| Annotation |
The crisis of literary criticism occurred in the 1990s and forced critics to rethink their status, the way they talk about the text, and communication with the reader. Literary criticism theoretically comprehends changes in the structure of literary-critical activity. Promising, in our opinion, is the semiotic perspective of the study of criticism, which allows us to cover both the mechanism of functioning of this phenomenon and its ideological component. It is also relevant to choose such principles of “speaking” about criticism that imply a reflective position in relation to ideology, liberal and patriotic. The author of the article asks the question: what happens to the system “author – text – reader” when a literary critic (a professional interpreter who actively influences the meaning production) is embedded in it? This and other problematic issues are studied based on a comprehensive methodology that allows working at the intersection of semiotics and discourse analysis and analyzing literary critical activity in the semiotic aspect. It is proved for the first time that the critic not only implements the signification procedure, but also inspires the “scripts” of reception for the reader. For the first time, the “signification-decoding” procedure is comprehended taking into account the literary critic as an expert reader capable of offering ideologically correct “interpretation routes”. Significative practice is studied on the basis of material of modern patriotic criticism, which demonstrates various strategies for working with elements of the literary field. The designation of “native” and “alien” is carried out in it by means of the toposis “center” and “province”, where “center” is the focus of inverted values, pragmatism, egocentrism, and “province” – a space that is nourished and nourishes the writer by the power of Russian nature and folk traditions. Another strategy is the glorification of “native”, which allows the critic to offer another route to the reader, not interpretative, but life-building. The strategy of “capturing” and redefining the “alien” is semiotically complex and unique to patriotic criticism. It allows it to strengthen position by attracting authoritative symbolic figures. |
| References |
1. Bart, R. Writing Degree Zero. M: Аcademic project, 2008. (In Rus.)
2. Bashilov, A. Star of the fields in Our contemporary, no.1, pp.277–281, 2018. (In Rus.)
3. Bondarenko, V. The Scarlet Love of Olga Fokina in Our Contemporary, no. 1, pp. 263–274, 2000. (In Rus.)
4. Bondarenko, V. The rebellious stepson of Russian culture. Web. 11.11.2019. http://www.jig.ru/culture/021.html (In Rus.)
5. Bondarenko, V. Life with an open heart in Our contemporary, no. 2, pp. 253–260, 2000. (In Rus.)
6. Bondarenko, V. And he is like a secret eric in Our Contemporary, no. 8, pp. 235–241, 2007. (In Rus.)
7. Bondarenko, V. Outcast poet. Web. 19.11.2019. http://www.nash-sovremennik.ru/p.php?y=2002&n=8&id=9. (In Rus.)
8. Bondarenko, V. Singer Pomorya in Our contemporary, no. 1, pp. 236–239, 2018. (In Rus.)
9. Bondarenko, V. Genuine Venichka. The destruction of myth in Our contemporary, no. 7, pp. 177–185, 1999. (In Rus.)
10. Bondarenko, V. Elegistic simplicity of Kolya Dmitriev. Web. 19.11.2019. http://www.nash-sovremennik.ru/p.php?y=2005&n=11&id=11 (In Rus.)
11. Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and method. Fundamentals of philosophical hermeneutics. M: Progress, 1988. (In Rus.)
12. Govorukhina, Yu. A. Russian literary criticism at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries: a monograph. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University, 2012. (In Rus.)
13. Dorogan, O. On the Siberian shores of being in Our Contemporary, no. 11, pp. 266–269, 2018. (In Rus.)
14. Ziganshin, K. The Sage from Klyashev. Web. 19.11.2019. http://www.nash-sovremennik.ru/p.php?y=2007&n=5&id=10 (In Rus.)
15. Korosteleva, V. Ural gem in Our Contemporary, no.1, pp. 263–266, 2014. (In Rus.)
16. Kress, G. Social semiotics and the challenges of multimodality in Political science, no. 3, pp. 77–100, 2016. (In Rus.)
17. Kunyaev, S. Case collegiate in Our contemporary, no. 11, pp. 235–239, 2014. (In Rus.)
18. Kuritsyn, V. A look at Russian literature in Urals, no. 2, pp. 180–187, 1991. (In Rus.)
19. Kuritsyn, V. Nofikatsii. Web. 19.11.2019. https://www.magazines.gorky.media/october/1997/3/nefikczii.html (In Rus.)
20. Morris, Ch. Foundations of the theory of signs in Semiotics / comp. Yu. Stepanov. M: Rainbow, 1983. (In Rus.)
21. Paperno, I. Semiotics of behavior: Nikolai Chernyshevsky – a man of the era of realism. M: New Literary Review, 1996. (In Rus.)
22. Pierce, C. The beginning of pragmatism. St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2000. (In Rus.)
23. Subbotin, S. My princess is Russia! in Our Contemporary, no. 4, pp. 270–282, 2012. (In Rus.)
68
Гуманитарный вектор. 2020. Т. 15, № 1 Игра в бисер: скрытые смыслы текста
24. Tyupa, V. I. Communicative strategies of theoretical discourse in Criticism and semiotics, no. 10, pp. 36–45, 2006. (In Rus.)
25. Shamshurin, V. He came from Gremyachei Polyana (to the 100th anniversary of the birth of N. I. Kochin). Web. 19.11.2019. http://www.nash-sovremennik.ru/p.php?y=2002&n=7&id=13 (In Rus.)
26. Schreider, Yu. Logic of sign systems: Elements of semiotics. M: Book house “LIBRICOM”, 2012. (In Rus.)
27. Dijk, T. van. Ideology and Discourse Analysis in Journal of political ideologies, no. 11, pp. 115–140, 2006. (In Engl.)
28. Eagleton, T. Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory. London: Verso, 1976. (In Engl.)
29. Hodge, R., Kress, G. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity press, 1988. (In Engl.) |
