Superindividual and Author’s Myths: Parameters of Delimitation in Historical and Literary Perspective

Sapunova Irina P.,

Postgraduate student at the Department of Theory of Literature

Lomonosov Moscow State University

e-mail: irina_sapunova@list.ru

The article specifies the principles of differentiation between traditional myths and the author’s myths. The theoretical and methodological basis of the work is V.E. Khalizev’s approach to consider neomyths as a consequence of a disharmonious vision of reality and the expansion of the range of mythologized objects of the image. As a result of the analytical review, it is shown that it is unproductive to study the originality of modern author’s myths of the 20th–21st centuries in isolation from various national and regional characteristics. To illustrate specific aspects of the creation of a new type of artistic imagery that combines features of literature and mythology, the most representative examples from major literatures of Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Europe and Russia are selected. Due to the fact that the origins of neomythologism each time go back to the history of individual literary traditions, the theoretical conclusions of scientists turning to them are inevitably limited, and therefore cannot claim to be universal. In particular, with regard to the domestic context, insufficient study of the features of mythopoetic understanding of history based on the material of the Russian novel of the 21st century has been revealed.

Keywords: literary theory, mythology, mythologem, author’s myth, neomythologism

Refernces

1. Meletinskii E.M. Ot mifa k literature. Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 2000. 168 s.
2. Voivodich Ia., Ioffe D. K voprosu o (neo)mifologizme v literature: teorii mifa i znaka: istoriograficheskoe i analiticheskoe vvedenie v spetsial’nyi tom // Russian Literature. 2019. T. 107–108. S. 1–29.
3. Nekliudov S.Iu. Struktura i funktsiia mifa // Mify i mifologiia v sovremennoi Rossii / pod red. K. Aymermakhera. Moscow: AIRO-XX, 2000. S. 17–38.
4. Khalizev V.E. Mifologiia XIX–XX vekov i literatura // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 9: Filologiia. 2002. No. 3. S. 7–21.
5. Griubel’ R. (Neo-)mif i diskurs v russkoi kul’ture: mezhdu prirodoi i kul’turoi // Russian Literature. 2019. T. 107–108. S. 49–91.
6. Mints Z.G. O nekotorykh “neomifologicheskikh” tekstakh v tvorchestve russkikh simvolistov // Poetika russkogo simvolizma / Z.G. Mints. St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo-SPB, 2004. S. 59–96.
7. Shelling F. Filosofiia iskusstva / per. P.S. Popova; pod obshch. red. M.F. Ovsiannikova. Moscow: Mysl’, 1996. 496 s.
8. Grimm Ia. Germanskaia mifologiia: v 3 t. T. 3 / per. D.S. Kolchigina; pod red. F.B. Uspenskogo. Moscow: IaSK, 2018. 792 s.
9. Pianzina V.A. Avtorskiy mif kak zhanr sovremennoy literatury // Universum: filologiia i iskusstvovedenie. 2017. No. 9 (43). URL: http://7universum.com/ru/ philology/archive/item/5111 (25.04.2025).
10. Rytova T.A., Shchipkova E.A. Problema issledovaniia mifologizma i siuzheta mifa kak elementa siuzhetnoy struktury v russkoi proze kontsa XX — nachala XXI v. // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiia. 2012. No. 4 (20). S. 115–128.
11. Epshtein M.N. Paradoksy novizny: o literaturnom razvitii XIX–XX vekov. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1988. 416 s.
12. Iuan’ Ke. Mify drevnego Kitaia. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. 528 s.
13. Zavidovskaia E.A. Postmodernizm v sovremennoy proze Kitaia: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. Moscow, 2005. 32 s.
14. Tsyrenova D.S. Magicheskii realizm v tvorchestve Mo Iania // Vestnik Buriatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2010. No. 8. S. 133–136.
15. Iazovskaia O.V. Sovremennaia aktualizatsiia iaponskoi mifologii v massovoi kul’ture Iaponii // Pivovarovskie chteniia. Sinteticheskaia paradigma: nauka, filosofiia, religiovedenie: sbornik materialov konferentsii / red. i sost. E.V. Mel’nikova. Ekaterinburg: Delovaia kniga, 2019. S. 430–432.
16. Grigor’eva T.P. Iaponskaya khudozhestvennaia traditsiia. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. 368 s.
17. Gluskina A.E. Iaponskaya literatura: issledovaniia i materialy / otv. red. A.E. Gluskina, I.L. L’vova. Moscow: Izd-vo vostochnoi literatury, 1959. 235 s.
18. Nesterenko Iu.S. Mifologicheskie obrazy i motivy v romane Kadzuo Isiguro “Pogrebennyi velikan” // Prepodavatel’. XX vek. 2018. No. 2/2. S. 383–393.
19. Pogrebnaia Ia.V. Poetika romana Kadzuo Isiguro “Pogrebennyi velikan”: evropeiskii intertekst i iaponskii podtekst // Artikul’t. 2018. No 4 (32). S. 191–199.
20. Kofman A.F. Latinoamerikanskii khudozhestvennyi obraz mira. Moscow: Nasledie, 1997. 320 s.
21. Kofman A.F. Osobennosti mifologizma latinoamerikanskoi literatury // Literatura dvukh Amerik. 2020. No. 8. S. 336–346.
22. Kovyrshina N.B. Mif i real’nost’ v Iordanskom romane // Vestnik RUDN. Seriia “Literaturovedenie, zhurnalistika”. 2008. No. 4. S. 21–29.
23. Gadzhimuradova T.E., Magomedov M.M. Istoricheskaia lichnost’ i ee khudozhestvennoe voploshchenie v romane Nagiba Makhfuza “Mudrost’ Kheopsa” // Mir nauki, kul’tury, obrazovaniia. 2020. No. 3. S. 525–526.
24. Zolotukhina O.I. Prostranstvennaia mifologema “Pustynia” v tvorchestve arabskogo pisatelia Ibragima al’-Kuni // Vestnik RUDN. Seriia “Literaturovedenie, zhurnalistika”. 2012. No. 3. S. 13–16.
25. Soldatkina Ia.V. Mifopoetika russkoi prozy 1930–1950-kh godov (A.P. Platonov, M.A. Sholokhov, B.L. Pasternak): avtoref. dis. … d-ra filol. nauk. Moscow, 2012. 39 s.
26. Aytmatov Ch. Kharakter i sovremennost’ // V soavtorstve s zemleiu i vodoiu: ocherki, stat’i, besedy, interv’iu / Ch. Aitmatov. Frunze: Kyrgyzstan, 1978. 406 s.
27. Dinislamova S.S. Kartiny narodnoi zhizni v povesti Iu. Shestalova “Sinii veter kaslaniia” (k voprosu ob etnografizme tvorchestva mansiiskogo pisatelia) // Vestnik ugrovedeniia. 2016. No. 4 (27). S. 15–23.
28. Ermolenko O.V. “Mifotvorchestvo” i “individual’no-avtorskoe mifotvorchestvo”: problema razgranicheniia poniatii // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2020. T. 13. Vyp. 3. S. 90–94.