landslide of the norm

Linguistic Liberalisation and Literary Development in Russia in the 1920s and 1990s

Fourth conference

the sociology of

language and literature

Passau, Altstadthotel · 10 – 13 January 2008

Abstracts

3

On the Cultural and Sociological Signifi cance of an Ural Playwright

Brita Lotsberg Bryn, University of Bergen

Th e actor, playwright, director and theatre manager Nikolai Koliada

has also been teaching drama at Ekaterinburg Th eatre Institute and the

School of Drama at the Ural State University, and in the postscript to

the anthology Repetitsiia: P’esy ural’skikh avtorov (2002) we learn that

the eight young authors represented here all consider themselves his

pupils. Among the contributors to this anthology we fi nd Oleg Bogaev

and Vasilii Sigarev, who won the anti-Booker prize in 2000 and 2001

respectively. Aft er his staging of Plastelin at the Royal Court Th eatre in

London, the latter was also granted the 2002 Charles Wintour Award

as “the most promising playwright.”

In the present paper I discuss how and why Nikolai Koliada — accord-

ing to Mark Lipovetskii, чернушный из чернушных — has achieved

such a high status in Ekaterinburg (as a playwright and director, but

also as the editor of the literary journal Ural and host of his own tel-

evison programme), whereas his status as a representative of Russian

drama, as well as of Russian culture and society as such, remains far

more disputable. My paper also deals with the question whether Nikolai

Koliada may in fact be considered the founder of a new Ural school of

playwrights.

4

“Witless” Fiction as a Bestseller: S. Minaev’s Духless

Wolfgang Eismann, University of Graz

Sergei Minaev’s fi rst novel Духless was the bestselling work of fi ction in

Russia in 2006, but at the same time it was rejected unanimously by

literary critics. It even received the Полный абзац, one of the negative

rewards (анти-премия) Абзац, which it was awarded because it was

“overfl owing (наводнена) with a huge amount of mistakes in the fi eld of

punctuation and grammar” according to the jurors. Minaev, who works

as an employee (служащий, as he puts it; he is a commercial director in

the wine business), is a freelance journalist and blogger who writes for

internet journals like Взгляд.ru, Буржуазный журнал and others. He

considers himself a journalist, not a writer. In spite of this his aspira-

tions to be recognized as a writer become obvious in his interviews and

articles and in reviews by critics who write for the same magazines as

Minaev and who compare his novel Духless even with Pushkin’s Evgenii

Onegin.

Michael S. Gorham, who sent his paper on Minaev to the partici-

pants of the conference, discusses the question if Minaev constitutes

a new literary andeground and if his novels mark “the end of Russian

literature as we know it.” He thinks that his books “may well serve for a

more ‘democratic’ form of literary production.”

Some eight years ago Viacheslav Kuritsyn wrote about the diff eren-

tiation and segmentation of Russian literature as a positive phenom-

enon under the headline “From a great Russian literature to a multitude

of normal Russian literatures.” But does this mean that from a literary

point of view all these literatures are of equal value?

In my paper I would like to show that the novel Духless is a sort of

light fi ction (Trivialliteratur) in the very popular fi eld of glamour and

anti-glamour (гламур и анти-гламур), that it is more “populistic” than

democratic, which can be seen by the use of language, composition, and

the values to which this work appeals.

Th us my point is that more “competition” improves the chances for

5

light literature in Russia which is very oft en pretending to be real or

“valuable” literature. As a consequence there will be lesser chances on the

market for really valuable literature. But nonetheless valuable literature

will be written and read not only by critics.

6

«Московский беSтиарий. Болтовня брюнетки» М. Царевой: новый московский социолект

Natalia Fateeva, Russian Academy of Sciences

Книга М. Царевой принадлежит к жанру русского chicklits, но

она интересна для лингвиста прежде всего тем, что в ней отра-

жены тенденции развития общего московского молодежного со-

циолекта последних лет. Известно, что русский разговорный язык

все активнее вбирает в себя элементы так называемого «общего

жаргона», который используется хотя бы пассивно большинством

городского населения. Однако в язык москвичей активно входят

и слова, обозначающие новые жизненные сферы, в том числе и

маргинальные.

Особенностью данной книги является то, что она состоит из

новелл, озаглавленных ключевыми словами такого социолекта.

Большинство из них составляют заимствования («Бар-серферы»,

«Драгдилеры», «Веганы», «Метросексуалы», «Экстремалы», «Лейб-

ломаны» и др.), образующие словарь существ, которыми наполня-

ется наш мегаполис. В самих же новеллах выстраиваются целые

парадигмы обозначений видов деятельности и занятий, которые,

может быть, и не являются новыми, но, получив новое иностран-

ное наименование, обрастают специфическими для определен-

ной группы людей коннотациями (ср. бар-серфинг ‘неумеренное

поглощение спиртных напитков’, полный тюнинг в салоне красо-

ты ‘набор косметических процедур’ и др.). В этом социолекте для

«продвинутых» обращают на себя внимание не только собственно

терминологические понятия, но и новые объекты сравнения, ле-

жащие в основе образования переносного значения. Они прежде

всего связаны с освоением реалий современной жизни и ее «игро-

вых» законов (Москва — беспроигрышная лотерея. У каждого есть

шанс сорвать джекпот).

Параллельно в книге М. Царевой можно найти немало элемен-

тов языковой игры, отражающих преимущественно женское вос-

приятие жизни, что подсказывает сам подзаголовок книги. Игро-

7

вой элемент вынесен и в заглавие, в котором понятие «бестиария»

соотнесено с изображением доллара. Главная героиня-рассказчица

при этом носит самую заурядную русскую фамилию, связанную

с типичным женским занятием, — она Саша Кашеварова, однако

жизнь переключает ее совсем в другие, отчасти полярные сферы,

которые можно назвать «Жизнь в стиле fake!».

8

Mediating the Russian Nation: A Discourse Analysis of Vladimir Putin’s “Conversation with the Russian People”

Michael S. Gorham, University of Florida

As one who was catapulted from nowhere into a position of supreme

power in a matter of months over the summer and fall of 1999, Vladi-

mir Putin, more than any other contemporary Russian leader, knows

the power of the media in telling stories and forging images. One of

the most curious examples of his use of what has come to be known as

“political technologies” appears in the form of his annual “conversa-

tion with the Russian People,” or the “Direct Line with the President of

the Russian Federation” (“Priamaia liniia s prezidentom RF”) — in part

due to its multimedia format and in part due to the consistency with

which Putin has used it over his tenure as president. Beyond its obvious

high-tech pretensions (incorporating, in its most recent staging, virtual

communities via television, radio, telephone, internet, and sms), Putin’s

“Direct Line” stands out due to the explicit manner in which the Rus-

sian nation is employed as both participant and audience. It is quite

clear from a close study of the spectacle that the event is designed to

function as a means of instilling what Benedict Anderson has called a

“confi dence of community.”

My analysis of the six editions of the event that have transpired be-

tween 2001 and 2007 suggests that this high-tech mediation of the

Russian Nation employs multiple layers of discursive framing — includ-

ing technological, geographic, historical, demographic, and linguis-

tic — in order transmit an imagined community that is 1) historically

rich, geographically expansive, and demographically diverse; 2) actively

engaged in the political process and, more broadly, in the reconstruc-

tion of a wealthier and more stable and unifi ed Russia; and 3) reverential

toward its president, looking to him as they would to a merciful Tsar, for

answers to their problems.

9

Flooded with Contemporary Language: Marina Tsvetaeva’s Krysolov and Vladimir Sorokin’s Tridtsataia Liubov’ Mariny

Karin Grelz, Lund University

Can modernist and post-modernist writers be said to use the power of

their speech for similar purposes and eff ects? If Tsvetaeva is usually ac-

cused from a philosophical point of view, of advocating a conception of

art as amoral, Sorokin, on his part, is more oft en criticized from a legal

perspective — for writing texts with pornographic content. But the eff ect

seems to be similar: both have been accused of extreme individualism,

of anti-social and even egotistic, narcissistic positions and behaviours,

and the question is: to what extent is this to be regarded as the result

of their unwillingness to compromise their artistic ethical standards?

From this point of view, in my paper I will suggest a comparative read-

ing of Marina Tsvetaeva’s long poem Krysolov (1925), and Vladimir So-

rokin’s novel Tridtsataia Liubov’ Mariny (1984) with special attention

to the artwork as an “answer” to contemporary political reality with

its language(s) and value-systems. I will also touch upon the meta-lit-

erary dimensions of these two works when it comes to the relationship

between aesthetics and ethics and the progression of the artists’ ethi-

cal thought. As some scholars have pointed at a possible intertextual

link between Sorokins heroine Marina Ivanovna and the writer Marina

Ivanovna Tsvetaeva, this discussion will also open up for an intertex-

tual comment. But is Sorokin’s novel then to be read as a conceptu-

ally performed, ironic literary comment upon Tsvetaeva’s authorship

in general, and maybe even to Krysolov in particular? And if so — is the

irony due solely to a destructive intention, or does it leave room for an

affi rmative aspect as well?

10

Дискуссия о языке 1934 года

Hans Günther, University of Bielefeld

Дискуссия о языке начиналась как внутрилитературный спор, но

быстро превратилась в кампанию, оказавшую огромное влияние

на дальнейшее развитие русского языка и литературы. Не случай-

но начало этой кампании совпало с канонизацией соцреализма.

Толчком к дискуссии явились статьи Горького, направленные

против «натурализма» в романах Панферова и Серафимовича.

Вслед за Горьким в дискуссию вступили такие органы как Литера-

турная газета и Правда, придавшие обсуждению официальный

характер.

Первоначально спор затрагивает вопросы стилистической нор-

мы. Так, Горький ругает своих противников за употребление диа-

лектизмов, просторечия, «бессмысленных» слов и т. д. Но вскоре

выясняется, что «чистота» языка имеет не только стилистическое,

но и политическое измерение. Рядом с вопросом о нормативно-

сти появляется новый параметр — оппозиция амбивалентного и

(идеологически) однозначного. Раз мерилом «чистоты» становит-

ся нейтральный стиль партийной публицистики, литературные

средства выразительности или оказываются лишними, или вызы-

вают к себе подозрение.

Поскольку критерии нормативности и однозначности приме-

няются в равной степени как к литературному языку, так и к язы-

ку художественной литературы, литература лишается функции

обновления языка и «оживления» публицистичесих клише (о чем

мечтал в еще в 1923 г. Винокур). Не допуская разрыхления штам-

пов официального языка, советская власть просто оккупировала

поле коммуникации своим дискурсом.

Дискуссия 1934 г. влечет за собой не только общую тенденцию

к пуризму, но и глубокий перелом в литературе — смену гоголев-

ского направления, господствовавшего три десятилетия в русской

литературе, направлением (псевдо)пушкинским и (псевдо)класси-

11

ческим. Орнаментальность и выразительность уступают «точно-

сти», «краткости» и «простоте» (термин народности только зарож-

дается в это время); установка на устность и сказовость заменяет-

ся господством письменного слова публицистики и «сакральных»

текстов. После дискуссии начинается «чистка» художественных

текстов, в которой участвуют все инстанции литературной жизни,

включая и самих авторов.

Небезынтересно обсудить и вопрос, почему Р. Якобсон в своей

статье об оползне нормы 1934 г. с известным пониманием реаги-

рует на дискуссию о языке.

12

Negotiating Reality with Anecdotes: Soviet vs. Post-Soviet Sociology of Language

Daniela S. Hristova, University of Chicago

As a genre, anecdotes (or jokes, in the Western literature) have been

among the most popular oral narratives in both Soviet and Post-Soviet

era. Yet, in contrast to other folkloric and literary genres, the Post-So-

viet linguistic liberalization has impacted the anecdote’s narrative tech-

niques to a much lesser degree than it might seem on the surface. Admit-

tedly, since an eff ective joke not only imparts laughter but also provides

awareness about the world from which it is drawn, the new economic

and ideological reality has fostered new paradigmatic classes of anec-

dotes. Th e question, however, is whether and/or how that what made a

Soviet anecdote funny is diff erent from that what makes a Post-Soviet

anecdote amusing. Th e answer to that question further off ers insights

into the social functions of humor as well as sociology of language.

I address the central questions of my investigation using linguis-

tic methodologies and tools. Of the many existing theories of humor,

I choose Attardo and Raskin’s revised version of the Semantic Script

Th eory of Humor (Attardo & Raskin 1991) to formalize the data’s anal-

yses. From the point of view of the theory each joke can be viewed as a

6-tuple, specifying the instantiation of six parameters: Language (LA),

Situation (SI), Narrative Strategy (NS), Target (TA), Script Opposition

(SO), and Logical Mechanism (LM). I demonstrate that it is the TA and

SI parameters that distinguish the Soviet from the Post-Soviet anec-

dotes whereas the rest of the parameters display scale changes in their

values.

Attardo, S. and Raskin, V. (1991), Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similar-

ity and joke representation model, Humor 4, 293–347.

13

The Poetics of Paraphrase: The Positivist Postmodernism in the “Experimental Translations” by Mikhail Gasparov

Heinrich Kirschbaum, University of Passau

Two years before his death, Mikhail Gasparov (1935–2005) published

his “Experimental Translations” (or ETs). Gasparov’s book is an anthol-

ogy of translations of works by authors from diff erent epochs and liter-

ary traditions, from Pindar to Enzensberger. Th e ETs are experimental

in many senses (are and not were, because their impact is just begin-

ning to be felt): in his condensed translations Gasparov shortens the

originals drastically, and in some cases, one could say, sadistically, by

80. However, the ETs are experimental not only because of Gasparov’s

new “technique of translation,” but also because of the new objects of

translation: in addition to Hölderlin and Kavafi s, Gasparov translates

Pushkin and Lermontov, from Russian into Russian, shortening and

paraphrasing them beyond recognition.

When describing the poetics of the ETs and determining their place

in the multiplex landscape of post-Soviet literature, one needs to take

Gasparov’s reputation into consideration. Although he was not a com-

pletely unknown person in Russian literature — he was recognized and

famous as a researcher, commentator and translator of classical Greek

and Latin literature, as well as Russian modern poetry — he had no rep-

utation as a writer.

Gasparov had a particular position in Soviet academic life already

in the 1950–80s. Even if he was actively present in the most important

projects of the alternative philology (the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School,

the Meletinskii-Circle, the Tynianov-Readings etc.), his position always

remained that of bystander (“vzgliad iz ugla”), a critical and skeptical

one. Gasparov took the role of the devil’s advocate: a spoilsport of the

Bakhtin-euphoria in the 1970s, he was also a killjoy of the religious ren-

aissance of the 1980–90s. He was the one to destroy the martyr-myth

of Mandelstam, which created the identity for generations of the Rus-

sian intelligentsia. His position was provocative and aggressive, but not

14

scandalous, because he presented it in a passive and defensive way. His

programme was formulated as the reply of a retrograde positivist, who

is fi ghting for the old-fashioned purity of science. And now, all of the

sudden, this positivist puritan was publishing such ultramodern pro-

vocative translations.

Who was Gasparov? A spy of science in literature or vice versa? A

formalist hermit preaching the total rationalization? What kind of ex-

periment does he conduct in his ETs: a poetic or maybe an ethical one?

By analysing the self-legitimations of Gasparov’s paraphrasing transla-

tions, I will try to show in my paper how and why Russian philology in

the person of Gasparov is approaching and at the same time attacking

postmodernism.

15

Писатели о языке: Contemporary Russian Writers on the Language Question

Ingunn Lunde, University of Bergen

Th e Landslide project seeks to present a broad picture of linguistic de-

velopment, and the discussions surrounding it, in Russia today. Th e

voices in the language debates are numerous and manifold, and need to

be studied on at least two levels: the explicit voices of politicians, jour-

nalists, teachers, philologists, literary critics on the one hand, and on

the other, the implicit statements made through all kinds of linguis-

tic practice within the language community, for example, in literature,

jokes, internet Russian, popular culture, various forms of slang etc.

Sometimes these two levels intersect. At the two fi rst Landslide confer-

ences, I examined implicit and explicit responses within literary works

by analysing texts by Vladimir Sorokin, Tatiana Tolstaia, Evgenii Popov,

and others. In my Passau paper, I will discuss responses to the language

question by contemporary writers not by analysing their literary work

(that is, “level two”), but by looking at their statements in interviews,

questionnaires, articles and round tables discussions. In analysing the

views of contemporary Russian writers, I will try to bring out the points

where the writers, as a group, emphasize other perspectives than those

predominating the language debate in general (even though, to be sure,

“the language debate in general” represents in itself a highly hetero-

geneous fi eld). I will furthermore attempt to say something about the

writers’ view on their own role and status with regard to the language

question, against the background of the traditional role of writers and

literary texts in maintaining the Russian standard language. Key ques-

tions include language cultivation and language planning, the norm, the

use of non-standard language, and, fi rst and foremost, the relationship

between the standard language (literaturnyi iazyk) and the language of

literature (iazyk literatury).

16

Литература в советской школе 1960–70-х и поэзия 1990–х (Тимур Кибиров и Всеволод Емелин)

Elena Markasova, St Petersburg University

В докладе речь пойдет о языке Т. Кибирова («Сквозь прощальные

слезы», «К. У. Черненко» и др.) и Вс. Емелина («Песни аутсайдера»).

Внутренняя иерархия авторов и текстов, цитируемых в этих тек-

стах рассматривается в контексте истории преподавания литера-

туры в школе.

Выбор текстов для обязательного чтения и общего ознаком-

ления, комментирование литературных произведений в школе,

формы работы с классом всегда были связаны с теми задачами,

которые школа должна была выполнять в соответствии с требо-

ваниями государственных программ, исходящих от министер-

ства просвещения. Единство круга чтения советских школьни-

ков было обусловлено единством учебных программ. На основе

общих методических разработок, используемых учителями на

уроках литературы, в сознании учеников формировался корпус

цитат-посредников.

Цитаты-посредники не восходят напрямую к литературным

произведениям, они сохраняются в памяти как цитаты из школь-

ной повседневности, как минимум знаний о тексте, почерпнутый

на уроке. Корпус таких цитат формировался на уроке вследствие

многократного повторения материала, сама методика преподава-

ния делала необязательным чтение «литературы из списка»: мож-

но было и так высказаться на уроке о том, что «нищета — порок-с»,

«не зальют кровью разума!», «прислуживаться тошно», или упо-

мянуть «мраморные плечи», «тулупчик», «шкаф мой» и т. д. Уме-

ние воспроизводить такие «геральдические» знаки в ходе кон-

трольных и самостоятельных работ, при написании сочинений,

во время повторительно-обобщающих уроков и экзаменов было

показателем «уровня знаний» учащихся, а для самих школьников

выступало гарантом удовлетворительной оценки (не ниже «трех

17

баллов»). Именно поэтому преподавание, которое часто строилось

как «натаскивание», лишь изредка вызывало открытое противо-

стояние учеников.

Фонд цитат из школьной программы постепенно разрушался в

постперестроечный период, однако его жизнеспособность сфор-

мировала основу языка рекламы, СМИ, повседневного общения

поколений тех, «кому за тридцать». Анализ источников цитат

в стихах Т. Кибирова и Вс. Емелина в докладе является основой

для интерпретации публицистического клише «голос поколения»,

имеющего безусловно положительную коннотацию и используе-

мого читателями для характеристики этих поэтов.

18

Language Attitudes in Post-Soviet Russia

Martin Paulsen, University of Bergen

While working on my article on the language question in the reception

of Viktor Pelevin’s novel Generation “P” (1999; Paulsen 2006) I found it

diffi cult to establish a satisfactory classifi cation of the diff erent language

attitudes that appeared in the reviews I scrutinized. Th e not-so-exten-

sive literature on post-Soviet Russian language debates includes some

more or less explicit attempts at classifi cations of these attitudes, as in

the works of Michael S. Gorham (2000, 2006) and Lara Ryazanova-

Clarke (2006).

Similar attempts at classifi cation have been conducted in relation to

other languages, sometimes with slightly diff erent points of departure,

such as the Milroys’ Authority in Language (1999), on the language dis-

course in the UK, while a more theoretical approach is given in František

Daneš’ 1982 article on the development of standard languages. Dennis

R. Preston’s (2004) classifi cation of three diff erent groups of metalan-

guage could also add to the understanding of language attitudes.

In this paper I will discuss diff erent possible classifi cations in light

of my project on the attitudes towards the language in contemporary

Russian literature.

References

Daneš, František 1982, „Dialektische Tendenzen in der Entwicklung

der Literatursprachen: Ein soziolinguistischer Beitrag,“ in Grundla-

gen der Sprachkultur, ed. by Jürgen Scharnhorst & Erika Ising, Ber-

lin: Akademie-Verlag, pp. 92–113.

Gorham, Michael S. 2006, “Language Culture and National Identity in

Post-Soviet Russia,” in Landslide of the Norm: Language Culture in

Post-Soviet Russia (Slavica Bergensia 6), ed. by Ingunn Lunde & Tine

Roesen Bergen, pp. 18–30.

Gorham, Michael S. 2000, “Natsiia ili snikerizatsiia? Identity and Per-

version in the Language Debates of Late- and Post-Soviet Russia,”

Russian Review 59 (4), 614–29.

19

Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy, 1999, Authority in Language: Investigat-

ing Standard English, London: Routledge.

Paulsen, Martin 2006, “Criticizing Pelevin’s Language: Th e Language

Question in the Reception of Viktor Pelevin’s Novel Generation ‘P’,”

in Landslide of the Norm: Language Culture in Post-Soviet Russia

(Slavica Bergensia 6), ed. by Ingunn Lunde & Tine Roesen, Bergen,

pp. 143–58.

Dennis R. Preston, 2004, “Folk Metalanguage,” in Adam Jaworski,

Nikolas Coupland & Dariusz Galasinski (eds.), Metalanguage: Social

and Ideological Perspectives, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruy-

ter, pp. 75–101.

Ryazanova-Clarke, Lara 2006, ‘”Th e Crystallization of Structures”:

Linguistic Culture in Putin’s Russia’, in Landslide of the Norm: Lan-

guage Culture in Post-Soviet Russia (Slavica Bergensia 6), ed. by In-

gunn Lunde & Tine Roesen, Bergen, pp. 31–63.

20

The Russian Novel Recontextualised: On the Role of Contemporary Literary Prizes

Tine Roesen, University of Bergen

Премии должны знать свое место в

литературной жизни. Где-то между

тапочками и балконной дверью, а не в

красном углу.

Lev Pirogov in Nezavisimaia Gazeta

Th e conditions for writers in contemporary Russia are a complex fi eld of

study. Following the breakdown of the Soviet system, a new literary es-

tablishment has been formed, consisting of a row of interacting groups

that together defi ne the social place and role of literature in general as

well as of particular writers and works. Th e infl uence of these groups is

related to local, regional or national authorities, to money, to the mass

media, the educational system, or to foreign, predominantly Western,

interests (academic, diplomatic, fi nancial).1 All these aspects of the liter-

ary establishment are at work in the literary prizes.

Among the about 230 existing literary prizes in Russia today, some

are more infl uential than others as regards the writer’s subsistence and

status, the circulation of his/her work, its place in literary histories etc.

In my paper I will limit the scope to prizes awarded to literary prose

and attempt to no more than begin an investigation of how the liter-

ary prizes contextualise the Russian novel. Th e paper will open with an

overview of the most important prose prizes, their history, criteria and

recent awards. I will then take a closer look on four prizes, all of which

may be called prestigious, but each of which involves and appeals to

certain interests and thus “frames” the literary work in its own way: Th e

Andrei Bely Prize (Премия Белого), the Russian Booker (Букер), the

NatsBest (Национальный бестселлер), and the Big Book (Большая

книга). In doing so, I hope to trace, in a few case stories, what these

prizes have meant to the circulation and reception of the prize-winning

novels.1 Борис Дубин, 2005, Слово — письмо — литература: Очерки по социологии

современной культуры. М.: НЛО, 178–79.

21

Identity and Heresy in the Counter-Discourse ofThe Melted Cheese

Lara Ryazanova-Clarke, University of Edinburgh

Th e paper will deal with the construction of the oppositional version of

post-Soviet Russian identity in the counter discourse of the radio pro-

gramme Plavlennyi syrok (Th e Melted Cheese). Th is is a satirical pro-

gramme on the radio channel Echo of Moscow, written and performed

by Viktor Shenderovich. In Putin’s Russia, there has been a limited space

for competing identity discourses while Shenderovich’s programme re-

mains among a few media productions loyal to the fourth estate princi-

ples that were established at the dawn of the post-Soviet era.

Th e paper will examine the following questions:

Th ematic areas of identity construction exercised in the programme

and their relation to the offi cial discourse;

Argumentation strategies used in the narrative to oppose the offi cial

discourse;

Linguistic tools used to construct the oppositional version of identity;

Correlation of these linguistic tools with elements of the heretic dis-

course (Pierre Bourdieu).

22

«Ручкой скрип-скрип, клавиатуркой тюк-тюк, головёнкой дум-дум»: К вопросу о материальности письма в русской «сетевой литературе»

Henrike Schmidt, Freie Universität Berlin

«Что специфически нового внес Интернет в литературу?» — спра-

шивает поэт Александр Левин в рамках дискуссии, посвященной

существованию некоей предполагаемой «сетературы». И сам сразу

же отрицает возможность такой специфически сетевой эстетики,

аргументируя главным образом имматериальной природой лите-

ратурного творчества, которое не зависит от способов материаль-

ного воплощения: «Способ написания остался прежним: ручкой

скрип-скрип, клавиатуркой тюк-тюк, головёнкой дум-дум». При

этом весьма симптоматично, что процесс написания, который по

мнению автора не влияет существенно на литературное творче-

ство, им самым описывается как раз посредством ономатопоэти-

ческих характеристик, непосредственно вызывающих ощущение

материальности письма.

Подобная позиция, отрицающая не только существование не-

коей специфической сетературы, но ставящая под вопрос мате-

риальную обусловленность литературного письма как такового,

в современной русской поэзии и литературной критике распро-

странена достаточно широко. Программной можно считать фор-

мулировку литературного критика Сергея Костырко: «В своих

суждениях о литературе, представленной Интернетом, мы ис-

ходим из того, что в конечном счете литературные произведения

разделяются отнюдь не по признаку технологии — чем написано,

гусиным пером или металлическим? на „Рейнметалле“ отстукано

или на компьютере? Интернетовская литература представляется

нам просто частью литературы».

Прямо противоположное мнение (и ощущение) выражает

«блоггер» Борис Кузнец: «Стамеска или кисть, автор один — а про-

изведения даже рядом не положить. Разны так». Интересно, что и

23

Кузнец прибегает для описания процесса литературного письма в

сети именно к ономатопоэзии: «Все, что я пишу все эти годы, пока

„есть“ Интернет, подчинено своеобразному белому стиху, неспо-

собно жить вне мелодий. Та-та-ту-ту-та-та-ти-та-та-та».

В докладе будет сделана попытка систематизировать выска-

зывания современных русских поэтов и писателей о влиянии

дигитальной технологии и сетевого пространства на литератур-

ное письмо и чтение. Историческим фоном для сравнения слу-

жат парадигма «остранения» в понятии русского формализма

и поэтическая практика русского футуризма, устремленного

преимуществeнно на материальность письма (типографические

эксперименты, книги-объекты, звуковая поэзия).

24

Moscow Sentimentalist Conceptualism: a Sociological and Noetological Approach

Dirk Uffelmann, University of Passau

Aft er the members of the Moscow Conceptualist group (Kabakov, Pri-

gov, Sorokin and others) left the underground in the late 1980ies and

1990ies, their poetics dominated Russian post-modernism. Th is proc-

ess of canonization took place simultaneously with the “landslide of

the norm” in the language culture of the post-Soviet masses. Becoming

canonical, however, led to the disintegration of the hitherto hermetic

Moscow Conceptualist group. Along with the disintegration readers

and critics observed a shift in the poetics of some of the group members

such as Sorokin, Rubinshtein, Kibirov. Others made explicit confessions

of “new sincerity” (novaia iskrennost’), a term introduced by Prigov in

1984. Th is paper analyzes the noetic affi nities between the “classical”

conceptualist poetics, which Groys described as “romantic” as early as

in 1979, and the newly adopted programmatic naivety, simplicity or

straightforwardness.

25

The Formation of Soviet Translation Ideology

Susanna Witt, Uppsala University

Th is paper will discuss the formation of Soviet translation ideology in

the 1930s in relation to contemporary practice (the increasing number

of translations from Soviet minority languages at the time) on the one

hand, and to ideological issues in other spheres of literature and the

arts, most notably the debate on “formalism,” on the other. Th e focus

will be on the First All-Union Conference of Translators held in 1936,

and special attention will be paid to the operational value and varying

content of such concepts as “literalist” vs. “free” translation.