What do you think?
Rate this book
الرِّواية التّاريخيّة
"Concentrating primarily on the 19th century, Luk�cs offers brilliant reflections on Scott, Hugo, Tolstoy, and Flaubert, the methods of creating a feeling of historical reality, the tradition of epic, the use of the past by the rising bourgeoisie, the negative influence of naturalism, and the place of overt ideology."-Washington Post Book World
516 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1937
20 people are currently reading
864 people want to read
About the author
György Lukács
401books373followersGyörgy Lukács was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher, aesthetician, literary historian and critic. He is a founder of the tradition of Western Marxism, an interpretive tradition that departed from the Marxist ideological orthodoxy of the Soviet Union. He developed the theory of reification, and contributed to Marxist theory with developments of Karl Marx's theory of class consciousness. He was also a philosopher of Leninism. He ideologically developed and organised Lenin's pragmatic revolutionary practices into the formal philosophy of vanguard-party revolution.
His literary criticism was influential in thinking about realism and about the novel as a literary genre. He served briefly as Hungary's Minister of Culture as part of the government of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic.
His literary criticism was influential in thinking about realism and about the novel as a literary genre. He served briefly as Hungary's Minister of Culture as part of the government of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 24, 2024
nice to know someone's going to the mat for sir walter scott
Read
April 2, 2014If you must read this, read it with Russian Revolutionary singing in the background. It'll give that extra punch to dramatic sentences like: "Today's historical novel has arisen and is developing amid the DAWN of a NEW democracy."
March 4, 2024
This book was so unnecessarily long. He wrote in circles basically. Gave me a headache every time I tried to read it.
October 11, 2024
Ensayo de época, en todos los sentidos. Un libro increíblemente ambicioso y que depende por completo de sus conclusiones, es decir, de su apuesta política, de su diagnóstico y proyección basados en la política de los frentes populares de los años 30, que aquí se expresa como análisis literario de la continuidad y la ruptura entre la novela histórica clásica, la decadente y la nueva novela histórica antifascista y sus epígonos. Política que, por cierto, ahora Lukács podía defender abiertamente, pero por la que llevaba apostando desde antes de que fuese política oficial en la Komitern y por la que abandonó la primera línea apenas unos años antes.
Este libro, escrito en el invierno del 36-37, es un fundamentadísimo análisis histórico teórico en el que, por supuesto, no se está hablando sólo de literatura (o se está hablando lo más profundamente posible de literatura). No es cuestión de analogía, de ejemplos, de una metáfora, es que la premisa de Lukács es que al hablar de literatura se está hablando del mundo que la produce y que refleja, que el contenido siempre es lo que se dota de formas adecuadas para expresar lo que tiene que expresar. El análisis detallado de los distintos contenidos o momentos histórico/vitales que expresan la forma dramática y la épica, las distintas intensificaciones que expresan una posibilidad disímil de configuración de la totalidad intensiva o extensiva, la totalidad de los objetos o de las relaciones, es de manual. Y entra de lleno, sin entrar, en el debate entre el leninismo y el luxemburguismo, por ejemplo. Donde sí entra repetidas veces es en el debate de la historia desde abajo o la historia de los grandes hombres, eligiendo, como siempre, su tertium datur particular: ni la pluscuampificación de lo cotidiano, de lo popular, de lo de abajo-unilateral, que lo subestima, lo ancla en el mundo que lo aplasta y que, pretendiendo denunciar, lo naturaliza como un horizonte pesado y único del proceso vital e histórico popular, ni una historia dramática de grandes hombres que está directamente relacionada con la pérdida de vinculación del escritor con la vida popular y que lleva a la psicologización y a la forma biográfica de la novela, que a la vez sobrestima y subestima a los grandes individuos histórico-universales. Frente a ello, una apuesta interesantísima sacada de Walter Scott: hacer de esas grandes personalidades personajes secundarios de las novelas, cuyo proceso de formación se explica y dirime precisamente al no hablar de ellos sino del pueblo del que surgen y que sintetizan y reflejan en los momentos de crisis. De esa forma, inferimos una apuesta política específica tanto por hacer de la revolución un momento necesario (en el sentido postilustrado) de la normalidad del proceso histórico, un salto y un bache que surge a su vez de las tendencias latentes en la vida popular, como por el frente popular como esa continuidad con las tradiciones democrático-revolucionarias que cristalizan en un sistema de alianzas en el momento decisivo de lucha antifascista.
Dicho esto, es curioso cómo los autores predilectos de Lukács se mantienen con una constancia considerable a lo largo de los años, pero van variando en peso y proporción. Dostoyevski es quizá el caso más llamativo. Tan absolutamente central en otro tiempo, en este libro apenas está presente. Aparecen mucho más Tolstoi, Anatole France, Heinrich y Thomas Mann, Puschkin, Romain Rolland, Goethe, Balzac, y sobre todo Walter Scott, que sobrevuela todo el libro como pivote y ancla original que sitúa el, digamos, periodo "griego" de la novela histórica (tan ingenuo como radicalmente popular, unido directamente con las tradiciones del pueblo y hablando en ellas y no por ellas). Aquel es el ideal de la relación popular del escritor con el pueblo que debe recuperarse conscientemente en los narradores antifascistas de los años 30. Inevitable, como tantas otras veces, ver a Lukács darse de cabezazos con la tozuda realidad de la miseria alemana, que se le aparece como una barrera central para ese desarrollo, falta como está de historia revolucionaria, de tradiciones e instituciones revolucionarias formadoras de inercias espirituales y materiales en el pueblo y en los escritores.
Un par de notas: resulta llamativa la apelación permanente a la guerra de España, referida constantemente con el término de Revolución Española y situada como referencia internacional en términos de la formación incipiente de una democracia revolucionaria de nuevo tipo auspiciada por el ejemplar frente popular. Cuanto menos curioso. Por otro lado, es también llamativo a nivel filológico el uso repetido y supongo que intencional de la expresión "capitalismo tardío" desde los años 30, generalmente para referirse a expresiones literarias decadentes. No es el primer texto de esta época en el que se lo leo a Lukács. Por último, es encomiable y rabiosamente actual su defensa post ilustrada del concepto de progreso, que recorre todo su análisis literario, y la recusación radical del flaubertiano (o tarantiniano, ya que nos ponemos), recurso a la crueldad popular, la recreación en la ultraviolencia, que en última instancia Lukács insinúa que está emparentado con el tipo de relación que el fascismo establece entre la masa irracional y sus dirigentes. Anticipa aquí, como en otros textos de la época, lo que desarrollará en El asalto a la razón.
En fin, un libro quizá algo repetitivo y un poco innecesariamente largo, pero injustamente olvidado, como casi todo.
Este libro, escrito en el invierno del 36-37, es un fundamentadísimo análisis histórico teórico en el que, por supuesto, no se está hablando sólo de literatura (o se está hablando lo más profundamente posible de literatura). No es cuestión de analogía, de ejemplos, de una metáfora, es que la premisa de Lukács es que al hablar de literatura se está hablando del mundo que la produce y que refleja, que el contenido siempre es lo que se dota de formas adecuadas para expresar lo que tiene que expresar. El análisis detallado de los distintos contenidos o momentos histórico/vitales que expresan la forma dramática y la épica, las distintas intensificaciones que expresan una posibilidad disímil de configuración de la totalidad intensiva o extensiva, la totalidad de los objetos o de las relaciones, es de manual. Y entra de lleno, sin entrar, en el debate entre el leninismo y el luxemburguismo, por ejemplo. Donde sí entra repetidas veces es en el debate de la historia desde abajo o la historia de los grandes hombres, eligiendo, como siempre, su tertium datur particular: ni la pluscuampificación de lo cotidiano, de lo popular, de lo de abajo-unilateral, que lo subestima, lo ancla en el mundo que lo aplasta y que, pretendiendo denunciar, lo naturaliza como un horizonte pesado y único del proceso vital e histórico popular, ni una historia dramática de grandes hombres que está directamente relacionada con la pérdida de vinculación del escritor con la vida popular y que lleva a la psicologización y a la forma biográfica de la novela, que a la vez sobrestima y subestima a los grandes individuos histórico-universales. Frente a ello, una apuesta interesantísima sacada de Walter Scott: hacer de esas grandes personalidades personajes secundarios de las novelas, cuyo proceso de formación se explica y dirime precisamente al no hablar de ellos sino del pueblo del que surgen y que sintetizan y reflejan en los momentos de crisis. De esa forma, inferimos una apuesta política específica tanto por hacer de la revolución un momento necesario (en el sentido postilustrado) de la normalidad del proceso histórico, un salto y un bache que surge a su vez de las tendencias latentes en la vida popular, como por el frente popular como esa continuidad con las tradiciones democrático-revolucionarias que cristalizan en un sistema de alianzas en el momento decisivo de lucha antifascista.
Dicho esto, es curioso cómo los autores predilectos de Lukács se mantienen con una constancia considerable a lo largo de los años, pero van variando en peso y proporción. Dostoyevski es quizá el caso más llamativo. Tan absolutamente central en otro tiempo, en este libro apenas está presente. Aparecen mucho más Tolstoi, Anatole France, Heinrich y Thomas Mann, Puschkin, Romain Rolland, Goethe, Balzac, y sobre todo Walter Scott, que sobrevuela todo el libro como pivote y ancla original que sitúa el, digamos, periodo "griego" de la novela histórica (tan ingenuo como radicalmente popular, unido directamente con las tradiciones del pueblo y hablando en ellas y no por ellas). Aquel es el ideal de la relación popular del escritor con el pueblo que debe recuperarse conscientemente en los narradores antifascistas de los años 30. Inevitable, como tantas otras veces, ver a Lukács darse de cabezazos con la tozuda realidad de la miseria alemana, que se le aparece como una barrera central para ese desarrollo, falta como está de historia revolucionaria, de tradiciones e instituciones revolucionarias formadoras de inercias espirituales y materiales en el pueblo y en los escritores.
Un par de notas: resulta llamativa la apelación permanente a la guerra de España, referida constantemente con el término de Revolución Española y situada como referencia internacional en términos de la formación incipiente de una democracia revolucionaria de nuevo tipo auspiciada por el ejemplar frente popular. Cuanto menos curioso. Por otro lado, es también llamativo a nivel filológico el uso repetido y supongo que intencional de la expresión "capitalismo tardío" desde los años 30, generalmente para referirse a expresiones literarias decadentes. No es el primer texto de esta época en el que se lo leo a Lukács. Por último, es encomiable y rabiosamente actual su defensa post ilustrada del concepto de progreso, que recorre todo su análisis literario, y la recusación radical del flaubertiano (o tarantiniano, ya que nos ponemos), recurso a la crueldad popular, la recreación en la ultraviolencia, que en última instancia Lukács insinúa que está emparentado con el tipo de relación que el fascismo establece entre la masa irracional y sus dirigentes. Anticipa aquí, como en otros textos de la época, lo que desarrollará en El asalto a la razón.
En fin, un libro quizá algo repetitivo y un poco innecesariamente largo, pero injustamente olvidado, como casi todo.
October 16, 2020
I have yet to read the entirety of this magnificent work of literary criticism. What feedback I can offer is only regarding the first 100 pages or so, notably on his section on Sir Walter Scott, for a course I am taking on American realism.
Sir Walter Scott and the Importance of Historicity in the Novel
Lukács lists various techniques Scott used to make possible the historicity of the modern novel. Knowing some of these techniques may assist one in gaining insight as to why history mattered so much to Lukács: recognizing historicity as era-dependent peculiarity and not “accuracy� within the bounds of his societal context (in the USSR) illuminates the double standard one can see in many of Lukács’s comments while influencing how we approach the term “realism.�
One technique Scott employed was that he made his characters to “represent social trends and historical forces . . . always regarding them socially and not individually� (Lukács 34). This, Lukács comments, greatly differs from literature before the nineteenth century, when novels mainly had only historical milieus, in which the characters� “manners . . . are entirely those of the writer’s own day� (Lukács 19). Scott’s characters were also “mediocre . . . rather than [the epic] eminent and all-embracing� (Lukács 33, 36). Lukács explains that this is crucial because these characters worked “to bring the extremes [of two sides of anything] whose struggle fills the novel . . . into contact with one another� (Lukács 36).
This portrayal of characters in light of social trends by Scott is important because it helps reveal what history means to Lukács and why it is so important to the novel. First, Scott’s technique demonstrates historicity as peculiarity rather than accuracy. For Scott, historical “authenticity means . . . the quality of inner life, the morality, heroism, capacity for sacrifice . . . peculiar to a given age,� and more specifically, “the genuine hic et nunc (here and now) of [characters’] inner motives� (Lukács 50, 60). The attempt “to portray historical reality as it actually was� simply means being psychologically and philosophically relative to the age in which a book’s setting takes place (Lukács 41). Mikhail Bakhtin, a Marxist and Structuralist literary critic, further explains this concept in Discourse in the Novel (1936), coining history as series of events which are written in the socio-ideological language that dominated a given society at that time. Bakhtin explains how this is connected with the novel, that the novel and historical context both influence each other:
Secondly, Lukács notes that Scott saw history as “a series of great crises . . . a process full of contradictions,� and to be historically “accurate,� one must have “a felt relationship to the present� and demonstrate “the life of the people themselves� despite the dialectical nature of history, among other things (Lukács 53, 55). People’s individual crises all “coincide and interweave within the determining context of an historical crisis . . . It is always a fate suffered by groups of people connected and involved with one another,� truly Hegelian and Structuralist (Lukács 41).
This two-fold definition of history to Lukács—that it is 1) always peculiar to a given age and is therefore different from other ages, and that it is 2) an on-going process of dialectical struggles propelling each other forward—reveals the double standard that can be seen in many of Lukács’s comments. Lukács adheres to the censorship regulations in the context he lived in, allowing him to continue writing. It does not appear that Lukács goes agains Marxist literary criticism (then again, he could not), which states that literature is a product of a given society’s socio-economic struggles and past. Supporting this theory could conflict with his emphasis on the hic et nunc of “real people’s� inner motives—how far can that go without angering a communist government? However, he manages to hold onto both ends of the spectrum in his careful, one may say, disassociation from particular concepts (the hic et nunc, perhaps) while associating more with others (such as Marxist criticism). Furthermore, how can viewing historicity not as “accuracy� but as “peculiarity� change how we view the ever-elusive term known as realism?
Sir Walter Scott and the Importance of Historicity in the Novel
Lukács lists various techniques Scott used to make possible the historicity of the modern novel. Knowing some of these techniques may assist one in gaining insight as to why history mattered so much to Lukács: recognizing historicity as era-dependent peculiarity and not “accuracy� within the bounds of his societal context (in the USSR) illuminates the double standard one can see in many of Lukács’s comments while influencing how we approach the term “realism.�
One technique Scott employed was that he made his characters to “represent social trends and historical forces . . . always regarding them socially and not individually� (Lukács 34). This, Lukács comments, greatly differs from literature before the nineteenth century, when novels mainly had only historical milieus, in which the characters� “manners . . . are entirely those of the writer’s own day� (Lukács 19). Scott’s characters were also “mediocre . . . rather than [the epic] eminent and all-embracing� (Lukács 33, 36). Lukács explains that this is crucial because these characters worked “to bring the extremes [of two sides of anything] whose struggle fills the novel . . . into contact with one another� (Lukács 36).
This portrayal of characters in light of social trends by Scott is important because it helps reveal what history means to Lukács and why it is so important to the novel. First, Scott’s technique demonstrates historicity as peculiarity rather than accuracy. For Scott, historical “authenticity means . . . the quality of inner life, the morality, heroism, capacity for sacrifice . . . peculiar to a given age,� and more specifically, “the genuine hic et nunc (here and now) of [characters’] inner motives� (Lukács 50, 60). The attempt “to portray historical reality as it actually was� simply means being psychologically and philosophically relative to the age in which a book’s setting takes place (Lukács 41). Mikhail Bakhtin, a Marxist and Structuralist literary critic, further explains this concept in Discourse in the Novel (1936), coining history as series of events which are written in the socio-ideological language that dominated a given society at that time. Bakhtin explains how this is connected with the novel, that the novel and historical context both influence each other:
“The internal politics of style . . . is determined by its external politics . . . in artistic prose, and especially in the novel, this dialogization penetrates from within the very way in which the word conceives its object and its means for expressing itself, reformulating the semantics and syntactical structure of discourse . . . [But for this to work,] individual differences and contradictions [must be] enriched by social heteroglossia.� (Leitch 1208)
Secondly, Lukács notes that Scott saw history as “a series of great crises . . . a process full of contradictions,� and to be historically “accurate,� one must have “a felt relationship to the present� and demonstrate “the life of the people themselves� despite the dialectical nature of history, among other things (Lukács 53, 55). People’s individual crises all “coincide and interweave within the determining context of an historical crisis . . . It is always a fate suffered by groups of people connected and involved with one another,� truly Hegelian and Structuralist (Lukács 41).
This two-fold definition of history to Lukács—that it is 1) always peculiar to a given age and is therefore different from other ages, and that it is 2) an on-going process of dialectical struggles propelling each other forward—reveals the double standard that can be seen in many of Lukács’s comments. Lukács adheres to the censorship regulations in the context he lived in, allowing him to continue writing. It does not appear that Lukács goes agains Marxist literary criticism (then again, he could not), which states that literature is a product of a given society’s socio-economic struggles and past. Supporting this theory could conflict with his emphasis on the hic et nunc of “real people’s� inner motives—how far can that go without angering a communist government? However, he manages to hold onto both ends of the spectrum in his careful, one may say, disassociation from particular concepts (the hic et nunc, perhaps) while associating more with others (such as Marxist criticism). Furthermore, how can viewing historicity not as “accuracy� but as “peculiarity� change how we view the ever-elusive term known as realism?
November 30, 2022
Having read War and Peace this year, and having enjoyed several Walter Scott novels in the past, it seemed logical to follow up with what remains an excellent analysis of the historical novel as literature despite having been written in the 1930's.
Starting with Walter Scott, Lukacs analyses the development of the historical novel in a number of phases leading up to humanist authors of the thirties. Throughout he prioritises two key factors. First that the novel is written with an organic connection to the life of ordinary people and the social trends that underpin the structure of society at the time portrayed. Second is an understanding of how the portrayal of the past links forward to the present. Scott's portrayal of highland life in Scotland shows the end of feudal Scotland and the triumph of bourgeois capitalism. He therefore strongly critical of much mid to late nineteenth century work, particularly that of Flaubert, which uses the past as a decorative backdrop for subjects that are fundamentally modern in character.
Lukacs' description of the early twentieth century work of writers like Heinrich Mann is unfortunately coloured by the contemporary Soviet position of the "popular front" in opposition to fascism, which he seeks so support through a sympathetic assessment of liberal authors. This does however raise interesting questions about a liberal intellectual position that opposes the extreme right but without taking a Marxist or historical materialist view of history and society. Some of this feels hugely relevant to the position taken for example by the UK Labour Party under Keir Starmer although I haven't worked that out yet properly.
In short this is crucial reading for anyone who's read work by writers such as Walter Scott and Tolstoy and wants to understand why these authors' works seem to bring the periods described to life so well.
There are some thoughts about Lukacs' analysis and the current state of modern British politics on my blog here:
Starting with Walter Scott, Lukacs analyses the development of the historical novel in a number of phases leading up to humanist authors of the thirties. Throughout he prioritises two key factors. First that the novel is written with an organic connection to the life of ordinary people and the social trends that underpin the structure of society at the time portrayed. Second is an understanding of how the portrayal of the past links forward to the present. Scott's portrayal of highland life in Scotland shows the end of feudal Scotland and the triumph of bourgeois capitalism. He therefore strongly critical of much mid to late nineteenth century work, particularly that of Flaubert, which uses the past as a decorative backdrop for subjects that are fundamentally modern in character.
Lukacs' description of the early twentieth century work of writers like Heinrich Mann is unfortunately coloured by the contemporary Soviet position of the "popular front" in opposition to fascism, which he seeks so support through a sympathetic assessment of liberal authors. This does however raise interesting questions about a liberal intellectual position that opposes the extreme right but without taking a Marxist or historical materialist view of history and society. Some of this feels hugely relevant to the position taken for example by the UK Labour Party under Keir Starmer although I haven't worked that out yet properly.
In short this is crucial reading for anyone who's read work by writers such as Walter Scott and Tolstoy and wants to understand why these authors' works seem to bring the periods described to life so well.
There are some thoughts about Lukacs' analysis and the current state of modern British politics on my blog here:
April 12, 2014
Bastante difícil, mas também bastante iluminador. Os estudos sobre realismo europeu (Thomas Mann e outros) e as diversas considerações sobre Épica e Dramática na historiografia literária são sensacionais. O estudo que Lukács faz sobre o desenvolvimento e o "futuro" do romance histórico (e aqui ele já levanta implicações de ordem social, típico do materialismo histórico deste autor, em conjunto com a luta contra o fascismo empreendida pelo movimento das massas e os romancistas) é sistemático e rigoroso (até um pouco didático na medida do possível), mas confesso que fiquei perdido em muitos trechos porque não sei porra nenhuma nem de Kant nem de Hegel.
Read
March 23, 2023A very interesting work of literary criticism, and not dry like I had feared. In tracing the development of the historical novel (specifically, from the late 1700's until the early 1900's) Lukács convincingly argues the necessity of the author to recognize the contemporary moment as historically mediated, constantly subject to contradictory forces (as the result of the development of our economic mode of production and political systems) in their depiction of present-day social life; in short, to struggle against reigning capitalist ideology and properly historicize their writing. He supplies his arguments with numerous examples of writers who he believes have successfully portrayed social life and its revolutionary potential (Scott, Balzac, Tolstoy), along with those who have failed (Flaubert, modernists, etc.) especially post-1848 revolution. I found his arguments to be so persuasive, I ran immediately to check out a novel or two of Balzac's and give it a try.
My only point of confusion/potential disagreement with his argument is with his perception of modernist authors: while he says little about key figures in the movement (such as Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, etc), when he does he indicates that they fail completely in truthfully representing social life and the human condition without giving an explanation of why. Does he believe that modernist writing- as a whole- fundamentally cannot represent the development of the historical moment and has no revolutionary potential? If so, I'd be very surprised to see a convincing argument for this- and if not, I would like clarification on his position.
My only point of confusion/potential disagreement with his argument is with his perception of modernist authors: while he says little about key figures in the movement (such as Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, etc), when he does he indicates that they fail completely in truthfully representing social life and the human condition without giving an explanation of why. Does he believe that modernist writing- as a whole- fundamentally cannot represent the development of the historical moment and has no revolutionary potential? If so, I'd be very surprised to see a convincing argument for this- and if not, I would like clarification on his position.
September 19, 2019
Incredibly interesting, especially as historical fiction is one of my favorite [I was about to put genres here but out of respect to Lukacz I won't] choices of reading material. His analysis of the duty of epic versus drama, the classic historical novel, and the bourgeois historical novel were genuinely very convincing in a lot of aspects, and opened up a completely new framework of evaluation for me. I think he becomes weaker as he approaches contemporary topics, especially in his analysis of the anti-Fascist emigration German literature [also hurts that I just don't enjoy these books and haven't read any of them � his work was way more fun for me when it was analyzing things I'd read, but you have to be really, really well read to be able to follow every example, and I'm unfortunately not there yet � though this book has given me tons of new suggestions for further reading material!! In my fav NOT A GENRE!], but to be fair, he admits that he is more limited in the discussion of processes that he doesn't see as having yet reached their fulfillment as well. Once he goes to discussing prospects for the future he becomes interesting again, though, of course, this text hasn't aged the best in a lot of respects with regard to its ideas about socialism. I suspect it's mostly that aspect that stops me from giving this book a 5.
March 20, 2019
É reconfortante terminar esse livro agora e ler como o realismo - profundo e fiel ao que realmente é o mundo - supera qualquer fase decadente, pois "contém as tendências que conduzem ao futuro de modo mais forte e nítido que os mais belos sonhos e projeções utópicos. " Precisamos encontrar um formato pra esse realismo na literatura brasileira contemporânea e lembrar que a força de várias vidas transformadoras está na massa do povo. "Força é mudares de vida"!
February 25, 2021
كتابٌ مدهشٌ اقتصادي / اجتماعي - بعض الشيء - أدبيّ نقديّ، يسبرُ أغوار الرَّواية التاريخية يشرّحها يفندُها، يعالجُها ويعطي أمثلة وافية من روايات لأدباء لم أسمع بهم قبل قراءة الكتاب مثل هنريخ مان وفويشتفانغر، وفولبير بارهاف
شكرًا جورج لوكاش على هذا الكتاب العظيم
وشكرًا شكرًا للمترجم الدكتور صالح جواد الكاظم
شكرًا جورج لوكاش على هذا الكتاب العظيم
وشكرًا شكرًا للمترجم الدكتور صالح جواد الكاظم
March 29, 2023
Jesus h Christ! Cranked this out for grad school! Nothing like some frosty Soviet literary criticism to rock you to sleep! Honestly, very interesting every 10 pages (the intermixing 9 pages were usually full of literary references that whizzed over my head) but is pretty much laying the groundwork for all of our analysis of our syllabus! Apparently Stalin read this!
February 22, 2025
i actually only read 160 pages (chapters one and three) of this for a class but i’m logging it anyway because of the exhaustion it put me through…one thing about lukács is he will not shut the fuck up about sir walter scott and will rephrase the same thought over and over again for five pages
October 27, 2019
grad school requirement.
Read
October 18, 2024the fucking goat XDDDDDD
Read
October 22, 2024actually I've read 52 pages, but I think it's enough...
May 13, 2024
I maybe didn't read like 30 pages but I think I deserve to say I've read it after going thru Lukacs college boot camp. An interesting read. Very dense. Lots of big themes. I salute professor Bernes
March 26, 2023
"The Historical Novel" is a book by Hungarian Marxist philosopher and literary critic, Gyorgy Lukacs, first published in 1937. It is a critical analysis of the historical novel as a literary genre and its role in representing historical events and social change.
Lukacs argues that the historical novel is a product of the Enlightenment and emerged as a response to the growing importance of history in European society. He sees the historical novel as a means of exploring the dialectical relationship between the individual and society and as a way of showing how historical forces shape human destiny.
Lukacs also discusses the relationship between the historical novel and Marxist theory, arguing that the novel can be a powerful tool for understanding the social, economic, and political forces that shape historical change. He emphasizes the importance of historical accuracy and authenticity in the historical novel and suggests that it should be a means of educating readers about the complex processes of social change and historical development.
"The Historical Novel" has been influential in the fields of literary criticism and Marxist theory. Lukacs' ideas about the relationship between literature and social change have been taken up by other Marxist critics and have been the subject of ongoing debate and discussion.
GPT
Lukacs argues that the historical novel is a product of the Enlightenment and emerged as a response to the growing importance of history in European society. He sees the historical novel as a means of exploring the dialectical relationship between the individual and society and as a way of showing how historical forces shape human destiny.
Lukacs also discusses the relationship between the historical novel and Marxist theory, arguing that the novel can be a powerful tool for understanding the social, economic, and political forces that shape historical change. He emphasizes the importance of historical accuracy and authenticity in the historical novel and suggests that it should be a means of educating readers about the complex processes of social change and historical development.
"The Historical Novel" has been influential in the fields of literary criticism and Marxist theory. Lukacs' ideas about the relationship between literature and social change have been taken up by other Marxist critics and have been the subject of ongoing debate and discussion.
GPT
September 16, 2007
Great theoretical classic. Improved my understanding of the history and significance of novels.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.