europe made chivalric novels and troubadour lyric poetry obsolete and read only by literary historians.
In short, according to Gladwell, the spread of a bestseller depends on the power of its message, the environment that provides conditions for spreading a certain type of message, and the people that spread this message.
The book virus
Let us speculate that the minority that triggers the "book virus" in the book world and starts to infect readers is to be found among book professionals such as editors, sales representatives, booksellers, librarians, other authors, and those that write about books in all sorts of media. In other words, if a work by itself does not persuade an editor that it is publish-able, the editor will simply not recommend it for publication. Moreover, if editors are enthusiastic about a work - if it "infects" them heavily - they will try harder to give it appropriate status within the publisher's line and obtain more marketing resources for it compared to other works that are worth publishing but with a smaller "infectious" potential. The situation is more than similar in bookshops. Among tens of thousands of titles, it is physically possible to promote only a few books, and the ways in which the books are arranged in bookshops not only reflect the attitude of booksellers towards the salability of a title but, as shown by Claire Squires, has a significant indirect effect on customers and their perception of book genres (Squires), and it also shows the attitude of bookshop keepers towards the salability of a title.
In short, using Gladwell's theory to describe the birth of a bestseller, it becomes obvious that in many cases the publishing professionals play an important role in the process of bestseller creation. This means that in
many cases it is the editors — no matter what they think about the nature of their work — that are the first marketers of a title because they have to "infect" those that will be directly or indirectly engaged in its marketing and sales. In addition to the ability to recognize an interesting and sellable text, one of the conditions for successfully performing the editor's job is thus the ability to exert influence on other publishing professionals. In Bourdieu's terms, what an editor primarily needs is to control a huge amount of social, symbolic, and cultural capital.
From here on, two more hypotheses come to mind: first, the existence of the book market as a precondition for cultural openness. Namely, if there are many publishers that employ editors with different levels of resistance to different "book viruses," then chances are significantly higher that an innovative and unconventional book will find its way to readers and possibly become a bestseller, in contrast to the situation with only a few types of publishers and editors. Second, one can reasonably assume that different "book viruses" spread across different social environments in different ways. It is worth pointing out that, according to Alberto N. Greco, the organizational structure of a publisher and consequently the power relations inside it largely depend on the size and structure of the market where the publisher operates. In other words, in highly structured book markets such as Slovenia with a large number of sales channels (Kovač, "Meje rasti"), commercial success will also depend on successful sales coordination, which makes publishers' sales departments stronger — regardless of the value-oriented environment — compared to the situation in Denmark, for example, where most books are sold through bookshops. This means that bestsellers in culturally diverse environments will not be different only because book tastes in Slovenia are different than in Denmark, but also because the Danish book market is larger and differently structured than the Slovenian one and, consequently, decision-making mechanisms at Danish publishers are different from those in Slovenia.
In short, in order to better understand the logic that turns books into bestsellers, one should become familiar with the nature and internal power relations of the publishers that publish them, and the "individual histories" and track records of various European bestsellers should be examined. This would require a much more extended research project than our current resources allow. Therefore, the second part of this text carries out a kind of exemplary infrastructural study, well aware of the shortcomings of its means, but with a broad scope of relevant questions in mind: it examines the differences between a set of European bestseller lists and at least tries to indicate what patterns and forces govern
the works that appear on these lists. This preliminary approach makes it possible to test yet another hypothesis about the modern entertainment industries — that is, whether bestseller lists are dominated by English-language books that belong to uniformly similar genres, and which are (as products of cultural industries) interchangeable and replaceable. In addition, the hypothesis will be tested whether English is the main intermediary in promoting and transferring bestsellers across European language borders: this would be a plausible assumption based on the fact that English is also the main communication language in the publishing world (Thompson 40—44).
Through this comparison and analysis of European bestsellers we will therefore determine how diversified European book markets really are: do they really function according to the aforementioned criteria of the cultural industry, or, as Gladwell's and Greco's writings suggest, are these markets and their associated reading tastes significantly more diversified and subject to more sophisticated rules of the cultural industry that cannot be captured in a few simple formulas?
Western European book markets
In Europe, bestseller lists differ significantly: although they have a fairly long history in western Europe, the tradition of their compilation is much shorter in central and southeast Europe. On top of this, no country there has a system in place similar to Nielsen Bookscan. Due to this difference, we chose to deal with data from the two regions separately, and not consolidate them into one overall sample.
The first results of the study on European bestseller lists based on data from March 2008 to April 2009 were already discussed by the authors of this text in an article in Publishing Research Quarterly (Kovač and Wischenbart). We analyzed lists published in Great Britain by The Bookseller, in Holland by Boekblad, in Germany by Buchreport and Der Spiegel, in Spain by El Cultural, in France by Livres Hebdo/Ipsos, and in Sweden by Svensk Bokhandel. In the second part of the study, which took place between October 2008 and September 2009, an Italian list prepared by Informazioni Editoriali was added. With the exception of The Bookseller, which uses Nielsen Bookscan data, the majority of the lists mentioned above are based on point-of-sale data coming from chain and independent book stores (and some online sales, at least in Sweden) representing around thirty percent of the book market. They can therefore be considered fairly accurate. In central Europe, we used data from each country's
largest chain bookstore, which cover between ten and thirty percent of the respective markets.
These markets were selected for several reasons. Despite being relatively similar in some of their main demographic indicators (such as people's level of education, gross domestic product, development of media infrastructure, etc.; see Kovač, "Meje rasti"), these markets differ significantly in population, their languages (and these language's reception in the rest of Europe), and their potential for cultural exports. By European standards, the domestic British book market has the most muscle in terms of exports, whereas the German and French markets predominate in import capacity and in certain parameters such as the number of book stores catering to a highly differentiated reading population. Spain and Italy happen to have somewhat similar balances and preferences between domestic authors, translations from non-English languages, and overall market size. The Dutch and Swedish markets are among the smaller western European book markets but are both highly differentiated, with a very significant culture of (incoming) translations as well as readers reading in foreign languages, yet they differ profoundly by the impact of domestic fiction — which is extraordinarily large in Sweden and relatively modest in the Netherlands. (Kovač and Wischenbart). In addition, altogether the surveyed markets belong to very different language groups and reflect very diverse cultural and political traditions and cultural environments. In short, they are diverse enough that they can serve as a representative sample for the entire western European book market.
A relatively simple methodology was used: the sample was taken from the top-ten titles of each market's list. The focus was put on authors because some of them appeared with several titles on different lists. To make lists comparable as well as to allow a consolidated meta-list across all the markets surveyed, a measuring system was introduced, assigning an author a number of points for each presence on a monthly top-ten list, with a number one in one month on one list giving an author fifty points, forty-nine points for a number two, and so on. The goal of this methodology was to measure an author's impact on one or several markets over a given period of time.
A glance at the list of the most successful authors between October 2008 and September 2009 in western Europe (Table 1) reveals a typical long-tail picture: two authors received more than one-third of all points, whereas the top ten received no less than sixty percent of total points during the period considered.
Table 1. Top-ten bestselling western European authors.
Rank	Oct. 2008/Sept. 2009	Impact Factor	Accumulated points (%)
1	Stieg Larsson	3697	19.13
2	Stephenie Meyer	3012.5	15.59
3	Carlos Ruiz Zafon	1161.5	6.01
4	Paolo Giordano	805.5	4.17
5	Roberto Saviano	552.5	2.86
6	Charlotte Roche	527	2.73
7	John Grisham	497	2.57
8	James Patterson	384.5	1.99
9	Herman Koch	368	1.92
10	Simon Beckett	360	1.90
(Top 10)			58.83
(Top 5)			47.76
Translating these data into a graph, a long tail becomes even more obvious:
Figure 1. Top-ten bestselling western European authors.
It becomes obvious that during the period surveyed only a handful of these authors were simultaneously on several lists, indicating a strong impact in several markets during one year of observation. Despite some exceptions, Table 2 also shows that the author's factor of influence is inversely proportional to the number of lists where his or her books appear:
Table 2. Authors' influence, March 2008-April 2009.
Author	Title	Original language	Bestseller lists	Total points
Stieg Larsson	Millennium (3 parts)	Swedish	F, SP, SE, NL, UK	2601.5
Stephenie Meyer*	4 titles + The Host (adult U^K)	English	I, SP, D, UK	2156.5
Khaled Hosseini	2 titles	English	NL, SE, D	1172
Roberto Saviano**	Gomorra	Italian	I, D, F, SP, NL, SE	1104
Carlos Ruiz Zafon	El juego del angel	Spanish	SP, NL, I , D	893.5
Ken Follett	World without End	English	F, D, SE, SP	825
Muriel Barbery	L'elegance du herisson	French	F, D, SP	786
Charlotte Roche	Feuchtgebiete	German	D, NL, UK	709
John Boyne	Boy with the Striped Pajamas	English	SP	527
Cecelia Ahern	The Gift	English	UK, D	465
Elizabeth Gilbert	Eat, Pray, Love	English	NL	430
Henning Mankell	Kinesen	Swedish	SP, SE, D, NL	404
Anna Gavalda	La consolante	French	F, D, SP	401
Liza Maklund	En plats i solen & Livsstid	Swedish	SE	374
Paolo Giordano	La solitudine dei numeri primi	Italian	I, SP, NL	368
Jean-Marie Le Clezio	Ritournelle de la faim; L'Africain	French	SE, F	334
Jens Lapidus	Snabba Cash	Swedish	SE	321
Andrea Camilleri	Mehrere Titel	Italian	I, SP, D, UK	289.5
Jean-Louis Fournier	Qu on va, papa?	French	F	287
Eduardo Mendoza	El asombroso viaje de Pomponio Flato	Spanish	SP	285
Mark Levengood	Hjärtat far inga rynkor	Swedish	SE	285
Katie Price	Angel Uncovered	English	UK	284
Siegfried Lenz	Schweigeminute	German	D,	282
J.K. Rowling*	Beedle the Bard; Deathly Hallows	English	SP, D	243
Jan Guillou	Men inte om det gäller din dotter	Swedish	SE	243
Marc Levy	Toutes ces choses qu'on ne s'est pas dites	French	F	240
Simone van der Vlugt	Blauw water	Dutch	NL	239
Guillaume Musso	Je reviens te chercher	French	F	234
*Titles are aimed at all age groups. They were dropped from further comparison because in some countries they appear on children's or teenagers' bestseller lists. ♦♦Classified as fiction in Italy, elsewhere as feature writing.
Table 2 shows two additional language-driven facts: first, eight out of thirty authors write in English, whereas all the others write in other European languages. The survey for the period from October 2008 to September 2009 showed similar proportions, with nineteen out of forty authors with the highest impact factors writing in English and twenty-one in other European languages (see http://www.wischenbart.com/en/cac/ index_cac_en.htm). However, aside from Swedish, only translations of books written in major European languages seem to cross language barriers and climb to the top of bestseller lists.
Second, even without a detailed analysis of titles at the top of European bestseller lists, it is possible to say that the top-ten European authors were writing in very diverse genres: Muriel Barbery's Elegance of the Hedgehog is a novel with a strong philosophical notion, Stieg Larsson's novels are socially critical thrillers, Stephanie Meyer is an author of bestsellers that Hollywood has recently turned into global blockbuster movies, Paolo Giordano's The Solitude of Prime Numbers is a novel on complex human relations, and Charlotte Roche is the author of an autobiography with rather explicit sexual content.
A detailed look at bestseller lists also reveals that the books that move from one list to another follow two different models. Authors such as Ildefonso Falcones, Stieg Larsson, Muriel Barbery, Carlos Ruiz Zafon, and others were initially particularly successful in their local environments, staying in the first position of domestic lists for several months. Once their books had been translated and published in other European markets, two models of movements up and down bestseller lists appeared.
As Figure 2 shows, Ildefonso Falcones' novel La cathedral del mar (The Cathedral of the Sea) made it onto the bestseller list in most countries, but it then also disappeared from them very quickly. This suggests that - compared to other books - their publishers invested proportionally more in its promotion, hoping for it to create a similar "infection" of readers on other markets as on the Spanish one. However, this did not happen: the book made it onto bestseller lists, but after a strong initial push the book also disappeared from these quite quickly.
Figure 2. Bestseller rank of Ildefonse Falcones' La cathedral del mar.
Czech R. France Germany Italy
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Stieg Larsson's novels followed an altogether different scenario: having dominated at the top of the Swedish bestseller list for more than a year, they moved to most other European book markets and made their presence felt almost as successfully as on the Swedish market. In addition, there are strong indicators of French success in having triggered the international takeoff of the books, and not (as in many other examples of recent Scandinavian crime fiction) that the German market played that role of an accelerator (or, to use a more medical term close to epidemiology, an incubator).
Figure 3. Bestseller rank of Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy.
Czech R.
France
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Netherlands
Poland
Spain
Sweden
UK
USA
These two examples point to the conclusion that both works had different "infectious powers." Falcones successfully infected Spanish
readers, which was followed by the recognition that the message of his work would not attract readers in other European environments en masse. On the other hand, Larsson infected not only Swedish but also European and American readers: his works are among the very few examples of translations that recently climbed to the top of the American bestseller list.
Discussions about what in Larsson's text attracted such great attention of European and US readers and what in Falcones' text did not is of course beyond the scope of this text. For our purpose, it is enough to conclude that marketing support is not enough to turn a book into a really successful bestseller: in Gladwell's terms, it takes the right message in the right environment. At least in the case of Falcones' translations, these two factors obviously did not coincide properly. Nevertheless, one must add that Falcones' relatively strong success had not been anticipated at all by his original Spanish publisher at the time of the book's initial release.
A glance at Figures 2 and 3 also reveals that the works traveled from the original to different European languages without the intermediary role of English and, similar to other authors, their works are being published by publishers of very different sizes (see Kovač and Wischenbart).1 All of this leads to the conclusion that book markets in western Europe are open enough to be penetrated by small publishers and by a variety of books that belong to very different genres. On the other hand, English is by far not the only transfer language or, in many cases of works written in other languages, not the predominant transfer language, as many would assume. In addition, these markets are so different that Europe as a whole had only a handful of really common bestsellers during the period considered.
Eastern European book markets
The situation is almost identical for the Czech, Hungarian, Polish, Serbian, and Slovenian book markets. Here also only thirteen out of forty authors with the highest impact factors were writing in English during the period considered. Ten were writing in other European languages and seventeen were domestic authors.
Table 3. Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian, and Serbian authors.
Rank	Author(s)	Points		Rank	Author(s)	Points
1	Stephenie Meyer	2,419		21	Laszlo L. Lorincz	276
2	Rhonda Byrne	1,289		22	Bernhard Schlink	268
3	Khaled Hosseini	1,349		23	Helen Exley	267
4	Zdenek Sverak	674		24	Wojciech Cejrowski	262
5	Michal Viewegh	674		25	Randy Pausch, Jeffrey Zaslow	234
6	Carlos Ruiz Zafon	610		26	Raymond Kluun	227
7	Paulo Coelho	576		27	Tone Pavček	220
8	Stephenie Meyer	558		28	WiHiam P. Young	192
9	Roberto Saviano	550		29	Muriel Barbery	196
10	Jaroslav Kmenta	548		30	Lenka Lanczova	194
11	Stieg Larsson	546		31	Agatha Christie	194
12	Gorica Nesovic, Jelica Greganovic	397		32	Stephen Clarke	192
13	Goran Vojnovic	393		33	Vlastimil Vondruška	190
14	Vladimir Pištalo	384		34	Spiro György	188
15	Marie Poledäakova	378		35	Csernus Imre	188
16	Hugh Laurie	376		36	Jostein Gaarder	186
17	Marija Jovanovic	369		37	Haruki Murakami	186
18	Malgorzata Kalicidska	363		38	Jonathan Littell	182
19	Felix Francis	300		39	Kate Mosse	181
20	Sherry Jones	326		40	Dana Cermakova	180
It is a little surprising that local authors are even more dominant on lists in eastern Europe. Nevertheless, similar to western Europe, most translations come from English, followed by Spanish, German, Swedish, Italian, and Dutch. Regarding the translated authors with the highest impact factor, almost the same names appear in both central and western Europe. Moreover, similar to western Europe, most successful authors in central Europe belong to a variety of genres. Marija Jovanovic, for example, writes a Serbian version of chick-lit, Goran Vojnovic writes about the disadvantaged in modern Slovenia, Zdenek Sverak is a humorist, Michal Viewegh lightheartedly addresses human relations in the modern Czech Republic, Vladimir Pištalo is the author of a romanticized biography of the scientist of Serbian origin, Nikola Tesla, and so on.
However, our research indicated an important difference between western European and central European bestseller lists: during the period considered there was not a single work originally written in an eastern European language to be spotted on western European bestseller lists,
and no bestseller translated from other eastern European languages was discovered on eastern European lists. In other words: together with the obvious English, similar to western European lists, central European bestseller lists featured only the major European languages plus Swedish.2 In this case, too, the works of the bestselling translated authors belonged to extremely different genres. Therefore, at least from a wider European perspective, discussions about the uniformity of book production are a matter of rather simplified views because the dominant role of some European book cultures manifests itself through a complex pattern of book genres and publishing practices.
Slovenia
What is the situation in Slovenia like? Since 2009, the Booksellers Association has compiled its bestseller list by collecting data from fifteen selected bookshops. Instead of questionnaires, each bookshop submits information on its top-ten bestselling books. The list also does not differentiate between fiction and nonfiction, and so it sometimes includes publications that are classified as books according to the UNESCO Classification — although in their marketing they are more similar to paper accessories such as books published by the British publisher Exley. Judging the Slovenian list for the period between June and December 2009 by similar standards as other European lists, Slovenian Goran Vojnovic (135 points) is the outright winner, followed by Dutch Ray Kluun (105 points) and two English authors, Kate Moss (72 points) and Elisabeth Gilbert (56 points). At the bottom are the Finnish author Aarto Paasilina (48 points), Serbian Mirjana Mojsilovic (26 points), Spanish Carlos Ruiz Zafon (22 points), and the Americans Kathleen Woodiwiss (16 points) and Julie Garwood (13 points). The list ends with Slovenian Feri Lainšček (12 points).
A look at the publishers that publish bestselling authors (Table 4) including nonfiction reveals an interesting picture. Summing up the points of all bestsellers published by a particular publisher and without regard to the genre, Mladinska Knjiga publishers is the outright winner, followed by two family-owned publishers, Vale Novak and Učila, and the nonprofit Študentska Založba:
Table 4. Slovenian publishers and bestsellers.
Publisher	Bestsellers by month							
	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
Mladinska Knjiga Založba	59	64	50	29	39	41	46	328
Vale-Novak	49	31	19	30	15		20	164
Učila Inernational			13	31	30	33	33	140
Študentska Založba	20	20	20	20	20	20	15	135
Iskanja		13	14	18	18	19	16	98
Sanje			11	27	16			54
Modrijan	12				17	16		45
Didakta	15	16						31
Ara		11	12					23
Anu Elara			16					16
Finance						14		14
Azimut							13	13
Tehniška Založba Slovenije						12		12
CZ							12	12
The ratios are even more interesting when only the scores of fiction authors are considered. With only four relatively low-ranked nonfiction bestsellers on the list, Mladinska Knjiga remains in first place, whereas Študentska Založba comfortably wins second place with its megahit Vojnovic's Cefur^i raus, which collected twice as many impact points as Učila with all their fiction works on the list.
In total, this suggests that the Slovenian book market is identical to all other European markets in terms of bookshop bestsellers. Genre-wise, it includes a range of highly diverse translated authors (such as Zafon, Paasilina, or Mojsilovic) and only three women writers that could conditionally belong to the "Hollywood bestsellers" category (Woodivis, Moos, Gaarwood), whereas the outright winner of the list is local author Goran Vojnovic. Moreover, the biggest publisher in the country is indeed the outright winner of the combined list. However, the success of the small and nonprofit Študentska Založba is proof that both the Slovenian book market and the Slovenian readership are open enough to allow a peripheral publisher and an author - a marginalized individual by his own ideology - to produce a megahit. In short, the situation in Slovenia is similar to that elsewhere in Europe as far as bookshop bestseller lists are concerned.
Compared to most European countries, Slovenia has the advantage of very precisely monitored library lending, which is of utmost importance because the library network is significantly better developed than the bookshop network. Moreover, library lending rates are considerably
higher than book sales (see Kovač, ^"Patterns and Trends^"). Library lending data for 2009, available at the Maribor Institute of Information website (http://home.izum.si/cobiss/top_gradivo) show a significantly different picture compared to bookshop sales. Not counting required school reading and teenage fiction and nonfiction, the top-ten borrowed adult fiction authors include authors from the English-speaking world, dominated by women authors of romantic novels: Kathleen Woodiwiss with 52,690 loans holds the lead by a wide margin, followed by Julie Garwood (35,911 loans), James Patterson (27,082 loans), Amanda Quick (26,595 loans), Nora Roberts (23,199 loans), Danielle Steel (20,149 loans), Nicholas Sparks (19,767 loans), Dan Brown (19,240 loans), Anita Shreve (19,077 loans), and Stephenie Meyer (17,897 loans). The bestselling and the most frequently borrowed Slovenian author, Goran Vojnovic, is far down on the list in twenty-first position.
Furthermore, the list of the most frequently borrowed books is dominated by a single English-speaking author, Kathleen Woodiwiss, with no fewer than five books among the top-ten most frequently borrowed books. Adding Julie Garwood with two titles among the top ten shows that genre pluralism of the most frequently borrowed books is significantly lower than that of the bestselling ones. At least at first sight it seems that, with regard to bestsellers and "best-loans," Slovenia has produced a considerable paradox: whereas Slovenian bookshops and publishers maintain a rather high level of pluralism, libraries have established an almost perfect cultural uniformity, with the most frequently borrowed books dominated by translations of American romantic novels. From this point of view it therefore seems that the private sector in Slovenia is significantly more open and plural than the public one.
However, one should not jump to conclusions: in contrast to many other EU countries, the number of library loans in Slovenia far exceeds book sales (see Kovač, "Patterns and Trends"), and the number of library loans of Kathleen Woodiwiss' works topped the 36,000 mark in 2009. According to available information, the sales of her works were almost ten times lower and the bestselling Slovenian book in 2008 and 2009, Cefur^i raus, barely sold 10,000 copies in two years, which is almost 2,000 copies fewer than the number of the most widely borrowed book in 2009 alone. On the one hand, this confirms the hypothesis, already described in 2002 (Kovač, "Meje rasti"), that library loans in Slovenia have assumed the role that paperbacks have on large and more developed markets. In other words, library loans in Slovenia are a substitute for mass-market paperbacks. In this connection, one should also not forget that next to nothing is known about book sales at gas stations, megamalls, and kiosks.
Should these points of sale also become connected in a system similar to Nielsen's, it is quite possible that the fiction bestseller list will become similar to fiction best-loans list. However, this is only speculation: we know almost nothing about how library loans complement book sales elsewhere in Europe because such data are almost nonexistent and, consequently, it is not possible to draw any analogies.
Regardless, it is fitting to conclude that the Slovenian book market is as open and plural as the European one. At the same time, the prevailing taste of bookshop customers is different from that of library patrons, which takes us back to our original hypothesis: that we know very little about reading habits not only in Slovenia, but also in Europe. At this point, we find ourselves in an almost completely unexplored research field. With all the interrelations between differences and forms of domination, this still unexplored research field probably best embodies what makes Europe different from the rest of the world.
NOTES
1	Larsson, for example, is published by Actes Sud — a medium-sized, Arles-based publisher. In England it is MacLehose Press, a small independent publisher specializing in translations, and his German publisher is Heyne, part of the largest med^a conglomerate, Random House. An analysis of other European bestselling books reveals a similar picture.
2	This fact indicates that during the period considered Swedish literature was in a state of a unique expansion in Europe. The reasons for this would require a special analysis, which has not been addressed this article.
ONLINE SOURCE
Nielsen Bookscan: http://www.nielsenbookscan.co.uk/controller.php?page=48
WORKS CITED
Anderson, Chris. Dolgi rep. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, 2009.
Breznik, Maja. "Slovensko založništvo med taylorizmom in onkraj njega." Izgubljeno vpro-
^aj^. Ed. Samo Rugelj. Ljubljana: Umco, 2005. 59-82. Davis, Mark. "The Decline of Literary Paradigm in Australian Publishing." Making Books. Contemporary Australian Publishing. Ed. David Carter and Anne GaUigan. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 2007. 116-132. Gladwell, Malcolm. Prelomna točka. Ljubljana: Orbis, 2004.
Greco, Albert N. The Book Publishing Industry. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
---. The Book Publishing Industry. 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
2005.
Kovač, Miha. "Meje rasti. Nekaj korakov k metodologiji raziskovanja knjižnega založništva." Knjižnica 46.4 (2002): 43-63.
---. "Patterns and Trends in European Book Production and Consumption: Some Initial
Observations." Jamost 11.4 (2004): 21-36.
Kovač, Miha, and Rüdiger Wischenbart. "End of the English (British?) Empire? Or Something Else?" Publishing Research Quarterly 25.2 (2009): 118-127.
Miller, Laura. "The Bestseller List as Marketing Tool and Historical Fiction." Book History 3 (2000): 286-304.
Squires, Claire. Marketing Books. The Making of Contemporary Writing in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.
Thompson, John B. Books in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity, 2005.
"Is it possible to give a 6 out of 5 stars?": Book Selection and Recommendation in the Internet Age
Margrit Schreier
Jacobs University Bremen, Germany m.schreier@jacobs-university.de
To explore the factors that influence the choice of light reading, the seventy-five "most useful" customer reviews of twenty-five Amazon. com bestsellers were coded for reasons underlying book recommendation. The results show involvement to be most important, followed by author- and theme-related reasons. This highlights the pattern-driven nature of book selection.
Keywords: literary mediation / book market / bestsellers / book reviews / reader / internet UDK 655.4:028.8
Much has been written about the role of publishers, editors, and other gatekeepers in the process of selecting and bringing certain books to the attention of the public (Bourdieu; Coser et al.; Janssen; Powell). These mediators are without doubt of prime importance, being the ones to decide which books will see the light of day, but ultimately it is always the reader that makes the final choice: to buy, borrow, or read a book. However, not much is known about the factors influencing this decision (Seegers & Verdaasdonk), and even less so when it comes to the ways in which the Internet, where a myriad of information on new book releases is available at a click of the mouse, is shaping the ways in which readers search for and use information to help them decide on their reading matter. This paper presents a brief overview of previous research on factors influencing readers' choice of books and aids to book selection on the Internet, followed by a small study that examines reader reviews of bestselling books on the Amazon.com website in terms of the factors emphasized in recommending a book to other readers.
Previous research
The selection and purchase of a given book has been modeled in analogy to consumer behavior as a complex process that comprises the search for information, the formation of preferences, and the final decision to buy or read a specific book (compare Janssen & Leemans; Kamphuis; Leemans & Stokmans; Leemans & Van Doggenaar). In this context, Janssen and Leemans characterize books as high-involvement products; that is, as goods that possess high personal relevance and whose acquisition necessitates extensive problem solving, involving a large number of information sources and the subsequent evaluation of the available options (see also Stokmans & Hendrickx).
Concerning the criteria according to which (potential) readers evaluate the books that have come to their attention, only a few studies have been carried out. In a study employing questionnaires with 218 buyers of fiction, Kamphuis inquired about their reasons for buying a specific book, making use of a list of thirteen evaluation criteria that had been generated in a pilot study. The results showed that the majority of reasons were related to the author of the book: the respondents had heard about the author before, were interested in the author, or had read or owned other books by the same author. The topic of the book was another reason that was mentioned by the respondents, although not as frequently as the author-related reasons. This predominance of author-related reasons led Kamphuis to conclude that, in today's publishing world, the author functions as a brand name, resulting in a kind of ^"brand loyalty."
Author-related reasons also emerged as predominant in book selection in a study by Leemans and Stokmans: They presented fifty participants with a sample of sixty fiction titles, ranging across different genres, requiring participants to first eliminate those books that were of no interest to them whatsoever and then choosing one book from among the remaining titles. During both phases, author-related reasons were important, although somewhat more so during the initial elimination phase. Additional reasons in both phases concerned the theme or the genre of the book, and style emerged as an additional reason during the final selection phase. Author- and theme-related reasons also predominated in a later study by D'Astous et al., with attractiveness of the book cover constituting an additional reason why readers said they felt attracted by a given title. Along similar lines, Duijx et al. demonstrated that book selection in both bookstores and public libraries was strongly pattern-driven, again pointing to the important role of prior experience in reading the work of a specific author or books from a specific genre (see also Verdaasdonk).
Aids to book selection on the Internet
Readers can choose only from among those books that have in some way come to their attention. In line with the modeling of books as high-involvement goods, it has been shown that readers make use of a large number of sources, including displays in bookshops, advertisements, reviews, literary columns, book programs on television, and recommendations by family, friends, or coworkers (Janssen and Leemans; Kamphuis). During the past decade, the internet has gained in importance as an additional source of information on cultural goods in general and books in particular (Hargittai; Rohmer). Digital information resources include:
-	Author websites: These feature book descriptions, interviews with authors, information on the biography of the author, book reviews, information on readings and other events, reading group guides, and additional background information.
-	Fan sites: These websites are typically highly collaborative, focusing on the "user" as much as the reader, and, in the case of fan fiction and other collaborative writing projects, blurring the distinction between reader and author. Features include: chat areas and games, a link to Twitter, groups on social websites such as MySpace and Facebook, avatars, graphics, emoticons, fan art (all for use by the fans), fan fiction, and so on.
-	Publishers' websites: These offer information on new releases, readings, newsletters, alerts, reading group guides, podcasts, access to excerpts, the option of sharing excerpts with others on social websites (via OpenBook), and so on.
-	Booksellers' websites: Amazon, as the largest and most popular Internet bookstore, offers the following features: editorial reviews, links to authors' websites, links to communities and discussion forums, links to similar books, tags customers associate with a given title, related book lists compiled by other users, information on titles bought by other users that viewed the same book, customer reviews, and so on.
What is striking about this material in comparison to information on new book releases as featured in leaflets, reviews, or book programs on television is their markedly interactive and collaborative nature. Traditionally critics and reviewers acted as experts, guiding the public and participating in creating the literary status and reputation of a book (Janssen; Van Rees, ^"How"; Verdaasdonk). Now, with features such as Twitter, Facebook, sharing of excerpts through OpenBook, or writing reviews on Amazon, readers are increasingly taking over as critics, informing the reading selection of their peers. As pointed out above, recommendations by friends or colleagues have served as an information source in
book selection for some time. However, in the course of implementing these features on the Internet, the role of the reader is being transformed from an informal to an institutionalized one: the reader who describes, interprets, and evaluates a book vis-ä-vis a larger public has become part of the ^literary field" (Van Rees, "Introduction^"). This adds a fourth stratum to Van Rees' ("How") distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary critics, with readers acting as reviewers forming a new primary stratum whose members enjoy even less status than the journalists and former primary critics did.
Like other critics, in publicizing their book recommendations readers are limited by the institutional context in which they are operating and will usually draw upon those reasons that will make their logic and recommendations acceptable to others (Van Rees, "The institutional^"). Thus, while readers who act as reviewers on the Internet are certainly not in any way representative of readers in general, it can nevertheless be assumed that the reasons they give for recommending a certain book provide some degree of insight into the kinds of reasons other readers also find relevant. In the following exploratory study, reader reviews on the Amazon.com website will therefore be used as material to provide information about the reasons that inform readers' book selection. In this and in contrast to most prior research, the focus is not on literary works and authors in the narrow sense, but on those titles that draw the largest reading public; that is, on bestsellers and thus on light reading.
Methods
To obtain a selection of reader reviews, a two-step sampling procedure was implemented. In the first step, twenty-five bestsellers were selected. In doing so, it was assumed that bestsellers at different times do not substantially differ from each other. Thus, a selection of bestsellers from any day of the year would be as typical as that from any other day. Based on this reasoning, a list of the twenty-five top fiction bestsellers from the amazon.com website on a weekday (20 July 2009) was obtained. Because the list contained a number of books from the same series (notably from Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series), a revised list was created by deleting from the original list any third or fourth volumes from the same series and replacing these with the next bestsellers on the Amazon list (see the Appendix for the final list of twenty-five bestsellers).
In a second step, reader reviews were selected through purposive sampling. It was assumed that those reviews could be considered most in-
formation rich that were most likely to have an impact on the opinion of other readers. To obtain an indication of this, a feature of the Amazon system was used that allows the readers of the reviews to evaluate these according to perceived usefulness. For each bestseller, those three reviews were selected for analysis that had been classified as most useful, resulting in a total of seventy-five reviews in the sample.
These seventy-five reviews were then coded for what these readers liked about the book or why they would recommend it to others. Coding is a very flexible, inductive method that allows analysis of the meaning of textual material from a selected perspective — in this case, reasons for liking or recommending a book. To support the coding process, open source Weft QDA software was used (http://www.pressure.to/qda/, 14 March 2010).
The material was read repeatedly by the author of this paper, creating a new code whenever a new reason was encountered in the material. The resulting list of codes was revised several times in the course of reading the material, collapsing similar codes and introducing sub-level codes where necessary. The final list of codes, comprising twenty codes (including sublevel codes), was then applied to all seventy-five reviews (for a detailed description, see below).
Results
The list of twenty-five bestsellers included in the sample shows a remarkable variety of different genres. The top-selling book on the list, Kathryn Stockett's The Help, is a (modern) historical novel set in Mississippi in the early 1960s. In second place is J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — a book primarily aimed at young readers (although just as eagerly devoured by adults) — followed by William P. Young's The Shack, a religious novel. Other genres include the vampire novel (both Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series and Charlaine Harris' Sookie Stackhouse series are represented on the list), the memoir (Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt), science fiction (Audrey Niffenegger: The Time Traveler's Wife), the thriller (Stieg Larsson: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), or "chick lit" (such as Sophie Kinsella: Twenties Girl). Overall, this very variety of titles and genres indicates that the reader reviews relating to the twenty-five titles selected (although they are of course far from constituting a representative sample of reader opinions in general) are nevertheless likely to cover a broad range of reader opinions and features appreciated about preferred books.
Another striking feature about this list of the top twenty-five bestsellers is the comparatively high number of books that are part of a series:
eleven out of twenty-five (in the original, unadjusted list: thirteen out of twenty-five). This constitutes evidence of the appeal of serial worlds and in itself indicates one prominent reason why books are appreciated by readers: the familiarity of these serial worlds and the characters inhabiting them (for more detail, see below).
Turning now to the results of coding the reader reviews, Table 1 displays coding frequencies for top-level codes.
Code	Frequency
Involvement	157
Comparison to other books	58
Quality of writing	28
Theme and genre	26
Sense of humor	17
Realism	10
Re-reading	10
Setting	6
General positive evaluation	5
Sharing with others	4
Classic	2
Table 1: Reasons for book recommendations: Codes and frequencies
Table 1 shows that one reason for liking or recommending a book clearly stands out; namely, involvement — that is, the way and the extent to which a book is able to engage the reader. Because involvement is such a broad term and covers many different ways of engaging with reading material, nine sub-codes were created that were intended to capture the different types of reader involvement mentioned in the reviews. These are displayed together with their coding frequencies in Table 2.
Code	Frequency
Becoming engrossed with the plot	39
Involvement with characters	38
Emotional involvement	30
Cognitive involvement	25
Unspecific involvement	9
Entertainment	7
Aesthetic involvement	7
Identification	2
Table 2: Involvement sub-codes and frequencies
The first type of involvement that is frequently mentioned across many genres relates to becoming engrossed in the plot, wanting to know what happens next, and experiencing suspense while reading; this is sometimes encapsulated in the terms "page-turner" or "impossible to put down," as in this description of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: "[A]nd believe me, if you are looking for a page-turner, all niter excellent novel, this is the book for you."
Readers become involved not only with the plot, but just as much with the characters, as this quote illustrates (again taken from a review of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo):: "She is fascinating: ruthless and tough to a fault, yet internally vulnerable, struggling to comprehend her own feelings. She has an appeal that draws you to her, rooting for her, and wanting to understand her. Lisbeth is unforgettable, unlike most characters that populate mystery thrillers. There is such depth here." This is another code that was applied to reviews of different genres. Yet it is noticeable that character involvement is most frequent with novels that are part of a series, such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, or the vampire novels from the Twilight and the Sookie Sl^ackhouse series. There is also a subset of code occurrences within "Involvement with characters" that relates to reviews written in a more reflective, analytical mode. The majority of reviews in which involvement with the characters is mentioned are written from the perspective of someone engaging with a character. This subset of reviews, on the other hand, focuses more on how the character is developed by the author: "The character development is so deep that I felt certain the author must 'know' pieces of these characters somehow in real life or experienced some of what she described within her own — Great depths to their personalities and interactions. You truly read into their souls and she captures details in her words that make for deep insight" (from a review of Jennifer Weiner: Best Friends Forever). Within the sample analyzed here, this more reflective stance is not taken towards any of the serial novels.
The two subsequent involvement codes relate to whether the involvement occurs primarily in emotional or cognitive terms. The emotional type of involvement is exemplified by the following excerpt from a review of Olive Ki^ter^edge: "These stories of small town life in Maine linked through one woman, Olive Kitteridge are so emotionally honest and resonated so deeply, I felt literally fragile after I finished." Cognitive involvement, on the other hand, is characterized by accounts of how readers learned something new or how a book changed their previous ideas about a given subject. One book that is characterized as highly cognitively involving is the religious novel The Shack: "One of the most thought-provoking books I've ever read. As soon as I received my copy of The Shack, I read it
from cover to cover in one evening. This is a work that draws you in with a page-turner storyline. Then with a mind-bending turn, it proceeds to challenge all your preconceived theological notions. I have nearly finished reading The Shack a second time; next I plan to go through it with a pen to underline ideas that need mulling over."
Emotional involvement, like involvement with the plot, is a code that recurs in reviews of books from all genres. The code of cognitive involvement, however, has notably not been applied to any reviews of serial novels, only to reviews of novels with more "literary" aspirations (such as: The Shack, The El^egance of the Hedgehog, The Book Thief, Olive Kitteredge, etc.).
The remaining types of involvement are mentioned significantly less often across the reviews. The code "unspecific involvement" was applied to reviews that indicated involvement with a book without going into any details about the relevant features of the book or the type of involvement that was experienced, as in this review of Breaking Dawn: "Breaking Dawn was definitely not what I expected to end a series of books that I truly became engulfed in and loved. However, I wasn't disappointed. I honestly believe that Stephanie Meyer wrote a book filled with the happiness of writing something you truly enjoy." "Entertainment" indicates another somewhat unspecific type of involvement. This code was applied whenever the readers themselves used the term "entertaining" or "fun to read" to describe their involvement with a book; for example: "Still, through its final page, this is an original and entertaining book," relating to The Guernsey Literary and Potrato Peel Pie Society.
Yet another type of involvement relates to the way language is used; this was termed "aesthetic involvement." This is, for instance, evident in the following excerpt, relating to South of Broad: "Conroy uses the most beautiful language - it just made me want to read some sentences over and over. I found myself reading some parts aloud, just to hear the way the words resonated." Like cognitive involvement, aesthetic involvement was not expressed in reviews of books that were part of a series, but primarily in reviews of more 'literary" books (such as Angel^a's Ashes, South of Broad, The Book Thief, and The Elegance of the Hedgehog).
A last type of involvement, which occurred only twice across the reviews, was termed "identification" (taking up the terminology used in the reviews). This also relates to involvement with characters, but goes beyond general involvement with characters in drawing specific analogies between a fictional character and the reader: "I especially enjoyed reading about Olive in her post-retirement years, the ways in which she deals with other people and herself. In many ways, I can identify with Olive, having doled out bits of malice in angering situations; or having been soft and
tender-hearted during others. Like Olive, I too have been both fool and sage" (relating to Olive Ketteridge).
Next to "involvement," another frequent reason that readers give for liking or recommending a book is the favorable comparison with another book (see Table 1 above). The comparisons found in the reviews were of two types: they referred either to another writer or to other books by the same writer. Comparisons to other writers are wide-ranging, including comparisons to classic writers like Charles Dickens or Truman Capote, or to the Bible, as well as references to more popular works of fiction such as The Da Vinci Code. As the breadth of comparisons already indicates, comparisons with other writers are made across the full range of bestsellers included in the top twenty-five list, regardless of genre. In drawing their comparisons, the readers sometimes display a positively staggering degree of expertise, as does this reviewer of Fr^om Dead to Worse from the Sookie Stackhouse series:
As a reader I'm often driven by various reading projects. Last August I decided that I wanted to read my way through the more significant and critically acclaimed (e.g., Bram Stoker, Theodore Sturgeon, Richard Matheson, Poppy Brite, George R. R. Martin) and less significant but very popular (Anne Rice, Laurell K. Hamilton, Stephanie Meyer) writers. There were a couple of writers that I couldn't quite place in either camp. One was F. Paul Wilson, who I have yet to read. Another was Charlaine Harris. My initial fear was that she was going to be another Laurell K. Hamilton, who had started with a great initial promise but seemed completely clueless as to what to do next, making one misstep after another in destroying what could have been a very good series (and indeed, with a couple of books, like OBSIDIAN BUTTERFLY - interestingly completely divorced from the dreadful St. Louis social setting that destroyed most of her other books - she did show us something of what the Anita Blake books might have become). There were a long string of interesting parallels, including a protagonist with supernatural powers and a supernatural lineage becoming socially and romantically involved with vampires and were creatures. But while the Anita Blake books were increasingly less and less imaginative and more and more nothing short of pornographic, the Sookie Stackhouse books are unceasingly fresh, fun, and surprising. Everything that the Anita Blake books do wrong, the Sookie Stackhouse books do correctly.
Comparisons to other books by the same writer are typical in reviews of books that are part of a series, as in this review of New Moon: "This sequel to Twilight, though not exactly what most readers expected, exceeded those expectations with an amazingly unpredictable story line - complete with the familiar characters we love so much!" The question whether a book lived up to the expectations created by the earlier books in the series is especially prevalent in the reviews of the last volume of the Harry Potter series; for instance: "What fascinated me was this: Some people were right,
with regard to who is good, who is bad, who will live, who will die - but almost nobody got the 'why' part correct. I truthfully expected an exciting but rather predictable ending, but instead was thrown for a loop. We've known that Rowling is fiendishly clever for years - but I didn't think she was *this* clever."
As Table 1 shows, involvement with a book and comparison to other books are by far the most frequent reasons readers mention in their reviews for recommending a book. Another, less prevalent reason relates to the quality of the writing, as does the following comment on Sarah's Key: "Tatiana de Rosnay has crafted a well-written novel that alternates between the past in 1942, and the present." Another reason why readers recommend a book has to do with the theme: "This is a book about love and suffering, hatred and faith, fear and courage. It is about women of strength and dignity who carry on and manage to care about others despite an unjust system" (relating to The Help). This code was applied to any mentioning of a given topic as well as to recommendations that relied on book genre (such as referring to The Time Traveler's Wife specifically in terms of being a science fiction novel). The quality of the writing and the theme of the books were mentioned by readers with approximately equal frequency, and both codes occurred in reviews of all books, regardless of genre.
Another reason why some of the readers appreciate some of the books included here is the author's sense of humor or the ability of a book to make the reader laugh: "Often heartbreaking, yet unbelievably funny in parts. Real humor pops up unexpectedly, which renders the reading even more pleasant and lightens some heart-knotting situations" (relating to The Elegance of the Hedgehog). Another reason for appreciating the bestsellers was realism. This code was used to include both the reference to real events and psychological realism: "The voices were so true it was hard to believe they were fictional" (relating to The Help). The sense that they have encountered a book that they would like to re-read is another positive characteristic that recurs across reviews: "I will tell you that this is an astounding book, a beautiful book, and a book that I know I will read again and again" (relating to The Book Thief). All of these reasons are mentioned across genres.
The remaining reasons are found fewer than ten times across all bestseller reviews, but are nevertheless described here, considering the small sample size. These include: appreciation of the setting and the way this is rendered ("Charlaine Harris is a fabulous author, no question. Her style of writing is so engaging, so descriptive and entertaining; it takes only about a page of reading before I feel like I have been transplanted to Bon Temps, Louisiana"); a general positive evaluation, without providing any specific reasons ("This is the best book I have read in years! I can't recommend it
enough! It is fabulous and I think they will make a movie out of it"; relating to The Help); a book evoking the wish to share it with others ("[B]ut in the past few years there have only been a handful of books that when I finish reading the book I sit and try to think of who I can send a copy to, who can I share this wonderfuul experience with. A book that when I finish, I want to go back to the beginning and start over"; relating to The Book Thief); and considering a book to have the qualities of a classic ("Angela's Ashes is a modern-day classic"). Again, these codes are used across genres, although this has to be qualified by the small sample size.
Discussion
Previous research on factors influencing book choice has emphasized the importance of author-related reasons and book theme, and to some extent writing style (D'Astous et al.; Kamphuis; Leemans & Stokmans). In this analysis of reviews of bestsellers, these reasons again emerge as important, thus emphasizing their relevance for the selection of both literary reading (which has been the focus of prior research) and light reading (which predominated among the twenty-five bestsellers selected for this study). In contrast to previous research, however, it is the degree of involvement and thus the kind of reading experience afforded by a given book that emerges as the most important reason of all.
On closer inspection, however, the paramount importance of involvement-related reasons in this study does not contradict the findings of previous research. In their descriptions of involvement with characters, for instance, readers sometimes refer to their previous experience with these characters in other books by the same author: "I think this book is for the fans who have fallen in love with these characters. We've spent the last year since the release of All Together Dead wondering what was going to happen next, and musing about the paths the characters would take. From Dead to Worse tells us some great stories, fills in some of the personal details we've all been aching to know, and sets the stage for what will be I hope many more books to come." Involvement with characters can thus be part of involvement with the story world created by a particular author and, like the high percentage of books from a series on the list of the twenty-five top bestsellers, this result emphasizes the pattern-driven nature of book choice found in previous research (Duijx et al.). The familiar has a strong appeal for readers, and the involvement and the "branding" potential of these story worlds is further emphasized by aids to book selection featured on the Internet, such as author websites or fan websites.
In addition to these reasons affecting book selection across genres, this study also points to additional grounds that may be relevant only for certain types of readers or with respect to certain genres. Character development, cognitive, and aesthetic involvement, for instance, emerge as reasons for book selection only with respect to "semi-light" reading, such as Frank McCourt's Angel^a's Ashes. Other grounds on which readers recommend novels have not been discussed in prior research, such as the author's sense of humor, the potential of a book for re-reading, or the wish to share it with others, and exploring their role in book selection is a task for further research.
This study analyzed only a small — albeit information-rich — sample of book reviews. In future studies, larger samples of reviews at different points in time from different countries and different booksellers should be examined in order to test the robustness of these findings. Moreover, to explore whether different reasons are relevant for different types of reading, analyses comparing the reasons for recommending "literary" as opposed to "light" books and comparing the reasons for recommending books from different genres should be conducted. With the Internet, an unprecedented amount of information on reading reception is at our disposal — it is up to reception studies to make use of it.
WORKS CITED
Bourdieu, Pierre. "The market of symbolic goods." Poetics 14.1—2 (1985): 13—44.
Coser, Lewis A., Charles Kadushin, and Walter W. Powell. Books. The culture and commerce of publishing.. New York: Basic Books, 1982.
D'Astous, Alain, Francois Colbert, and Imene Mbarek. "Factors influencing readers' interest in new book releases: An experimental study." Poetics 34.2 (2006): 134—147.
Duijx, A., Cees van Rees, and Hugo Verdaasdonk. "Choice behaviour of purchasers and borrowers of books." Poetics 20.5—6 (1990): 439—469.
Hargittai, Eszter. "Open portals or closed gates? Channeling content on the World Wide Web." 27.4 (2000): 233—253.
Janssen, Susanne. "The empirical study of careers in literature and the arts." The psychology and sociology of literature. In honor of Elrud Ibsch. Eds. Dick Schram and Gerald Steen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. 323—357.
Janssen, Susanne, and Hein Leemans. "Differences in consumer behaviour between buyers of literature." Poetics 17.6 (1988): 563—575.
Kamphuis, Jan. "Satisfaction with books: Some empirical findings." Poetics 20.5—6 (1990): 471-485.
Leemans, Hein, and Mia Stokmans. "Attributes used in choosing books." Poetics 20.5-6 (1990): 487—505.
Leemans, Hein, and J. van Doggenaar. "Subdivisions of book supply made by individual buyers of literature." Poetics 16.3—4 (1987): 255—268.
Powell, Walter W. Getting into print: The decision-making process in scholarly publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
Rohmer, Ernst. "Linkliste und Leselust. Möglichkeiten der Literaturvermittlung im Internet." Jahrbuch für Compu^rphi^o^ogie 3 (2001): 43—54.
Seegers, G., and Hugo Verdaasdonk. "Choice patterns of adult users of a public library." Poe^^ics 16.3—4 (1987): 353—368.
Stokmans, Mia, and M. Hendrickx. "The attention paid to new book releases on a display table." Poe^l^ics 22.3 (1994): 185—197.
Van Rees, Cees. "Introduction: Advances in the empirical sociology of literature and the arts." Poe^t^ic^s 12.4—5 (1983): 285—310.
---. "How a literary work becomes a masterpiece: On the threefold selection practised
by literary criticism." Poetics 12.4—5 (1983): 397—418.
---. "The institutional foundation of a critic's connoisseurship." Poetics 18.1—2 (1989):
179-198.
Verdaasdonk, Hugo. "Effects of acquired readership and reviewers' attention on the sales of new literary works." Poetics 16.3—4 (1987): 237—254.
APPENDIX: BESTSELLER FICTION ON AMAZON.COM AS OF 20 JULY 2009
1.	Kathryn Stockett: The Help
2.	J. K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
3.	William P. Young: The Shack
4.	Charlaine Harris: Sookie Stackhouse
5.	Mary Ann Shaffer: The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society
6.	Audrey Niffenegger: The Time Traveler's Wife
7.	Stieg Larsson: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
8.	Frank McCourt: Angela's Ashes: A Memoir
9.	Stephenie Meyer: Breaking Dawn
10.	Elizabeth Strout: Olive Kitteredge
11.	Muriel Barberry: The Elegance of the Hedgehog
12.	Jennifer Weiner: Best Friends Forever
13.	Stephenie Meyer: New Moon
14.	Stieg Larsson: The Girl Who Played with Fire
15.	Pat Conroy: South of Broad
16.	Tatiana de Rosnay: Sarah's Key
17.	Janet Evanovich: Finger Lickin' Fifteen
18.	Charlaine Harris: From Dead to Worse
19.	Sophie Kinsella: Twenties Girl
20.	Seth Grahame-Smith: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
21.	Markus Zusak: The Book Thief
22.	Rack Riordan: The Last Olympian
23.	Lisa See: Shanghai Girls
24.	Stephenie Meyer: The Host
25.	James Rollins: The Doomsday Key
Who Chooses What the Reader Reads? The Cybertextual Perspective
Aleš Vaupotič
Academy of Design, Ljubljana, Slovenia ales@vaupotic.com
The subject of literary scholarship includes the author, the literary product, and the reader; all of them are embedded in the socio-historical context. The editor as a subject position (i. e., an institution) is crucial in deciding what books or (in the case of a literary magazine) shorter texts will be published and therefore publicly available in printedform. Thispaper considers the problem of selection at another level that emerges as an important issue particularly in literary works based on computer technologies. From the cybertextual perspective, Espen Aarseth points out an important distinction between multiple literary-aesthetic experiences and different configurations of the material substrate (e.g., the letters on a screen), which are only subsequently followed by aesthetic concretizations. In the case of new-media literary texts, works that adapt to users are common. The signs themselves that enter the reading act are variable.
consequence ofthe "textual machine" is not an "authorless" condition, but the split in the authorfunction, often literally into two persons: the constructor ofthe apparatus and its user. The selection becomes one ofthe key methods. This text highlights relevant issuesfor literary scholarship based on illustrative examples: first, the issue of digital communities and collaborative authorship and, second, the issue of automatic generation of poetry. A
nevertheless draw on socio-historically dependent utterances.
Keywords: information technology / new media / authorship / interactive literature / cybertext
UDK 004: 82
The utterance and speech communication (Mikhail Bakhtin)
With respect to speech communication as the never-ending exchange of utterances structured as dialogue, Bakhtin's concept of an utterance is constitutively defined by the change of speaking subjects. When a person produces an utterance it is endowed with a sort of "energy" that functions unambiguously at the level of power-knowledge.1 Bakhtin studied literary
phenomena by focusing on the dialogue taking place within and beyond the boundaries of particular literary works. The fundamental element in Bakhtin's theories is "an utterance."2 An utterance is a unit of speech communication. It is always concrete, indistinguishable from its context of culture and from the context of the particular individual personal situation of the living speaker.
The "normal" publication of a printed book: Writing and choosing
If the boundary between utterances is the end of the act of enunciation, then the "speaker" of a book is a person that accepts the responsibility for the published book as a complex utterance that is being read by its readers. To produce this type of a "secondary utterance" three institutional subject positions are required: (a) the author, who fixes the textual material on some material medium; for example, ink on paper, (b) the author-editor, who (critically) reads the prepublication versions of the text, and (c) the editor-publisher, who mediates between the "privately" finished text and the existing state of the literary system — that is, its economic and political aspects (both in the broadest meaning of the term). The aforementioned roles can be construed as Foucault's subject positions and can be embodied in a single person; however, as activities they necessarily exist separately (e.g., the authors themselves could be funding, publishing, and promoting the text). It is usual that, after choosing a text for publication, an editor influences its modifications, whereby the acts of reading, choosing, and (re)writing form a dynamic field of interactions that in the end produces the final textual object,3 which defines the boundary to its addressee, the reader (by, of course, also anticipating her response).
Scheme of communication in a textual adventure game
In his book Cyber^text, Espen J. Aarseth uses the terms "cybertext" and "ergodic literature" as a theoretical perspective that points to the ways in which dynamic texts construct the versions of text that the reader subsequently concretizes in the literary-aesthetic experience (Ingarden). Aarseth uses the term ergodic (from the Greek words for "action" and "path") to describe the user's actions and decisions that influence the appearance of the text. What this method emphasizes is the crucial difference between a text that in its material existence does not change and where the readers al-
ways read the same letters on the one hand, and on the other hand a cybertext, which is a textual machine consisting of (i) textons, an archive of text fragments, (ii) traversal functions, the algorithms regulating its functioning, and (iii) scriptons, the elements that the reader actually encounters, because the traversal functions select them from the archive of textons and arrange them in a particular order (a sequence or a composition). A textual adventure game is an example of a single-user cybertext, which is a game at the same time. The user reads ergodically and actively produces a path through the work according to the rules that are an integral part of the text. The user navigates a character (an avatar) through labyrinths by means of textual inputs. A typical example of the genre is A^dventure (1976) by William Crowther and Don Woods.4
WELCOHE TO ADVENTURE!! HOÜLD YOU LIKE INSTRUCTIONS?
30HEIJHEEE HEAEBT IS COLOSSAL CAVE, WHERE OTHERS HAVE FOUND EOETUIIES IN THEASUEE AND GOLD, THOUGH IT IS EUHOEED THAT SOKE WHO ENTER AEE NEVER SEEN AGAIN. MAGIC IS SAID TO WORK IN THE CAVE. I WILL BE TOUR EYES AND HANDS. DIRECT HE UITH COMMANDS OF 1 OR 2 WORDS. I SHOULD WARN TOU THAT I LOOK AT ONLY THE FIRST FIVE LETTERS OF EACH WORD, SO YOU'LL HAVE TO ENTER "NORTHEAST" AS "NE" TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM "NORTH". (SHOULD YOU GET STUCK, TYFE "HELF" FOR SOHE GENEEAL HINTS. FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO END YOUE ADVENTUEE, ETC., TYPE "INFO".)
THIS PROGRAM WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED BY WILLIE CROWTHER. MOST OF THE FEATURES OF THE CURRENT PROGRAM WERE ADDED BY DON WOODS (DON 0 SD-AI). CONTACT DON IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COHMENTS, ETC.
YOU ARE STANDING AT THE END OF A ROAD BEFORE A SMALL BRICK BUILDING. AROUND YOU IS A FOREST. A SMALL STREAM FLOUS OUT OF THE BUILDING AND
YOU ARE INSIDE A BUILDING, A WELL HOUSE FOR A LARGE SPRING. THERE ARE SOME KEYS ON THE GROUND HERE.
Figure 1. Adventure, by William Crowther and Don Woods
The following scheme shows three different levels at which the addressee comes into contact with cybertext. (When reading a book, the reader reads it, for example; see the row "Reader" in Figure 2. In addition, she may also ponder the ideology of the publishing house, for example; see the row "Ergodic reader." The game-playing aspect of the ergodic text is absent from a traditional book as static text.)
Dialogic existence (subject positions)	Points of material contact with the utterance	Dialogic process of understanding (from left to right, the represented voice loses its ideological potential and becomes a passive object)		
Reader	Scriptons	Literary-aesthetic experience (Ingarden)		/
	Implicit reader - implicit author: interpretation (mutual influence of text and reader)	Active voices (narrators)	Voices as objects	
	Cybertext "punishes^ tmesis (Barthes)	Avatar (embodiment of the reader) as a character in a narrative	Passive image of the avatar	
Game player	—	Ga^e scriptons —	Documentation: traversal function, textons	Gaming experience		
	Implied plaayer — implied creator: playing (user's action, possibility of failure)	Intriguee — intrigant	Intrigue	Ergodic log
		Understanding of the ga-me	Strategic action (negotiation with the intrigant by means of the game voice and the avatar)	Sequence of game states (partial success or failure, "sated desire for closure^)
Ergodic reader	Game algorithms — programmer	Critical reflection on the ideology of the game	/	/
	Unpredictable "emergent behavior," noise, cyborg author, techno-imagination (Flusser)			
Figure 2. The scheme of communication in a textual adventure game
The scheme integrates reading and game playing. In the case of a book, the user confronts the static fact of the book and the choices of the author and the editor in it, whereas the user of a textual game "plays" the text - her choices influence the outcome and the progression of reading as well. It is important to note that the two activities cannot be considered separately because the gaming aspect modifies the act of reading. (See the italicized texts in the row "Reader" in Figure 2.)
Multi-user discourse
Single-user cybertext is an utterance that nevertheless evokes images of traditional authorship. What is added are the layers of authorship: the narrative layer and the gaming layer. (However, the last row of the table - the "Ergodic reader" - points to issues of emergent behavior that ought to be considered separately.) Aarseth describes an interesting early example of the multi-user discourse, the Multi-User Dungeons (MUD), in which multiple users are invited not only to play the same game together and to "chat" in order to communicate with each other, but also to build - or program - intrigues and narratives in the space of MUD for themselves and other users.6 Here the authorship radically changes.
Aarseth uses the term "netiquette" to describe the rules that the users participating in a multi-user discourse must follow in order for the project to function. The duality of the language layer and the game layer of the textual adventure game is replaced by the focus on building a community of users by any means possible.
»Digital communities«
In 2004, the Ars Electronica festival introduced a new category called Digital Communities. In 2007 the parallel Net Vision category (i.e., internet art) was abolished and the new Hybrid Art introduced instead. The Interactive Art as a constant of the festival is less telling, and therefore it is important to note that the dividing of the field into non-internet-based and internet-based projects has shifted towards a divide between building societies and hybridizing media. Building societies has in fact included virtually all the works that used the internet as a key ingredient (hybrid art in turn began to compete with the obsolete category of interactive art). The slogan of this programmatic change was "the reclaiming of the internet as a social spacer (Cjberart^s 2004 196; Cjberart^s 2006 192). The authorship of a multi-user discourse is thus determined by its effect: the digital community as a new form of society.
Alvar Freude and Dragan Espenschied: Assoziations-Blaster
(1999-)
Figure 3. Assoziations-Blaster, by Alvar Freude and Dragan Espenschied
An example of a multi-user discourse that constructs a textual experience with literary qualities is Assoziations-Blaster^ by Alvar Freude and Dragan Espenschied. There are two interesting issues to consider. Assoziations-Blaster invites users to write associations on given keywords or even suggest new keywords. A system of control is implemented to maintain literary quality: the user has to "show interest" in the project in order to be given a privilege to rate other users' texts or to be allowed to add new keywords, which depends on the users' activity. If one submits longer texts, she gains more power to control the project as a whole. A special filter exists so that the user can avoid reading texts that other users found "worthless." The second interesting point about this particular project is that the German version of the project successfully builds meaningful streams of textual fragments, whereas the English one is a failure — this points to the importance of the literary and new media art systems in spe-
cific language regions for the existence of a new media literary art work such as Associations-Blaster^
What is needed in the case of a multi-user discourse is to establish a social network that can support it. The personalistic theoretic approach proves to be productive for explaining multiple authorship, which involves (a) the author of the system of collaboration, (b) the rules of its functioning that usually need to be constantly under revision (roles of system administrators, a hierarchy of users), and (c) the users that actively participate.
Emergent properties of a cybernetic system?
The emergentist paradigm from the sciences9 is often used to explain the features in new media objects that a programmer of algorithms has not foreseen. However, the emergentism in computation could not be considered in its "strong," ontological aspect but only in the "weak" epis-temological meaning of the term (O'Connor and Wong). In addition, the homogeneous continuation of knowledge from physics to chemistry to biology and beyond, which follows the scientific paradigm (e.g., nonre-ductive physicalism), is inappropriate for describing the unusual artistic use of language because there is no conceptual foundation to do so. In his theoretical analysis of a "poetry automaton" (Poesie-Automat), Hans Magnus Enzensberger attempts to bridge the gap between the primary structure of language and secondary poetic structure - which opposes the primary one - with a compromise. Nevertheless, as a rule art contradicts its explanations through viable systems.
Techno-imagination (Vilem Flusser)
Vilem Flusser approaches the problem of decoding techno-images from the evidential fact that the majority of laymen cannot decode technical images correctly (which includes new media textual objects) because they do not understand how they were produced.
An example of a technological image is the Google web search engine (1996) by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page.10 The Google system provides lists of appropriate links to websites to a query submitted by a user. However, the quality of the results is not an "emergent" quality of the machine but a computational quantification of the values of the websites on the basis of links as quotations. The unidirectional nature of a link in the
current World Wide Web can, if one is able to reverse the links, reveal the values of the websites through the analysis of all the acts of all people that made web pages. The breakthrough of Google was initially the application of the citation criterion from the domain of academic journal publication to the World Wide Web.
NACIJA - KULTUaA
Slj^ro strriTta wwTv.lipa .-coin rhelaznl www.Ji,
Goreojs sex ^ww.dnevDlt.ai siilu Pbg fsJagätUita fib til te ta Pttij, Gäf^jper cäjnef inetLi&ä baietn^ itclan PaTJiLeia tule^am injtzltciica ^isly Sales,
TU prometno teknili icirttiltil smuiEriiia, Tl^radä iJiskratoc fLniLLurü Imenik,
SKE b^inlia slovenj? colla Č^jopi, älLElfT	heliLd^tt^rlLi lüüJtfii.
K[(mBq jobs prva TKtiAJPK porno, ITISOM I]ut]jsinä moI»[tfiJ www.nijitii^ ST^'^ravstvü griSija rtn trvavec vet it,
Skis studi okrog smrkolj iflAČE ppd^ Sutcr sv.üiidfi-E 3XLEFT_:iWlTTEXl oxplöiivi,
Figure 4. Nacija - Kultura, by Vuk Čosic
A Slovenian literary example is Vuk Cosic's Nacija — Kultura (Nation - Culture, 2000), which used the "search-stream," the real-time input to the portal Mat'Kurja,^^ to project it in the form of a sonnet next to the Slovenian romantic poet France Prešeren's book of poems, which is one of the key works of Slovenian culture. Cosic's title should be read mathematically as "nation minus culture" because the search-stream yielded mostly obscenities. What is important is to read Cosic's work as a technoimage — not a traditional visual image nor a narrative text, but an image of a theoretical concept. Vilem Flusser's theory is useful here because it suggests a theoretical view of the divided authorship — the programmer and the user of an apparatus.
Computational transformations of verbal signs
The new media artist and theorist David Link wrote a historical overview of the early computational production of verbal signs (There Must Be an An^gel). However, after considering multiple attempts to build artificial intelligence, Link concluded that there is a theoretical limitation that prevents the implementation of language. It is important to bear in mind that information as considered by a computer or a Turing machine exists on a level before the differentiation of symbols into numbers and letters. The reason for this is that information can change into other information without considering any extrasystemic rules. The machine transforms the material states of a medium in order to artificially separate one amorphous materiality into different recordings that are meaningless in themselves.
Conclusion
The condition of mechanical literary systems points to two important conclusions. On the one hand, the computational production of meaning has to be limited to building relationships between singular unities (the computer can execute logical operations on data very quickly, but cannot simulate consciousness or language). On the other hand, the analysis of a new media literary object should focus on the multiple subject positions that participate in its production and particularly point to the boundaries between utterances as exchanges of speakers that take part in speech communication.
NOTES
1	In this sense, Bakhtin's utterance (eucKa3ueaHue) corresponds to Foucaulfs statement (l'enonce).
2	It is determined by four characteristics: (i) interchange of speaking subjects, (ii) consummation (it has to be thematically accomplished through the speaker's intention), (iii) expressiveness (the speaker s subjective emotional-axiological relation towards the object and meaning of the content of the utterance), and, finally, (iv) the utterance has to be addressed to somebody (a particular addressee is being taken in consideration. (Bakhtin
60—103)
3	The material foundation for the literary aesthetic experience in Ingarden's theory of literary art work, the "stratum of linguistic sound formations."
4	See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ADVENT_--_Crowther_Woods.png> (30 Aug. 2009). The first example is Hunt the Wumpus (1971) by Gregory Yob, and the first
Slovenian example is Kontrabant by Žiga Turk and Matevž Kmet (RTV Ljubljana & Radio Student, 1984).
5	A figure of reading. "La tmese [is a] source ou figure du plaisir elle ne se produit pas ä meme la structure des langages, mais seulement au moment de leur consommation; l'auteur ne peut la prevoir : il ne peut vouloir ecrire ce qu'on ne lira pas" (Barthes 20—21). If the reader skips parts of the text then she does not progress at the game level of the ergodic text because the game requires strict adherence to its rules.
6	E.g., TinyMUD by James Aspnes (1989—1990).
7	See http://www.asso2iations-blaster.de (30 Aug. 2009).
8	However, this insight is extremely difficult to verify and prove because the analysis would need to clearly define influences leading to a viable literary society, whereas comparable successful multi-user Internet literary projects are difficult to find.
9	"Emergent entities (properties or substances) 'arise' out of more fundamental entities and yet are 'novel' or 'irreducible' with respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.)" (O'Connor and Wong)
10	See http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf> (30 Aug. 2009).
11	Seewww.matkurja.si>(30 Aug.2009), http://web.archive.org/web/20030401083528/ www.matkurja.com/slo/ (2 Feb. 2003, 21 Aug. 2009).
WORKS CITED
Aarseth, Espen J. Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Bakhtin, M. M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas, 1986.
Barthes, Roland. Le plaisir du texte. Paris: Seuil, 1973.
Battelle, John. Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture. New York: Penguin, 2006.
Bovcon, Narvika. Umetnost v svetu pametnih strojev. Ljubljana: Institut Akademije za likovno umetnost in oblikovanje, University of Ljubljana, 2009.
CyberArts 2004: International Compendium Prix Ars Electronica 2004. Leopoldsleder, Hannes, Christine Schöpf, and Gerfried Stocker, eds. Ostfildern: Hantje Cantz Verlag, 2004.
CyberArts 2006: International Compendium Prix Ars Electronica 2005. Leopoldsleder, Hannes, Christine Schöpf, and Gerfried Stocker, eds. Ostfildern: Hantje Cantz Verlag, 2006. [DVD.]
Dovic, Marijan. Sistemske in empirične obravnave literature. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2004.
Enzensberger, Hans Magnus. Einladung zu einem Poesie-Automaten. Ed. Peter Weibel. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2000. http://jacketmaga2ine.com/17/en2-robot.htm^ (1 May 2007).
---. "Zum Projekt eines Poesie-Automaten." Im Buchstabenfeld. Graz: Literaturverlag
Droschl. 137-141.
Flusser, Vilem. Digitalni videz. Ljubljana: Študentska založba, 2002.
Foucault, Michel. L'Archeologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1969.
Hayles, N. Katherine. "Electronic Literature: What is it?." The Electronic Literature Organization [2 Jan. 2007]. http://eliterature.org/pad/elp.html (19 Aug. 2009).
Ingarden, Roman. Literarna umetnina. Ljubljana: ŠKUC FF, 1990.
Link, David. Poesiemaschinen/Maschinenpoesie: Zur Frühgeschichte computerisierter Texterzeugung und generativer Systeme. Munich: Fink, 2007. http://www.alpha60.de/research/pm (26 Aug. 2009).
---. "while(true): On the Fluidity of Signs in Hegel, Gödel, and Turing." Variantology 1.
On Deep Time Relations of Arts, Sciences and Technologies. Cologne: König, 2005. 261-278. http://www.alpha60.de/research/while_true (20 Aug. 2009). O'Connor, Timothy, and Hong Yu Wong. "Emergent Properties." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.staaford.edu/eatries/properties-emer-gent/ (18 Aug. 2009). Poesie-Automat. http://poesieautomat.com/ (23. 2. 2007).
Vaupotič, Aleš. "Literarno-estetski doživljaj in novi mediji - prihodnost literature?" Primerjalna knjižeetmost 30.1 (2007): 203-216. http://reelc.aet/files/LNM.doc (30 Aug. 2009).
---. "Narrative and New Media - Realistic Issues." [2005.] http://www2.arnes.si/
~avaupo2/files/NNM_21.doc (23 Mar. 2009).
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Els Andringa teaches literary theory at the Department of Comparative Literature at University of Utrecht. She has published widely on text linguistics, the empirical study of literature, reading research, and historical reception research. Over the past few years, she has primarily studied the reception of foreign literature in the Netherlands within a wider European context.
Maja Breznik, an assistant professor of cultural history, is a researcher at the University of Ljubljana's Faculty of Arts and the Peace Institute in Ljubljana. She has authored books on the Renaissance theater and ideological mechanisms, on neoliberal cultural revisionism, and on modern European culture as one of the "Danaian gifts." She has also coauthored several books and written articles on cultural history, sociology of culture, and cultural politics.
Roger Chartier is a professor at the College de France and a visiting professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania. He frequently lectures in the US, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. His work in early modern European history is rooted in the tradition of the Annales School and mainly dedicated to the history of education, the book, and reading. Recently he has focused on the relationship between written culture as a whole and literature for France, England, and Spain.
Darko Dolinar is head of the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies. He taught comparative literature part-time at the University of Ljubljana. He mostly writes about the methodology of literary studies, literary herme-neutics, and the history of Slovenian literary criticism and scholarship. He has been the editor or coeditor of a number of scholarly publications; he is the coeditor of the scholarly series Studia litteraria.
Marijan Dovic is a research fellow at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies and an assistant professor at the University of Nova Gorica. His research interests include contemporary systems theory, literary evaluation and the canon, theory and history of authorship, and the historical avantgarde. He has published books on systemic and empirical approaches to literature, on the Slovenian literary producer, and on the Slovenian literary avant-garde. He has chaired an international colloquium on literature and censorship and edited several volumes of conference proceedings.
Jernej Habjan is a doctoral student of sociology and a junior researcher at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies. He is preparing for the defense of his PhD on the relation between the dialogic structure of a literary text and the social functions of a literary work. This issue was also the main focus of his book on the epistemological debate in contemporary literary studies.
Miha Kovač is an associate professor at the University of Ljubljana's Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies. In 1985, he became editor-in-chief of Mladina, the only opposition weekly in communist Slovenia. From 1988 to 2000,
he worked as the editorial director at Slovenia's two largest publishers. He took part in the ECMAP program at Oxford Brookes University. He has authored a Slovenian volume on Slovenian book publishing in the transition to a market economy, and an English volume on the book as a contemporary medium.
Slavka Rude-Porubska holds a master's degree in German studies and journalism. After graduating from Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia, she spent 2002 at the University of Regensburg as a DAAD graduate fellow in German and Slavic literatures. From 2003 to 2007, she taught in the departments of German and translation studies in Nitra. She is working on her PhD at the University of Munich as a member of the international PhD program in literature. She also translates contemporary poetry from German and Slovak.
Margrit Schreier is a professor of empirical methods at Jacobs University Bremen. Her research interests include the empirical study of literature, media psychology, and qualitative research methods. She has published widely on these topics. Since 2005, she has been a co-editor of the Journal of Media Psychology.
Jola Škulj is a researcher at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies. Her research focuses on modernism and the theoretical, methodological, and comparative study of literature. She has more than 270 publications to her credit. She has organized several conferences (e.g., on postmodernism, deconstruc-tion, and Bakhtin), including the first international comparative studies colloquium in Vilenica. She has participated in several bilateral research programs and international research projects.
Aleš Vaupotič is a comparative literary specialist and new media artist. He is a member of the executive committees of the European Network for Comparative Literary Studies (REELCS/ENCLS) and the Slovenian Comparative Literature Association, as well as president of the ArtNetLab Society for Connecting Art and Science. His work combines artistic and scholarly approaches. His areas of research include discourse theory, theory of new media, and theory of literary realism.
Andrew Wachtel is Bertha and Max Dressler Professor in the Humanities and dean of the Graduate School at Northwestern University. He is the author or editor of a dozen books and more than seventy articles on Russian and South Slavic literature, culture, history, and society. He is also a translator of contemporary Russian, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Slovenian, and Bulgarian literature. He is the editor of an acclaimed series of contemporary literature from central and eastern Europe.