On contemporary nature literature studies: the aspects of ecological literature research
The purpose of the article is to analyse the notions of ecological literature, environmental literature and nature writing. Special attention is paid to the categorization of environmental literature. At first, the author focuses on the phenomenon of ecocriticism which appeared in response to the interest of researchers to the new kind of nature literature and to the ways of literary representation of the interaction between humans and the rest of the natural world. Then, to clarify the meaning of the above mentioned notions the author compares different points of view of the researches on these notions. As the notion of nature writing is the most contested one among them, the author addresses the works of such famous ecocritics as M. Branch, T. Maran, D. Phillips and S. Slovic to clarify its meaning. The term "ecological literature" is new to Russian literary studies. This fact is proved not only by rare reference to it, but also by the absence of its definition in dictionaries. The works on ecological literature by such prominent researchers as J.S. Bryson, A.A. Gryakalov and N.A. Vysotskaya help the author of the article to define "ecological literature" and single out its features. Nature philosophical literature is very close to the notion of ecological literature, that is why the author of the article finds it important to find out their differences and similarities. To compare the terms "ecological literature" and "nature philosophical literature" which partly coincide in meaning the author draws on the works on Russian nature philosophical prose literature done by A.I. Smirnova and the conceptions of environmental (ecological) philosophy and nature philosophy. To prove the fact that not all ecological literary works can be referred to as nature philosophical works the author turns to the philosophical literary studies by R.S. Spivak and A.E. Ere-meyev. Moreover, the author introduces the term "ecosophical literature" which means "philosophical literature with the dominant of ethics of the interaction between humans and non-human natural world". Lastly, the author pays attention to the question of nature representation in American and Russian literatures. Further comparative study of this question is welcome. The author of the article believes that such kind of study can help us bridge the gap between cultures. The historical-typological, cultural-historical and comparative methods are used in the research. The results of the research can be used by those who are interested in comparative American-Russian literary studies.
Keywords
environmental philosophy,
environmental literature,
ecocriticism,
nature philosophical prose,
nature philosophy,
nature writing,
экософская литература,
эколитература,
экокритика,
натурфилософская проза,
литература об окружающей среде,
документальная литература о природеAuthors
| Grechishkina Svetlana V. | Transbaikal State University | Sveta-only4me@mail.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Смирнова А.И. Актуальные проблемы изучения современной натурфилософской прозы // Природа и человек в художественной литературе : материалы Всерос. науч. конф. Волгоград : Издательство ВолГУ, 2001. С. 5-13.
Devall B., Drengson A., Schroll M. The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, and Future Prospects (Toward a Transpersonal Ecoso-phy) // International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. 2011. № 30 (1-2). P. 101-117. URL: http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ ImagesReposi-tory/ijts/Downloads/Drengson-Devall.pdf (дата обращения: 26.07.2014).
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 2005. 1055 p.
История философии : энцикл. / сост. и глав. ред. А.А. Грицанов. URL: http://terme.ru/dictionary/181/word/naturfilosofija (дата обращения: 15.03.2014).
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. General editor Robert Audi. Cambridge University Press, 1999. 1001 p.
Огурцов А.П. Натурфилософия // Новая философская энциклопедия : в 4 т. / Рук. проекта В.С. Степин, Г.Ю. Семигин. М. : Мысль, 2010. Т. 3. С. 17-23.
URL: www.rae.ru/fs/?section=content&op=show_article&article_id=7780042 (дата обращения: 04.06.2014).
Спивак Р.С. Русская философская лирика: проблемы типологии жанров. Красноярск : Изд-во Краснояр. ун-та, 1985. 140 с.
Смирнова А.И. Русская натурфилософская проза второй половины XX века. М. : Флинта ; Наука, 2009. 288 с.
Еремеев А.Э. Философская проза как феномен русской классической литературы // Фундаментальные исследования. 2005. № 4. С. 19
Грякалов А.А. Славянская поэтика в диалоге культур: опыт Китая // Вестник Российского философского общества. 2012. № 4(64). С. 77-79.
Высоцкая Н.А. Транскультура или культура в трансе // Вопросы литературы. 2004. № 2. URL: http://magazines.russ.ru/voplit/ 2004/2/vys1.html (дата обращения: 15.07.2014).
Bryson J.S. Seeing the West Side of Any Mountain. Thoreau and Contemporary Ecological Poetry // Thoreau's Sense of Place. Essays in Ameri can Environmental Writing. Iowa City : University of Iowa Press, 2000. P. 133-145.
Slovic S. Literature // A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Malden, Oxford : Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2001. P. 251-263.
BranchM. Reading the Roots: American Nature Writing Before Walden. Athens, London : University of Georgia Press, 2004. 430 p.
Slovic S. The Environment Knows No Borders: Environmental Literature, Public Awareness, and Opportunities for International Collaboration. URL: http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ac08sessions/GS419.pdf (дата обращения: 02.04.2014).
Соломатина С.Ю. Художественное своеобразие натурфилософской эссеистики Генри Дэвида Торо : автореф. дис.. филол. наук. Нижний Новгород, 2008. 21 с.
Lyon T.J. A Taxonomy of Nature Writing // The Ecocriticism Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology. Athens : The University of Georgia Press, 1996. P. 276-281.
Abrams M.H., Harpham G.G. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 9th ed. Boston : Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. 393 p.
Гречишкина С.В. Идейно-художественное своеобразие эссе Гэри Снайдера о природе конца XX в. // Вестник ЗабГУ. 2013. № 3 (94). С. 95-103.
Maran T. Towards an integrated methodology of ecosemiotics: The concept of nature-text // Sign Systems Studies. P. 269-294. URL: http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/pdf/maran_35.pdf
Murphy P.D. Ecocritical Explorations in Literary and Cultural Studies: Fences, Boundaries, and Fields. Plymouth : Lexington Books, 2009. 217 p.
Phillips D. The Truth of Ecology: Nature, Culture, and Literature in America. N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 2003. 300 p.
Tredinnick M. Interview by Kay Rozynski. URL: http://cordite.org.au/interviews/mark-tredinnick/ (дата обращения: 02.07.2014).
A Place on Earth. An anthology of nature writing from Australia and North America / ed. by M. Tredinnik. Sydney : University of New South Wales Press Ltd., 2003. P. 25-47.
Nature in Literature and Cultural Studies. Transatlantic Concersation on Ecocriticism / ed. by C. Gersdorf, S. Mayer. Amsterdam : Radopi, 2006. 490 p.
Baldick Ch. Ecocriticism // The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference Online. National Library of Australia. URL: http://www.oxfordreference.com.rp.nla.gov.au/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t56.e359 (дата обращения: 13.09.2011).
A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory / ed. by M. Payne, J.R. Barbera. Singapore : Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2010. P. 205-209.
Slavic S. The Third Wave of Ecocriticism: North American Reflections on the Current Phase of the Discipline // Ecozone. 2010. № 1. P. 4-10. URL: http://www.ecozona.eu/index.php/journal/article/view/19/64 (дата обращения: 02.07.2014).