Literatura e direito na crise da superinterpretação

Abstract

This is a study of Law and Literature (of Law as Literature, more specifically) that addresses the theme of overinterpretation from its original concept, outlined by Umberto Eco, to its repercussions in debates on legal interpretation. The research aimed to qualitatively address the most relevant findings on the subject that have already been produced in the bibliography, based on the hypothesis that the scenario of crisis of overinterpretation in Law represents the need for jurists to expand their horizons of study beyond the limitations of legal technique; in this case, to the field of Literature, whose technique is very different from legal technique, but is directly related to it, given that in a certain sense both Literature and Law exist to fictionalize human life. From the analysis, it was possible to conclude that the freedom of literary language to project multiple realities based on different perspectives of the world without the commitment to decide on just one of them gives it enormous potential to broaden the horizons of jurists, contrary to the reductive view of those who, believing they have the superpower to unveil obscure truths, do not pay attention to the minimum limits of the semantics of legal texts. Thus, and observing the relationship between the training of the jurist and the way in which he interprets a legal text, the importance of integrating the study of Law with that of Literature becomes clear in order to preserve the criticality of interpreters and to contain the crisis scenario of overinterpretation in legal practice.