Modern literary inner form takes production and labor as its hidden subject
Evidence
When we turn now from popular culture to the more sophisticated artifacts of official literature, we find that the fact of artistic elaboration adds a new complexity to the structure of the work without essentially altering the model we have given. In particular, art-literature can be said to reckon the whole value of its own creation itself into the process, so that the inner form of literary works, at least in modern times, can be said to have as their subject either production as such or literary production as well—both being in any case distinct from the ostensible or manifest content of the work. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 778
Categorization
- XREF: The ‘inner form as production’ claim anticipates and feeds into Jameson’s later Political Unconscious; connects to his notion of ‘inner form’ distinguishing official literature from popular culture. — connects to: Literary form depends on the deep logic of its raw material — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 389; The commodity structure shapes language itself in modern literature. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 757; The commodity form’s ersion of labor extends into art itself — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 777 (+1 more)
Broader Connections
- Literary forms depend on the social structure of the experience they arise from.
#corroborates(0.85) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 697 - Literary form depends on the deep logic of its raw material
#corroborates(0.80) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 389 - The commodity form’s ersion of labor extends into art itself
#expands(0.80) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 777 - The commodity structure shapes language itself in modern literature.
#qualifies(0.75) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 757