Henry Foe's dilemma

In 1722, Daniel Defoe published A Journal of the Plague Year – a supposed account of the ‘great plague’ of 1665. It is commonly thought to be one of his most incisive pieces of ‘realist’ fiction. And, in our moment, one of his most prescient. The purpose of this paper is to revisit Defoe's Journal in order to stimulate reflection on our present experience of living through the ‘plague year’ of 2020. There is much, as we shall see, about governance during a plague that is resonant – but much also about ‘hearts melted into tears’, about suffering, how it is felt and how it is perceived. The purpose of the Journal, according to Defoe at least, was to inform ‘those who come after’, so that they might be better prepared, so that they would not make the same mistakes. We will see.

Duality in novels and films about pandemics

Both literature and films have been dealing with a disease outbreak for a long time. This paper will deal with the metaphorical aspect of viruses especially in the view of today’s pandemics. First, a brief overview of such novels and films will be given starting with Daniel Defoe and his A Journal of the Plague Year and films such as Twelve Monkeys, Contagion, Outbreak. The emphasis will not be on the virus itself but on its metaphorical meaning and the duality in novels and films – e.g. between good and evil, order and chaos. The paper will mostly focus on the novels The Stand by Stephen King, and the film Twelve Monkeys. The main idea which connects them all would be a virus as a metaphor, the end of humanity, and everlasting fight between good and evil.

J. M. Coetzee and the Failures of Reason

<p>In a speech delivered in Stockholm in acceptance of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Literature, J.M. Coetzee told the story of Robinson Crusoe's life as a wealthy but haunted writer following his return to English society. Entitled "He and his Man," this brief narrative focuses on the absolute gap between the purportedly self-aware individual and the linguistic subject that stands behind the works of fiction set down on paper by this individual's hand; the imaginary figure - perhaps corresponding to Daniel Defoe himself, creator of the original Robinson Crusoe - who travels about the countryside collecting fantastical stories even as the writer sits at his desk waiting for inspiration to come. Crusoe himself lives a quiet life that for the most part involves walking the seashore and writing, and wonders what relation he, a man with an eventful but narrow past, can have to this shadow self that is the source of his stories:</p>

SOCIAL PROTEST AND THE RISE OF THE NOVEL

The early eighteenth century witnessed the early development of the dominant literary form of modern times, the novel. The novel emerged as a form with structure and interplay between individuals and their relationships to society. As a new form, the novel tends to make some significant, critical, and social statements about the society. Hence, the novel is used to create a new environment that is related to life and people. Indeed, this is what makes the novel appeal to readers as a new genre. Novelists either try to deal with daily social problems that happen in the lives of people or pretend that they are telling real stories. It is not surprising to find that Daniel Defoe molds his Robinson Crusoe (1719)on a real story while Samuel Richardson in Pamela (1740) turns out to be didactic to meet the needs of the growing numbers of female readers. On his part, Henry Fielding tries to expose his society to the readers in his masterpiece The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling (1749); from now on Tom Jones. Accordingly, the novel becomes popular at this time because it has something relevant to the mob; it deals with their social life, and they can identify themselves with its characters in the actual daily life. Through Tom Jones, Fielding presented “a true and realistic picture of human nature” (Kettle, 71). As long as its main concern is the existing society, novelists feel so involved that their criticism becomes direct, frank, and effective. My paper deals with these concerns as depicted in the novels mentioned above.

J. M. Coetzee and the Failures of Reason

<p>In a speech delivered in Stockholm in acceptance of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Literature, J.M. Coetzee told the story of Robinson Crusoe's life as a wealthy but haunted writer following his return to English society. Entitled "He and his Man," this brief narrative focuses on the absolute gap between the purportedly self-aware individual and the linguistic subject that stands behind the works of fiction set down on paper by this individual's hand; the imaginary figure - perhaps corresponding to Daniel Defoe himself, creator of the original Robinson Crusoe - who travels about the countryside collecting fantastical stories even as the writer sits at his desk waiting for inspiration to come. Crusoe himself lives a quiet life that for the most part involves walking the seashore and writing, and wonders what relation he, a man with an eventful but narrow past, can have to this shadow self that is the source of his stories:</p>

Natural Disasters and the Rise of the Modern Prometheus

The aim of this paper is to present a specific literary evolution in the context of catastrophes brought by war, revolutions, pandemics, and natural disaster. Discussing works by Daniel Defoe and the Byron–Shelley circle, we will observe how traumatic events influenced literary and artistic expression, reflecting the social, political, and historical context of the authors’ lives. People tend to relate to heroes and myths more easily in times of crisis, hoping to find force and motivation in their fight for survival and improvement. The myth of Prometheus as a benefactor of mankind was one of the most influential for romantics, with Byron and Shelley casting him as a revolutionary hero that helps man combat the tyranny of his oppressors. Mythopoeic romantic poets such as Blake, Byron, and Shelley hoped to animate their fellows with their revolutionary creation into fighting against autocracy and for their liberties. Mary Shelley, on the other hand, turned Prometheus from the mythical ancient hero of humanity into the modern romantic anti-hero, creating in the process the first modern work of science-fiction.

Epidemic as Metaphor: the Allegorical Significance of Epidemic Accounts in Literature

"Epidemic as Metaphor: The Allegorical Significance of Epidemic Accounts in Literature. Our paper searches for those common elements in selected literary representations of the plagues that have affected humanity. As a theoretical framework for our research, we have considered the contributions of Peta Michell, who equals pandemic with contagion and sees it as a metaphor; Susan Sontag views illness as a punishment or a sign, the subject of a metaphorization. Christa Jansohn sees the pest as a metaphor for an extreme form of collective calamity. For René Girard, the medical plague is a metaphor for the social plague, and Gilles Deleuze thinks that fabulation is a “health enterprise.” From the vast library of the pandemic, we have selected examples from Antiquity to the 19th century: Thucydides, Lucretius, Boccaccio, Daniel Defoe, Mary Shelley, Edgar Allan Poe, and Jack London. For Camus, the plague is an allegory of evil, oppression and war. Our paper explores the lessons learned from these texts, irrespective of their degree of factuality or fictionality, pointing out how the plague is used metaphorically and allegorically to reveal a more profound truth about different societies and humanity. Keywords: epidemic, plague, The Decameron (Boccaccio), A Journal of the Plague Year (Daniel Defoe), King Pest (Edgar Allan Poe), The Last Man (Mary Shelley), The Nature of Things (Lucretius), The Plague (Albert Camus), The Scarlet Plague (Jack London), The War of the Peloponnesians (Thucydides) "

Kolonizacja wewnętrzna Rosji w ujęciu Aleksandra Etkinda

The article aims to present the most important theses contained in the book of an outstanding Russian postcolonial researcher Alexander Etkind. At the heart of his deliberations lies the assumption that the Russian empire not only dominated foreign territories, but also native territories located in the central governorates of the state. The process was accompanied by colonization of the local population, above all — peasants. Etkind considers the Russian serfdom law and rural community as typical colonial institutions. His interests remain in some writers’ attempts to explain the phenomenon of internal colonization. A combination of methods used in historical and literary research results in an interesting interpretation of texts written by Daniel Defoe, Leo Tolstoy, Nikolai Gogol, Joseph Conrad, Immanuel Kant and Mikhail Bakhtin, reflecting their authors’ imperial experience. In the article, I focus on the issues included in the introduction and the first two parts of the book.