Scholarlink

<p>This article reviews Galin Tihanov, Anne Lounsbery, and Rossen Djagalov’s recent book, <i>World Literature in the Soviet Union</i> (2023). It discusses the ways in which Soviet world literature became a distinct literary field through socialist internationalism starting in the 1920s, proposing a different understanding of <i>Weltliteratur</i> and enacting different patterns of literary production, circulation, and transnational consecration than those enshrined in Western-centric models of world literature. I highlight the role of nation-building within the USSR, as well as in Soviet networking with the newly decolonized world post-WWII. I situate the work of Soviet intellectuals in the broader context of contemporary theoretical debates about world literature and postcolonial studies, and argue that their perspective on the historical function of literature might help us address some of our disciplinary crises today. Finally, I suggest that the same kind of research should be carried out into South-Eastern subperipheral literatures such as Romanian and Bulgarian literature.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Peripheral articulations of world literature: de-westernizing a discipline in Soviet Russia and beyond

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月12日

查看全文
  • Maria Chiorean

摘要

This article reviews Galin Tihanov, Anne Lounsbery, and Rossen Djagalov’s recent book, World Literature in the Soviet Union (2023). It discusses the ways in which Soviet world literature became a distinct literary field through socialist internationalism starting in the 1920s, proposing a different understanding of Weltliteratur and enacting different patterns of literary production, circulation, and transnational consecration than those enshrined in Western-centric models of world literature. I highlight the role of nation-building within the USSR, as well as in Soviet networking with the newly decolonized world post-WWII. I situate the work of Soviet intellectuals in the broader context of contemporary theoretical debates about world literature and postcolonial studies, and argue that their perspective on the historical function of literature might help us address some of our disciplinary crises today. Finally, I suggest that the same kind of research should be carried out into South-Eastern subperipheral literatures such as Romanian and Bulgarian literature.