“NEXT TO GENIOUS”: G. FLAUBERT IN M.M. BAKHTIN’S THINKING

Vitaliy Makhlin
{"title":"“NEXT TO GENIOUS”: G. FLAUBERT IN M.M. BAKHTIN’S THINKING","authors":"Vitaliy Makhlin","doi":"10.31249/litzhur/2021.53.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes Bakhtin’s 1944 notes on Flaubert. Under discussion is, first, some general background of Bakhtin’s philosophical and scientific methodology as expressed in the notes, secondly, the notes themselves. Bakhtin’s views on Flaubert and the novel of the 19th century are re-presented in connection with the Russian thinker’s theories of the “grotesque realism” and “novelization”as opposed to the “ideological culture of the new times”. The article discusses some principal methodological difficulties of Bakhtinian approach to literary texts as expressed in his notes on Flaubert. In contrast to most philosophical approaches to literature, Bakhtin always treats any text, in his own expression, “in the liminal spheres” of different disciplines, that is, as both a philosopher and literary critic, a theorist and a historian of literature and culture. In these notes this specificity of the Bakhtinian methodology is expressed drastically, but in principal it is quite typical to his thinking “on the borders”. In the subsequent parts of the article Bakhtin’s approach to Flaubert’s “realism” is commented on, from the point of view of those elements of his artistic vision and his world view, which, according to Bakhtin, are not congruous with the concept of the so-called “critical realism”. These elements, Bakhtin implies, belong not so much to the classical novel of the 19th century, but, rather, to what he calls “grotesque realism” before the new times and in the 20th century. These elements are: mutual reversal of “short” and “long” (or “great” time in the images of the day, Flaubert’s artistic opposition to the “straightforwardness” of the idea of “progress” typical for the European Enlightenment and the modernity at large., the artist’s interest in the “elemental life” of human beings and animals. These and some other elements characteristic of Flaubert’s art and ideology, Bakhtin treats as if from within “creative consciousness” of the author.","PeriodicalId":246030,"journal":{"name":"Literaturovedcheskii Zhurnal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literaturovedcheskii Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31249/litzhur/2021.53.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article analyzes Bakhtin’s 1944 notes on Flaubert. Under discussion is, first, some general background of Bakhtin’s philosophical and scientific methodology as expressed in the notes, secondly, the notes themselves. Bakhtin’s views on Flaubert and the novel of the 19th century are re-presented in connection with the Russian thinker’s theories of the “grotesque realism” and “novelization”as opposed to the “ideological culture of the new times”. The article discusses some principal methodological difficulties of Bakhtinian approach to literary texts as expressed in his notes on Flaubert. In contrast to most philosophical approaches to literature, Bakhtin always treats any text, in his own expression, “in the liminal spheres” of different disciplines, that is, as both a philosopher and literary critic, a theorist and a historian of literature and culture. In these notes this specificity of the Bakhtinian methodology is expressed drastically, but in principal it is quite typical to his thinking “on the borders”. In the subsequent parts of the article Bakhtin’s approach to Flaubert’s “realism” is commented on, from the point of view of those elements of his artistic vision and his world view, which, according to Bakhtin, are not congruous with the concept of the so-called “critical realism”. These elements, Bakhtin implies, belong not so much to the classical novel of the 19th century, but, rather, to what he calls “grotesque realism” before the new times and in the 20th century. These elements are: mutual reversal of “short” and “long” (or “great” time in the images of the day, Flaubert’s artistic opposition to the “straightforwardness” of the idea of “progress” typical for the European Enlightenment and the modernity at large., the artist’s interest in the “elemental life” of human beings and animals. These and some other elements characteristic of Flaubert’s art and ideology, Bakhtin treats as if from within “creative consciousness” of the author.
“近乎天才”:巴赫金思想中的福楼拜
本文分析了巴赫金1944年对福楼拜的批注。首先,讨论的是注释中所表达的巴赫金哲学和科学方法论的一般背景,其次是注释本身。巴赫金对福楼拜和19世纪小说的看法与这位俄国思想家的“怪诞现实主义”和“小说化”理论相联系,与“新时代的意识形态文化”相对立。本文讨论了巴赫金主义文学文本研究方法在方法论上的一些主要困难,这些困难体现在他对福楼拜的注释中。与大多数研究文学的哲学方法不同,巴赫金总是在不同学科的“阈限领域”中对待任何文本,用他自己的话说,即作为哲学家和文学评论家,理论家和文学和文化历史学家。在这些笔记中,巴赫金主义方法论的这种特殊性得到了彻底的表达,但原则上,这是他“关于边界”的思想的典型特征。在文章的后续部分,巴赫金对福楼拜“现实主义”的态度进行了评论,从他的艺术视野和他的世界观的那些元素的角度来看,巴赫金认为这些元素与所谓的“批判现实主义”的概念是不一致的。巴赫金暗示,这些元素并不属于19世纪的古典小说,而是属于新时代之前和20世纪的他所谓的“怪诞现实主义”。这些因素是:在当天的图像中,“短”和“长”(或“大”)时间的相互逆转,福楼拜对“进步”概念的“直截了当地”的艺术反对,这是欧洲启蒙运动和整个现代性的典型特征。这是艺术家对人类和动物的“基本生活”的兴趣。巴赫金仿佛是从作者的“创作意识”内部看待福楼拜的这些和其他一些具有艺术和意识形态特征的元素。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信