In 1935, Bartol's collection of short stories Al Araf was published. Due to the distinctive way of writing at that time, it received numerous critiques, which were before the war mainly negative. Situation changed a bit after the war, and positive critiques were mainly written in the new millennium. From a crowd of critics that dealt with Bartol I chose three, among which everyone is a representative of a certain period. I analysed their opinions in detail. Milena Mohorič, a representative of the pre-war period, gave a positive critique with exception of the story titled Izpovedi gospe Forcesinove. Therefore, she represented an exception in her period of time. She summarized her opinion on Bartol's work in the second January issue of the publication Modre ptice (1935/36). Her article on pages 33-40 is titled Vladimir Bartol: (Thoughts on his book Al Araf). Boris Paternu mainly dealt with the language in Bartol's Al Araf, and also his critique is not entirely negative. He had thoroughly analysed Al Araf in 2002, when the collection was republished, in his accompanying study Bartols' Al Araf (p. 326-338). In my opinion, the most objective and the one that captured the essence of Bartol's writing the most, is the critique by Taras Kermauner, whom I present as the last among the trinity. In 1974, he wrote an afterword to Demon in eros which he titled Vladimir Bartol - predecessor of contemporary Slovenian modern literature (p. 423-445). At the end of the graduation thesis, I also substantiate my opinion.
|
