четенето

Virtual Communities vs. Imaginary Communities. Festivities. Reading. Chatting This text is an introduction to the next two articles ("Virtual Communities vs. Imaginary Communities. Festivities. Reading. Chatting" and "Gothicizing the Electronic Web") and offers their basis and their context

Our present study revitalizes a traditional set of rhetoric terms by relying on the works of Nietzsche and Paul de Man. The term “living rhetoric” does not only refer to the hermeneutic resuscitating of the old rhetoric but also to the continuous application of rhetoric instruments. Besides using, that is, keeping the set of definitions and the rigid taxonomic structure of the old (dead) rhetoric in motion living rhetoric takes into account the temporality of any definition, categorization and their exposedness to time (as a function and interpretation). Our study represents the tropologic functioning of language in scientific and in literary registers. The first chapter (entitled On The Tropology of Scientific Discourse: The Dialogic Function of Rhetoric) gives the de-Manian rhetoric deconstruction of the late structuralist works of Zoltan Kanyo. The second chapter (entitled On The Tropology of Literature: Where Paronomasia Lives) deconstructs Attila Jozsef’s poem Eszmelet (Consciousness) by bringing the trope of paronomasia into action while reinterpreting Paul de Man’s study Semiology and Rhetoric.

The article deals with the influence of the deconstructionist theory of language on the field of literary criticism. I have tried to make a critical analysis and a reassessment of Paul de Man's thesis of the impossibility of reading. The analysis is focused on the basic argument of this thesis, namely the argument about the essentially rhetorical nature of the language. The subject of my analysis is Paul de Man's article "The Reading" where the author is trying to show how the rhetoric of the text of Proust's novel destroys what the text itself claims to be its meaning. My intention is not to reject de Man's reading, but to emphasize the elements in his text that could be a subject of discussion, and finally to defend the possibility of another type of reading of Proust's works. The aim of this type of reading would be to prove that the narrator in Proust's novels manages to convey the meaning and to tell the truth he intended to tell in spite of the destroying effect of the rhetorical structures of the texts in these novels. Main points of his rule, trying to achieve an objective evaluation of his personality as a ruler.