ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 7 ( 2018/2 ) |
TWENTIETH-CENTURY RUSSIAN POETRY, REINVENTING THE CANON, By Ayse Dietrich*, Published by: OpenBook Publishers, Cambridge, UK. Edited
by Katherine Hodgson, Joanne Shelton and Alexandra Smith, Year of Publishing:
2017. Subject Area: Literature and History. Book Type: Literature. Total
Number of Pages: 499. ISBN:9781783740871, £25.95, Paperback.
Through an examination of the dramatic developments in
Russian culture and society brought about by the dissolution of the Soviet
Union in 1991 this book aims to redefine the 20th- century Russian poetic
canon.
Comprised of thirteen
articles, Twentieth-Century Russian Poetry, Reinventing
the Canon, developed from a series of workshops at which contributors
gathered to share their ideas and discuss how they might develop their work for
publication.
The first article, “Introduction: Twentieth-Century Russian Poetry and the Post-Soviet
Reader: Reinventing the Canon” written by Katharine Hodgson and
Alexandra Smith, examines the state of the Russian 20th-century
poetic canon in light of the socio-political changes that occurred in the wake
of the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. It explores the developments in
Russian culture that emerged in a period which witnessed both a dramatic break
with the recent past, as well as a reclamation of
neglected elements of the 20th century’s cultural legacy.
The
second article, “From the Margins to
the Mainstream: Iosif Brodskii
and the Twentieth-Century Poetic Canon in the Post-Soviet Period” by Aaron
Hodgson aims to put the rise of Brodskii’s
popularity in post-Soviet Russia into context. Hodgson argues that Brodskii’s posthumous popularity resulted from his earlier
reception in Russia and the West. He suggests that both the rise of popular
culture and the influence of the Russian media on the literary imagination were
factors in creating a mythologised image of Brodskii as a martyr and a figure who links Russian
national and Anglo-Saxon literary traditions.
The
third article, “Golden-Mouthed Anna of
All the Russias: Canon, Canonisation,
and Cult” written by Alexandra
Harrington examines the non-literary factors which contributed to Akhmatova’s popular appeal and canonicity. Among these were
her iconography, her strategies of charismatic self-presentation, and the virtual
industry of adulatory biographies and canonising
memoirs devoted to her.
In the fourth article, “Vladimir Maiakovskii and the National School
Curriculum”, by Natalia Karakulina, the author focuses on the national
school curriculum, and in particular, the material on Maiakovskii
from earlier periods that was covered in the final year of school education. She
examines the image of the poet that students take from this material, how Maiakovskii’s image changed after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the approach to teaching literature in both Soviet and post-Soviet
schools, and what role the study of Maiakovskii plays
for students who are in their final year of education.
The fifth article, “The Symbol of the Symbolists: Aleksandr Blok in the Changing Russian Literary Canon”,
by Olga Sobolev, attempts to determine the
distinguishing characteristics of Blok’s body of work that put it at the center
of 20th century Russian literature and how they have helped to
maintain the cultural value of his works, through an analysis of Blok’s
critical reception up to the present day. The formation of a literary canon is
inextricably linked to the issues of self-determination and nationhood, thus
examining how Blok’s works attained this status could aid in understanding
issues in contemporary Russia such as the creation of national identity and
bridging the gap between the two cultures created by Soviet authoritarianism.
The sixth article, “Canonical Mandel′shtam”, written by Andrew Kahn, examines the recovery and interpretation of Mandel′shtam’s legacy in the Soviet Union and in the West,
and his role as a representative of his cultural and historical context. In
addition the article investigates how his critical writing contributed to his
views as a literary thinker, and, finally, the complex question of the relation
between moral courage, literary fame and political drama as the source of his
authority.
The seventh article, “Revising the Twentieth-Century Poetic Canon: Ivan Bunin in Post-Soviet
Russia”, by Joanne Shelton,
explores some of the means by which Bunin’s poetry became established in the
canon, and argues that the institutional model of canon formation appears to
have been more important in establishing Bunin’s canonicity than the poet-based
model of canonisation. However, the contribution of
poets to the process of canon formation cannot be ignored due to
the difficulty in drawing a distinction between the two models. The chapter also examines how the Bunin has
become an institution through extra-literary factors such as commemorations of his
life, museums, or statues dedicated to his memory, and how these have helped to
secure his place in the canon of post-Soviet poetry.
The eight article, “From Underground to
Mainstream: The Case of Elena Shvarts”, by Josephine
von Zitzewitz, examines Elena Shvarts’ popularity (1948–2010) in the 1990s and 2000s and discusses
how Shvarts’ work entered the poetic canon of
post-Soviet Russia. Finally, it discusses the factors that made her work was
more accessible to a general readership.
In the ninth article, “Boris Slutskii:
A Poet, his Time, and the Canon”, Katharine Hodgson discusses Boris Slutskii’s
position in the post-Soviet canon. Slutskii’s poetics
were inspired by the futurists, constructivists, and early Soviet avant-garde, and the author claims Slutskii
exemplifies how an individual poet’s standing within the literary canon may
begin to shift. This may not be due to discoveries of new works by that poet,
or attempts by advocates of that poet to change readers’ perceptions, but by a
change in the context in which the poet is seen as a result of a gradual change
in the canon.
In the tenth article, “The Diasporic Canon of Russian
Poetry: The Case of the Paris Note”, Maria Rubins argues
that the canonical shifts that defined Russian literary history in the late 20th
century involved not only a a large scale
reassessment of Soviet-era poetry and the inclusion into the canon of
previously silenced voices and texts, but also the recovery of diaspora poets.
The author claims that the attention given to the Russian diasporic canon has
been insufficient. To support her claim the author presents the taxonomy of the
Russian diasporic production, and develops some relevant criteria, focusing in
particular on the interwar poetic group known as the Paris Note.
In the eleventh article, “The Thaw Generation Poets in
the Post-Soviet Period”, Emily Lygo examines
how the reputations of these poets and the narrative about poetry in the Thaw
period changed after the radical political and cultural changes in the USSR of
the late 1980s and then Russia in the early 1990s. After analysing
the canon of the Thaw Generation in the late-Soviet period, the author investigates
how the Thaw Generation has been positioned in the canon in the post-Soviet
period.
The twelfth article, “The Post-Soviet Homecoming of
First-Wave Russian Émigré Poets and its Impact on the Reinvention of the Past”, by Alexandra
Smith, outlines
the history of the post-Soviet reception of émigré poetry of the first wave. She
attempts to demonstrate the lack of a homogenising
canon in today’s Russia, pointing out that there are competing views on the
role of the canon as an important aid in the production of works of art, and in
the formation of national and transnational identities.
In the thirteenth and final article, “Creating the Canon of the
Present”, during her assessment of canon-formation, Stephanie
Sandler
examines the issues of language, aesthetic categories, textual boundaries, story-telling
and the performance of poetry. She asserts that each of the poets examined can
be seen as canonical after sufficient time has passed for us to look back at
the present time in retrospect. Sandler argues that there are poets are
pressing us to rethink what is meant by the canon and how it is formed.
The aim of this collaborative work is to
examine the state of the Russian 20th-century poetic canon in the
context of socio-political changes triggered by the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991. This scholarly book clearly demonstrates the co-existence of
competing views on the role of the canon in artistic production and the shaping
of both national and transnational identities. The collected essays in this
work are of interest to students and scholars specifically interested in
Russian literature, and/or post-Soviet literary and cultural developments in
Russia. However, they are also of value to anyone interested in the more
general issue of cultural responses to rapid, far-reaching social change.
*Ayse Dietrich - Professor, Part-time, at Middle East Technical University, Department of History. Editor and the founder of the International Journal of Russian Studies e-mail: editor@ijors.net, dayse@metu.edu.tr, dietrichayse@yahoo.com
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES