Publications Index
Dr. Elaine Martin Home Page

for Germanic Notes and Reviews

Authorship as Alchemy: Subversive Writing in Pushkin, Scott, Hoffmann, by David Glenn Kropf. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1994. 273 pp.

Although this is a theory-driven book, it differs from many contemporary scholarly works about theory in which the approach appears to be "la théorie pour la théorie," i.e. any application to literary texts is left up to the reader. Quite the contrary, David Kropf, who relies most heavily on Deleuze and Guattari, almost methodically demonstrates how their ideas can be used to elucidate works by Pushkin, Scott, and Hoffmann. Specifically, Kropf borrows from Mille Plateaux the terms hecceity, agencement, milieu, and devenir, making particular use of the concept of hecceity in his discussion of authorial identity, but also of the other terms since they are all interrelated. Kropf takes as his point de départ Foucault’s question, "What is an author?" and responds by distinguishing--as do both Foucault and Bakhtin--between a writer and an author; the former "actually writes a text, [whereas] an author comes into existence only after the work’s publication and reception" (2). Kropf argues that the persona of the "author" came about only in the late 18th and early 19th centuries after literary patronage had ended and the phenomenon of professional writers grew, with the concomitant introduction of copyright laws. These factors plus the changing social position of fiction (greatly increased readership, non-aristocratic authors, rise of the novel) tended to fix or limit writers in a single identity as "author," defined in large part by previous publications. Kropf’s contribution to this writer-vs.-author discussion is the theory that some writers resist being made into authors by subverting their texts.

Kropf precedes his closer investigation of the three authors with a discussion of literary libertines, notably males (Don Juan, Sade’s Clément, Laclos’ Valmont) but also females (Mme. de Merteuil, Justine). In the author’s view the strategies employed by the libertines to resist monogamy, marriage, and thus a single, fixed identity (required by society) and to maintain their freedom and constant "becoming," are the same strategies as those numerous writers have employed to avoid a single, socially-defined literary identity. I find this connection a bit recherché, although in a technical sense it "works." After completing the book, I had the feeling that the first chapter on libertinage was less helpful in developing the writer/author question than the theories of Deleuze and Guattari, and, indeed, might have come more into its own if it had been published as a separate essay. But my thinking on this may have been colored by the perception that Kropf is pursuing numerous agendas simultaneously: a comparison of libertines’ and writers’ means of opposing society’s limitations (and limiting identities); a look at how Deleuze and Guattari’s ideas explain libertinage; a contrastive look at how authors from three different countries resisted being made into authors (and specifically how Deleuze and Guattari can be used to explain these differences); an investigation not only of the difference between writer and author but also of novelist and author; the relationship of imitators, copyists, and plagiarists to the original writer; a consideration of the role played by factors such as copyright laws and professionalism on the "authorizing" of writers; and the contribution of Romantic theories to these issues. Although all of these topics and questions are extremely interesting and to some extent related, it seems fair to say that there is rather a lot going on in this book.

The discussions of Pushkin and Scott are nonetheless quite straightforward. Known in Russia as a poet--especially for "Eugene Onegin"--Pushkin used a pseudonym, "Belkin," when writing the short story "The History of the Village of Goriukino." This may represent an attempt on Pushkin’s part to separate his poetry and prose reputations, but it also allows him to develop a witty parody not only on the historical novel but also on authorial "wannabes": Belkin’s introduction with all the trappings is ultimately longer than his miniscule "history," and Belkin as narrator/writer self-consciously craves authorial recognition and success. Scott shared Pushkin’s dilemma when he too turned to prose, but resolved it differently. Similarly known as a poet, he wrote Waverley anonymously instead of pseudonymously. He was perhaps unsure of his potential success as a writer of historical fiction and was unwilling to risk his reputation as a poet on this first foray into a new genre. Kropf documents a parallel between the behavior of Waverley’s hero and Scott’s own relationship to the text: they assume multiple, changing identities or "hecceities" that are closely related to their changing milieux. Scott subverts authorship of the text not only by initially denying its "paternity" but also by incorporating myriad voices into the text through quoted passages, anecdotes, and even in footnotes.

Kropf conceives of the final chapter on ETA Hoffmann as a fugue in three parts with a prelude and coda, the purpose being, as he explains: "Fugue states entail the flight from one’s socially constitued identity: a person will wander off for hours, days, or even longer periods and establish a new identity during which time no memory is retained of the social structures to which one belongs" (152). He discusses all three types--libertine, author, novelist--in terms of the fugue, using as his exemplary texts "Don Juan," "Das Fräulein von Scuderi," and "Kater Murr." For many readers this will constitute the most interesting--because the most controversial?--chapter. Kropf offers close readings of the three texts and makes a generally convincing case for his interpretations, although one could always quibble with certain interpretations (in an earlier review, Robert Godwin-Jones wrote: "I can’t quite see Cadillac as an author who kills in order to steal back his jewels to ‘prevent himself from falling into the hands of others,’" The Comparatist, v.20, 1996). Hoffmann of course resists authorship in multiple ways: by having Kater Murr write his autobiography, muddling it with a fragmentary biography of Johannes Kreisler, and by confusing his own identity repeatedly with that of Meister Abraham and Kreisler. My only caveat in reading this section was that Kropf almost overlooks Hoffmann’s exquisite sense of humor, wit, and irony, and the parodic elements in many of his works. Hoffmann may well have been resisting authorship, but he may also have been indulging himself (and us) in some delicious absurdities for their own sake.

Authorship as Alchemy is, by its very structure and format, a comparative work, and Kropf is skillful at weaving together inter-textual references; thus for example, we have, in the last chapter, Kater Murr compared with both Waverley (203) and Belkin (205). Because of this constant cross-referencing, it is a very rich and readable book, but the references are largely restricted to the three authors and texts discussed in this work. Readers will have to decide for themselves the possible wider application of Kropf’s analysis to other authors and other works. At least he provides fertile seeds for such an endeavor.

Top of Page | Publications Index | Dr. Elaine Martin Home Page

Dr. Elaine Martin, emartin@woodsquad.as.ua.edu