The Canonisation of an “Absent” Author

Abstract

The author as a literary producer is inextricably linked with other related roles in a literary system: those of mediator, receiver, editor, critic. In this regard, Kosovel’s case seems particularly interesting, since as a literary producer Kosovel did not actively engage in systemic relations, or rather, the impact of his very few engagements in his short life (scarce publications, editorial work, socialising) is negligible in comparison to what was “done for” Kosovel by those who have taken it upon themselves to do what in normal circumstances is undertaken or at least directed and supervised by the literary producer him/herself. Thus it is possible to claim that the canonisation of Kosovel, today unanimously regarded as not only one of the best Slovenian poets, but also the most radical representative of the historical avant-garde, had taken a course which totally “bypassed” the poet. Posthumously, Kosovel victoriously entered the literary arena, but the primary role was played by other actors in the literary system, since he left no instructions as to what should be done with his extensive and hierarchically disordered legacy. For this reason he seems all the more interesting a case study for various processes in the literary system and the author’s role in them. By the same token, most discussions of Kosovel and his work to date have overlooked this important context, approaching “Kosovel” as something pre-given and at disposal, which can easily lead to simplifications.