@article{5d16ce4c-9f0d-497c-b875-a6807af3f661,
author = { Dominique Rougé},
title = {<p>
	Le romancier, l’écrivain et Dieu</p>},
journal = {Romanica Cracoviensia},
volume = {Tom 9 (2009)},
year = {2009},
doi = {},
issn = {1732-8705},
pages = {92-100},keywords = {},
abstract = {<p>
	In his famous paper from 1939, entitled “M. François Mauriac et la liberté” [Eng. transl.<br />
	“François Mauriac and freedom”], Jean-Paul Sartre argues polemically with F. Mauriac about his<br />
	novel La fin de la nuit [Eng. transl. The End of the Night]. He accuses him of not allowing any<br />
	latitude to his characters, of considering himself as their owner, of beeing God who knows everything<br />
	about his creatures and disposes them his own fussy way. F. Mauriac has anticipated this criticism<br />
	previously in 1933, in his text entitled “Le romancier et ses personnages” [‘The Novelist and his<br />
	Characters’], in which he wards off considering himself a God and writes, that novelists are only the<br />
	Almighty’s monkies. Mauriac says, that in his novels he combines elements cominf from reality and<br />
	fruits of his imagination.<br />
	Next Milan Kundera, particularly in his novel L’art du roman [Eng. transl. The Art of the Novel]<br />
	criticizes sharply novelist, who, just like Sartre or Mauriac, make use of their characters to hand down<br />
	their ideas. He says, that they should be demoted to writers. According to him, no one is the owner of<br />
	novel’s characters, even their author. However, paradoxically, Kundera dedicates a lot of time to<br />
	explain to his readers this what he wrote and to his feeling of betrayal and of incomprehension from<br />
	his critics and translators.<br />
	In reading of those three novelists, it seems that all of them more or less conciously aspire to the<br />
	role of master of the way of thinking about the literary art.</p>},
url = {https://ejournals.eu/czasopismo/romanica-cracoviensia/artykul/le-romancier-lecrivain-et-dieu}
}