The Edges of Fiction: Dostoevsky, Merezhkovsky, and the Birth of Novel Theory

IF 0.3 2区 文学 0 LITERATURE
Chloë Kitzinger
{"title":"The Edges of Fiction: Dostoevsky, Merezhkovsky, and the Birth of Novel Theory","authors":"Chloë Kitzinger","doi":"10.1215/00295132-10251226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article argues that the early twentieth-century Dostoevsky criticism of Russian Symbolist thinkers, roughly contemporaneous with Henry James's New York Edition prefaces, laid the foundation for an alternative line of novel theory, engaged not with the novel's claim to the status of high art but with the possibility of an unmediated exchange between literature and life. Interpreting Dostoevsky as a precursor to their own ideal of “life-creation,” Symbolist writers like Dmitry Merezhkovsky and Viacheslav Ivanov formulated the influential cultural construct called here the liminal Dostoevsky: Dostoevsky as a novelist who not only represents characters at the extremes of human being but also transgresses the conventional boundaries of literary texts. The liminal Dostoevsky became vital to two foundational works of novel theory, Georg Lukács's The Theory of the Novel (1916) and Mikhail Bakhtin's Problems of Dostoevsky's Creative Art (1929). While Lukács's later conversion to Marxism led him away from the ideal of erasing the boundary between art and life, Bakhtin pursued it throughout his writings, smuggling the logic of Symbolist life-creation into the language of modern literary theory. Now is an apt moment to revisit this genealogy. As writers and theorists of autofiction and the contemporary novel renew the dream of transcending aesthetic representation, it is crucial to historicize and interrogate our tendency to privilege the novel's capacity for dialogue with the reader over its capacity to weave immersive fictional illusions. Dostoevsky's example suggests, instead, that these two sides of novelistic creation exist in productive and perpetual tension.","PeriodicalId":44981,"journal":{"name":"NOVEL-A FORUM ON FICTION","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NOVEL-A FORUM ON FICTION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00295132-10251226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that the early twentieth-century Dostoevsky criticism of Russian Symbolist thinkers, roughly contemporaneous with Henry James's New York Edition prefaces, laid the foundation for an alternative line of novel theory, engaged not with the novel's claim to the status of high art but with the possibility of an unmediated exchange between literature and life. Interpreting Dostoevsky as a precursor to their own ideal of “life-creation,” Symbolist writers like Dmitry Merezhkovsky and Viacheslav Ivanov formulated the influential cultural construct called here the liminal Dostoevsky: Dostoevsky as a novelist who not only represents characters at the extremes of human being but also transgresses the conventional boundaries of literary texts. The liminal Dostoevsky became vital to two foundational works of novel theory, Georg Lukács's The Theory of the Novel (1916) and Mikhail Bakhtin's Problems of Dostoevsky's Creative Art (1929). While Lukács's later conversion to Marxism led him away from the ideal of erasing the boundary between art and life, Bakhtin pursued it throughout his writings, smuggling the logic of Symbolist life-creation into the language of modern literary theory. Now is an apt moment to revisit this genealogy. As writers and theorists of autofiction and the contemporary novel renew the dream of transcending aesthetic representation, it is crucial to historicize and interrogate our tendency to privilege the novel's capacity for dialogue with the reader over its capacity to weave immersive fictional illusions. Dostoevsky's example suggests, instead, that these two sides of novelistic creation exist in productive and perpetual tension.
小说的边缘:陀思妥耶夫斯基、梅列日科夫斯基与小说理论的诞生
本文认为,20世纪初陀思妥耶夫斯基对俄罗斯象征主义思想家的批评,大致与亨利·詹姆斯的《纽约版》序言同时进行,为小说理论的另一条路线奠定了基础,该路线不涉及小说对高级艺术地位的主张,而是涉及文学与生活之间无中介交流的可能性。德米特里·梅列日科夫斯基(Dmitry Merezhkovsky)和维亚切斯拉夫·伊万诺夫(Viacheslav Ivanov。陀思妥耶夫斯基是小说理论的两部基础性著作,即乔治·卢卡斯的《小说理论》(1916)和米哈伊尔·巴赫金的《陀思妥耶夫斯基的创造性艺术问题》(1929)。尽管卢卡奇后来转向马克思主义,使他远离了消除艺术与生活界限的理想,但巴赫金在他的整个作品中都在追求这一理想,将象征主义生活创作的逻辑渗透到现代文学理论的语言中。现在是重新审视这一谱系的恰当时机。随着作家和自动小说理论家以及当代小说重新实现超越审美表征的梦想,至关重要的是要历史化和质疑我们的倾向,即将小说与读者对话的能力置于编织沉浸式虚构幻想的能力之上。相反,陀思妥耶夫斯基的例子表明,小说创作的这两个方面存在于富有成效和永恒的张力中。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Widely acknowledged as the leading journal in its field, Novel publishes essays concerned with the novel"s role in engaging and shaping the world. To promote critical discourse on the novel, the journal publishes significant work on fiction and related areas of research and theory. Recent issues on the early American novel, eighteenth-century fiction, and postcolonial modernisms carry on Novel"s long-standing interest in the Anglo-American tradition.
×
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