Nabokov in Motion: Modernity and Movement by Yuri Leving (review)

IF 0.2 3区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY SLAVONIC AND EAST EUROPEAN REVIEW Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1353/see.2022.0084
Tim Harte
{"title":"Nabokov in Motion: Modernity and Movement by Yuri Leving (review)","authors":"Tim Harte","doi":"10.1353/see.2022.0084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author’s focus on Joyce’s ‘style’ creates confusion rather than clarity as indeed does his choice of selecting individual ‘themes’ (such as the leitmotif of the keys in Ulysses) for comparisons. Assessing Joyce’s impact, or presence, in the Russian texts by relying on discrete categories (plot/character/narration/ style) without sufficient consideration of the highly contentious issues of the ‘narrator’, the fusion of the ‘internal’ and the ‘external’, the parody, the multilingual puns, the pastiche (all of which probe the issues of Empire, Ireland, the English language, Catholicism, sexuality, emigration, exile etc.) produces inconclusive results. Chronotopic displacement and epistemological difference in the ways the five writers read, and responded to, Joyce should have been tackled rather than ignored. Joyce’s own awareness of, and numerous references to, Russia and Russian literature should also have been considered, as should the question of how Joyce’s work may read in the light of the Russian texts; did Joyce elicit novel, original interpretation of his texts within the five writers’ works? The Conclusion and the appended collection of bizarre statements by seemingly randomly chosen literary figures from the former Soviet Union and its successor states in a unit entitled ‘Joycean Echoes’ beg the question as to who the envisaged reader of this book is. Is it the book’s intention to demonstrate that ‘Russians too’ are ‘Joyceans’? Or perhaps that Joyce’s reception in Russia had some kind of therapeutic effect? Or is it an attempt to revalidate Dostoevskii’s ‘Pushkin Speech’ which suggests that Russians can feel/understand/convey the experience of all other nations (‘all’ of course meaning major Western European ones)? If so, there is indeed little need to consider how the five authors’ texts interact or modify or expand existing frameworks for interpreting Joyce’s texts, or to find meaningful silences in the Russian novels and interrogate these, or to consider whether the discourse of spoudogéloion — the jocoserious — finds resonances and, if so, where and how.","PeriodicalId":45292,"journal":{"name":"SLAVONIC AND EAST EUROPEAN REVIEW","volume":"100 1","pages":"751 - 753"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SLAVONIC AND EAST EUROPEAN REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/see.2022.0084","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The author’s focus on Joyce’s ‘style’ creates confusion rather than clarity as indeed does his choice of selecting individual ‘themes’ (such as the leitmotif of the keys in Ulysses) for comparisons. Assessing Joyce’s impact, or presence, in the Russian texts by relying on discrete categories (plot/character/narration/ style) without sufficient consideration of the highly contentious issues of the ‘narrator’, the fusion of the ‘internal’ and the ‘external’, the parody, the multilingual puns, the pastiche (all of which probe the issues of Empire, Ireland, the English language, Catholicism, sexuality, emigration, exile etc.) produces inconclusive results. Chronotopic displacement and epistemological difference in the ways the five writers read, and responded to, Joyce should have been tackled rather than ignored. Joyce’s own awareness of, and numerous references to, Russia and Russian literature should also have been considered, as should the question of how Joyce’s work may read in the light of the Russian texts; did Joyce elicit novel, original interpretation of his texts within the five writers’ works? The Conclusion and the appended collection of bizarre statements by seemingly randomly chosen literary figures from the former Soviet Union and its successor states in a unit entitled ‘Joycean Echoes’ beg the question as to who the envisaged reader of this book is. Is it the book’s intention to demonstrate that ‘Russians too’ are ‘Joyceans’? Or perhaps that Joyce’s reception in Russia had some kind of therapeutic effect? Or is it an attempt to revalidate Dostoevskii’s ‘Pushkin Speech’ which suggests that Russians can feel/understand/convey the experience of all other nations (‘all’ of course meaning major Western European ones)? If so, there is indeed little need to consider how the five authors’ texts interact or modify or expand existing frameworks for interpreting Joyce’s texts, or to find meaningful silences in the Russian novels and interrogate these, or to consider whether the discourse of spoudogéloion — the jocoserious — finds resonances and, if so, where and how.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《运动中的纳博科夫:现代性与运动》,尤里·莱文(综述)
作者对乔伊斯“风格”的关注造成了混乱,而不是清晰,正如他选择单独的“主题”(如《尤利西斯》中按键的主旋律)进行比较一样。通过依赖离散的类别(情节/人物/叙事/风格)来评估乔伊斯在俄罗斯文本中的影响或存在,而没有充分考虑“叙述者”、“内部”和“外部”的融合、戏仿、多语言双关等极具争议的问题,模仿(所有这些都探讨了帝国、爱尔兰、英语、天主教、性、移民、流亡等问题)产生了不确定的结果。五位作家阅读和回应乔伊斯的方式的时间主题位移和认识论差异本应得到解决,而不是忽视。乔伊斯自己对俄罗斯和俄罗斯文学的认识以及对俄罗斯文学的大量引用也应该被考虑在内,乔伊斯的作品如何根据俄罗斯文本阅读的问题也应该被思考在内;乔伊斯是否在五位作家的作品中对他的文本进行了新颖、新颖的解读?结论和所附的前苏联及其继承国的文学人物在一个名为“Joycean Echoes”的单元中随机选择的奇异陈述集,引出了一个问题,即本书的读者是谁。这本书的目的是证明“俄罗斯人也是”是“Joyceans”吗?或者也许乔伊斯在俄罗斯的接待有某种治疗作用?还是试图重新验证陀思妥耶夫斯基的“普希金演讲”,该演讲表明俄罗斯人可以感受/理解/传达所有其他国家的经验(“所有”当然意味着西欧主要国家)?如果是这样的话,确实没有必要考虑五位作者的文本是如何互动的,或者修改或扩展现有的解释乔伊斯文本的框架,或者在俄罗斯小说中找到有意义的沉默并对其进行质疑,或者考虑spoudogéloion的话语——诙谐的话语——是否找到了共鸣,如果是,在哪里以及如何找到共鸣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
SLAVONIC AND EAST EUROPEAN REVIEW
SLAVONIC AND EAST EUROPEAN REVIEW HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The Review is the oldest British journal in the field, having been in existence since 1922. Edited and managed by the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, it covers not only the modern and medieval languages and literatures of the Slavonic and East European area, but also history, culture, and political studies. It is published in January, April, July, and October of each year.
期刊最新文献
London Through Russian Eyes, 1896–1914: An Anthology of Foreign Correspondence ed. by Anna Vaninskaya (review) Russia's Entangled Embrace: The Tsarist Empire and the Armenians, 1801–1914 by Stephen Badalyan Riegg (review) Stalin as Warlord by Alfred J. Rieber (review) Maria Renata Mayenowa and the Forgotten Legacy of Polish Theory of Literature and Poetics Klimat: Russia in the Age of Climate Change by Thane Gustafson (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1