论20世纪初作家致编辑信的类型学:对读者、批评家和反对者的回答

E. A. Andrushchenko
{"title":"论20世纪初作家致编辑信的类型学:对读者、批评家和反对者的回答","authors":"E. A. Andrushchenko","doi":"10.15826/izv2.2022.24.1.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on the analysis of little-known and forgotten letters of Russian writers, most of them introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time, this article clarifies the existing perceptions of various types of letters to the editor. The purpose of the work is to identify and describe cases of changing conventions between the writer, the critic, and the reader in the early twentieth century. The notice form of the letter, traditionally used to notify readers of ongoing rearrangements in editorial boards or groups, as well as the writer’s membership in a particular literary publication, remained unchanged. Conversely, the writer’s letter as a response to a reader, a critic, or an opponent were forms influenced by a new sociocultural situation, characterised by an increasing number of printed publications and the appearance of a new type of reader and critic. The article establishes that, when replying to a reader, a social or political opponent via a newspaper, the writer turned his response into a public statement, expressed in accordance with their reputation and social stance. The writer’s reply to an opponent often took the form of an open letter and became an instance of civic action. As a response to a critic, the writer’s letter to the editor indicated his refusal to regard the critic as an authoritative participant of the literary process, one equal in status to the writer. When addressing the reader through the medium of a newspaper, the writer discussed the factual aspect of the critic’s statement, not their opinion of the writer’s work, thus emphasising the insignificance of their role. A response to a critic the writer found authoritative instead took the form of an article, or a column. Writers’ letters to the editor of the early twentieth century reflect contradictory phenomena in the literary process, caused by the emergence of mass readership and a reconsideration of the terms set between it, the writer and the critic.","PeriodicalId":42281,"journal":{"name":"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Typology of Writers’ Letters to the Editor in the Early 20th Century: Answers to Readers, Critics, and Opponents\",\"authors\":\"E. A. Andrushchenko\",\"doi\":\"10.15826/izv2.2022.24.1.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on the analysis of little-known and forgotten letters of Russian writers, most of them introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time, this article clarifies the existing perceptions of various types of letters to the editor. The purpose of the work is to identify and describe cases of changing conventions between the writer, the critic, and the reader in the early twentieth century. The notice form of the letter, traditionally used to notify readers of ongoing rearrangements in editorial boards or groups, as well as the writer’s membership in a particular literary publication, remained unchanged. Conversely, the writer’s letter as a response to a reader, a critic, or an opponent were forms influenced by a new sociocultural situation, characterised by an increasing number of printed publications and the appearance of a new type of reader and critic. The article establishes that, when replying to a reader, a social or political opponent via a newspaper, the writer turned his response into a public statement, expressed in accordance with their reputation and social stance. The writer’s reply to an opponent often took the form of an open letter and became an instance of civic action. As a response to a critic, the writer’s letter to the editor indicated his refusal to regard the critic as an authoritative participant of the literary process, one equal in status to the writer. When addressing the reader through the medium of a newspaper, the writer discussed the factual aspect of the critic’s statement, not their opinion of the writer’s work, thus emphasising the insignificance of their role. A response to a critic the writer found authoritative instead took the form of an article, or a column. Writers’ letters to the editor of the early twentieth century reflect contradictory phenomena in the literary process, caused by the emergence of mass readership and a reconsideration of the terms set between it, the writer and the critic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2022.24.1.014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Izvestiya Uralskogo Federalnogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Gumanitarnye Nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2022.24.1.014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过对俄罗斯作家的不为人知和被遗忘的书信(大部分是首次进入学术界的书信)的分析,向编辑澄清了对各类书信的现有认识。这项工作的目的是确定和描述在二十世纪初作家,评论家和读者之间改变惯例的案例。信件的通知形式,传统上用来通知读者正在进行的编辑委员会或小组的重新安排,以及作者在特定文学出版物中的成员资格,保持不变。相反,作为对读者、批评家或反对者的回应的写信人的信件是受新社会文化形势影响的形式,其特点是印刷出版物数量的增加和新型读者和批评家的出现。该条规定,当作者通过报纸回复读者、社会或政治对手时,作者将其回复转化为公开声明,并根据他们的声誉和社会立场来表达。作家对反对者的答复通常采取公开信的形式,并成为公民行动的一个例子。作为对评论家的回应,作者给编辑的信表明,他拒绝将评论家视为文学过程的权威参与者,即与作者地位平等的人。当通过报纸向读者发表讲话时,作者讨论的是评论家言论的事实方面,而不是他们对作者作品的看法,从而强调了他们的作用的微不足道。而对于作者认为权威的批评,则以文章或专栏的形式予以回应。20世纪初作家写给编辑的信件反映了文学过程中的矛盾现象,这是由大众读者的出现和对大众读者、作家和评论家之间的术语的重新思考所引起的。
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
On the Typology of Writers’ Letters to the Editor in the Early 20th Century: Answers to Readers, Critics, and Opponents
Based on the analysis of little-known and forgotten letters of Russian writers, most of them introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time, this article clarifies the existing perceptions of various types of letters to the editor. The purpose of the work is to identify and describe cases of changing conventions between the writer, the critic, and the reader in the early twentieth century. The notice form of the letter, traditionally used to notify readers of ongoing rearrangements in editorial boards or groups, as well as the writer’s membership in a particular literary publication, remained unchanged. Conversely, the writer’s letter as a response to a reader, a critic, or an opponent were forms influenced by a new sociocultural situation, characterised by an increasing number of printed publications and the appearance of a new type of reader and critic. The article establishes that, when replying to a reader, a social or political opponent via a newspaper, the writer turned his response into a public statement, expressed in accordance with their reputation and social stance. The writer’s reply to an opponent often took the form of an open letter and became an instance of civic action. As a response to a critic, the writer’s letter to the editor indicated his refusal to regard the critic as an authoritative participant of the literary process, one equal in status to the writer. When addressing the reader through the medium of a newspaper, the writer discussed the factual aspect of the critic’s statement, not their opinion of the writer’s work, thus emphasising the insignificance of their role. A response to a critic the writer found authoritative instead took the form of an article, or a column. Writers’ letters to the editor of the early twentieth century reflect contradictory phenomena in the literary process, caused by the emergence of mass readership and a reconsideration of the terms set between it, the writer and the critic.
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
20
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Elite of Sýrnesgarðr: On the Social Stratification of the Population of the Gnyozdovo Archaeological Complex, 10th — Early 11th Centuries Paints of Old Believer Carved Icons of the Lower Pechora: Technical, Technological, Historical, and Archival Aspects of Study Cultural Heritage Protection in the Notes of the Ural Society of Devotees of Natural Science (Late 19th — Early 20th Centuries) Environmental Lessons of Virgin Lands: Organisational and Scientific Aspects Dualistic Rethinking of the Christian Myth by Philip Pullman
×
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