in the manner of Hitchcock, across a corridor at Watermouth University in The History Man. John Barth corresponds with his characters in Letters. He explains as ‘J.B.’ his role along with the computer WESAC in producing the novel Giles Goat-Boy (1966) in the first few pages of the novel. B. S. Johnson foregrounds autobiographical ‘facts’, reminding the reader in Trawl (1966): ‘I . . . always with I . . . one starts from . . . one and I share the same character’ (p. 9). Or, in See the Old Lady Decently, he breaks off a description in the story and informs the reader: ‘I have just broken off to pacify my daughter . . . my father thinks she is the image of my mother, my daughter’ (p. 27). Steve Katz worries in The Exaggerations of Peter Prince (1968) – among many other things – about the fact that he is writing the novel under fluorescent light, and wonders how even this aspect of the contemporary technological world will affect its literary products. Alternatively, novelists may introduce friends or fellow writers into their work. Thus, irreverently, in Ronald Sukenick’s 98.6 (1975) the ‘hero’ decides to seduce a girl and her roommate: ‘Besides the roommate is a girl who claims to be the lover of Richard Brautigan maybe she knows something. . . . I mean here is a girl saturated with Richard Brautigan’s sperm’ (p. 26). Federman, Sukenick, Katz and Doctorow make appearances in each others’ novels. Steve Katz, in fact, appeared in Ronald Sukenick’s novel Up (1968) before his own first novel, The Exaggerations of Peter Prince, had been published (in which Sukenick, of course, in turn appears). Vladimir Nabokov playfully introduces himself into his novels very often through anagrams of variations on his name: Vivian Badlock, Vivian Bloodmark, Vivian Darkbloom, Adam von Librikov (VVN is a pun on the author’s initials). Occasionally authors may wish to remind the reader of their powers of invention for fear that readers may assume fictional information to be disguised autobiography. Raymond Federman writes:

Metafiction ◽  
2002 ◽  
pp. 142-142
1966 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Noland
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 50-63
Author(s):  
Edinalva Melo Fontenele

Considerando que muitos livros desenvolvem nossa capacidade de identificação imaginativa e de disposição para evitar a crueldade, aproveitamos as sugestões de Richard Rorty e utilizamos o romance Lolita, de Vladimir Nabokov, como cenário para a redescrição da crueldade. Cabendo prontamente nos critérios liberais rortyanos de combate à crueldade, esse romance nos possibilita perceber os efeitos que as nossas próprias idiossincrasias privadas podem ter sobre a vida de outras pessoas. Dono de metáforas fortes, vívidas, Lolita nos permite abordar o que chamamos de "a pequena crueldade", a crueldade que um indivíduo pode infligir a outro sem sequer notar que é cruel.Abstract: Whereas many books develop our capacity for imaginative identification and disposal to prevent cruelty, we take the suggestions of Richard Rorty and use the novel Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov, as a setting for the redescription of cruelty. By fitting the rortyan liberal criteria to combat cruelty, this novel allows us to understand the effects that our own idiosyncrasies may have on the lives of others. With strong, vivid metaphors, Lolita allows us to address what we call "the little cruelty", the cruelty that one can inflict on another individual without even noticing he is cruel. Keywords: Cruelty - Lolita - Redescription - Richard Rorty.


Author(s):  
Yuliia Honcharova ◽  
Victoriia Lipina

The idea advanced in the paper is to theorize the mechanisms of autobiographicality in Stephen Dixon’s novels that are viewed as a radical renewal of autobiographical narrative, where the modality of disappearance/return of the subject produces a new mode of life-writing. We propose the term “autobiographical transgression” to capture the essence of this renewal started by three representative figures – John Barth, Stephen Dixon, and Joseph Heller that can be reduced neither to autobiography as a genre, nor to “transgressive autobiography” as its generic variant. Dixon finds a new form for representing autos. He creates the character with the name-deixis I. that personifies a fiduciary subject, thus, suggesting a provocative restatement of postmodernist generic problems. In the novels I. and End of I. the autobiographical hero I. exists simultaneously as a metaphor of the author’s presence in the text, as the subjective author’s I and as a character in the novel − an objectified, semi-functional, distancing I. The transplanting of life experience manifests itself in a special kind of repersonalization and double coding of the traditional autobiographical subject.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (15) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Valčić

Suprotno nekim novijim tendencijama pisaca američke književnosti kao što su Saul Bellow koji prikazuje neartikuliranost svojih junaka kao odraz destruktivnog kaosa što ga stvaraju njihovi mozgovi — analitička razmišljanja, postoje i pisci — John Barth, Vladimir Nabokov koji stvaraju mentalni red, ne iz kaosa već putem inventivne imaginacije. Ti pisci u svojim tendencijama da prikažu svijet kao zagonetku često ruše tradicionalnu vezu između svijeta tišine i svijeta kolokvijalnog izraza. No veza s tradicijom da se naslutiti čak i u okviru novih formi, posebice je to uočljivo kod Thomasa Pynchona. Pynchon je pisac koji se bavi problemom komunikacije, jezičnog izražaja te njegovih poruka ili »curki« u porukama. Prikazana je poruka i sistem komunikacije u noveli The Crying of Lot 49, noveli detektivskog žanra i poruke koje se naslućuju preko glavnih aktera radnje u toj noveli. Prikazan je negativni alternativnii status Pynchove vizije tihe, razbaštinjene mase otpadnika iz društva, što je zapravo ne samoisključivo Pynchova vizija, već i drugih američkih pisaca, od Thoreaua — transcendentalista do Hemingwaya, Fitzgeralda, Faulknera. Taj tihi, bezimeni svijet doista demoralizira, ali ostaje otvoreno pitanje pozitivne poruke i pokušaja komunikacije sadržane u neartikuliranoj afirmaciji.


Semiotika ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 24-65
Author(s):  
Irina Melnikova

The paper focuses on the issue of iconicity of (printed) literary narrative and proposes the idea of iconic reading (or iconicity of reading). It discusses Peircean notion of iconic sign, examines its use within the field of iconicity studies in language and literature (Olga Fischer, Christina Ljungberg, Winfried Nöth, etc.), and considers the differences of paradigms in iconicity research: (1) iconicity as a permanent property of a sign; imitation pattern – form mimes meaning; (2) iconicity as a variable quality of a sign, actualized by the speaker; imitation pattern – form miming form; (3) iconicity as the ground of human thought and a function of a sign, actualized by the reader / reading. Consideration of the differences within the field of iconicity research helps to reveal the underestimated textual aspects that actualize iconic dimension of literary narrative, and inspires to examine their role in the analysis of Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, precisely, its “Foreword” (both original English and Russian versions). The analysis of the fictional “Foreword”, which establishes the pattern of iconization of the novel as a whole, and inevitably includes the references to its “main” part, shows how the novel iconizes writing. Withal, the analysis demonstrates how this iconization configures the particular model of reading, which becomes the representamen of the specific cognitive icon. The mental representamen of this icon “stands for” the specific object – the text as the tangible media product, marked by the structural and discursive traits of its own. Respectively, such (cognitive) icon represents the pattern of mimetic relationship between form and meaning, introduced by Lars Elleström (2010), – meaning mimes form, worthy of further consideration.


Author(s):  
Natalia Popovich

The intellectual prose of Vladimir Nabokov is not easy to be filmed. Thus, filmmakers have made a lot of changes in the original text. The goal of The Luzhin Defence creators’ was to show a completely new interpretation of Nabokov’s novel and present it to the public. This is why they simplified the plot, added some dynamism, made it more epic and attractive (love triangle, Luzhin’s mother’ suicide, erotic scenes, conspiracy, kidnapping, failed wedding). Luzhin’s childhood has been presented as a series of flashbacks. The hierarchy of characters has been changed: two equivalent characters are in the center (Luzhin and Natalia). All other characters have been given their first names and their biography. The film is spiced with feminism: the female character is stronger than in the novel and the story of a chess player (Luzhin) is presented from the feminist director’s point of view. Love story is placed in the center of the plot and it covers the topic of the game of chess. The motif of chess is connected with an extra independent character providing comments about chess to a viewer. Nabokov’s idea about the transcendental nature of arts, madness as the price for being a genius, is not presented in the film. The conflict in the film is not about metaphysics, but about intrigues and envy. Additionally, the plot has been complemented with an epilog to Nabokov’s story. After Luzhin’s suicide Natalia finishes the championship chess match by following his notes about the game and takes a revenge.


1983 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 115-134
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn Kegley

Though John Barth won the National Book Award for his novel, Giles Goat Boy, his second novel, The End of the Road, proves a more interesting case study for our purposes, namely, to explore the relationship between philosophy and literature. This is so for at least three reasons. First, by the author's own admission, the novel is intended as a refutation of ethical subjectivism, particularly as expoused by Jean Paul Sartre. Secondly, in the novel, Barth, like Virginia Woolf in To the Lighthouse, places reason and imagination in contention, suggesting that either faculty in isolation is inadequate in dealing with human experience. Both Barth and Woolf are reflecting and probably criticizing the assumption of a number of contemporary writers and critics, namely, that rational discourse is inadequate to the task of ordering the chaotic, fragmentary world and giving meaning to life and only the poet (novelist) employing his imagination can do this.


1983 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 115-134
Author(s):  
Jacquelyn Kegley

Though John Barth won the National Book Award for his novel, Giles Goat Boy, his second novel, The End of the Road, proves a more interesting case study for our purposes, namely, to explore the relationship between philosophy and literature. This is so for at least three reasons. First, by the author's own admission, the novel is intended as a refutation of ethical subjectivism, particularly as expoused by Jean Paul Sartre. Secondly, in the novel, Barth, like Virginia Woolf in To the Lighthouse, places reason and imagination in contention, suggesting that either faculty in isolation is inadequate in dealing with human experience. Both Barth and Woolf are reflecting and probably criticizing the assumption of a number of contemporary writers and critics, namely, that rational discourse is inadequate to the task of ordering the chaotic, fragmentary world and giving meaning to life and only the poet (novelist) employing his imagination can do this.


Slavic Review ◽  
1968 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl R. Proffer

It is difficult to think of any writer of any century who has displayed such a wide range of verbal talent as Vladimir Nabokov. His flashing prose has earned him an important place both in American and in Russian literature. Original prose and poetry, translations of prose and poetry, meticulous scholarly criticism and commentary, devastating literary polemic—everything seems within his range. But Nabokov’s chameleonic transformations from Russian into English and English into Russian are particularly fascinating to watch. He has translated (or helped translate) his own Russian novels, including Priglashenie na kazn’, Zashchita Luzhina, and Dar, into English; he has translated English works including Pnin, Speak, Memory, and, most recently, Lolita into Russian. The metamorphosis of Otchaianie into Despair is a special case, because while translating the novel Nabokov made certain revisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document