Slot: 30C–2 Dec.
30, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Panel: Modernist Texts in Dialog
Chair: Malynne Sternstein, University of Chicago
Title: Of Animals, Humans, Islands, and States:
Zamiatin's Reading, and Creative Misreading, of H. G. Wells
Author: Sara Stefani, Yale University
The fact that the writings of H. G. Wells
serve as a central subtext for Evgenii Zamiatin’s dystopian novel We has been explored in a number of essays
and is well known. However, investigators looking for the origins of We in Wells have focused primarily on works
such as When the Sleeper Wakes
or A Modern Utopia,
i.e., works emphasizing futuristic utopian visions and scientific and
technological advancements, while one possible source for We that has so far gone overlooked is
Wells’s scientific romance The Island of Dr. Moreau.
The goal of this
paper is to show the importance of the subtext of The Island of Dr. Moreau not just for We, but for the body of Zamiatin’s work and
the evolution of his thinking. Throughout his writing, Zamiatin uses the
metaphor of animals and animalistic behavior in order to explore what it means
to be human. Bernard Bergonzi has called The Island of Dr. Moreau a “deeply pessimistic book” expressing a
“Swiftian view of human nature” (112), and Mark Hillegas has stated that
Wells’s book is “a parable of the cruelty, savagery, and arbitrariness of the
cosmic process as it has created man and determined his nature” (36). In his
work before We, it
would seem that Zamiatin internalized this interpretation, and the animalistic
behavior of his characters points to their lack of humanity. However, as Roger
Cockrell notes, Zamiatin tended to read his British forerunner “refracted
through the prism of [his] own ideology” (85) – i.e., to creatively misread
Wells. This is evident in his 1922 essay entitled Gerbert Uèlls, where Zamiatin sees in The Island of
Dr. Moreau an expression
of Wells’s deep humanism.
In this paper, I
will examine Zamiatin’s reading and creative misreading of The Island of Dr.
Moreau and the function
of animalism and humanism in Zamiatin’s work, which coincides with his
conception of the primitive. Although I will discuss these themes in relation
to We, I will also
place them in the context of some of Zamiatin’s less well-known works, such as
“The Middle of Nowhere,” “Alatyr’,” and “Eyes,” thereby focusing attention on
other areas of his oeuvre.
References
Bergonzi, Bernard. The Early H. G.
Wells: A Study of the Scientific Romances. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1961.
Cockrell, Roger. “Future Perfect: H. G.
Wells and Bolshevik Russia, 1917–32.” The Reception of H. G. Wells in Europe. Eds. Patrick Parrinder and John S.
Partington. London: Thoemmes Continuum, 2005. 74-90.
Hillegas, Mark R. The Future as
Nightmare: H. G. Wells and the Anti-utopians. New York: Oxford UP, 1967.
Title: Parody and Imitation in Olesha’s Envy
Author: Yelena Zotova, University of Illinois,
Chicago
In Yury Olesha's Envy the caustic aesthete and drunkard Nikolai Kavalerov (allegedly, the author's alter-ego) finds himself in a precarious position. On the one hand, he wages a war of art against philistines; on the other hand, these philistines now rule the new Soviet world, wherein their unsuspecting allies, the Futurists, have labeled traditional art philistine. Before proceeding with his Don Quixote mission, Kavalerov must reexamine his own aesthetic values and readjust his literary style. His tools in this search are parody and imitation.
Applying Gary Saul Morson's theory of parody, this paper shows how the alternating use of parody and imitation reflects Olesha’s search for an aesthetic platform in Envy and how the aesthetic correlates with the ideological. Considering parody and imitation as two instances of a “double-voiced word” (in Morson’s rather than a Bakhtinian sense), the essay explores what happens to the second, evaluating, voice as the novel progresses. Does this voice successfully assert its authority over the first one? Does it give in and merge with the first voice, as in Bakhtin’s understanding of imitation, or does it, perhaps, turn on itself?
References
Bakhtin, M. Problemy Poetiki
Dostoevskogo. Moscow,
1972.
Belinkov, A. Sdacha i Gibel′
Sovetskogo Intelligenta.
Moscow, 1997.
Epstein, M. After the Future. Amherst, 1995.
Girard, R. Deceipt, Desire, and the
Novel. Baltimore,
London, 1965.
Khlebnikov, V. "Utes iz
Budushchego" in Khlebnikov, V. Sobranie Sochinenii v Trekh Tomakh. St. Petersburg, 2001.
Markov, V. Russian Futurism. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, 1968.
Morson, G. The Boundaries of a Genre. Evanston, IL 1988.
Olesha, Iu. Zavist’ in Olesha Iu. Izbrannye Sochineniia. – Moscow, 1974.
--. “Speech to First Congress to Soviet
Writers” in Envy and Other Works byYurii Olesha. New York, 1981.
Peppard, V. Poetics of Yurii Olesha. Florida, 1989.
Rose, M. Parody: Ancient, Modern, and
Postmodern. Cambridge,
1993.
Sovetskaia Literaturnaia Parodiia. – ed. by Sarnov, B. Moscow, 1988.
Tucker, J. Against the Grain: Parody,
Satire, and Intertextuality in Russian Literature. Bloomington, 2002.
--. Revolution Betrayed. Columbus, OH, 1996.
Tynianov, Iu. “O Parodii” in Tynianov,
Iu. Poetika. Istoriia Literatury. Kino. Moscow, 1977.
Title: Nabokov and Damaged Time: Parodied
Modernist Poetics in Lolita
and Ada
Author: Marijeta Bozovic, Columbia University
The amorous male narrator/protagonists of
Nabokov’s Lolita and Ada both seem to have complex and damaged
relationships to, or philosophies of, Time. In both texts, the eponymous beloved takes on temporal
significance: Lolita, the nymphet, is a symbol of time stopped. Ada, for Van, ideally exists in a
conflation of all her desirable ages.
The cinema
offers powerful metaphors for both projects. Thus, Humbert exclaims: “Idiot, triple idiot! I could have filmed her!… I could have
had all her strokes, all her enchantments, immortalized in segments of
celluloid” (Lolita 231-2). Van, on the other hand, recognizes the
magic of an on-screen Ada as a palimpsest: “In the magic rays of the camera, in
the controlled delirium of ballerina grace, ten years of her life had glanced
off…By some stroke of art, by some enchantment of chance, the few brief scenes
she was given formed a perfect compendium of her 1884 and 1888 and 1892 looks”
(Ada 488-9).
This enchanted
collage is an illustration of Van’s concept of time: his is an accessible past
that can be zipped back to, re-experienced, and complexly enjoyed all
simultaneously with the present.
If Humbert’s sickness is that he cannot accept the passage of time,
Van’s Time is shamelessly Bergsonian, if reductively so. (In the fourth book of Ada, professor Van lectures on “Veen’s Time,”
dropping planted allusions to Bergson’s Time and Free Will.)
But what is even
more curious is how both protagonists cast their love/philosophy of time in
explicitly modernist poetic terms.
What is Nabokov up to? Why
the explicit cultural
and philosophic references? What
kind of modernist poets do Humbert and Van respectively parody? Could we call Humbert’s quasi-mystical
search to break out of time essentially Symbolist? And are Van’s palimpsests, in turn, something of an Acmeist
heresy?