This dissertation examines the development of Russian literature in the decades after the fall of the Soviet Union as a focused study in how literature adjusts to institutional failure. It investigates how cultural forms reproduce themselves and how literature continues to forge meaningful symbolic connections with its audiences, traditions, and the broader culture. I begin when Soviet state prizes, publishers, and organizations like the Writers Union could no longer provide paths to literary prominence in the early 1990s and a booming book market and a privatized prestige economy stepped into the vacuum. At this time, post-Soviet Russian authors faced a mixed blessing: freedom from censorship alongside a disorienting array of new publishers, prizes, and critical outlets, joined later by online and social media. In this new environment, personal success became an important structural value for authors and for literary works. The literary process was driven, in large part, by authors who found innovative solutions to immediate problems along their pathways to success. In search of readers, recognition, and aesthetic innovation, the authors in this dissertation transformed and even created the institutional and economic frameworks for post-Soviet Russian literature’s development, while at the same time developing new cultural forms capable of connecting with audiences in intimate and meaningful ways. The sum effect of their individual solutions to discrete problems along their own paths to success was a profound shift in the literary field, the creation and entrenchment of a new system of cultural production, distribution and consumption based on capitalist principles—the system I call “cultural capitalism.” This dissertation shows how cultural capitalism developed out of the institutional collapse of the Soviet cultural system. While many studies have analyzed the cultural field’s genesis, its social role, and internal mechanisms, few have considered the fate of literature or culture at times of institutional failure, and fewer still have focused on possible mechanisms of recovery. Studies of contemporary Russian literature, on the other hand, have often relied on master tropes, frequently borrowed from Western literary theory. While this research constitutes an important contribution, it fails to address the central question of how literature has been affected by social upheaval and institutional failure. My project addresses this gap by modeling cultural capitalism as a literary system in which the drive for success is pervasive, but the very meaning of “success” can be defined differently by different authors. The term cultural capitalism builds on Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital, but imagines that resource as part of a dynamic system of cultural exchange, while my understanding of success expands on Boris Dubin’s work on the topic. Finally, building on Formalist investigations of “literary evolution” and the “literary everyday,” as well as contemporary Russian sociological studies, I provide a theoretical model that connects the structures of the post-Soviet literary environment to new forms of verbal art. Through interviews, close readings, and secondary research, I show how four prominent authors—Boris Akunin, Olga Slavnikova, Aleksei Ivanov, and Vera Polozkova—have developed idiosyncratic visions of success. I then demonstrate how each author’s particular patterns of ambitions correlate with the literary, economic, and institutional innovations that define their artistic works, careers, and positions in the literary field. By triangulating authors’ visions of success, their navigations of the literary field, and their innovative verbal art, I map out the trajectories of literature as both an institution and as an art form across the transition from the Soviet to the post-Soviet era.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Brown University, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 206-211). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures, August, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

This dissertation examines the life and work of the Jewish writer Uri-Nisn Gnesin (1879-1913). Living in Russia, using Yiddish in his daily life, and writing prose in Hebrew, Gnesin was part of a multicultural and multilingual generation, which was too assimilated to live the traditional life of its fathers, and yet, not able to break with it completely. For many Russian Jews, this dual identity, rarely recognized in modern scholarly discourse on Hebrew literature, resulted in psychological discomfort, feelings of guilt, and other traumas. Addressing this identity crisis, I show how the worldview of an assimilated Russian Jew is reflected in Gnesin’s Hebrew fiction. I offer an alternative view of Gnesin as a Jewish-Russian writer whose dual identity played a more complex role in his literary work and whose influence transcended a simple knowledge of languages or classic texts. It was not merely a language or a book, but the unique Jewish-Slavic atmosphere of small Eastern European towns that provided Gnesin with all the models necessary for thinking, feeling, and writing. In my study, I consider theories of canonization to demonstrate the reason why Gnesin has first and foremost been categorized as a Hebrew writer. Contemporary scholars of modern Hebrew fiction generally agree that Gnesin’s fiction is secular due to the non-Jewish associative infrastructure of his work. By exploring the historical and spiritual conditions of Gnesin’s generation, I attempt to overcome the limitations of such a view, which overemphasizes the role of language in his development as a writer. A functional analysis of Gnesin’s literary language maintains that although he found his best form of expression in literary Hebrew, it appeared mostly in the final stages of his writing. I propose that Gnesin and that whole generation of modern Hebrew writers used a special “hyper-language” consisting of three integral parts: a natively spoken language, a commonly spoken non-Jewish national language, and a written literary language. Ultimately, Gnesin appears to be a fin de siècle writer who used Hebrew language as a sophisticated tool to propagate his troubled Jewish-Russian experience. / text

In spite of the growing interest of Russian and Western scholars in Sergei Dovlatov and his art, his place in Russian literature has not yet been clearly defined. His position as a writer in Russia in the 1960s and early 70s was ambiguous due to his opposition to the traditional Soviet canon and rejection by the current literary establishment. However, he later gained recognition and popularity as an emigre writer in the United States. The concept of 'marginality' colours his biography and art, for his life itself was a succession of marginal experiences and marginality is the key topic of his writings. / Marginality unifies Dovlatov's art. This is evident in his marginal status as a writer in and outside the Soviet Union, and in his writing which uses the underappreciated short form of narration (the novella and short story), develops a non-traditional conversational style, pursues the themes of non-conventional behaviour and introduces eccentric characters. / However, it is not possible to discuss Dovlatov's status as a marginal writer without contextualizing his life and art in the ambience of the entire generation of Leningrad writers of the sixties. Writers and poets such as Brodskii, Goliavkin, Gubin, Vakhtin and Ufliand do not only represent the culture of Leningrad's artistic non-conformists, they are also Dovlatov's prototypes and protagonists. Apart from their marginal status, all these writers shared the determination to make independent choices in life and in art. They refused to be viewed as marginal authors by the dominant canon, which disregarded their works as insignificant. Here as well marginality emerges as a literary concept and a behavioural model, shaped by societal norms (the positive type of citizen or official Soviet writer) and traditional canons (the Russian didactic tradition or Soviet ideological writing). This literary concept includes an orientation towards American literature, the creation of marginal characters and themes as well as an exploration of different styles. / The works of writers of the Leningrad circle laid the foundation for the emergence of a literary phenomenon such as Dovlatov. It is in delineating this context that this dissertation demonstrates Dovlatov's original approach to marginality, as well as the way he turned his life experience into literature and became a spokesman for neglected fellow writers and citizens.

During the 70 years of the Soviet regime the officially approved Soviet literature consistently reflected an exclusively materialistic world view. As a result, there were very few critical works, published in the West, dealing with the Christian theme in Russian literature of the Soviet period. / Surprisingly, literature with the Christian theme did exist in the years of militant state atheism. Such literary works raised questions about the purpose of life, about truth, moral courage and the person of Christ. These books were published during the 60-s, the time of the "thaw", and became a focal point of public discussions. Two of them--Bulgakov's "Master i Margarita" and Pasternak's "Doktor Zhivago" were internationally acknowledged as major literary works. / This study will examine in detail and compare five literary works with christian content, published in the Soviet years of Russia. Two of them were mentioned above. The other three are "Plakha" by Aytmatov, "Dzhvari" by Alfeeva and "Fakul'tet nenizhnikh veshchei" by Dombrovsky. / The existence of such literature proves that all the efforts to suppress the human spirit and its longing for the Absolute have failed.

This thesis explores the involvement of Russian emigres in disseminating and informing the reception of Russian literature in England. It examines their use of translations and literary commentary as vehicles for propaganda, and considers the impact of their unique approach to literature on both Anglo-Russian relations and English letters. Part One describes the arrival of Russian émigrés in England and their mixed reception: as victims of a brutal regime, mysterious sages, exotic outcasts, Slavic barbarians, or at worst, as dangerous 'incendiarists' to be feared and reviled. It reflects on the welcome and assistance offered them by socialists, feminists, literati and Nonconformists, as well as the dangers they faced from Russian government agents and their English confreres. It then introduces, in turn, each of the five Russian exiles featured in this thesis, providing biographical details, outlining their work in Britain as propagandists and political agitators, and mapping out their political and literary affiliations. Part Two opens with an analysis of the motives - financial, political, cultural, and personal - which compelled Russian exiles to promulgate Russian literature in England. A chapter is then devoted to each of the five émigrés, chronicling their work disseminating the Russian canon, and outlining the circumstances surrounding their translations, lectures, books, journal articles, and publishing activities. Interspersed within these five narratives are discourses on each propagandist's aesthetic vision. Part Three is a case study of the émigré impact on Turgenev's English reputation. It starts by tracing the author's early reception, showing how he was initially regarded in England as a European novelist whose artistry took precedence over his politics, and whose exquisite writing revealed universal truths through its careful selection and presentation of minute details. It then shows how émigré commentary altered perceptions of the author, transforming him from a disinterested artist dealing only in universal themes into a radical critic of various epochs of Russian national life, whose novels revealed important inner truths about the state of Russian society and politics. The conclusion examines what may be termed the 'collateral' effects of émigré commentary on Russian literature and their involvement in translation projects in England. Firstly, it looks at the political impact of their criticism: how the émigré presentation of Russian literature affected Anglo-Russian relations and attitudes towards the first Russian revolution in 1905. It then considers how émigrés helped or hindered reputations of writers according to their own politically and aesthetically motivated preferences. Finally, it looks at the possible ramifications of émigré literary theory on English approaches to literature and criticism, and suggests further avenues of inquiry.

Innokenty Annensky (1855-1909) was better known to his contemporaries as a classics teacher and translator than as a poet; but, with the exception of two or three obituary articles, nothing has been written on his work as a classicist. His work has often been misconstrued and he has been described as an outstanding scholar. It has not been generally appreciated that his interest in the scholarly world was not really academic; he saw classical texts as models for his own literary works, and as inspiration for the 'Slavonic renaissance' he looked forward to with F.F. Zelinsky. This thesis covers Annensky's classical education, the essays he wrote on classical literature, and his translations of classical texts. Particular attention is given to the essays and translations which were intended to be published in Teatr Evripida, the first complete Russian version of Euripides. Annensky wrote no essay explicitly devoted to the subject of classicism. But from his essays on classical literature and the remarks on classical literature in his essays on modern literature it is possible to extrapolate his views on the nature of the classical tradition and on how he thought classical literature should be imitated. I show that Annensky's attitude to the classics was idiosyncratic and paradoxical. On the one hand, the classical world was viewed elegaically as an ideal of lost perfection; on the other, it was one of many cultural traditions on which he drew in his literary works and which was adapted in accordance with Modernist poetics. The discussion of Annensky's views on classicism is accompanied by information about the system of classical education in Russia 1870-1910, and about the history of classical scholarship and of literary classicism in Russia. Annensky's essays are compared with those of a representative scholar, Zelinsky, and a representative Symbolist, Vyacheslav Ivanov.

This thesis questions how Russian women's identity is attached to the textual use of public/private spaces in contemporary literature by Russian women writers by drawing from feminist theories. I. Grekova and N. Baranskaia portray female protagonists in their everyday lives, public and private worlds overlapping. While these heroines create stable support systems with other women, male figures enter as interruptive forces in women's lives. Hospital settings in several works by Russian women allow comparisons between women's fictional hospital experiences and those of Muscovite women interviewed. In L. Petrushevskaia's stories, women protagonists' identities are linked to the uncertain quality of locale and the tenuous relationships which transpire in it. Russian women's identity expressed in fiction may change as the self-perceptions of a younger generation of Russian women writers evolve toward a new, gendered concept of self.

Thesis (M.A.)--Kutztown State College, 1972. / Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-06, page: 2853. Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [54]-56).