BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Sabre//Sabre VObject 4.6.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Zurich X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Zurich TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/Zurich BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19810329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19961027T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news95@english.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20181003T000354 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20181010T181500 SUMMARY:Frankentexts: A Portrait of the Author as a Life Scientist DESCRIPTION:Mary Shelley’s creature is not only a powerful myth illustrat ing and questioning our capacity to manipulate life\, it is also a strong meta-textual symbol. In the preface to Frankenstein\, Shelley likens th e genesis of the creature and the one of her novel: just like "the compon ent parts of [her] creature" are stitched together\, her work mixes idea s originating from discussions with various friends and she explicitly co mpares her own book to the creature\, when she concludes: “I bid my hi deous progeny to go forth and prosper. I have an affection for it\, for it was the offspring of happy days”. This analogy takes place in a lon g history of structural comparisons between the text and the living organ ism\, that go back to the Antiquity. However\, Shelley subverts the class ical use of the simile\, according to which a text resembling a mixed\, h ybrid being and hence ignoring nature’s laws would be ill-composed and unviable. Her work marks a turning point: from then on\, various writers have been able to legitimate their avant-gardist\, risqué ways of compos ing and altering texts and even common language\, at the risk of creating other literary monsters\, by likening these practices to the experimenta l products of life scientists. What is more\, modern and contemporary gen etics have complexified the ontological status of the simile by blurring the boundaries between the metaphorical and the actual (DNA is commonly t reated as a “code”\, a “text” or a “library”\, that can be “copied”\, “deciphered”\, “rewritten”)\, pathing the way for contemporary writers who prefer to call themselves “biopoets” (Eduard o Kac\, Christian Bök) or “text-hackers” (Mathias Richard). Followin g and understanding this evolution calls for an interdisciplinary approac h: here\, the history of literature and the history of sciences interact in complex ways that cannot be reduced to a mere influence of science on literature. But this evolution also shows that literary works not only ad dress new issues through their topics\, but that their way of thinking an d dealing with them is inseparably formal. \\r\\n\\r\\nHugues Marchal is Assistant Professor of Modern and Contemporary Literature at the Univers ity of Basel. He has taught in the USA at Johns Hopkins and Duke Universi ty\, in Paris at University of the Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3\, where he a lso obtained his doctorate. His research interests include relations betw een poetry and science from 1800 to the present\, especially relative to the limits between literary creation and other fields including poets who assimilate their books to bodies. He has published widely in this field\ , including Staunen als Grenzphänomen (Fink Wilhelm Gmbh 2017\, ed. with Nicola Gess\, Mireille Schnyder\, and Johannes Barutschat)\, La Poésie (F lammarion 2007 (paperback 2012))\, Muses et ptérodactyles : La poésie de la science de Chénier à Rimbaud (Seuil 2013)\, and La Poésie scientifi que\, de la gloire au déclin (Epistemocritique 2014\, ed. with Muriel Lou âpre and Michel Pierssens). X-ALT-DESC:
Mary Shelley’s creature is not only a powerful myth illu strating and questioning our capacity to manipulate life\, it is also a s trong meta-textual symbol. In the preface to Frankenstein\, Shelle y likens the genesis of the creature and the one of her novel: just like "\;the component parts of [her] \;creature"\; are stitched to gether\, her work mixes ideas originating from discussions with various f riends and she explicitly compares her own book to the creature\, when sh e concludes: \;“I bid my hideous progeny to go forth and prosper. I have an affection \;for it\, for it was the offspring \;of happy days”. This analogy takes place in a long history of structural compar isons between the text and the living organism\, that go back to the Anti quity. However\, Shelley subverts the classical use of the simile\, accor ding to which a text resembling a mixed\, hybrid being and hence ignoring nature’s laws would be ill-composed and unviable. Her work marks a tur ning point: from then on\, various writers have been able to legitimate t heir avant-gardist\, risqué ways of composing and altering texts and eve n common language\, at the risk of creating other literary monsters\, by likening these practices to the experimental products of life scientists. What is more\, modern and contemporary genetics have complexified the on tological status of the simile by blurring the boundaries between the met aphorical and the actual (DNA is commonly treated as a “code”\, a “ text” or a “library”\, that can be “copied”\, “deciphered”\ , “rewritten”)\, pathing the way for contemporary writers who prefer to call themselves “biopoets” (Eduardo Kac\, Christian Bök) or “te xt-hackers” (Mathias Richard). Following and understanding this evoluti on calls for an interdisciplinary approach: here\, the history of literat ure and the history of sciences interact in complex ways that cannot be r educed to a mere influence of science on literature. But this evolution a lso shows that literary works not only address new issues through their t opics\, but that their way of thinking and dealing with them is inseparab ly formal. \n\nHugues Marchal is Assistant Professor of Modern and Con temporary Literature at the University of Basel. He has taught in the USA at Johns Hopkins and Duke University\, in Paris at University of the Sor bonne Nouvelle-Paris 3\, where he also obtained his doctorate. His resear ch interests include relations between poetry and science from 1800 to th e present\, especially relative to the limits between literary creation a nd other fields including poets who assimilate their books to bodies. He has published widely in this field\, including Staunen als Grenzphäno men (Fink Wilhelm Gmbh 2017\, ed. with Nicola Gess\, Mireille Schnyder \, and Johannes Barutschat)\, La Poésie (Flammarion 2007 (paperbac k 2012))\, Muses et ptérodactyles : La poésie de la science de Chéni er à Rimbaud (Seuil 2013)\, and La Poésie scientifique\, de la gl oire au déclin (Epistemocritique 2014\, ed. with Muriel Louâpre and Michel Pierssens). DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20181010T200000 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR