The January 17 and 18, 1966, thesis production presented at North Texas State University was an experimental production of The Inspector General, as based on historical, philosophical, and analytical study of both the play and the author, Nikolai Gogol. A thesis production consists of a written analysis and evaluation of the play and its author and the actual production of the play. The thesis production enables the candidate to illustrate his mastery of theatre discipline. The written portion demonstrates his ability to develop the concepts necessary to the production of a play, and the presentation of the play offers the candidate the opportunity to show his creativity and aesthetic understanding of theatre.

In my thesis I argue that Gogol's "The Nose" and Rushdie's Midnight's Children are texts in which both authors are acutely aware of the fact that they write within a larger discursive framework, supported and developed by the privileged and ruling class of both societies. These grand narratives are in fact selected interpretations of reality, which circulate in the public sphere, designating the desired 'readings' of various sociocultural phenomena. By means of reiteration and enforcement through governmental powers, the privileged narratives produce and inscribe meaning onto objects and events, turning them into icons with very specific and restricted signification. In this way, truth and meaning are under control of select individuals and interest groups. I propose that Gogol in "The Nose" and Rushdie in Midnight's Children use nasal discourse to discern the manipulative process of ideological intervention, which selectively labels specific discourse and interpretation as the truth, and imposes it upon the life and history of the governed community. To utilize the olfactory in a manner challenging the dominant narratives, the authors construct nasal images as essentially ambiguous. In this way they point out to the fluid and unstable nature of reality. In the world of their fiction, reality does not have a singular meaning; every sign is open to interpretation, producing a new meaning, depending on the circumstances of the interpretative act. The nose itself is chosen for this symbolic function for two reasons: the physiognomic tradition of reading faces nests moral ambiguity in the nose, and scent is the most ambiguous of sensory stimuli. Chapter I focuses on the structural role of the olfactory, in Chapters III and IV I discuss how Rushdie and Gogol employ and adapt physiognomic theory to constitute the olfactory as ambiguous images. In Chapters V and VI show that both authors install the olfactory-introduced ambiguity into the very foundations of their texts.

In my thesis I argue that Gogol's "The Nose" and Rushdie's Midnight's Children are texts in which both authors are acutely aware of the fact that they write within a larger discursive framework, supported and developed by the privileged and ruling class of both societies. These grand narratives are in fact selected interpretations of reality, which circulate in the public sphere, designating the desired 'readings' of various sociocultural phenomena. By means of reiteration and enforcement through governmental powers, the privileged narratives produce and inscribe meaning onto objects and events, turning them into icons with very specific and restricted signification. In this way, truth and meaning are under control of select individuals and interest groups. I propose that Gogol in "The Nose" and Rushdie in Midnight's Children use nasal discourse to discern the manipulative process of ideological intervention, which selectively labels specific discourse and interpretation as the truth, and imposes it upon the life and history of the governed community. To utilize the olfactory in a manner challenging the dominant narratives, the authors construct nasal images as essentially ambiguous. In this way they point out to the fluid and unstable nature of reality. In the world of their fiction, reality does not have a singular meaning; every sign is open to interpretation, producing a new meaning, depending on the circumstances of the interpretative act. The nose itself is chosen for this symbolic function for two reasons: the physiognomic tradition of reading faces nests moral ambiguity in the nose, and scent is the most ambiguous of sensory stimuli. Chapter I focuses on the structural role of the olfactory, in Chapters III and IV I discuss how Rushdie and Gogol employ and adapt physiognomic theory to constitute the olfactory as ambiguous images. In Chapters V and VI show that both authors install the olfactory-introduced ambiguity into the very foundations of their texts.

Zugl.: Freiburg (Breisgau), Univ., Diss., 2007

Cette thèse a pour objectif de proposer un nouveau regard sur l’œuvre d’Ivan Gontcharov (1812-1891), romancier russe majeur du XIXe siècle et auteur du célèbre Oblomov. Cette recherche examine pour cela l’ensemble du corpus de l’auteur, à savoir ses quatre grandes œuvres : une Histoire ordinaire (1847), la Frégate Pallas (1858), Oblomov (1859), la Falaise (1869), ainsi que ses œuvres plus confidentielles, pour en saisir la cohérence et la portée générale. Nous examinons la figure du moraliste qui se profile derrière la création de Gontcharov. Cette thèse s’organise autour de trois axes principaux. Nous étudions, d’une part, le rôle du comique dans la production littéraire de Gontcharov en nous focalisant notamment sur l’intertextualité forte que l’on observe avec d’autres auteurs majeurs, comme Gogol ou Pouchkine, par exemple. Nous explorons ensuite la problématique de la nourriture et du corps dans le travail de Gontcharov. Nous nous intéressons notamment à la représentation symbolique des repas en menant, en parallèle, une réflexion sur la description du corps à travers toute son œuvre, et spécifiquement dans son récit de voyage. Nous envisageons enfin Gontcharov comme un peintre de la société russe en proposant une analyse détaillée de ses portraits de femmes, de ses questionnements sur la thématique du mariage et de sa critique ferme des passions. Toutes ces perspectives permettent de soutenir l’argument central de cette thèse, considérer Gontcharov comme un moraliste. / In this thesis, I intend to offer a new vision of Ivan Goncharov’s works (1812-1891), major Russian novelist of the XIXth century and author of the famous novel Oblomov. I analyse all the works of the novelist : A Common Story (1847), Oblomov (1859), the Frigate Pallas, the Ravine (1869) and some of his less known short stories. I try to show how one could consider Goncharov as a moralist. My thesis is organized around three major themes. Firstly, I address the fundamental role of the comic elements in Goncharov’s literary production as I focus my attention on the strong intertextuality between Goncharov and other major authors of the XIXth century, such as Pushkin or Gogol. My second part is dedicated to the question of food and the body in Goncharov’s creation. I ponder over the symbolic representation of meals and cooking throughout his works. I also discuss the construction of bodies in his literary production, and more specifically in his travel writing. Finally, I examine Goncharov as a « painter » of the Russian society as I study his rich diversity of portraits of women, his considerations on marriage and his strong criticism of human passions, a fundamental argument of my thesis which stands perfectly in line with this vision of Goncharov as a moralist

Informe de Seminario para optar al grado de Licenciado en Lengua y Literatura Hispánica. / Trabajaré con “Diario de un loco”, de Gogol porque pienso que en él aparece una forma de comicidad que si bien produce risa, ésta no es del todo alegre, pues nos deja con una sensación parecida a la de la amargura. Y es que la función de la comicidad no es sólo la de producir risa o un sentimiento festivo, sino que también cumple la función de reprochar un error, de dejar de manifiesto algún vicio para que al verlo el espectador y rebajarlo por medio de la risa, no se vuelva a cometer; se trata de algo así como un fin didáctico. Tanto es así, que como nos dice Sypher, “que los antiguos se rieran de uno significaba la deshonra”.

korrigierte Version des Artikels

Bitte aktualisierte Version des Artikels (Nachfolger) beachten

La thèse étudie les caractéristiques linguistiques, philosophiques et esthétiques du langage littéraire du fou à l'époque romantique. Elle porte sur Les Élixirs du Diable (Hoffmann, 1815), La Fée aux Miettes (Nodier, 1832), le Journal d'un fou (Gogol, 1835), La Sylphide (Odoïevski, 1837) et Aurélia (Nerval, 1855). D'autres récits sont convoqués plus ponctuellement, comme Les Veilles (Bonaventura, 1804) ou Louis Lambert (Balzac, 1832). Le fou est un être problématique : il est à la fois inférieur à l'homme sain et habité par une inspiration divine. Ce paradoxe trouve une actualité nouvelle dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle. D'une part, le développement de l'aliénisme tend à définir médicalement les pathologies mentales. D'autre part, la naissance de la littérature fantastique promeut la figure de l'artiste fou. Le fou, lorsqu'il prend la parole, interroge l'écriture autobiographique et redéfinit le moi, l'espace et le temps. Son discours présente des enjeux pragmatiques : le fou cherche à démontrer qu'il n'est pas fou, face à une société qui le condamne. Il cherche également à transmettre une vérité. Sa langue sert alors à décrire les forces mythiques qui traversent le monde et, peut-être, à le recréer. La notion de création est essentielle. L'âge romantique modifie la définition de la littérature, qui perd sa fonction représentative au profit d'une fonction purement langagière. Le discours du fou participe à la fondation de cette nouvelle esthétique : il l'instaure dans un geste critique qui interroge sa légitimité. Impossible et impensable, il incarne la « parole muette » (J. Rancière) que devient la littérature moderne. / The thesis studies the linguistics, philosophy and aesthetics of literary language of the madman in the Romantic era. It focuses on The Devil's Elixirs (Hoffmann, 1815), The Crumb Fairy (Nodier, 1832), The Diary of a Madman (Gogol, 1835), The Sylph (Odoevsky, 1837) and Aurelia (Nerval, 1855). Other narratives are more promptly summoned, as The Night Watches (Bonaventura, 1804) or Louis Lambert (Balzac, 1832). The madman is a problematic being: he is both unhealthy and inhabited by a divine inspiration. This paradox finds a new relevance in the first half of the nineteenth century. On the one hand, the development of Alienism tends to define mental pathologies from a medical point of view. On the other hand, the birth of the Fantastic promotes the figure of the mad artist. The Madman, when he speaks, questions autobiographical writing and redefines the Self, Space and Time. His speech has pragmatic issues: the madman seeks to demonstrate that he is not mad, in a society which condemns him. He also endeavours to convey a truth. His language is then used to describe the mythical forces that travel the world and, perhaps, to recreate it. The notion of creation is essential. The Romantic era modifies the definition of literature, which loses its representative function in favour of a purely linguistic function. The speech of the madman takes part in the founding of new aesthetics: it creates it in a critical gesture that questions its legitimacy. Impossible and unthinkable, it embodies the "silent speech" (J. Rancière) that becomes modern literature.

Dissertation--Freiburg--Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, 2007. / Bibliogr. p. 227-242.