In my conclusion, I recap the previous chapters and return to the starting problem of the book. I restate the specificity of the thesis of the end of literature, which is based in great part on the theoretical and historical distinction between literature and the other arts. I claim that an analysis of contemporary literature on the basis of the proposed interpretation of the end of literature can confirm the initial assumption and may also lay the groundwork for a more radical hypothesis, i.e. that literature has and always had an ‘end’ in itself as a constitutive part of it. Literature, because of its verbal medium, has always been something beyond art as a sensitive and emotional dimension. Literature after literature finds only literature as a specific art that has had its own end within itself from the very beginning.
KeywordsEnd of literature Hegel Contemporary novel End of art Philosophy of literature
- Pamuk, O. (2010). The Naive and the Sentimental Novelist. The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures 2009. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, Z. (2011). Two Directions for the Novel. In Z. Smith, Changing My Mind. Occasional Essays (pp. 71–96). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Vittorini, E. 2016. Le due tensioni. Matelica: Hacca.Google Scholar