Lukács’s distinction shaped Adorno’s and Kracauer’s understanding of the novel.

Evidence

In the spring of 1921, in his last year at school, he discovered Lukács’s Theory of the Novel. Kracauer, at the same time, wrote a forceful review for the Frankfurt Blätter für Kunst und Literatur (Magazine for Art and Literature) of this essay in the philosophy of history on the forms of great epic', with its distinction between the classical epics, on the one hand, as a form of epic writing concerned with the closed culture’ of a world filled with gods and with meaning, and the novel, on the other, as a form of epic writing concerned with the problematic culture of a world which had been abandoned by gods and meaning, an epoch of perfect sinfulness. In Kracauer’s eyes, Lukács had recognized what was important: to keep alive the flame of longing', longing for vanished meaning’. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 263

Categorization

• DEFINE: Lukács’s epic-vs-novel distinction: epic as literature of a ‘closed culture’ full of gods; novel as literature of a world abandoned by meaning.
• XREF: This is the seed of much Frankfurt aesthetic theory and links to literary critics who later absorb Lukács (e.g. Jameson). — connects to: Adorno’s early encounter with Lukács seeded a lifelong theoretical rift — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 116; Kracauer taught Adorno to read Kant as coded historical writing — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 263; Lukacs’s closed-versus-problematic epic distinction shaped early Frankfurt reading
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 263

Broader Connections

• Adorno’s early encounter with Lukács seeded a lifelong theoretical rift #qualifies (0.75) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 116
• Kracauer taught Adorno to read Kant as coded historical writing #corroborates (0.72) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 263