novel

The subject of the current article is Foucault's analysis of the ontology of the novel. This research provides an interdisciplinary reading indicating that the ontology of the novel is based on the deconstruction of home’s concept: novel characters, unlike the heroic characters of Greek mythology and the Bible, constantly depart from home to discover the unknown realm of existence or a new dimension of humanity. There is a direct relationship between this transcendental homelessness and the novel's ontology. The results of the current research have shown that the conceptualization of home has yielded specific outcomes: 1. The novel has replaced similarity-based ethics with difference-based ethics. 2. Home is not a fixed and unchanging concept, but rather a construct. 3. The novel's adventure is a journey from the known to the unknown realms. 4. The novel is not in pursuit of utopia but rather maps out heterotopias as realms of diversity and abundance. The clear implication of this research is that the difference between the novel and the epic is not merely a genre difference but rather an ontological difference

The central focus of this article with an interdisciplinary approach revolves around the common concern shared by Hannah Arendt and Milan Kundera: the perils of history for the individual. A general question to ask in this research is why Arendt and Kundera in their books distrust History’s forces. This implies that the individual, under the influence of impersonal appeals and invisible hands, erases oneself from memory and surrenders to suprahuman forces. Totalitarianism has consistently drawn the individual into submission through the support of these suprahuman historical forces. Hence, according to Arendt, Eichmann, for instance, was corrupted by history, as he was stripped of any personal decision-making and choice, solely entrusting himself to the quasi-divine voice of history. Beyond these historical strategies, any transformative action becomes impossible. Returning to action (in Arendt's terms) and guarding the legacy of the novel (in Kundera's terms) constitute resistance against such historical overreach. In Arendt's view, every action initiates its narrative, while, according to Kundera, the novel's memory records experiences forgotten by official history. As a result, Arendt and Kundera prefer personal history over public history, action over reaction, and decision over command. Therefore, Arendt emphasizes the significance of action, and Kundera underscores the independence of the novel against history. Both advocate loyalty to a poetic individuality that is increasingly fading into oblivion in the modern era.