Page 415 [415]
OCR
ESZTER TARJÁNYI tries to illustrate the distinct character of the fait divers that distinguishes it from other items of (daily) news by describing the difference between a political murder and an ordinary murder, which is an everyday event. While a political murder is embedded in the context of politically determined background information, news about a common murder does not have any such aspects regarding the background of the case, nor does it explain the cause by highlighting any political correlations. Ihus Barthes highlights a relevant feature that compares both the fait divers and the anecdote to the joke: they cannot be interpreted, and commentaries merely weaken the effect. Any attempt at explanation kills its spontaneity and obvious immanence. The anecdote, like the joke, is a form that defies interpretation. In Joel Finemann’s study aimed at clarifying the historical view of New Historicism, the anecdote appears as an intrinsic entity, as the fait divers does in Barthes’ quasi-structuralist analysis. With Finemann, however, the focus is not on its present-relatedness, but instead its correlation with history is underlined. The anecdote here is a “historeme”, which is the “smallest minimal unit of the historiographic fact”.’® This definition is the closest to the Hungarian one, although our usage is supplemented with the national consciousness, which adds a special flavour to its composition. The strong connection between the anecdote and national sentiment in Hungary, which is probably also a result of Bela Töth’s activities as a collector and editor, is manifested in most of the dialogical stories in our anecdotes, with the Hungarian side being victorious at the narrative level. In the punchlines, national sentiment gains the upper hand through witty ripostes and brilliant analyses of situations, even in anecdotes in which our political and historical position is that of the vanquished. The narrative formation of the text is capable of reevaluating the actual historical situation. This particular quality of the Hungarian anecdote, as both constructing and building on the cultural memory of the nation, modifies its characteristic as merely a source of information and makes it a sort of mutant that can enrich the West-European spectrum. Consequently, the Hungarian anecdote differs from its Western counterparts in yet another field, in that it cannot be regarded as a “historeme” providing complete and immanent information for all its readers. Béla Téth’s anecdotes assume that the reader possesses a knowledge of Hungary’s historyas background information. Moreover, the story involves the recipient taking sides, as the sympathy of the reader, who naturally is strongly committed to national issues, is always won by the Hungarian side, even if we know that the reality behind the story reflects the position of the loser. The story itself is actually revealed 16 Joel Fineman: The History of the Anecdote, in H. Aram Veeser (ed.): The New Historicism, New York, London, Routlege, 1989, 56-57. ° 414 +
