Application of Literature: Entering Real Life

:speech_balloon: Speaker: Velna Rončević @Velna

:classical_building: Affiliation: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciencesd Social Sciences

Title: Application of Literature: Entering Real Life

Abstract (long version below): In this paper, we present ways in which literary application can be a form of engagement with text. We view reading a form of participation from the reader and consider the experience of art or text as existing within life, not separate from it. Reflecting on one thousand interviews with non-professional readers, this paper addresses how literature enters the everyday lives of readers. Our paper will show empirical evidence of how, mediated by imagination shaped by emotions and affects, literary application forms part of the reading experience for non-professional readers.


:movie_camera:


:newspaper: Long abstract

In literary practices, application is a form of engagement with text. Anders Pettersson (2012) considers literary application an “adequate response to literary art” and defines it as a “complex act of focusing on something in a literary text, comparing the element with a somehow corresponding element in the real world, and evaluating the comparison”. In this paper, we explore examples of literary application in the experience of non-professional readers. The research we will present is part of a wider study called Remembering Literature in Everyday Life (ReLEL or PoKUS in Croatian), an Installation Research Project financed by the Croatian Science Foundation. The goal of the project is to comprehensively identify and interpret facts about the memory of literature in everyday life among non-professional readers in Croatia by conducting semi-structured interviews. Based on one thousand semi-structured interviews we select examples of how literature steps out from texts into the everyday lives of readers. In our interviews, we do not specifically ask about application, the examples are brought up during an interview about the memories about specific works or authors selected by readers. Pettersson proposes to distinguish between the supposedly objective understanding of text and further processing, and he considers application as a paradigmatic example of the latter. We view the process of literary application, part of further processing, as an example of text or literature in everyday life. As an intimate process, reading is a form of participation from the reader, the experience of art or text does not exist outside of life. If individual readers perceive texts in supposedly distinctive ways, and if the lives of readers are distinctive in their own ways, texts are further processed distinctively in readers’ lives. For Pettersson, application constitutes a form of thinking, a praxis we interpret as imagination as defined by Appadurai (Appadurai 1996, 2013): as form of work that becomes part of the life story of individuals and groups and is central to all forms of agency. Ien Ang (1985) views imagination as an integral dimension of daily life and states that “life without imagination does not exist”, while Ingold (2013) reminds us how difficult it is to “split the reality of our life in the world, and of the world in which we live, from the meditative currents of our imagination”. Furthermore, Rohrer and Thompson (2023) warn us that imagination may be difficult to obtain and that finding a way to represent our “inner creations” can be a struggle. What we want to present is precisely how these “creations” exit from mental processes, and how they, by way of application of literature, enter the “real” world or the everyday lives of readers. Pettersson maintains that readers of literature compare elements of text with elements of the real world, a process that implies evaluation and which can in turn affect personal perspectives in real life – often charged with emotions. For Sara Ahmed (2014) emotions are the “feeling of bodily change”, they ‘stick’ and move from bodies and things. Emotions presume evaluation, “to give value to things is to shape what is near us” (Ahmed 2010). This ‘act’ of evaluation is similar to what Lawrence Grossberg (1992) terms “mattering maps”, areas of interest that mean something to us, what directs attention and affects identity. These things or areas are what is important to us and what turn our orientation – they move us. Because they mean something to us, important things move us. Mediated by the work of imagination and saturated with ‘sticky’ emotions, application happens when the reader is moved by important areas in the text, movement that can flow inwards and outwards. In our interviews, we recognize application that happens in different directions and areas of reader’s lives. In order to better conceptualize these movements, we distinguish four main categories, while acknowledging that that they are not exclusive or separate from each other. The first category concerns occasions when readers state that the text they read transformed their lives in some way – served as therapy, provided life lessons, or guided them in making a personal decision. The second one relates to examples when texts provoke action or movement in real life, for example, talking to others about the text or visiting places. The third are instances when readers reveal that reading provided them with knowledge which may be applied in their professional lives or provide understanding of a subject. The fourth category concerns examples when reading served as inspiration, whether for artistic creation or sparking an interest for the subject. Our paper will therefore produce empirical evidence of how application forms part of the reading experience for non-professional readers.

References
Ang, Ien. 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. London – New York: Methuen.

Ahmed, Sara. 2010. “Happy Objects”. The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, 29-51. New York: Duke University Press.

Ahmed, Sara. 2014. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Appadurai, Arjun. 2013. The Future as Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Condition. London - Brooklyn, NY: Verso.

Grossberg, Lawrence. 1992. “Is there a Fan in the House?: The Affective Sensibility of Fandom”. In The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed. Lisa A. Lewis, 50-65. London: Routledge.

Ingold, Tim. 2013. “Dreaming of Dragons: On the Imagination of Real Life”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19 (4): 734-752.

Pettersson, Anders. 2012. The Concept of Literary Application: Readers’ Analogies from Text to Life. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Rohrer, I., & Thompson, M. 2023. “Imagination theory: Anthropological perspectives”. Anthropological Theory 23 (2): 186-208.

Thank you, dear Velna, for this great work. Love it.

A few questions just out of curiosity.

Very curious to know more about this “further processing” in Pettersson’s idea. I understand that application is a form of thinking, but what does this thinking/processing involve?

As I understand it, literary application-based effects (e.g., transformation, action, etc.) rely on readers’ previous personal knowledge, experiences, memories, and so on. What confuses me every time is whether the literary text affects us directly, or if it is our background that attracts these literary effects, or perhaps both? But if not both, which one has greater weight? According to what you have suggested, it seems that the readers’ background has more weight in bringing about, for example, transformation, rather than the literary text itself. So, those who are rich in background may experience greater transformation than those who lack such experiences. Is it not?

Thank you again for your work. Very interested to hear from you.

Best,
Dan

Dear Dan,
Thank you for your comment.
Petterson considers further processing as those mental actions that go beyond the act of understanding of what is being presented by the text, such as reflecting, pondering, extrapolating etc. In this sense, yes, I believe that the background, as you call it, has a great influence on the reception and possible later processing of the text, including literary application. However, this background includes many different elements - emotional response, evaluation, biography of the individual, identification, etc. In this sense, I consider each case of application of literature to be personal. The categories I present serve as wide windows that I recognize as some of the ways in which personal experiences are realized. Unfortunately, the methodological or technical constraints of our research prevent a deeper understanding of the individual examples of application, that is, their background.

I too was really taken by your presentation! Interesting connections with the work of Tine Andersen on echo’s; something that I would like to discuss with you at some point over the coming days in case you’re interested too.

A worthwhile enterprise, your categorization/typology, with nice examples (always fascinating, to me at least, to read about people’s intimate relations with books). But, now that we have a neat description/typology of the data, I was wondering what follows. What are the next steps? Hopefully we’ll have a chance to speculate about this during the discussion/here on concordance/other moments during the conference.

Second, you refer to the work of Pettersson extensively at the beginning of your paper. What is that book based on; is that research comparable to yours? And, how does your work contribute to his?

In any event; see you soon, and thanks for this presentation!

Thank you for your comments! I look forward to Tine’s presentation and discussion.
To answer your question about Pettersson, his book is based on “empirical research on literary response” and 135 cases of literary application he collected. It is difficult for me to answer how my research is comparable, but I find many of his insights very useful.
As for what’s next, I will develop this paper further and also hope we can discuss it during the next days.