FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4313198670> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4313198670 endingPage "539" @default.
• W4313198670 startingPage "537" @default.
• W4313198670 abstract "Reviewed by: Russomania: Russian Culture and the Creation of British Modernism, 1881–1922 by Rebecca Beasley Tatiana Kuzmic Beasley, Rebecca. Russomania: Russian Culture and the Creation of British Modernism, 1881–1922. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2020. xvi + 533 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £93.00: $125.00. Much has been written about the admiration prominent British modernists, most notably Virginia Woolf, had for the giants of nineteenth-century Russian literature once it became available to them in Constance Garnett’s and others’ translations. Rebecca Beasley’s new book emphasizes the important role that Russian writing played in the debates that shaped the very definition of modernism as it follows the course of the battle between French and Russian influences. The French tradition emphasized style, which has since become known as the defining feature of modernism, while the Russian became a repository for old-time romantic values, characterized by a kind of ‘linguistic optimism’ (p. 27) in its portrayal of individual life experiences and, by extension, a belief that a national literature could be representative of national identity. It ultimately lost the battle, however, as Francophile modernism became the main narrative about modernism and occluded Russia’s role, which Beasley’s Russomania brings to light. The book is somewhat unusually structured, with four lengthy chapters and three much shorter ‘interchapters’ that address lesser-known Russophile players in the development of British modernism. Each section brims with detail that at times seems overwhelming, but Beasley is deft at leading the reader through it, providing intermittent summaries of previous chapters that help to hold this immense book together. The story of British Russomania begins with the arrival of Russian émigrés to England in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and their collaboration with British socialists in translating and promoting Russian literature. The two main groups in this initial period were the Chaikovskii circle, which garnered sympathy for Russian revolutionary politics, and the Tolstoyan movement [End Page 537] with its emphasis on simplicity in both life and art. Chapter two focuses on the battle between the Francophile and Russophile strands of English modernism as played out on the pages of Ford Maddox Ford’s English Review, providing a different narrative to the accepted belief that the journal merely recorded the passing of the torch to the second generation of modernists. While firmly on the side of the Franchophiles as ‘artists’ and promoters of ‘imaginative literature’, Ford published their pieces alongside those he deemed ‘propagandist’ and ‘factual’, while himself having to strike a delicate balance between his own Tory politics and appeasing his revolutionary brother-in-law, on whose funding the publication of the journal increasingly depended. Russian literature acquired a new role as the First World War approached and the British public needed convincing that Russia was a worthier ally than Germany. The first generation of Russian émigrés in Britain separated Russian literature from the Russian state in order to win British approval, but these two now needed to be aligned if the British public was going to be comfortable with what was widely perceived as a brutal tsarist regime as a new war ally. An emphasis on Russia’s youth as a civilization (only recently discovered by the British readership) offered the promise of progress, while the notion of civilization was redefined to mean ‘simplicity, authenticity, and spiritual freedom’ (p. 253), values that had been associated with Russian literature since it first captured the British imagination. Where Tolstoi had played a significant role in the first period, Dostoevskii now rose in prominence as a prophet depicting the apocalypse of modern civilization, acting as a powerful coercive voice for those English writers who were not convinced of the rightness of England’s alliance with Russia or the rightness of the war at all. The final chapter considers the next generation of Russophilic dissenters from Francophile modernism, anti-Bolshevik sentiment in the wake of the October Revolution, and the rise of Chekhov’s influence on British literature. By this time, with the emergence of T. S. Eliot, ‘the contours of modernism were hardening’ (p. 345), and the Francophile aesthetic had won. The book’s three interchapters feature the..." @default.
• W4313198670 created "2023-01-06" @default.
• W4313198670 creator A5043783364 @default.
• W4313198670 date "2022-07-01" @default.
• W4313198670 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4313198670 title "Russomania: Russian Culture and the Creation of British Modernism, 1881–1922 by Rebecca Beasley" @default.
• W4313198670 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/see.2022.0044" @default.
• W4313198670 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4313198670 type Work @default.
• W4313198670 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4313198670 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4313198670 hasAuthorship W4313198670A5043783364 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C131100506 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C195244886 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C2776242748 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C2776445246 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C2778627824 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C2778682666 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C124952713 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C131100506 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C142362112 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C17744445 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C195244886 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C199033989 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C199539241 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C2776242748 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C2776445246 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C2778627824 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C2778682666 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C52119013 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C74916050 @default.
• W4313198670 hasConceptScore W4313198670C95457728 @default.
• W4313198670 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W4313198670 hasLocation W43131986701 @default.
• W4313198670 hasOpenAccess W4313198670 @default.
• W4313198670 hasPrimaryLocation W43131986701 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W1504831670 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2034927230 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2087884217 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2324521059 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2370917860 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2375138515 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2389740002 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W2885677980 @default.
• W4313198670 hasRelatedWork W960682536 @default.
• W4313198670 hasVolume "100" @default.
• W4313198670 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4313198670 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4313198670 workType "article" @default.