Cover not available
Part of
A Comparative History of the Literary Draft in Europe
Edited by Olga Beloborodova and Dirk Van Hulle
[Comparative History of Literatures in European Languages XXXV] 2024
► pp. 450–456

2.2.2
Models for genetic criticism

Genetic critics are faced with what scientists call an inverse problem: starting from the observed effects (the final work and all the available traces left in the course of the labour of creation), they want to reconstruct the process that produced these effects. The solution of such problems generally involves the production of models and their subsequent adjustment to the empirical data. More generally, models are used to provide us with a simplified representation of reality whenever the data is too rich and the factors involved are too complex to be directly apprehended. In our field, models can hardly be mathematical formulae governing sets of identified parameters; they are more likely to be analogies that help us to grasp the peculiar logic that is at work in the creative process. Some of these models are implicit in the work of genetic critics: it is preferable to make them explicit so as to be conscious of their limitations.
Keywords: genetic criticism, process vs product, modelling, creative writing
Article outline
  • A model and its limitations: Manuscripts as film
  • Importing models and adjusting them: Diasystem/creolisation/agrammaticality
  • Combining models
  • The gradualist model: Bergson/Ingarden/Valéry
  • Inescapable models
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (14)
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, ed. and trans. by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bellemin-Noël, Jean. 1977. “Reproduire le manuscrit, présenter les brouillons, établir un avant-texte.” Littérature 28: 3–18.Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri. 1969. La pensée et le mouvant. Paris: Les Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ferrer, Daniel. 2000. “Quelques remarques sur le couple énonciation-genèse.” Texte 27/28: 7–23. [URL]
. 2009. “Variant and Variation: Towards a Freudo-Bathmologico-Bakhtino-Goodmanian Genetic Model?” In Genetic Criticism and the Creative Process: Essays from Music, Literature, and Theater, ed. by J. E. Jones and W. Kinderman, 35–50. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1988. “Variations on Variation – or Picasso back to Bach.” In Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Science, ed. by Nelson Goodman and Catherine Elgin, 66–82. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Ingarden, Roman. 1973. The Literary Work of Art. An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic and Theory of Literature. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, James. 2002. “Finnegans Wake” Notebooks at Buffalo: VI.B.14, ed. by Vincent Deane, Daniel Ferrer, and Geert Lernout. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Riffaterre, Michael. 1980. “La trace de l’intertexte.” La Pensée 215: 4–18.Google Scholar
. 1981. “L’intertexte inconnu.” Littérature 41: 4–7.Google Scholar
Segre, Cesare. 1976. “Critique textuelle, théorie des ensembles et diasystème.” Bulletin de l’Académie Royale de Belgique 62: 276–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1979. “Les transcriptions en tant que diasystèmes.” In La pratique des ordinateurs dans la critique des textes, ed. by J. Irigoin and G. P. Zarri, 45–49. Paris: Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S.Google Scholar
Valéry, Paul. 1943. Tel Quel, vol. 2. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar