The Vital Mission of Creative Work in Contemporary Authors’ Ego-Narratives

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
E. Selyutina
{"title":"The Vital Mission of Creative Work in Contemporary Authors’ Ego-Narratives","authors":"E. Selyutina","doi":"10.15826/qr.2023.1.781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines literary interviews of Ural authors A. Salnikov and E. Simonova. The narrative analysis of the interview makes it possible to identify how the writer defines the writer’s mission, draw a conclusion about the strategies of public self-perception, its emotional dominants, and aspects of understanding the legitimacy of writing in the current literary process. The narrative about the author has a metatextual character, which is a result of the reconstruction of recurring (repetitive) motifs which are personally (emotionally) or supra-personally (culturally, regionally, nationally) conditioned. The “history of authorship” is enclosed in a narrative frame (the dialogue structure of the interview, non-free speaking). Speech genres of various types (“memory”, “anecdote”, etc.) freely circulate inside the interview. The writers’ narrative is interpreted as part of a “big story” about authorship told by its participants for a wide range of interested persons. The comparative analysis of the selected authors relates to the general moments of the creative fate of the writers (participants of the “Nizhny Tagil Renaissance” and, more broadly, the literary life of the Urals). The narrative frame of their interview depends on the fact of the “second debut” and puts Simonova and Salnikov in a situation of retrospective introspection. The event of entering the world of writers (the effectiveness of the event) is understood as a deviation from the natural course of things (Salnikov). Simonova’s self-perception speaks of a return to normality, to the natural existence of the creator in the world of words. The author makes a conclusion regarding the peculiarities of Salnikov’s and Simonova’s individual and creative self-mythologisation. For Salnikov, it is marginalisation: the writer mythologises the author’s path by crossing the border between the world of “non-writers” to the marginal world of poets. For Simonova, it is ironic casualisation: she deliberately denies poetic insights, giving importance to the ethical symmetry of talent and man through the development of self-depreciation traditional for Russian literature etiquette. The situation of the “second debut” (widely known among the reading public of different types), depending on different factors in each case but equally significant in the manifestation of writers in the public space, demonstrates the stability of the conditions accepted for themselves as authors throughout the creative path, is a way to establish the foundations of personal vitality.","PeriodicalId":43664,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio Rossica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio Rossica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2023.1.781","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines literary interviews of Ural authors A. Salnikov and E. Simonova. The narrative analysis of the interview makes it possible to identify how the writer defines the writer’s mission, draw a conclusion about the strategies of public self-perception, its emotional dominants, and aspects of understanding the legitimacy of writing in the current literary process. The narrative about the author has a metatextual character, which is a result of the reconstruction of recurring (repetitive) motifs which are personally (emotionally) or supra-personally (culturally, regionally, nationally) conditioned. The “history of authorship” is enclosed in a narrative frame (the dialogue structure of the interview, non-free speaking). Speech genres of various types (“memory”, “anecdote”, etc.) freely circulate inside the interview. The writers’ narrative is interpreted as part of a “big story” about authorship told by its participants for a wide range of interested persons. The comparative analysis of the selected authors relates to the general moments of the creative fate of the writers (participants of the “Nizhny Tagil Renaissance” and, more broadly, the literary life of the Urals). The narrative frame of their interview depends on the fact of the “second debut” and puts Simonova and Salnikov in a situation of retrospective introspection. The event of entering the world of writers (the effectiveness of the event) is understood as a deviation from the natural course of things (Salnikov). Simonova’s self-perception speaks of a return to normality, to the natural existence of the creator in the world of words. The author makes a conclusion regarding the peculiarities of Salnikov’s and Simonova’s individual and creative self-mythologisation. For Salnikov, it is marginalisation: the writer mythologises the author’s path by crossing the border between the world of “non-writers” to the marginal world of poets. For Simonova, it is ironic casualisation: she deliberately denies poetic insights, giving importance to the ethical symmetry of talent and man through the development of self-depreciation traditional for Russian literature etiquette. The situation of the “second debut” (widely known among the reading public of different types), depending on different factors in each case but equally significant in the manifestation of writers in the public space, demonstrates the stability of the conditions accepted for themselves as authors throughout the creative path, is a way to establish the foundations of personal vitality.
创作在当代作家自我叙述中的重要使命
本文考察了乌拉尔作家萨尔尼科夫和西蒙诺娃的文学访谈。采访的叙事分析使我们有可能确定作家如何定义作家的使命,得出公众自我感知的策略、情感支配者以及在当前文学过程中理解写作合法性的结论。关于作者的叙事具有元文本特征,这是重复(重复)主题重建的结果,这些主题是个人(情感)或超个人(文化、地区、国家)条件的。“作者历史”被封闭在一个叙事框架中(采访的对话结构,非自由发言)。各种类型的演讲类型(“记忆”、“轶事”等)在采访中自由流通。作者的叙述被解释为一个关于作者身份的“大故事”的一部分,由参与者为广泛的感兴趣的人讲述。对所选作者的比较分析涉及作家(“尼日尼-塔吉尔文艺复兴”的参与者,以及更广泛的乌拉尔文学生活的参与者)创作命运的一般时刻。他们采访的叙事框架取决于“第二次亮相”的事实,并将西蒙诺娃和萨尔尼科夫置于回顾性反省的境地。进入作家世界的事件(事件的有效性)被理解为偏离事物的自然进程(萨尔尼科夫)。西蒙诺娃的自我感知讲述了一种回归常态,回归创作者在文字世界中的自然存在。作者对萨尔尼科夫和西蒙诺娃的个人神话和创造性自我神话的特点进行了总结。对萨尔尼科夫来说,这是边缘化:作家通过跨越“非作家”世界与诗人边缘世界之间的边界,神话化了作者的道路。对西蒙诺娃来说,这是一种讽刺性的随意化:她故意否认诗歌见解,通过发展俄罗斯文学礼仪的自我贬低传统,重视人才和人的道德对称。“第二次出道”(在不同类型的阅读大众中广为人知)的情况,取决于每种情况下的不同因素,但在作家在公共空间中的表现同样重要,表明了在整个创作道路上,作为作家所接受的条件是稳定的,这是建立个人活力基础的一种方式。
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
Quaestio Rossica
Quaestio Rossica HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Quaestio Rossica is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the study of Russia’s history, philology, and culture. The Journal aims to introduce new research approaches in the sphere of the Humanities and previously unknown sources, actualising traditional methods and creating new research concepts in the sphere of Russian studies. Except for academic articles, the Journal publishes reviews, historical surveys, discussions, and accounts of the past of the Humanities as a field.
×
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