| Summary: | The proposal to study one year, as an arbitrary unit that allows us to observe a series of literary and cultural phenomena, is both an excellent hermeneutic option, and a gesture that intensifies the paradoxes inherent to the historicity of artistic production. Actually, if we unpack the components of this supposed unit, we find a dizzying variety of things that remind us that the times of literature are multiple, contradictory and unstable. Anachronism, the simultaneity of different practices, the radical oppositions between certain aesthetic choices, and the different ways of integrating tradition and establishing relations with the present, weaken the possibility of finding synthetic and panoramic synchrony.In this article, instead of analyzing the plurality of that year of ’69, which is to say the observable contents in a given temporal period, I will focus on conceptions of literary history that might be mobilized to study a phenomenon of that kind. That is to say, I will take advantage of the example to ask certain questions about the axial dates that establish and demarcate, about ideas of periodization, nominalism, and national segmentation within the chronological organization of literary production. In contrast to certain logical figures of criticism, I also highlight the specific temporality of works and the modalities of one thought process of writers about their incorporation into the literary future.
|
|---|