Banca de QUALIFICAÇÃO: ERICK CAMILO DA SILVA GOUVEIA

CRITICISM AND LITERARY CONSTRUCTION IN THE QUEEN OF JAILS OF GREECE AND DOM CASMURRO

Comparativism; Mimesis of Production; Dom Casmurro, by Machado de Assis; A rainha dos Cárceres da Grécia, by Osman Lins

The fictional field calls into question the determinations of legitimized/legitimizing discourses about a truth. Although the fictional has been vetoed throughout history, in favor of a presumed truth, it is through this 

same fictional that the escape door to the veto is opened (limitations of what can be represented; or of the credible), due to its destabilizing possibility of that that founds the real:mmeveryday representations. 

To conclude the issue of mimesis, returning to the point of its constitution as the production of difference on a background of similarity, according to Luiz Costa Lima, the fiction writer produces difference because 

reality, in its transgression towards the literary text, appears in its absence , that is, through its “unrealization” (according to Iser, 2013). So, if the role of the fiction writer is to create “unrealities” and not recognitions – 

although for the author these creations arrive as reality and, on the other hand, for the receiver, these creations arrive as resemblance –, it is nevertheless an “irrealization”, “ It is this seminal unreality that he will 

supplement with his reading, i.e., ultimately, with his interpretation (Lima, 2007, p. 809). This is the mimesis theorizedby Luiz Costa Lima, not as imitatio, but as “mimesis of production”, by escaping copying. In our view, the route,

 even with the danger of being simplified, due to the project condition of this presentation is necessary to understand the free character, of the works in question, of the imposition of the mere duplication of the real, 

undertaken both in Dom Casmurro, as in The Queen of the Cáceres of Greece. Therefore, we want to understand, firstly, the aim of promoting a certain novelistic paradigm, by using the “mimesis of production” (Lima, 2007); and, secondly, also when using the same concept, the apprehension of its questioning of the place of literary criticism and/or academic writing.

 In other words, how do these novels use this understanding of mimesis to promote the disruption of the discourse established in these two aspects? This is our central problem.