Russian Literature

This book manuscript based on my dissertation addresses two questions fundamental to Russian nineteenth-century intellectual history: 1) Why does literature about paranoid psychosis figure so centrally in the nineteenth-century canon? and 2) How did the absence of an epistemological tradition of reflexive self-consciousness influence the development of Russian ideas of subjectivity? I propose that the presence of paranoia in Russian fiction extends beyond the medical or psychoanalytic aspects of character traits or themes. I argue that literary representations of paranoia perform fundamental philosophical gestures and function as "epistemological speech acts." Russian narratives of paranoia (e.g., Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Garshin, Sologub) constitute a means of exploring the operations of a self-reflexive consciousness, familiar in the West through the Cartesian Cogito. In other words, the theme of paranoia in nineteenth-century Russian fiction actively responds to the regnant philosophical discourse and functions as a praxis for the exploration of philosophical questions. However, this is done in an alternative discourse to the propositional language generally favored in philosophical texts; as a result, the philosophical function of the fictions of paranoia has gone unrecognized, and the genre has been "exiled" from philosophical discourse. I argue that Russian texts of paranoid psychosis should be reconceived as venues for the play of the transcendental ego outside social or communal axes. Paranoia emerges as the Jakobsonian “dominant” within these texts, in that it is paranoia that engages with other narrative components and transforms them. Further, as prose fiction, these texts had the discursive and social capacity to resonate and divagate in ways impossible to philosophical texts. Ultimately, these narratives of paranoia are meta-epistemologies that interrogate their own discursive function and status. They raise critical questions not only about the ways in which we represent truth but about the ontological status of truth itself.

"Категории «народа» и «простого народа» в классическом славянофильстве чешском и русском

В статье описаны категории «народа» и «простого народа» в славянофильстве чешском и русском. Прежде всего представлена проблема классического славянофильства. Термин этот касается славянофильства первой половины XIX века. Категории «народа» и «простого народа» указаны в разных контекстах. В славянофильстве чешском идея «народа»  близко связана с языком. Славянофилы обнаживали настоящий, чистый чешский язык в деревне, среди простого народа. В русском славянофильстве существует двусмысленный термин народ, который обозначает как «народ», так и «простой народ». Однако, в случае русского славянофильства более оправдано говорить о «простом народе».

The Category of “Nation” and “People” in the Russian and the Czech Classical Slavophilism

This paper is devoted mainly to the description of the categories of “nation” and “people” which appear in the Czech and the Russian Slavophilism. First of all, the author considers the problem of the Classical Slavophilism. By this term the Slavophilism of the first part of the 19th century is meant. Consequently, the problem of the categories of “nation” and “people” are presented in a few contexts. In the Czech Slavophilism the idea of “nation” is closely connected with the problem of language. However, the Slavophils find the real, pure Czech language in a Czech village. In the Russian Slavophilism we can find an ambiguous term narod which means “nation” and sometimes “people”. For the Russian Slavophils the narod is identified with the people, the peasantry."

As an heir to the great Russian writers of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, Solzhenitsyn continues the exploration of the ideal and practice of Christian asceticism. In many of his works he describes situations—the subjection of men and women to extremes of poverty, disease, human cruelty, political oppression—in which the ascetic mode of thought and behavior tends to come to the fore. His novella, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, is a valid example of this aspect of his oeuvre.

"_Unvarnishing Reality_ draws original insight to the literature, politics, history, and culture of the cold war by closely examining the themes and goals of American and Russian satirical fiction. As Derek Maus illustrates, the paranoia of nuclear standoff provided a subversive storytelling mode for authors from both nations--including Thomas Pynchon, Robert Coover, John Barth, Walker Percy, Don DeLillo, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Vasily Aksyonov, Yuz Aleshkovsky, Alexander Zinoviev, Vladimir Voinovich, Fazil Iskander, and Sasha Sokolov."

REVIEWS:

"The breadth of Maus's critical reading is impressive and sets his text apart from other treatments of Cold War literature that include Soviet and/or Russian material.[...] Highly recommended."

  -- Brian Diemert, _Choice_ (Dec. 2011)

"Maus's study constantly engages in suggestive juxtapositions between American and Russian works that shed fresh light on their narrative practices."

  -- David Seed, _Utopian Studies_ 23.2 (2012)

"Maus has read voluminously in his subject, both in the literature and in critical studies [...]. He is to be applauded for his fresh readings of dystopian classics as well as for bringing lesser-known writers into the story.[...] If a reader is looking for a quick survey of Russian and American Cold War fiction, this is it."

    -- Denise Youngblood, _Slavic Review_ 71.3 (Fall 2012)

"Maus’s analysis of the individual texts will give the reader new ways of thinking about them. Historians who work on the cultural history of the era will no doubt want to consider the insights he offers into the language and philosophy of satirical fiction."

  -- Mara Drogan, _Cold War History_ 13.2 (2013)

"On the US side, the closest analogy to the totalitarian system is the totalizing drive of certain languages—anticommunist, mediatic-consumerist, bureaucratic, technologically utopian—chiefly in the American 1950s and then again in the 1980s [...] To be sure, none of these coalesce into the langue de bois (the “wooden tongue”) that all but takes over public discourse in the East, nor do they enjoy the logistical and institutional backing afforded by the Kremlin apparatus, Pynchonian paranoia notwithstanding. And yet, Maus is right: the satire of mainstream, institutional, or 'official' idioms is one kind of literature that formally and thematically can be said to bring together—and thus render comparable—writers from saliently different systems."

  -- Christian Moraru, _American Literature_ 85.2 (June 2013)

"