| spelling |
oapen-20.500.12657-308942021-11-09T07:55:21Z The Superstitious Muse Bethea, David Arts Literary Criticism Alexander Pushkin Russian literature Vladimir Nabokov For several decades David Bethea has written authoritatively on the “mythopoetic thinking” that lies at the heart of classical Russian literature, especially Russian poetry. His theoretically informed essays and books have made a point of turning back to issues of intentionality and biography at a time when authorial agency seems under threat of “erasure” and the question of how writers, and poets in particular, live their lives through their art is increasingly moot. The lichnost’ (personhood, psychic totality) of the given writer is all-important, argues Bethea, as it is that which combines the specifically biographical and the capaciously mythical in verbal units that speak simultaneously to different planes of being. Pushkin’s Evgeny can be one incarnation of the poet himself and an Everyman rising up to challenge Peter’s new world order; Brodsky can be, all at once, Dante and Mandelstam and himself, the exile paying an Orphic visit to Florence. 2018-01-06 23:55 2017-12-01 23:55:55 2020-03-27 03:00:27 2020-04-01T13:17:09Z 2020-04-01T13:17:09Z 2009-11-01 book 641447 OCN: 769188618 9781618116789;9781618119186 http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/30894 eng Studies in Russian and Slavic Literatures, Cultures, and History application/pdf n/a 641447.pdf https://www.academicstudiespress.com/browse-catalog/the-superstitious-muse-thinking-russian-literature-mythopoetically Academic Studies Press 10.2307/j.ctt1zxsj7q 101804 10.2307/j.ctt1zxsj7q ffe92610-fbe7-449b-a2a8-02c411701a23 b818ba9d-2dd9-4fd7-a364-7f305aef7ee9 9781618116789;9781618119186 Knowledge Unlatched (KU) Boston, MA 101804 KU Open Services Knowledge Unlatched open access
|
| description |
For several decades David Bethea has written authoritatively on the “mythopoetic thinking” that lies at the heart of classical Russian literature, especially Russian poetry. His theoretically informed essays and books have made a point of turning back to issues of intentionality and biography at a time when authorial agency seems under threat of “erasure” and the question of how writers, and poets in particular, live their lives through their art is increasingly moot. The lichnost’ (personhood, psychic totality) of the given writer is all-important, argues Bethea, as it is that which combines the specifically biographical and the capaciously mythical in verbal units that speak simultaneously to different planes of being. Pushkin’s Evgeny can be one incarnation of the poet himself and an Everyman rising up to challenge Peter’s new world order; Brodsky can be, all at once, Dante and Mandelstam and himself, the exile paying an Orphic visit to Florence.
|
