Статья представляет собой полемические заметки к широкомасштабной дискуссии о «новом реализме» в русской литературе первого десятилетия ХХI века. Рассматриваются манифест С. Шаргунова «Отри- цание траура» (2001) и «Манифест новой жизни» (2004) В. Пустовой, а также подводящая итоги лите- ратурного десятилетия статья А. Рудалёва «Катехизис “нового реализма”» (2011). Автор представляет противоречия в стремлении теоретического обоснования «нового реализма», как нового литературного направления. Попытки молодых критиков найти стратификаторы между новым и старым реализмом были малоуспешны. Пренебрегая постмодернизмом и отрицая старую традицию, сами «новые реалисты» яв- ляются продуктом синтеза названных направлений. Молодое поколение, пришедшее в литературу, более свободно в выборе средств и тем, т.к. оно не ощутило на себе тиски советской эпохи, когда литература была вопросом «государственным», подконтрольным власти. К основным чертам младших русских реа- листов можно отнести следующие: языковая раскованность; прерванная литературная преемственность (‘пустота’); сочетание элементов соцреализма и постмодернизма; фрагментарность изображения дейст- вительности; автобиографическая рефлексивность; использование авторами различных пиар-способов продвижения своего творчества. Определение «новый», соотносящееся с реализмом нашего времени, не свидетельствует о развитии нового литературного направления, а дополняет лишь новую ось времени, с позиций которой в уже существующее направление вносятся новые темы и корректируются ценности. and The article is arranged in a form of polemic notes on an extensive discussion of "a new realism" in Russian literature which emerged in the first decade of the 21st century. The manifestos written by S. Shargunov Renunciation of Mourning (2001), by V. Pustovaja A Manifesto for a New Life (2004), as well as the article The Catechism of "a New Realism" written by A. Rudalyov (2011) are analysed. The author uncovers the contradictions of seeking some theoretical ground for "the new realism" being taken as a new literature approach. The attempts to find some stratifying indicators showing the difference between the old and the new realism made by young critics were not successful. Though neglecting postmodernism and rejecting the old tradition, "new realists" are the products of the synthesis of mentioned literature approaches themselves. The young generation, which has come into the literature, enjoys more freedom when selecting the means and topics since they have never faced the limitations set by the Soviet era when literature was considered to be "a governmental" issue controlled by the authorities. The main features which belong to the younger Russian realists include the following means such as language looseness; interrupted literature succession ('emptiness'); combination of elements which are typical for social realism and postmodernism; fragmentary reality description; autobiographical reflexivity; the usage of various PRmethods to promote their literary works. The definition of new which relates to the realism of a modern time cannot be treated as the evidence of a new literature approach development, it only adds a new time axis for already existing direction where new topics are being introduced and new values are being revised.
This article uses Brian McHale’s interpretative model of postmodern change as a dominant shift, i.e. as a transition from epistemological to ontological poetics, to explore trends and developments in the fiction by Su Weizhen, one of the most prominent Taiwanese women writers to appear on the Taiwanese literary scene at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s, a period which witnessed the revival of women’s fiction in Taiwan. Firstly, I reexamine some of the basic characteristics of Su Weizhen’s earlier work and try to demonstrate what might possibly have directed it to the epistemological dominant of modernist literature. In the second part of the article, I trace the subsequent shift towards ontological poetics, described by Brian McHale as being a characteristic of postmodernist fiction in general, something which has been partly realized in Su Weizhen’s more recent works. This, however, is not to say that I wish to argue that Su Weizhen should be placed among the pantheon of modernist or postmodernist writers; rather, I would like to point out that by using McHale’s model to (re)interpret her works, we can arrive at some new elucidations and interesting insights into the development of Su Weizhen’s fiction (including both form and content), especially as regards her more recent works.
Autor přítomného článku se zabývá funkcí staroslověnštiny v procesu konstituování moderní literární ruštiny jako jazyka ruské literatury. Ukazuje na to, že staroslověnština je nejen páteří ruské morfologie, syntaxe a slovní zásoby, ale také speciální vrstvou s významnou poetologickou funkcí. Na uměleckých textech několik staroruských a moderních ruských literárních děl manifestuje proměny funkcí staroslověnštiny až k modernímu jazyku Puškina, dále k realismu, moderně a postmoderně jako trvalým konstitutivním komponentům ruské literatury. and The author of the present article deals with the function of Old Church Slavonic in the process of the constituting of modern standard/literary Russian as a language of Russian literature. He manifests that Old Church Slavonic is not only a backbone of Russian morphology, syntax and vocabulary, but also a special layer with a significant poetological function. Several artistic texts of old and modern Russian literary works demonstrate the modifications of Old Church Slavonic up to modern language of Pushkin, further to realism, modernism and postmodernism as a permanent constitutive components of Russian literature.
I have argued in the past that there has been a massive failure of nerve in the study of religion in the context of the modern research university; that it failed to live up to the scientific objectives enunciated for the field in late nineteenth-century European academic communities. The "comments" here on the current state of the science (or sciences) of religion constitute, in part, a kind of informal critical history of the field known as "Religious Studies." I suggest here that the overall development of the field might actually indicate a positive trajectory since its inception in late nineteenth-century Europe. This essay, therefore, may mitigate somewhat my recent claim (with L. H. Martin) that it is highly unlikely that the scientific study of religion will actually some day come to dominance in religious studies departments in our modern universities.
Autor se v článku zabývá obecným přijetím postmodernismu v česko-slovenském kontextu na pozadí vývoje postmodernismu ve světě. Upozorňuje na fakt, že postmodernismus se do střední Evropy dostal sice na konci šedesátých let XX. století (polemika L. A. Fiedlera s Vl. Dostálem), ale naplno se o něm mluvilo až od přelomu osmdesátých a devadesátých let XX. století a po "sametové revoluci". Připomíná, že český a slovenský model postmoderní literatury se liší, oba však obsahují velice silné prvky politizace, což souvisí s restrukturalizací a novou emancipací celého spektra společnosti po revoluci v roce 1989. Upozorňuje však i na složky jiné (hravý postmodernismus, fantastický postmodernismus apod.). and The author of the article looks at the broad adoption of postmodernism in a Czech-Slovak context against the background of the development of postmodernism in the world. Attention is drawn to the fact that although postmodernism appeared in central Europe in the late sixties of the twentieth century (L. A. Fiedler with V. Dostal), it was not fully recognized until the late eighties and early nineties of the twentieth century, after the "Velvet Revolution". It notes that the Czech and Slovak models of postmodern literature differ, but both contain very strong elements of politicization, which is related to the restructuralization and new emancipation of the whole spectrum of society after the revolution in 1989. Attention is also paid, however, to other components (playful postmodernism, fantastic postmodernism, etc.).
Prozaik, dramatik, režisér, upravovateľ iných autorských textov Karol Horák patrí medzi tvorcov prozaických a dramatických textov, ktoré majú výrazne mravnú pointu. Je to autor, ktorý tvorí vo viacerých literárnych druhoch a žánroch, ale pracuje s rovnakým problémom: Sústreďuje sa na jednotlivca v krízovej situácii, keď sa musí rozhodnúť, alebo konať. S postmodernými postupmi vo svojej tvorbe začínal v 70. rokoch minulého storočia, predovšetkým v textoch pre javiskovú realizáciu, kde experiment v priestore bol dominantný. Podstata Horákovej metódy v postmodernej koncepcii jeho tvorby sa spája s narátorom, konfliktom a kompozíciou textu. and Being a novelist, playwright, director and adapter of other authors' texts, Karol Horák belongs to the creators of prose and dramatic texts which have a significant moral punch line. He is the author using different genres, but dealing with the same problem. He concentrates on the individual in a crisis situation in which he/she has to make a decision or act. It was in the 1970s, when the author started applying postmodern methods to his works, primarily to the texts for staging, where the experiment in space was dominant. The essence of Horák's method in a postmodern conception of his writings is connected with a narrator, conflict and text composition.
Na příkladu vybraných děl Michala Viewegha autor sumarizuje několik rysů tzv. kvázipostmodernismu, jak je demonstroval v několika svých předchozích článcích, zejména utváření "nového člověka" a jeho "nové etiky", na metaliterární a sebestředný ráz této literatury a jeho "novou upřímnost". and On the example of the selected works by Michal Viewegh the author summarizes several features of the so-called quasipostmodernism he had demonstrated in his preceding articles, especially the formation of the "new man" and his "new ethics", the metaliterary and egoistical character of this type of literature and his "new sincereness".
Wiersze dwóch poetek o 'oknie' i 'lustrze' autor analizuje w kontekście założeń modernizmu i postmodernizmu. Z. Gippius jako reprezentantkę modernizmu wysokiego cechuje wzniosłość w wersji melancholijnej. Na tej bazie poetka przywraca wartość sprzeczności doznań: bólu, niemożności, nadziei. Interesuje ją transcendentalne odbicie w lustrze. Implikuje to skojarzenia z mitem Narcyza, a także symboliką "bramy". Zmiany w sieci radialnej kategorii 'okno' i 'lustro' u M. Cwietajewej odnieść należy do faktu, że nadaje ona "tej samej rzeczy" każdorazowo inny sens. W ten sposób rama okienna (jej cień) odbita na ścianie strychu symbolizuje krzyż, a ten świat. Kreuje taki stan rzeczy wektor skierowany ku dołowi oraz uznanie za istotną "część", tj. 'ramę' okienną. Cwietajewa wprowadza 'zmianę', rozbijając lustro i eliminując z niego 'spojrzenie' (tj. stary punkt widzenia). W ten sposób rodzi się nowy horyzont zdarzeń. and The author analyzes two poems of 'window' and 'mirror' of two poets in the context of tenets of modernism and postmodernism. Z. Gippius as a representative of the high modernism is distinguished by sublimeness in a melancholic version. On this basis, the poet restores the value of the contradiction of sensations: the pain, impossibility, hope. She is interested in a trascendental mirror reflection. This implies a connotation with the myth of Narcissus, as well as the symbolism of the 'gate' through which lyrical I cannot pass. The changes in radial network of the categories of 'window' and 'mirror' in M. Tsvetaeva's poetry should be referred to the fact that every time 'the same thing' is given a different meaning. This way a window frame (its shadow) reflected on the attic wall symbolizes a cross and, in effect – the world. This is created by a vector directed down and the fact that the 'part' – a window 'frame' is regarded as important. Tsvetaeva confirms the 'power' by breaking the mirror and eliminating a 'look' from it (an old point of view).
Příspěvek poukazuje na skutečnost, že kolem cyrilometodějské misie dodnes panuje mnoho nejasností, vyplývajících z nedostatku pramenů, které o misii a o místě jejího působení hovoří. Upozorňuje, že mezer v pramenech se snaží využít k různým spekulativním odhalením badatelé, pracující postmoderní metodologií při selektují historické prameny, z nichž se vybírají jen to, co se hodí jako důkaz. Autor poukazuje na práce maďarského historika Imreho Boby ze 70. let 20. stol. a díla jeho následovníků z konce 20. a poč. 21. století, jejichž objevy charakterizuje jako pokus o novou lokalizaci působení cyrilometodějská misie do prostoru severního Balkánu nebo jižní Panonie. Autor dokládá, že tyto názory nejsou podloženy archeologickými výzkumy, nejpřesvědčivěji je však vyvracejí důkazy filologické povahy. Upozorňuje i na nové výklady pramenů, které vyvracejí názory o Syrmiu jakožto Metodějově arcibiskupském stolci. V závěru pak ukazuje na postmoderní spekulace zpochybňující samu podstatu cyrilometodějské misie. and Presented contribution paper refers to the fact that numerous uncertainties prevail in connection with Sts. Cyril and Methodius mission up till now. Uncertainties result from insufficient sources, dedicated to mission itself and location where mission run its activities. Paper draws attention to the fact that exist researchers, who gaps in sources strive to utilize for different speculative revelations. Such researchers are applying postmodern methodology, selecting historical sources, of which they are "mining" only such documents, which fit as an evidence. Author focuses to works of Hungarian historian Imre Boby from 70th of 20th century as well as works of his disciples dated at the end 20th and beginning of 21st centuries, the conclusion of which author features as a trial to relocate activities of said mission. Their discoveries characterizes as trial of new localization of the running the activities of to the areal of Northern Balkans and/or Southern Pannonia. Author draws attention that these opinions are not substantiated with archeological survey, however the most coercive are argued against with evidences of Philological type. He draws attention also to new interpretations of sources, which are disproves opinions on Syrmium, to be archbishop Methodius Episcopal See. As a conclusion author presents postmodern speculations questioning the fundamentals of the Sts. Cyril and Methodius mission itself.
The study analyzes the paradoxes of postmodernism in literary and cultural area of Central Europe. Crucial attention is focused on the novel in German, Czech and Slovak literature. Specific features of the literatures of Central Europe can be observed in post-modern prose. Postmodernism appears here as a special configuration which roots lie deep in the bedrock of Jewish, German and Czech culture.