{"title":"A dispute about poems and beyond","authors":"E. Pogorelaya","doi":"10.31425/0042-8795-2024-3-122-133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is written in response to I. Plekhanova’s study published in the same issue of Voprosy Literatury, which calls A. Dolgareva’s poetry an undoubtedly leading phenomenon of contemporary poetry. E. Pogorelaya also acknowledges key defining characteristics of Dolgareva’s output: preference for lively colloquial language, references to personal experience and the reader’s civic stance, reliance on plots and archetypical images and motifs, as well as a leaning towards the Soviet literary tradition and Soviet past as the last era of stability and relative normalcy. Polemizing with Plekhanova and other admirers of Dolgareva’s poetry, the author points out that the backbone of her poetics is drawn from 2010s’ Internet poetry, e. g., A. Kudryasheva’s works. The author argues that Dolgareva’s free and unrestricted, if not haphazard, treatment of the language is rooted in that background and that her works share a lot of similarities with those by authors from the Internet. Therefore, Pogorelaya suggests a more critical and reflective approach to Dolgareva’s oeuvre, stressing that it is primarily written with a specific reference group in mind and mirrors the group’s emotional charge.","PeriodicalId":52245,"journal":{"name":"Voprosy Literatury","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Voprosy Literatury","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2024-3-122-133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The article is written in response to I. Plekhanova’s study published in the same issue of Voprosy Literatury, which calls A. Dolgareva’s poetry an undoubtedly leading phenomenon of contemporary poetry. E. Pogorelaya also acknowledges key defining characteristics of Dolgareva’s output: preference for lively colloquial language, references to personal experience and the reader’s civic stance, reliance on plots and archetypical images and motifs, as well as a leaning towards the Soviet literary tradition and Soviet past as the last era of stability and relative normalcy. Polemizing with Plekhanova and other admirers of Dolgareva’s poetry, the author points out that the backbone of her poetics is drawn from 2010s’ Internet poetry, e. g., A. Kudryasheva’s works. The author argues that Dolgareva’s free and unrestricted, if not haphazard, treatment of the language is rooted in that background and that her works share a lot of similarities with those by authors from the Internet. Therefore, Pogorelaya suggests a more critical and reflective approach to Dolgareva’s oeuvre, stressing that it is primarily written with a specific reference group in mind and mirrors the group’s emotional charge.
这篇文章是对 I. Plekhanova 在同一期《Voprosy Literatury》上发表的研究报告的回应,该研究报告称 A. Dolgareva 的诗歌无疑是当代诗歌的领军现象。E. Pogorelaya 也承认多尔加雷娃作品的主要特征:偏爱生动的口语化语言,提及个人经历和读者的公民立场,依赖情节和原型形象及主题,以及倾向于苏联文学传统和苏联过去,将其视为最后一个稳定和相对正常的时代。作者与普列汉诺娃和其他多尔加雷娃诗歌的崇拜者针锋相对,指出多尔加雷娃诗歌的骨干来自 2010 年代的网络诗歌,如 A. 库德莉亚舍娃的作品。作者认为,多尔加列娃对语言的自由、无拘无束(如果不是杂乱无章的话)的处理正是源于这种背景,她的作品与网络作家的作品有很多相似之处。因此,波戈雷拉娅建议对多尔加列娃的作品采取一种更具批判性和反思性的方法,强调其作品主要是为特定的参照群体而写,反映了该群体的情感冲动。