APA 6th Edition Gašparović, D. (1989). Krleža spram modernizma. FLUMINENSIA, 1 (1), 13-20. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/132610
MLA 8th Edition Gašparović, Darko. "Krleža spram modernizma." FLUMINENSIA, vol. 1, br. 1, 1989, str. 13-20. https://hrcak.srce.hr/132610. Citirano 24.06.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition Gašparović, Darko. "Krleža spram modernizma." FLUMINENSIA 1, br. 1 (1989): 13-20. https://hrcak.srce.hr/132610
Harvard Gašparović, D. (1989). 'Krleža spram modernizma', FLUMINENSIA, 1(1), str. 13-20. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/132610 (Datum pristupa: 24.06.2021.)
Vancouver Gašparović D. Krleža spram modernizma. FLUMINENSIA [Internet]. 1989 [pristupljeno 24.06.2021.];1(1):13-20. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/132610
IEEE D. Gašparović, "Krleža spram modernizma", FLUMINENSIA, vol.1, br. 1, str. 13-20, 1989. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/132610. [Citirano: 24.06.2021.]
Sažetak The text enquires into the Krleža/modemism relationship, starting with the valid point of the thesis that Krleza's relationship to this stylistic form and everything it represent was always one of idiosyncrasy. For the sake of establishing the causes and reasons for these relations, the author firstly determines the idea of tradition which is defined as "constantly dynamic presence of everything that is inherent within an immediate or broader social community in each concrete historic moment". Noticing the continuous antinomies and paradoxes that accompany the whole of Krleža's activities, we come to the question of reductionism and its type in relation to tradition in Krleža. The central place of Krleža's challenge of tradition is found in his youthful polemic pamphlet Hrvatska književna laž (The Croatian Literary Lie), Plamen, 1919, and the central part of this article is dedicated to his analysis. The conclusion is that Krleža, not only in the prime of his life and writing, but from the very beginning, tends towards the status of the classic, and yet, paradoxically again, he became an anti-classic classic. Further on, enquiries are made into Krleža's relationship to various segments of the Croatian literary tradition, placing particular interest on his relations towards stylistic complexes of realism and modernism. As a paradigm of his relationship towards modernism the author stresses his consistent ignoring of the opus of Janko Polić Kamov, which he establishes arises from essentially ideological, not aesthetical reasons. Conclusively, the author counterpoints the spiritual etymons between Krleža and Tin Ujević.