鲍里斯·皮尔尼亚克(Boris Pilniak)和谢尔盖·特雷蒂亚科夫(Sergei Tretiakov)作为苏联驻中日特使和新的后帝国叙事的伪造者(1924–1926)

K. Clark
{"title":"鲍里斯·皮尔尼亚克(Boris Pilniak)和谢尔盖·特雷蒂亚科夫(Sergei Tretiakov)作为苏联驻中日特使和新的后帝国叙事的伪造者(1924–1926)","authors":"K. Clark","doi":"10.1353/ACH.2018.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:During the 1920s, Soviet cultural authorities sought to develop a new, post-imperialist literature that would acknowledge a \"new East\" and supersede the enchanted exoticism of writers like Pierre Loti. They also sought to establish in the countries of the Far East institutional and individual cultural links that might attract leading writers there to the cause of communist internationalism. With these goals in mind, they sent to East Asia two prominent writers, first Sergei Tretiakov, who spent eighteen months in 1924 and 1925 as a professor of Russian literature at Peking University and correspondent for Pravda, and then Boris Pilniak, who traveled to China, Japan, and Mongolia in 1926 (and returned to Japan for a visit in 1932). This article discusses these writers' visits and some of the literary works they generated in response to their encounters with East Asia in order to address the general question of whether communist internationalist culture was generated vertically (by instructions, efforts, and institutions set up by \"Moscow\" and the Comintern) or forged horizontally (by personal links and as a result of individual agency). As a case study in how the two writers attempted to present a more authentic account of the East, the article discusses the contrasting ways they represented the Chinese revolutionary.","PeriodicalId":43542,"journal":{"name":"Cross-Currents-East Asian History and Culture Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/ACH.2018.0015","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Boris Pilniak and Sergei Tretiakov as Soviet Envoys to China and Japan and Forgers of New, Post-Imperial Narratives (1924–1926)\",\"authors\":\"K. Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ACH.2018.0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"abstract:During the 1920s, Soviet cultural authorities sought to develop a new, post-imperialist literature that would acknowledge a \\\"new East\\\" and supersede the enchanted exoticism of writers like Pierre Loti. They also sought to establish in the countries of the Far East institutional and individual cultural links that might attract leading writers there to the cause of communist internationalism. With these goals in mind, they sent to East Asia two prominent writers, first Sergei Tretiakov, who spent eighteen months in 1924 and 1925 as a professor of Russian literature at Peking University and correspondent for Pravda, and then Boris Pilniak, who traveled to China, Japan, and Mongolia in 1926 (and returned to Japan for a visit in 1932). This article discusses these writers' visits and some of the literary works they generated in response to their encounters with East Asia in order to address the general question of whether communist internationalist culture was generated vertically (by instructions, efforts, and institutions set up by \\\"Moscow\\\" and the Comintern) or forged horizontally (by personal links and as a result of individual agency). As a case study in how the two writers attempted to present a more authentic account of the East, the article discusses the contrasting ways they represented the Chinese revolutionary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cross-Currents-East Asian History and Culture Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/ACH.2018.0015\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cross-Currents-East Asian History and Culture Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ACH.2018.0015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross-Currents-East Asian History and Culture Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ACH.2018.0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:在20世纪20年代,苏联文化当局试图发展一种新的后帝国主义文学,承认“新东方”,取代皮埃尔·洛蒂等作家迷人的异国情调。他们还试图在远东国家建立制度和个人文化联系,以吸引那里的主要作家投身共产主义国际主义事业。考虑到这些目标,他们向东亚派遣了两位杰出的作家,第一位是1924年和1925年在北京大学担任俄罗斯文学教授和《真理报》记者的谢尔盖·特雷蒂亚科夫,第二位是1926年访问中国、日本和蒙古的鲍里斯·皮尔尼亚克(1932年返回日本访问)。这篇文章讨论了这些作家的访问以及他们在与东亚的接触中创作的一些文学作品,以解决共产主义国际主义文化是纵向产生的(通过“莫斯科”和共产国际建立的指示、努力和机构)还是横向形成的普遍问题(通过个人联系和个人代理)。作为两位作家如何试图呈现一个更真实的东方故事的个案研究,本文讨论了他们对中国革命的不同表现方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Boris Pilniak and Sergei Tretiakov as Soviet Envoys to China and Japan and Forgers of New, Post-Imperial Narratives (1924–1926)
abstract:During the 1920s, Soviet cultural authorities sought to develop a new, post-imperialist literature that would acknowledge a "new East" and supersede the enchanted exoticism of writers like Pierre Loti. They also sought to establish in the countries of the Far East institutional and individual cultural links that might attract leading writers there to the cause of communist internationalism. With these goals in mind, they sent to East Asia two prominent writers, first Sergei Tretiakov, who spent eighteen months in 1924 and 1925 as a professor of Russian literature at Peking University and correspondent for Pravda, and then Boris Pilniak, who traveled to China, Japan, and Mongolia in 1926 (and returned to Japan for a visit in 1932). This article discusses these writers' visits and some of the literary works they generated in response to their encounters with East Asia in order to address the general question of whether communist internationalist culture was generated vertically (by instructions, efforts, and institutions set up by "Moscow" and the Comintern) or forged horizontally (by personal links and as a result of individual agency). As a case study in how the two writers attempted to present a more authentic account of the East, the article discusses the contrasting ways they represented the Chinese revolutionary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Martyrs of Development: Taiwanese Agrarian Development and the Republic of Vietnam, 1959–1975 Taiwan's Intersectional Cosmopolitanism: Local Women in Their Communities Examining Cultural Discourses in Taiwanese Gender and Sexual Minority/Tongzhi Family-of-Origin Relationships Making Southeast Asian Migrant Workers Visible in Taiwanese Cinema: Pinoy Sunday and Ye-Zai The Portraits of a Heroine: Huang Bamei and the Politics of Wartime History in China and Taiwan, 1930–1960
×
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