From Futurism to "Doblinism"
1981; Wiley; Volume: 54; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/405005
ISSN1756-1183
Autores ResumoEin Sprengungsversuch, wo nichts zu sprengen ist. Denn der Roman ist schon lange keine Form mehr. Was ist das for ein 'Roman': der Werther. Und Holderlins Hyperion: ist das auch ein Roman? With this rather facile rhetoric Doblin dismisses Otto Flake's novel Die Stadt des Hirns and with it Flake's entire theory of the reform of the novel.' His contention that Flake's 'destruction of form' is no novelty in literary history should not, however, be allowed to obscure the real reason why Doblin-himself a great practitioner of innovative effects-refused to accept this Sprengungsversuch of a contemporary. Its roots lie, rather, in Doblin's whole complex relationship to the various modernist movements of the early twentieth century-a relationship that was a good deal more consistent than is generally thought to be the case. To be sure, Doblin appears to have totally reversed his original enthusiastic acclaim for Futurism, for example, but in the last analysis this has more to do with his gradual realization of its inadequate philosophical and political underpinnings than with any eccentricity or flightiness on Doblin's part. At its first appearance, he claimed the Futurist manifesto as a vital Befreiungsakt, a breakthrough that should on no account remain confined to the pictorial arts2; three years later he had to admit that he could not agree with its basic premises. But even in his first response to Futurism, he had made a crucial distinction between methods and aims: [Der Futurismus] ist keine Richtung, sondern eine Bewegung. Besser: er ist die Bewegung des Ktinstlers nach vorwarts.3 What he recognized in Futurism was its sheer progressivity, its aggressive willingness to break with the traditional. As a movement, it therefore represented a groBer Schritt4 in its destruction of the old, but at the same time it lacked positive goals and could only be a catalyst, not an end in itself. Marinetti's novel Mafarka appeared to Doblin as a meaningless juggling with words, nothing more than a futuristische' Worttechnik, as he entitled his open letter to Marinetti in 1913. DOblin's disappointment with Expressionism is closely related to this conception of Futurism.5 He decried in particular the unwillingness of certain Expressionists to put their revolutionary techniques to the service of revolutionary ideas. With regard to Dadaism, he was more ambivalent. At times, he denigrates it in much the same vein as he had
Referência(s)