Volume 50, Issue 2

Even in the ongoing processes of globalisation and digitisation, questions concerning the formation of literary canons persist in the domain of German studies. This enduring relevance is evidenced by the practice of compiling reading lists as a form of orientation aid, a method employed by the majority of institutes. The notion of a canon, being inherently flexible due to its historical and cultural contingencies, renders this practice an indispensable academic service, signifying a continuous endeavour to unravel the dynamic nature of the canon.

We examine a corpus of 42 university reading lists from German departments, providing the first comprehensive empirical study of this type of document in 20 years. The article discusses the paratexts, structure, and content of reading lists and highlights their complex relationships with the academic canon and the process of canonization.

The article investigates an important yet underexamined phenomenon in digital literary communication: the use of “Book Tropes” such as Enemies to Lovers or Forced Proximity by mostly non-professional readers. Book Tropes are examples of self-directed category formation in the digital sphere, showcasing not only differences but also notable similarities to the terminology used in literary studies.

This article examines Jeremias Gotthelf's bridal search stories. It combines the religio-political dimension of Gotthelf's texts with questions of tension research. It is shown that the dynamics of tension generation come into conflict with the values propagated by the text and ultimately lead to an astonishing reversal of values.

This article responds to three attempts to reshape the sociology of literature with reference to (1) ideological criticism (Sapiro), (2) the sociology of conflict (Franzen) and (3) quantitative sociology (Lauer). Assuming that literature and its modes of production and reception have changed significantly under the socio-cultural conditions of late capitalist modernity, this change not only poses new challenges for the sociology of literature but ultimately leads to the persistent problem of autonomy of art and literature. How the approaches discussed here react to this problem is critically summarized with regard to both the current conditions and the history of the sociology of literature. Linked to this summary is the ongoing debate about the open question of the disciplinary classification of literary sociology within the humanities and social sciences.

The question of the relationship between internal and external analysis of literature remains open across disciplinary inquiries. Although Pierre Bourdieu claims to offer a definitive answer to the question, he is underrepresented in the scholarship. This essay provides a Bourdieusian theory of interpretation, explaining, in particular, its affinity for allegory.

This paper examines the concept of ‘publisher authorship’ by highlighting the significant yet often overlooked role of publishers and calls for a sociological analysis of their contributions, networks, and decision-making processes in the shaping of the literary field. The study advocates for a more inclusive literary history that acknowledges marginalized voices and lesser-known publishers.

Studies on poetry lectureships (Poetikdozenturen) also shed light on the role of literary studies in the production, circulation, and reception of literature. While literary scholars already draw on sociological concepts to analyze their symbolic, institutional, and material entanglements within the literary field, this essay proposes to further examine the boundary work they perform through the format of the poetry lectureship.