Cover

pdf iconDownload PDF
 

Title Page, Copyright

pdf iconDownload PDF
 

Contents

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. v-vi

read more

Acknowledgments

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. vii-viii

I wrote this book while on a Fulbright in Voronezh, Russia, where access to the hard-copy Russian originals of Tolstoy, Shklovsky, and their Russian critics and sources was easier than it might have been in the United States but every other aspect of the research was more difficult. My first thanks go, therefore, to Martha Swan, Lisa Harrison, and Anne Johnson in the Interlibrary Loan...

read more

Introduction

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. ix-xx

This book is in part a comparative study of Russian and German literary-theoretical history, specifically of a single strain of that history associated with the concepts of estrangement and alienation (Befremdung, Entfremdung, Verfremdung; ostranenie, otchuzhdenie) and formalist modernism, as well their roots in German Romanticism, Hegel, and Marx. Due to the antithetical impulses...

Part I. ZarazhenieTolstoy’s Infection Theory

pdf iconDownload PDF

p. 1

read more

One. Tolstoy’s Infection

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 3-33

“It is widely accepted in contemporary Anglo-American aesthetics,” Saam Trivedi writes in the opening lines of his 2004 article on Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy’s 1898 aesthetic tract What Is Art?, “that, despite Tolstoy’s own literary achievements, his ‘moralism’ about art is a view without much merit. For the most part, I concur with this current consensus about Tolstoy. However,...

read more

Two. Tolstoy’s Estrangement

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 34-75

Tolstoy has a dual role to play in this book: as a theorist of artistic infection and thus of the somatics of literature (my topic in chapter 1), and as a literary exemplar of estrangement (my topic here in chapter 2). Estrangement as a literary device was first theorized by Viktor Shklovsky in 1917, and chapter 3 is devoted to a detailed discussion of that theory, but as critics invariably note,...

Part II. Ostranenie Shklovsky’s Estrangement Theory

pdf iconDownload PDF

p. 77

read more

Three. Shklovsky’s Modernist Poetics

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 79-132

In a 1966 article entitled “Obnovlenie ponyatiya,” “The Renewal of a Concept,” the 73-year-old reformed Russian formalist Viktor Shklovsky returned in print to his most famous critical coinage, the priyom ostraneniya or “estrangement device” from his 1917 article “Art as Device.” Specifically, he examined the cultural afterlife of that concept, in Bertolt Brecht’s transformation...

read more

Four. Shklovsky’s Hegelianism

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 133-164

I noted in connection with my tabulation of the “four Things” in chapter 3 that Shklovsky was a left-leaning Hegelian thinker who anticipated the Hegelian Marxism of Georg Lukács by several years—and that the Soviet ban on formalism came out of the Second International Marxist tradition pioneered by Plekhanov, Kautsky, and Bernstein and institutionalized in the Soviet Union...

Part III. VerfremdungBrecht’s Estrangement Theory

pdf iconDownload PDF

p. 165

read more

Five. Brecht’s Modernist Marxism

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 167-257

I put the Shklovsky etiology first for obvious methodological reasons—a book on estrangement in Shklovsky and Brecht could hardly do otherwise—but I do not intend this methodological priority to indicate historical preference or precedence. I don’t believe Shklovsky’s indirect influence on Brecht to be weightier or more decisive than any other; in fact, I assume that Brecht...

Notes

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 259-291

Works Cited

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 293-308

Index

pdf iconDownload PDF

pp. 309-317