Borders of (Non-)Compromise: Oles Honchar in Reception of Ivan Koshelivets

Liudmyla Tarnashynska
{"title":"Borders of (Non-)Compromise: Oles Honchar in Reception of Ivan Koshelivets","authors":"Liudmyla Tarnashynska","doi":"10.33608/0236-1477.2019.02.26-40","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper traces the reception of O. Honchar’s personality and works in publications of the journal “Suchasnist” in 1960s–1990s. The author of the paper bases her research on the multi-genre publications by I. Koshelivets, which had utterly polemical tone, and reinforces her observations with the other scholars’ ideas regarding the specifics of interpreting the text. \nAdhering to the presumption of fact and the aesthetic criteria for assessing the work of literature, a Western critic put his maxims against a historical background and in a broad European literary context. \nDefending his anti-cult position in regard to the writer’s personality of O. Honchar, I. Koshelivets evaluated the works of the Ukrainian Soviet literature classic based on the ground of artistic truth exclusively. Despite the fact that O. Honchar mastered the language skillfully and had an indisputable gift of a writer, he always adhered to the ‘boundaries of the permitted’, which made him to limit the scope of themes and adhere to the artificial style with its varnished reality and false poetic flavor. Paying tribute to the fact that O. Honchar supported the Ukrainian sixtiers and always had a pro-Ukrainian position, I. Koshelivets still kept his principled position for decades. \nThe critic considered the literary work of O. Honchar as a sample of socialist realism with its indisputable taboos. In particular, he analyzed in detail the most known Honchar’s novel “Cathedral”. According to I. Koshelivets, it got its fame mostly due to the party functionaries that made a relatively weak piece of literature a political event and gave it some extra-literary value, so that the issues of style and literary features became secondary. The author of the paper states that in the conditions of a totalitarian society and ideologically controlled literary process, the talent of O. Honchar couldn’t be realized properly, anyway. \nThis controversial topic of I. Koshelivets’s interpretation of the works by Ukrainian Soviet literature classic has been perceived within the oppositional literary-critical discourse as a kind of challenge undermining the ‘foundations’ of the national culture. Although without its detailed consideration the history of Ukrainian literature will be incomplete.","PeriodicalId":413949,"journal":{"name":"Академічний журнал \"Слово і Час\"","volume":"25 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Академічний журнал \"Слово і Час\"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33608/0236-1477.2019.02.26-40","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 paper traces the reception of O. Honchar’s personality and works in publications of the journal “Suchasnist” in 1960s–1990s. The author of the paper bases her research on the multi-genre publications by I. Koshelivets, which had utterly polemical tone, and reinforces her observations with the other scholars’ ideas regarding the specifics of interpreting the text. Adhering to the presumption of fact and the aesthetic criteria for assessing the work of literature, a Western critic put his maxims against a historical background and in a broad European literary context. Defending his anti-cult position in regard to the writer’s personality of O. Honchar, I. Koshelivets evaluated the works of the Ukrainian Soviet literature classic based on the ground of artistic truth exclusively. Despite the fact that O. Honchar mastered the language skillfully and had an indisputable gift of a writer, he always adhered to the ‘boundaries of the permitted’, which made him to limit the scope of themes and adhere to the artificial style with its varnished reality and false poetic flavor. Paying tribute to the fact that O. Honchar supported the Ukrainian sixtiers and always had a pro-Ukrainian position, I. Koshelivets still kept his principled position for decades. The critic considered the literary work of O. Honchar as a sample of socialist realism with its indisputable taboos. In particular, he analyzed in detail the most known Honchar’s novel “Cathedral”. According to I. Koshelivets, it got its fame mostly due to the party functionaries that made a relatively weak piece of literature a political event and gave it some extra-literary value, so that the issues of style and literary features became secondary. The author of the paper states that in the conditions of a totalitarian society and ideologically controlled literary process, the talent of O. Honchar couldn’t be realized properly, anyway. This controversial topic of I. Koshelivets’s interpretation of the works by Ukrainian Soviet literature classic has been perceived within the oppositional literary-critical discourse as a kind of challenge undermining the ‘foundations’ of the national culture. Although without its detailed consideration the history of Ukrainian literature will be incomplete.
(非)妥协的边界:奥勒斯·洪查尔对伊万·科舍利维茨的接待
本文追溯了20世纪60年代至90年代《Suchasnist》杂志对O. Honchar的个性和作品的接受情况。本文作者的研究立足于I. Koshelivets的多体裁出版物,这些出版物具有完全的论战性基调,并结合其他学者关于文本解释细节的观点来强化她的观察。西方批评家坚持事实推定和评价文学作品的审美标准,将他的格言置于历史背景和广阔的欧洲文学语境中。科谢利维茨在捍卫自己对作家欧·洪查尔个性的反邪教立场时,完全以艺术真理为依据,对乌克兰苏维埃文学经典作品进行了评价。尽管O. Honchar熟练地掌握了语言,具有无可争辩的作家天赋,但他始终坚持“允许的边界”,这使得他限制了主题的范围,坚持带有粉饰现实和虚假诗意的人为风格。由于O. Honchar支持乌克兰60年代的人,并且一直持亲乌克兰的立场,I. Koshelivets几十年来一直坚持自己的原则立场。评论家认为O. Honchar的文学作品是社会主义现实主义的一个样本,有着无可争议的禁忌。他特别详细地分析了洪查尔最著名的小说《大教堂》。根据柯什利维茨的说法,它之所以成名,主要是因为党的工作人员把一篇相对薄弱的文学作品变成了一件政治事件,并赋予了它一些文学以外的价值,因此,风格和文学特征的问题变得次要。本文的作者认为,在极权主义社会和意识形态控制的文学过程条件下,o.h onchar的才华无论如何都无法得到充分发挥。I. Koshelivets对乌克兰苏维埃文学经典作品的解释这个有争议的话题在对立的文学批评话语中被认为是一种破坏民族文化“基础”的挑战。虽然没有详细的考虑,乌克兰文学史将是不完整的。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信