Search

Search Results

• Artefact Metaphors and Similes in Modern Russian Prose

  Nataliya Nikolina

  Zoya Petrova

  Views:

  326

  The article deals with comparative constructions (metaphors and similes) that include images of artefacts. The analysis involves the works of modern Russian prose writers such as A. Ilichevsky, E. Vodolazkin, O. Slavnikova, M. Shishkin, A. Volos, D. Bykov, D. Rubina, D. Glukhovsky, A. Makushinsky, S. Sokolov, V. Pelevin and others. It is concluded that modern Russian prose is characterized by the intensive use of artefact images as part of comparative constructions. The most common are metaphors and similes including the names of household items, fabrics, as well as machines, mechanisms, and their parts. These figurative means characterize, first of all, a person, parts of the human body, appearance, and people’s actions. Artefact comparative tropes giving a figurative description of various objects of nature are also widespread. Both traditional and new tropes including the names of artefacts in modern prose are discussed, in particular, the use of computer terms and names of new realities that have appeared relatively recently. A feature of modern prose texts is the regular use by writers of concretization and detailed transformation of images of comparison involving definitions of different types. Artefact metaphors and similes often act as key signs of the text and play a conceptualizing role in it.

• B. Spinoza, N.V. Gogol, J. Baudrillard: On the Debate about Theocentrism and Anthropocentrism

  13 p.

  Sergey Shults

  Views:

  360

  Interest in the problem of man, in the structure of the world and in its foundations is brought together, with all the difference, Spinoza, Gogol, Baudrillard. In the lineup of authors, three main attitudes are revealed. Spinoza: all that exists is theocentric; one must strive to comprehend God and His "extensions" (not creatures!) in the form of the world and man. Gogol: comic-romantic criticism regarding intramural irrationality with the author's aspiration for an eschatological perspective. Baudrillard: immersion in the pan-social as the only being, although it has (starting from the Renaissance) an empty foundation. According to Spinoza, man, nature, the world, in general, everything in reality is an extension of God. Not "creation"! - it is a continuation, practically an integral part of God, some "doubles", although those with less "good."  It turns out that God is not able to separate himself from what is around him, what is in the outside world and everything that is not He considers himself to be. Gogol, on the other hand, strove to portray man as really different in relation to God and at the same time capable of changing (the concept of “Dead Souls”). Isn’t the “apocalypse of our time” outlined by Baudrillard? Its unchanging Marxist-Freudian jargon is intended only to serve the immediate intention of reforming social reality. The Baudrillard concept is marked by post- and neo-romantic skepticism regarding the nature of man and society. The extra-Marxist (and non-Freudian) in Baudrillard - his bet on "reversibility", on the "gift" (in the terminology of Moos and his followers) of the "gift", ie installation on a "symbolic exchange" between communicants in all spheres of existence. Thus, Baudrillard comes to recognize the linkage "modern / postmodern" and to recognize the benefits of modernity. The transformation of “dead souls” is a path that Gogol also thought about realizing on different grounds and which opposes the complacency of Spinozist machines.