scholarly journals Typology of Heroes’ Images in the Industrial Novel of the 1920-1970s by the Material of the Russian Literature of the Soviet Period

Author(s):  
Anna Anatol'evna Gaganova ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 97-108
Author(s):  
M.A. Sekerina ◽  

Statement of the problem. The research focuses on the specifics of the modern Siberian writers’ understanding of their place in the social and cultural space, the process and mechanisms of finding this place both in practical (everyday) and existential (existential) aspects. The purpose of the article is to consider the forms and methods of organizing writers’ communities in Irkutsk, discourses of self-presentations and their correlations with worldview and geography. Review of the scientific literature on the problem. Humanitarian studies of writers’ communities are few and limited both by certain chronological frames of the object under study (literary communities of the nineteenth century, the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth centuries, the Soviet period) and methodology-wise. Modern writers’ associations, organizations specific both institutionally and ideologically, rarely fall into the prism of humanitarian studies. Methodology (materials and methods). The research is interdisciplinary, which determines the choice of its materials and methods: sociolinguistic (interviews and questionnaires, correlation analysis), discourse analysis, contextual analysis, and cognitive-discursive approach. This article is based on the materials of interviewing and surveying forty-five writers of Irkutsk and the Irkutsk region. Research results. Membership in a certain organization is used as symbolic capital due to the struggle of two discursive practices – explicit “traditionalist” and implicit “other” ones (not designated by its adherents, but, according to their opponents, “anti-traditionalist”). It is the institutional attachment, according to the conflicting parties, that determines the ways of interaction with the culturally significant concepts of “Writer’s Community”, “Reader”, “Russian Literature”, “Siberian Literature”, “Traditions”, and “Innovation”. In geographical and socio-cultural aspects, respondents, by an absolute majority, choose a “national” strategy of self-presentation, inscribing their creativity in the space of Russian literature, in such direction as realism. Conclusion. The analysis of the empirical material allows us to identify two main equivalent tools of self-actualization and self-presentation of the modern Irkutsk writer: 1. Institutional attachment to a particular writers’ community (the Union of Writers of Russia, the Union of Russian Writers, the representative office of the Union of Russian Writers, the Irkutsk Regional Writers’ Organization); 2. The concept of “Great Russian literature” and belonging to it.


2020 ◽  
pp. 501-507
Author(s):  
Mariya A. Lamm ◽  

Sinkova L. D. Between text and discourse: Russian literature of the XX-XXI century: history, comparative studies and criticism (lit. - crit. articles, conversations). - Minsk: Parkus plus, 2013. - 296 P. The main characteristics of the Belarusian literature development in the contest of 20th-21th century are demonstrated throughout the review. The key patterns of the poetics progression in Belarusian literature are revealed, alongside with the most noticeable algorithms of the national aesthetics establishment and the specifics of mythopoetic perception. Meaningful characteristics of Belarusian literature during Soviet period are examined particularly, especially the literature about Second World War. The national aspects of literary comprehension of the experience of German-fascist occupation in Belarusian literature during Soviet period are revealed. The important characteristic of the modern Belarusian literature after the Chernobyl disaster that has started in 1986, is emphasized upon.


2019 ◽  
pp. 117-132
Author(s):  
Elena K. Chkhaidze

One of the last interviews given by Andrey Bitov, often considered a founder of Russian Postmodernism, before his death. His books are a symbiosis of knowledge (of history, culture, and literature) and play, which is perceived as the driver of alternating meanings constantly undergoing a transformation. The idea behind the conversation was not only to clarify the questions left unanswered upon the reading of Bitov’s epic Empire in Four Dimensions [ Imperiya v chetyryokh izmereniyakh ] and other books, but also to identify the foundations of the writer’s views. In one of his last interviews, Bitov discussed his vision of Russia’s imperial identity and Russian mentality, the Soviet regime and the Soviet period, Stalin’s role in history, his attitude to the West, the Russian language, secrets of his books and his favorite authors. Bitov reminisced about his trips to the Soviet republics of Georgia and Armenia, as well as his friendship with R. Gabriadze and G. Matevosyan. The writer offered his original vision of the development of Russian literature in the 19th c. in light of his fascination with astrology.


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-280
Author(s):  
William Mills Todd

Abstract Jeffrey Brooks’ new book, The Firebird and the Fox, draws on an unsurpassed knowledge of Russian literature and culture of all levels, from the folk and popular to the canonical and avant-garde. It divides the “age of genius” (1855–1953) into three periods: the emancipation of the arts (1850–1889), politics and the arts (1890–1916), the Bolshevik Revolution and the arts (1917–1950), each with its own configurations of popular and high culture and construction of creative artists, media, and readers. But three core themes overarch the periods and the exceptionally broad range of phenomena the book discusses: freedom and order, boundaries, art and reality. Throughout Brooks analyzes crossovers and intersections between cultural institutions, between genres and media, and – especially for the Soviet period – between the lines. His categories are at times sociological, historical, and literary. The book implies a theory of cultural production that gives unusual weight to the agency of creative artists. In conclusion readings of three works Brooks does not analyze (Dostoevsky’s Demons, Bely’s Petersburg, and Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky) illustrate the productivity of Brooks’ broad and humane approach to Russian artistic culture.


2021 ◽  
pp. 171-181
Author(s):  
Andrei E. Kunilskiy ◽  

The review draws attention to a great contribution made by Professor Vladimir Zakharov to the study of the history of Russian literature, especially of Dostoevsky’s oeuvre. The longstanding and continuing research of Dostoevsky’s works made him deduce that Russian literature in whole was Christian with its particular evangelic text, Christian chronotope and general paschal, conciliar and salvational character. It is em-phasized that these pivotal concepts do not contradict the complexity (sometimes ambi-guity) of the nature of Russian literature and confirm the relevance of Pyotr Chaadaev’s call to recognize the impact of Christianity wherever and in whatever manner the hu-man thought touches upon it, even with the purpose of competing with it. The articles published in the collection prove the efficiency of Zakharov’s academic research. The articles cover various themes and attract a wide scope of materials, such as Old Russian literature and literature of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, as well as that of the Soviet period and Russian literature abroad. The review takes into consideration the originality and potential of a number of remarks made in the articles, and introduces some clarifi-cations and supplements. Special attention has been paid to the articles dedicated to Dostoevsky’s oeuvre and his relations with other authors. The review emphasizes that one must understand the difference of Dostoevsky from other writers. Thus, with regard to the use of the “poetics of paradox” by Dostoevsky and Osip Senkovsky (as stated in V.A. Koshelev’s article), it is asserted that the concept of paradox and the image of a paradoxer play a significant role in Dostoevsky’s reasoning, but not with the aim of brandishing his originality and pinpointing the comic and absurd character of objective reality. In Dostoevsky, ideas inconsistent with common notions yet comprising the truth turn out to be paradoxical. The review also draws attention to differences in the out-looks of Dostoevsky and Chekhov, thus entering into a debate with the researcher N.V. Prashcheruk regarding the spiritual kinship of the two great Russian writers. The review distinguishes the articles of V.A. Viktorovich, B.N. Tarasov, and B.N. Tikhomirov for the abundance of sources, accuracy and consistency of their key theses. The academic hypothesis stated by I.A. Esaulov about two cultural currents (European culture of Modern Times and Christian tradition) influencing the formation of Russian literature should be taken into account when creating the history of national literature that must capture the essence and character of its genesis correctly. The review states that articles on Old Russian literature (L.V. Sokolova, T.F. Volkova, A.V. Pigin) are characterized by a detailed study of the material and a broad philological background on the whole. Finally, the review states that the collection has again proved the diversity of Zakha-rov’s research interests, the potential of his ideas as well as his own beneficial role in the activity of Russian and international philological community.


2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 883-903
Author(s):  
Evgeny A. Rostovtsev ◽  

The attention of the author of this paper is focused on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (Slovo o polku Igoreve), a famous work of Russian literature. Before the revolution the text was included in the school curriculum, and within the period of 1850–1917 its separate editions exceeded 150. The early Soviet period was marked by a brief decline of the popularity of the “Tale”, but since mid-1930s, the number of its separate editions started to grow, and the negative or indifferent comments on Prince Igor Sviatoslavich in Soviet encyclopedias were replaced by the favorable ones. The heroization of its characters during the Great Patriotic War also contributed to the popularity of the “Tale”. After the war, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was effectively used again as a symbol of the unity of three brotherly nations — Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian. The celebrations of different anniversaries, such as the 750th anniversary of the “Tale” and 150th anniversary of its first publication were also typical of the Soviet era. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the “Tale” has become an object of rivalry between Russia and Ukraine. Each country claims to be the only true heir of the “Tale”, actively contributing to its popularization via publications, the organization of commemorative events and the introduction of its text into school curriculums. However, further prospects of the “Tale” commemoration-wise are quite obscure — the article argues that the “Tale” (as well as many other literary works) does not constitute an effective tool for building of national past.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document