Onegin et al. (correction & reply)

[Daniel Rancour-Laferriere]

Dear Edward Dumanis,
I have read your message several times, and I cannot understand it, 
especially your usage of the word "political."  Please try to distill 
your message into a single straightforward paragraph so that I can give 
a simple and direct response.

Thank you,

Sincerely,
Daniel Rancour-Laferriere

Edward M Dumanis wrote:

>First of all, I would like to apologize for an unforgivable error
>crediting Veronika Dolina as the author of the song about female Sancho
>Panza. This song was written and performed by another contemporary
>songwriter Natella Boltyanskaya, and it is called "Serenada. Zhenskaya."
>
>Regarding Dr. Rancour-Laferriere's comment that in my message I somehow
>give something with one hand while taking it away by the other, I must
>reply that (from my point of view) this type of characterization would be
>more appropriate in politics rather than in academic discussions.
>Addressing directly Dr. Rancour-Laferriere, I want to say the following:
>
>Please consider at least a possibility that some of your colleagues do not
>have a political agenda but rather attempt to honestly discuss the
>text-based approach with their own understanding of the surrounding
>historical reality the way they understand it. You might disagree with
>them, and, as I understand, your own painful experience shows how
>difficult it is to insist on a point of view which stands against the
>"established" one. It does not make them correct if your opponents defend
>the "established" opinion but it does not make them wrong either. It is
>easy to dismiss with what they say making rather political than literary
>based statements.
>However, your position is challenged on a literary ground, and not on a
>political one. I sincerely believe that if we use our political opinions
>in scholarly disputes, we will stifle the very spirit of academia.
>I have never tried to take anything away from what you were proclaiming as
>your interpretation of XIX century relationship as it is described by
>Pushkin because my statement was not and is not meant to be political. It
>might affect your political views or the strong feelings that you have but
>it is unavoidable in discussing anything that many people find
>controversial. It is quite common to see in such discussions a mixture of
>academic and political positions if the latter ones are held quite
>strongly, or at least one might be able to deduce what those political
>positions are. Nevertheless, the only way of avoiding the unpleasantness
>of the corresponding expressions is to avoid any discussions of such
>topics. I do not believe that we should be placed in a position of
>defending ourselves from accusations in bigotry; and I do not want to
>discuss what happened in our history when people were forced to give an
>oath of loyalty because I would be using then a political argument myself.
>So, going back to literary criticism, I have not seen so far anything in
>your position that would indicate that this position of your is not
>affected by XXI century. I believe that this is the key which would
>provide your position with credibility going beyond the expression of
>your opinion. Again, this is not related to  somebody's view on
>homosexuality or bisexuality either at present or in historical context.
>This challenge is dictated purely by the logic of your arguments, and by
>nothing else.
>However, please take into account that the credibility of the result of
>your analysis if you present one is not greater than the credibility of
>the methods utilized there. If you make your demonstration rooted in
>psychoanalysis, it is COMPLETELY fine with me with just one caveat: the
>credibility of the result will be in direct proportion to the credibility
>of the psychoanalytical methods you would use. Of course, this credibility
>will be different for each of us. Nevertheless, this would be the way to
>avoid the confusion of the two questons I was discussing, and it will show
>the actual logical step from one of them to the other one.
>
>Sicerely,
>
>Edward Dumanis <dumanis at buffalo.edu>
>
>
>On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Edward M Dumanis wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Daniel Rancour-Laferriere wrote:
>>
>>......../snip/.........
>>    
>>
>>>Agreed.  But there is no "real" Onegin.  We have all been constructing 
>>>him for ourselves ever since Pushkin did.  But some constructs are more 
>>>interesting than others, and some constructs explain certain things 
>>>better than others.
>>>      
>>>
>>The most interesting versions of the murder are not necessarily correct.
>>However, it does not make them less interesting. Let's call the version of
>>Onegin that Pushkin had correct by the definition. It does not mean that
>>we ever know what that version was but we can utilize some methods of
>>reconstruction which, we believe, will lead us closer to that correct
>>version. Please keep in mind that it would not necessarily be an
>>interesting version. On the other hand, there are might be some
>>interesting versions but not necessarily correct ones. This is what I
>>meant talking about the two different systems of literary reconstruction,
>>and my plea was not to confuse them.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>................/snip/................
>>>
>>>Edward Dumanis writes:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>A famous contemporary Russian songwriter, Veronika Dolina, has a poem
>>>>where she portraits  Sancho Panza as a woman who is in love with her
>>>>master. It's a wonderful song, however, I have not heard about anybody
>>>>thinking that this might be what was in Cervantes' subconsciousness. Or
>>>>was it?
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>First, the correct psychoanalytic term is "unconscious" ("subconscious" 
>>>if you are a Jungian).  Second, I say: if Veronika Dolina can imagine 
>>>Sancho in love with Quixote, Tat'iana can imagine Onegin in love with 
>>>Lenskii.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Thank you for correcting me. I have no clue how this "-ness" went into my
>>writing. However, I need to clarify my example with Dolina. She explicitly
>>interpret Sancho as a woman in love with Quixote, not a man. It is an
>>interesting interpretation of Tat'iana imagining Onegin in love with
>>Lenskii. However, it does contradict to the duller reality of her
>>upbringing. Nevertheless it it still interesting. We can certainly imagine
>>such things happening. It would not be Pushkin's realism in that case but
>>so what? It will be your or my Onegin but not Pushkin's. Does it matter or
>>not? - it is a completely different story.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Edward Dumanis <dumanis at buffalo.edu>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------