MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4327594652 · doi:10.1111/russ.12448

Writing Fear: Russian Realism and the Gothic by KatherineBowers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022. xvi + 241 pp. $65.00. ISBN 978‐1‐4875‐2692‐4

2023· article· en· W4327594652 sur OpenAlex
Bella Grigoryan

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Russian Review · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueLogistics and Transportation Systems
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBELLARealismCitationMedia studiesLibrary scienceSociologyComputer scienceArtLiteraturePhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Katherine Bowers has written a stimulating and timely study in which she traces the role of the Gothic mode and its attendant devices in the development of Russian prose fiction, chiefly Realism. Bowers’s work may be viewed as part of a growing field of inquiry devoted to the Russian Gothic. In this context, such scholarship as Vadim Vatsuro’s Goticheskii roman v Rossii (2002), as well as Valeria Sobol’s Haunted Empire: Gothic and the Russian Imperial Uncanny (2020) and the special issue of the journal Russian Literature (May–June 2019), which was devoted to the Russian Gothic, come to mind. Bowers’s study is a welcome addition to what remains an underexplored but clearly productive area of research. In the Introduction Bowers gives an overview of her project and explains such key terms as “gothic realism,” which, she writes, “refers to moments when authors writing in what we recognize as a realist style turn to gothic narrative devices” (p. 10). Bowers contextualizes her study in relation to recent scholarship on the role of the Gothic in the development of other Realist traditions. Bowers points out that “what is compelling about how Russian realists use the gothic is … that many different writers over an extended period consistently use the gothic in similar ways, even to depict differing or opposing philosophical and political positions” (p. 11). One aspect of the significance of Bowers’s study lies in underscoring the degree to which the role, uses, and deployment of the Gothic may be fruitfully examined in potentially multiple nineteenth-century traditions as something of a transnational phenomenon. In chapter 1, Bowers surveys Russian readers’ probable familiarity with the Gothic in the 1830s and 1840s to arrive at a repertoire of Gothic works and devices that would have been known to the Russian educated public; she maintains that even without reading the main Gothic texts a typical reader would have known and recognized these features. In chapter 2, Bowers reads specific moments in Alexander Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin (Tatiana’s dream) and Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls (Pliushkin’s decaying estate) as instances of Gothic appropriation through an ironizing engagement. She explains that these two novels’ particular deployment of Gothic devices shaped later appropriations. In chapter 3, Bowers identifies “gothic framing devices” in Ivan Goncharov’s “Oblomov’s Dream” and Ivan Turgenev’s “Bezhin Lea” (p. 53). Bowers argues that Goncharov and Turgenev use the Gothic frames in order to complicate the educated readership’s potentially dismissive engagement with folk belief systems. Chapter 4 is devoted to Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, which is treated (aptly) as one of the Russian tradition’s most productive and extensive engagements with the Gothic; here Bowers provides a detailed reading of the novel in what amounts to a fitting culmination point to Part One of the book. Part Two is comprised of fascinating case studies that take up works of literature in connection with various social and cultural questions. In chapter 5, Bowers examines the works of multiple authors including Nikolai Nekrasov and Vladimir Dal' to explore the ways early Realist prose about Petersburg used the Gothic to cultivate such affects as horror, anxiety, and dread; ultimately, Bowers helpfully traces the Gothic dimensions of the Petersburg Text. Chapter 6 provides an especially appealing pairing of texts—Evgeniia Tur’s underexplored (especially so in Anglophone scholarship) Antonina, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, and Turgenev’s Diary of a Superfluous Man—to propose intertextual links in the context of how Tur responds to the Woman Question. Chapter 7 offers another interesting pairing of texts—Dostoevsky’s Demons and Boris Savinkov’s Pale Horse—to show that the two writers use devices drawn from the Gothic to divergent ends in their representation of revolutionary terrorism. In chapter 8, Bowers focuses on the Gothic in narratives about family, emphasizing family decline and disorder: Sergei Aksakov’s Family Chronicle, Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin’s Golovlyov Family, and Ivan Bunin’s Dry Valley. The conclusion, which is devoted to Anton Chekhov’s works, gestures towards the vitality of Gothic appropriations beyond Russian Realism, notably in the first glimmers of Russian Modernist writing. Bowers’s study is appealing both for the insightful readings of specific works and for the big picture about Russian Realism’s encounters with the Gothic that ultimately emerges. Writing Fear is likely to be of keen interest to those who study nineteenth-century Russian literature as well as to colleagues who study non-Russian literary traditions and have an interest in the Gothic.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,893
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,947

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,227
Écart entre enseignants0,212 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle