‘“New Memory Truth Mode”’ [Rev. on: “I know you can’t write like this”: The Phenomenon of the Blockade Diary, comp. A. Yu. Pavlovskaya, ed. N. A. Lomagin. St Petersburg, 2022]

A. Rupasov
{"title":"‘“New Memory Truth Mode”’ [Rev. on: “I know you can’t write like this”: The Phenomenon of the Blockade Diary, comp. A. Yu. Pavlovskaya, ed. N. A. Lomagin. St Petersburg, 2022]","authors":"A. Rupasov","doi":"10.21638/spbu24.2023.114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The review analyses a set of diaries of residents of the besieged Leningrad prepared by scholars of the European University in St Petersburg. Despite a considerable significance of historical sources to the researchers, the objectives that the authors of the reviewed volume set out to achieve were only partially fulfilled. The compilers of the volume too sharply contrasted a “new regime of the truth of memory” and the “truth of history with its claim to objectivity and coherence of narrative”, actually refusing to examine the published sources and accepting them uncritically as the exhaustive truth, which inevitably leads the reader into the false perception of the completion of the study of the Leningrad siege. It can be assumed that the authors of the volume did not set themselves a task of identifying the circumstances behind the texts of the diaries. It remains unclear why the participants of the project avoided mentioning “simpler principles” of the inclusion of certain diaries in the collection. Although one of the authors attempted to identify a kind of “laboratory” for the creation of the diary, this attempt cannot be recognized as successful. The compilers of the volume delegated the responsibility of commenting on the texts of the diaries to readers. In fact, they relinquished their roles as researchers. Repetitions in the few commentaries, inconsistencies in the accompanying notes to the diaries and in the authors’ articles indicate that the authors of the volume acted in haste. There is no doubt of the authors’ genuine interest in the history of the siege, but in this case it is difficult to find an explanation for inaccuracies in relation to well-known facts.","PeriodicalId":53957,"journal":{"name":"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Noveishaya Istoriya Rossii-Modern History of Russia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu24.2023.114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The review analyses a set of diaries of residents of the besieged Leningrad prepared by scholars of the European University in St Petersburg. Despite a considerable significance of historical sources to the researchers, the objectives that the authors of the reviewed volume set out to achieve were only partially fulfilled. The compilers of the volume too sharply contrasted a “new regime of the truth of memory” and the “truth of history with its claim to objectivity and coherence of narrative”, actually refusing to examine the published sources and accepting them uncritically as the exhaustive truth, which inevitably leads the reader into the false perception of the completion of the study of the Leningrad siege. It can be assumed that the authors of the volume did not set themselves a task of identifying the circumstances behind the texts of the diaries. It remains unclear why the participants of the project avoided mentioning “simpler principles” of the inclusion of certain diaries in the collection. Although one of the authors attempted to identify a kind of “laboratory” for the creation of the diary, this attempt cannot be recognized as successful. The compilers of the volume delegated the responsibility of commenting on the texts of the diaries to readers. In fact, they relinquished their roles as researchers. Repetitions in the few commentaries, inconsistencies in the accompanying notes to the diaries and in the authors’ articles indicate that the authors of the volume acted in haste. There is no doubt of the authors’ genuine interest in the history of the siege, but in this case it is difficult to find an explanation for inaccuracies in relation to well-known facts.
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
“新记忆真相模式”[续:“我知道你不能这样写”:《封锁日记的现象》,余a。帕夫洛夫斯卡娅编,N. A.洛马金。圣彼得堡,2022年]
这篇评论分析了一组被围困的列宁格勒居民的日记,这些日记是由圣彼得堡欧洲大学的学者们准备的。尽管历史来源对研究人员具有相当大的意义,但审查卷的作者所要实现的目标仅部分实现。这本书的编纂者将“记忆真相的新体制”和“声称客观连贯叙述的历史真相”进行了过于尖锐的对比,实际上拒绝审查已发表的资料来源,而不加批判地接受它们作为详尽的真相,这不可避免地导致读者对列宁格勒围城研究的完成产生错误的看法。可以假设,这本书的作者并没有为自己设定一个任务,以确定日记文本背后的情况。目前尚不清楚为什么该项目的参与者避免提及将某些日记纳入收藏的“更简单的原则”。虽然其中一位作者试图为日记的创作确定一种“实验室”,但这种尝试不能被认为是成功的。这本书的编纂者把评论日记文本的责任委托给读者。事实上,他们放弃了研究人员的角色。少数评论中的重复,日记中随附的注释和作者文章中的不一致表明该卷的作者行动匆忙。毫无疑问,作者对围城的历史确实感兴趣,但在这种情况下,很难找到与众所周知的事实有关的不准确的解释。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Departmental Resettlements of Special Settlers during the Great Patriotic War: Mechanism of Realization and Significance (Based on the Materials of North-Western Siberia) Svalbard in the Strategy of the Great Powers During the Second World War (1939– 1945) Soviet Experience in Managing Evacuation Cargoes in 1941–1942: From Over-centralization to Local Initiative The Amur Expedition and the Committee for the Settlement of the Far East in the Agenda of the Russian Council of Ministers under P. A. Stolypin ‘“Sovexportfilm” as an Actor of Ideological Influence during the Cold War
×
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