Marginal Man in Modern Russian Literature

This research was focused around the intersection of two discourses: that of marginality and that of ideology. Ponomarev analysed works by Alexander Zinoviev, Vladimir Maximov and Eduard Limonov - three writers representing different groups of Soviet dissidence - from the viewpoint of the concept, drawn from anthropological theory, of marginal man. Using a methodology he describes as ideological analysis, Ponomarev showed that the ideologies of both the writers and their characters are marginal, lying as they do between official Soviet and western democratic ideologies. He showed that the works and the 'creative behaviour' of the three writers did not change after 1991, when their ideas seemed victorious. Marginality is shown to be a permanent characteristic and is linked with the main ideas of the dissident movement in the USSR. On the basis of this marginality, Ponomarev identified some common traits in dissident ideas and drew up a model of dissident ideology. This general model of dissident ideology seems to be one of the special Russian variants of the marginal ideologies of intelligentsia and could be compared to the ideology of Rodon Raskolnikov, the central character in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. The discourse of ideology in the USSR in the 1970s-1980s and in 1990s Russia thus appeared as a process in which the elements of the official Soviet ideology were gradually superseded by those of the dissident ideology linked with the ideology of the underground, the Russian version of the post-modern. Marginal ideologies won and became mainstream but did not lose their basic marginal traits. Ponomarev concludes that the gap between the 'state ideology' and the dissident ideology, taken together with the special Russian version of postmodernity has shaped the current literary process in Russia, making the figure of the marginal man into the main writer type.

Muslim Literature in Serbo-Croat in Relation to the Serbian and Croatian Literatures

Mr. Tutnjevic set out to define the position of the Muslim community within the overall framework of literature in Serbo-Croat, particularly in terms of its relation to the Serbian and Croatian Literatures, on the basis of an extensive comparative study of primary and secondary sources relating to the most important Muslim writers in Serbo-Croat. Carried out against the background of an unprecedented civil war between these national groups, his research focused rather on the encounters between them on the historical and literary stages. He concludes that the Muslim national community was established and developed on a foundation of Slavic self-consciousness and oriental influences. The constantly changing relative weights of the influence of these two factors on the community shaped the specific nature of its literature as well as its place in the cultural environment of its neighbouring national communities, and Muslim literary traditions are inseparably linked with the total literature in Serbo-Croat. A real Muslim literature first emerged at the end of the nineteenth century and virtually all authors writing about this at the time emphasised its educational character and its importance for the process of national identification. At the same time there were visible results of the self-awareness process in which Muslim authors affiliated with Serbian or Croatian literary tradition, sometimes even substituting one with another. During the period between the two world wars Muslim literature reached maturity and while Muslim authors generally focused on their national milieu in terms of subject matter, their forms of expression and their understanding of the function of literature showed the same preoccupation as other Yugoslav authors of the period. When the ideological and class-related concept of society replaced the national character of literature after 1945, Muslim writers found themselves in the same position as writers from other ethnic groups. As in earlier times, writers sought to present themselves to as wide a market as possible and would provide grounds for consideration as Serbian or Croatian writers, sometimes even explicitly presenting themselves as such. Most of the writers of this period are described at times as Yugoslav, at others as Bosnian-Herzegovina, and at still others as Serbian, Croatian or Muslim. Mr. Tutnjevic quotes, for example, the case of Camil Sijaric, a Muslim from Sandzak who also wrote in Sarajevo and falls within the boundaries of Bosnian-Herzegovnian literature, but is also described as a Muslim, Montenegrin and Serbian writer, together with a number of other such examples. An understanding of this process provides the basis for a completely new perception of the intertwining of Serbian, Croatian and Muslim literary traditions, without the earlier visible prejudice on all three sides.