YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Западная литература XX века (лекция - 08).

Западная литература XX века (лекция - 08). — Transcript

by Интеллигент вшивый · 11,912 words · 1,923 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:08Today we'll talk about modernism in
0:13general, but, of course, we'll be
0:15looking at the names and books written
0:18during this period. The first thing I'd
0:24like to begin with is that natural
0:26reading sensation that arises every
0:29time we pick up and begin reading a
0:32book written in the 20th century, well,
0:35especially in the first half, which
0:37we'll be discussing now. We'll take any
0:41text written during this time. And
0:44here's the interesting thing: yes, we
0:46might not even know the author's name.
0:48Imagine this experiment: you're given a
0:50few pages of a text, and you don't know
0:53the author's name, you don't know the
0:56title of the work. The text doesn't
0:58even contain any elements that directly
1:01point to the 20th century, like cars or
1:03anything like that. But you'll always
1:06unmistakably recognize that this is a
1:08text written in the 20th century.
1:12Simply because of how it's written,
1:13right? That's because of how it's
1:15written. You immediately sense that
1:17this isn't the 19th century in any way,
1:19but the 20th. Something was happening
1:24with literary writing, with the writing
1:27style, during that period, at the
1:29beginning of the 20th century, that
1:32truly leaves the sense of a sharp
1:34boundary between the 10th and 20th
1:37centuries. And this boundary truly
1:42resembles, well, a break, a certain
1:46discontinuity. That is, there's a
1:50sudden, abrupt transition from one set
1:54of ideas about how fiction should be
1:57written to a completely different set
2:00of ideas on the subject. We're
2:03examining all of these things here in
2:05some detail and, in general, we imagine
2:08that this break, this leap—well, not
2:10quite a blatant break, but rather these
2:12transitional moments. Yes, one quality
2:16gradually evolved into another, but
2:18this transition, this evolution,
2:20occurred quite quickly, in, I don't
2:22know, a couple of decades. And indeed,
2:27when you and I take a text—I don't
2:30know, Flabert, for example, or Mapasan
2:32—and next to it we read Virginia
2:35Woolf or, I don't know, anyone,
2:37Faulkner, Hemingway, yes, or Kavka, we
2:40immediately sense that something has
2:43happened. Indeed, some kind of leap has
2:46occurred, some kind of transition to an
2:48entirely new quality of literary
2:50writing. This phenomenon, associated
2:53with the advent of the modernist era,
2:55has long been noted by literary
2:57scholarship. And much has been written,
3:00and continues to be written, about the
3:06so-called formal revolution in
3:08modernism, that is, about a revolution
3:10in artistic form. What happens to the
3:14plot, what happens to the characters?
3:18What happens to the narrative, and what
3:21new literary techniques arise in
3:23modernism? So, what is happening to the
3:29old, how these old notions disappear,
3:32and how a truly entirely new literary
3:35quality begins to emerge. Well, you and
3:40I can easily assume that when such
3:42changes occur, it's always associated
3:45with some kind of shift in worldview,
3:47in one's perception of the world.
3:50Indeed, these new ideas about the world
3:54, about society, and about humanity
3:58emerge. And this changed picture of the
4:02world, of course, dictates the urgent
4:04need to change the arsenal of tools,
4:06the artistic means with which we can
4:09describe this new experience, can
4:11somehow reflect it, because it's
4:13perfectly clear that if we want, say,
4:16to study the newly discovered
4:17microworld, then a magnifying glass
4:20will no longer be enough—we need an
4:22electron microscope, for example. Yes,
4:26if we want to chop wood, then axes and
4:29saws are suitable for this. But if we
4:33want to open a tin can, then an axe is
4:35no longer suitable; we need a different
4:36tool. Yes. So, depending on what we
4:39want to write about, what experience we
4:41want to convey, we must, accordingly,
4:43select our arsenal of tools. And so a
4:46formal revolution is taking place, one
4:48that is inextricably linked to this
4:50changed worldview. We already started
4:53talking about how it gradually changed
4:55last time, didn't we? Remember, we
4:58talked about Hamsun, about how he tried
5:00to capture this unconscious, secret,
5:02hidden spiritual life, right? About
5:05Henry James, who destroys the
5:07omniscient author and hands the floor
5:09over to the characters, inviting us to
5:11see their point of view. We talked, of
5:15course, about Marcel Proust, who was
5:18deeply interested in that part of the
5:22human psyche—which, in general, is
5:27difficult to even find the words to
5:29discuss—because it's the instinctive,
5:32ancient, animal part of our psyche,
5:34connected to our sensory system: sight,
5:37hearing, smell, touch, taste—those
5:39primary perceptions and impressions.
5:43And they're usually nonverbal. Indeed,
5:46it's very difficult to put this into
5:48words. How do you explain, for example,
5:51to a blind person who can't see what
5:53green is? What is green, exactly? Or
5:57how do you explain to a deaf person
6:00what it's like to hear a sound, I don't
6:02know, loud or soft, or whether it's a
6:05soft or harsh sound? These are all the
6:10simplest sensations, which lie below
6:13the level of our verbal communication.
6:18Literature is beginning to take an
6:19interest in all of this. And in fact,
6:22this process was closely connected with
6:25the complex of new ideas about man that
6:29arose thanks, in part, to the
6:31development of the natural sciences,
6:34with the emergence of new sciences, for
6:38example, psychology, which emerged as a
6:41new scientific field sometime in the
6:44mid-1880s. First and foremost, of
6:47course, this is connected, as I believe
6:48we've already discussed, with Wunt's
6:50laboratory. And also with the
6:52discoveries of the American philosopher
6:54and psychologist William James, who was
6:56the older brother of Henry James, the
6:58writer. We talked about it last time.
7:01But the discovery of physiology, the
7:03creation of psychology, the advent of
7:05psychoanalysis—yes, and coupled with
7:08a new view of society, which is
7:09reflected, for example, in naturalism,
7:12right? And literary naturalism—we've
7:15discussed it at length. All of this
7:19leads to a truly ideological shift at
7:22the beginning of the 20th century and
7:24the emergence of a new worldview, an
7:27important part of which is a new
7:29literary anthropology, that is, a new
7:32set of ideas about man, expressed in
7:35literature. And in order to convey this
7:39experience, new techniques, new methods
7:41, are truly necessary. We'll talk first
7:45about two things related to the new
7:48literary anthropology, that is, the new
7:50set of ideas about man that was
7:53expressed in literature during the
7:55modernist era in the first third of the
7:5820th century. First, there's the
8:01discovery of the unconscious and the
8:04ways literature begins to work with
8:07this material. The second is new
8:11understandings of our consciousness, of
8:13thinking, of how it works, how it's
8:16structured, and again, how literature
8:18attempts to engage with these matters.
8:23This will be the first important block
8:25we need to discuss in connection with
8:27modernism. The second important
8:31question will touch on several other
8:34things, namely, the ideas of modernist
8:36writers about literature, its purpose,
8:39its meaning, and the place it occupies
8:42in modern civilization, in modern
8:44culture. But before we move on to
8:50discussing interesting questions about
8:52the unconscious and awareness, I'd like
8:55to say a few words about the word "
8:57modernism" itself, which we'll be using
8:59constantly now, right? Where did this
9:04word come from, and why do we use it to
9:07describe the literature, or rather,
9:09most of it, that emerged in the second
9:12third of the 20th century? That's an
9:15interesting question. And it must be
9:18said that, in fact, this word with a
9:22common root is, uh, common in many
9:25European languages, including Russian,
9:28at that time. And here we can talk
9:33about such a thing as modernism with a
9:35capital M, meaning the grand style of
9:38the era—yes, the era of modernism,
9:40yes, as we discussed, the era of
9:42decadence—yes, modernism as a grand
9:45style of the era, as an entire era in
9:47the history of literature. And we can
9:51talk about different modernisms, about
9:54different national interpretations of
9:56this word. And here, by the way, if we
10:00turn to these different modernisms in
10:02their national interpretations, we can
10:04encounter a wide variety of
10:06interpretations of this word in general
10:08. Well, for example, if we take our
10:12native Russian version, yes, the
10:15understanding of this word, then
10:18modernism is a term that is primarily
10:21used by historians of Russian
10:23literature to apply to the Silver Age,
10:27that is, primarily the 1990s, yes, even
10:30before the revolution of 1917.
10:33Modernism, symbolism, I don't know,
10:36decadence—all of this goes hand in
10:39hand, side by side, in the history of
10:41Russian literature. Well, in a more
10:43general sense, the emergence of these
10:45phenomena, associated with the turn of
10:47the century—yes, in Russia it begins
10:50a little later, closer to the 1990s,
10:52unlike, say, France or Britain. And
10:54this is also called modernism. In a
10:58more specialized sense, "modernists"
11:01are used to describe certain circles,
11:04and poets, writers, and artists of the
11:071990s. For example, the association
11:10that formed around the magazine "World
11:12of Art" in Russia during the Silver Age
11:14. They are often called modernists,
11:16right? Both artists and writers,
11:18modernists. So, you see, this rather
11:21narrowly specialized use of the word is
11:23associated with the circle movement,
11:25with the orientation of a particular
11:26magazine, for example, a literary and
11:28artistic one, and with the Silver Age
11:30in general. So, look, modernism in
11:32Russia is generally applied to
11:33turn-of-the-century culture. In the
11:36West, we apply this term primarily to
11:38the 20th century—that is, the culture
11:41that developed there from the late
11:431900s until the 1960s. But if we look
11:51at how this word appears, for example,
11:54in Spanish, we see that the term "
11:56modernismo" or "modernism" is primarily
11:59associated with the phenomenon of
12:01poetic modernism. This, too, is a
12:05phenomenon generally related to the
12:08turn of the century and, indeed, the
12:10very beginning of the 20th century.
12:14Poetic modernism is a revolution that
12:16occurred in the history of Spanish
12:19poetry, which had been rather
12:21retrograde by the end of the 20th
12:23century and was, after all, very
12:25outdated. And so, the renewal of poetic
12:29styles and poetic schools began,
12:32incidentally, not in Spain itself, but
12:34in its former colonies, in Latin
12:37America. And from there, these veins
12:40reach the former metropolitanate, that
12:42is, Spain itself. And, in particular,
12:46Latin American poets, uh, they come to
12:53Spain, give poetry readings, meet
12:55Spanish poets, and bring back this new
12:57style, which begins to be adopted in
13:00Spain and develops rapidly. And Spain
13:03thereby introduces into its poetry the
13:06discoveries made, well, first and
13:07foremost, of course, by the French
13:09during the era of Parnassus and
13:11Symbolism. Look, yes, for France, this
13:14was already so yesterday, but for Spain
13:16, modernism—that is, some new
13:18currents, new trends in poetry. You see
13:21, this is also quite a narrow
13:23specialization, conditioned by some
13:25national peculiarities of the use of
13:27this term. There were various
13:29modernisms. I won't even mention the
13:32others, otherwise it would take up too
13:34much time, right? But there is
13:37Modernism with a capital M. And this
13:39very modernism, as the name of an
13:41entire era, modernism as the name of a
13:43grand style defining the appearance of
13:46Western literature—the first, third,
13:48and even more so, the first half—one
13:51might safely say of the 20th century.
13:55This term, uh, came to us in literary
13:58history from the Anglo-American context
14:09. And first and foremost, of course,
14:13this is associated with the name of
14:16Virginia Woolf, the famous writer,
14:18literary critic, and generally someone
14:21who was very active in literary terms
14:24and greatly enlivened and, uh, somehow
14:30contributed to the development of
14:33literary life, not only in Britain but
14:36also in America. It was Virginia Woolf
14:42who first used the word modernism, well
14:45, in a sense very close to how we use
14:48it today. Virginia Woolf certainly
14:51didn't mean to—she was a highly
14:54educated, cultured, refined, and
14:56sophisticated woman—to introduce some
14:58new scientific term, because that would
15:01have been, in fact, a rather absurd
15:03idea, to introduce a scientific term
15:05that comes from a word, from a root
15:07meaning simply "new" or "modern." Yes,
15:10call something new or modern today, and
15:12in 10, 20, 30 years it will be
15:13hopelessly outdated. Therefore,
15:16Virginia Woolf, of course, simply used
15:20the word in a working manner and with
15:23her main, and essentially her only,
15:26purpose—to separate, yes, the
15:29literature being written now,
15:32contemporary literature, these new
15:35writers writing in a new way, in the
15:39spirit of the new 20th century, from
15:43the literature of the past, from the
15:45literature of the 19th century, from
15:47the writers of the past and from the
15:49way it was customary to write then.
15:52Well, it would seem the 19th century is
15:55over. Why talk about it so much, argue
15:57with it, or try so hard to distance
15:59ourselves from it? However, Virginia
16:02Woolf had a practical goal in this
16:04pursuit, in this quest to, yes, draw a
16:07line between the 20th and 19th
16:09centuries. She, her Bloomsbury circle,
16:13whose soul she was in London, yes, they
16:15, uh, actually polemicized, feuded with
16:18a whole series of writers whom they
16:20considered retrograde and pedantic,
16:22writers who now live and write
16:24alongside us, simultaneously in the
16:2720th century, and, in general, are not
16:29all that different in age from us. If
16:33they're older, it's not by much, but
16:36they cling tenaciously to the standards
16:39and even the cliches of a bygone era,
16:41trying to continue the tradition of the
16:44great Victorians, Dickinson, Thackeray,
16:47and so on, even though the 19th century
16:50is over, the time of the great
16:52Victorians is past, it's become classic
16:55, and now it's a new century, said
16:58Virginie Wolooof. Yes, and writing
17:01needs to be completely new, different.
17:03No, they cling to the old. And what's
17:06the result? No originality, no
17:08imitation, no epigonism, they produce
17:12nothing interesting. It's something
17:15completely derivative, already dead.
17:17There's no internal development. What's
17:20the point of writing like that? With
17:22authors like these, uh, among whom were
17:24some well-known figures. For example,
17:27the notorious Jongle Sworthy, author of
17:29the famous Forsyte saga, a multi-volume
17:32work, quite respectable, yes, or
17:35perhaps that was the writer Arnold
17:37Bennot. The science fiction writer
17:40Herbrit Wells was also greatly disliked
17:42in this circle. These were all writers,
17:45as they were called in the Bloomsbury
17:47circle, in the circle of Virginia Woolf
17:50, Edwardian writers, named after King
17:52Edward, right? And under whom their
17:55literary work unfolded. Edwardians
17:58imitating the great Victorians,
18:00epigones of the great Victorians who
18:02simply froze, froze there, remained in
18:05the nineteenth century and did not want
18:07to move on into the new century. They
18:10are even trying to impose these
18:12outdated standards on us. And then
18:14there are modern writers, writers of
18:16the new century, who have realized that
18:19writing in the old way is no longer
18:21possible; yes, life has changed,
18:23changed all ideas about it. The main
18:25thing is that our understanding of man,
18:27his experience, his inner world has
18:28changed. And we need to write in a new,
18:31contemporary way. And it was precisely
18:34this feeling that she conveyed with the
18:37words "modern,""contemporary,""new."
18:41Modern literature. Modernists,
18:44modernists, writers writing in a new,
18:46contemporary way. I repeat, I don't
18:49mean to create a term, but this little
18:52word of hers, in which she captured,
18:55yes, the emergence of a new modern
18:58literature and a new modern generation,
19:01a generation of writers—it was later
19:03picked up by literary critics and
19:06literary historians, and somehow took
19:09hold, and was imbued with a broader
19:11meaning, and turned into such a dubious
19:14term, in general, as modernism. Now, of
19:18course, this modernism is already a
19:20classic for us, and there is nothing
19:22new or modern in it. Only classicism.
19:25All this was a century ago. That's it.
19:28And it was precisely in that sense, in
19:31a sense close to that in which Vijini
19:33Woof used the word, that we began to
19:36understand and apply this capital-M
19:38modernism to the history of literature.
19:42Thus, in this Anglo-American sense, the
19:45term became firmly established in our
19:47culture. And this is no accident,
19:51because it was precisely the modernist
19:54project, precisely the emergence of
19:57this experiment, which was carried out
20:00by English, British, and American
20:02writers and poets, that was, in fact,
20:05the turning point, beyond which, again,
20:08the new realities of the new 20th
20:11century began, namely: cultural
20:14dominance—Anglo-American and, first
20:17and foremost, of course, American—
20:20under which the entire 20th century
20:23passed. If 19 th-century America was,
20:28in general, a backwater of the Old
20:30World, and Europe was convinced that
20:32nothing particularly interesting was
20:34happening there (well, there were a
20:36couple of good writers there, some
20:38known, some read), but overall, of
20:40course, they were, so to speak, in
20:42their apprenticeship compared to us.
20:46British literature was, of course,
20:48powerful and influential, but it
20:51existed alongside Germany and France.
20:54And, in general, perhaps even France
20:56could be called a cultural leader of
20:58the 19th century. And, of course,
21:01Britain seriously challenged it for
21:04this right. But, in general, the
21:06question here is who was, so to speak,
21:08more influential, who was more
21:15interesting in terms of literary
21:16experimentation in the 19th century,
21:18then with the 20th century, it is truly
21:20indisputable. This is, of course, a
21:22kind of Anglo-American, and
21:23predominantly American, dominance. And
21:25it all begins with the modernist
21:27experiment, the modernist project, the
21:30Anglo-American version of modernism.
21:35Now that we've covered modernism and
21:38modernisms a bit, we'll move on to a
21:41description of this experiment, this
21:43modernist project, successfully
21:46implemented, impressive, and, in
21:48general, securing Britain, and even
21:51more so the United States, cultural
21:53leadership in the 20th century. And
21:57we'll begin with a discussion of the
22:00unconscious, yes, this new concept,
22:02this new range of phenomena, which made
22:05such a powerful impression on the
22:07writing community, on the literary
22:09establishment, and contributed to a
22:12rather radical change in the face of
22:14literature in the 20th century, already
22:17in the era of modernism. Ah, well, yes,
22:22it's known, yes, I can simply state
22:24this fact, without going into it
22:26further, yes, that Freud's discovery,
22:29his psychoanalysis—it was a crucial
22:32factor that exerted, well, a very
22:34significant, perhaps decisive,
22:36influence on English-language
22:38literature, especially on American
22:40literature in the 1920s-1930s. Well,
22:44the most influential decade in this
22:46regard, when Freud's ideas were
22:48especially important, was, of course,
22:50the 1920s. And, ah, in fact, many
22:55British and American writers were
22:58interested in Freud's ideas and read
23:02psychoanalytic works and, moreover,
23:07underwent psychoanalytic therapy and
23:11visited psychoanalysts. And almost
23:15every great or significant English or
23:18American writer had, to one degree or
23:21another, such direct contact with
23:24psychoanalysis. I can name anyone, say,
23:28Faulkner or, say, the American
23:31avant-garde poet Edward Islyn Cummings.
23:36The entire circle of these poets, the
23:37modernists, Stevens, Hill Dolittle, and
23:43others. Indeed, in general, practically
23:46everyone went through the ordeal of
23:48psychoanalysis and Fredianism. And in
23:53literary history books devoted to the
23:55decade of the twenties, this decade,
23:57the decade of the twenties,
23:59psychoanalysis is always mentioned as
24:01the most important factor that shaped
24:04this literature. Well, I think you've
24:09heard quite a bit about Freud's
24:11teachings and you know, yes, that Freud
24:14, at least early Freud and in his
24:17classical period, discovered that he
24:20declared, yes, that the structure of
24:22the human personality can be divided
24:25into three levels. This is the
24:29unconscious, which Fred called the id,
24:33it, and the superego. And everything
24:37connected with our sociality and
24:38culture, yes, a set of cultural
24:40prescriptions, prohibitions, taboos of
24:42all kinds, yes, that is, what regulates
24:44our behavior, as it were, from above,
24:46from society and culture. And the
24:49superego is also, generally speaking, a
24:51realm of the unconscious, but a higher
24:53unconscious, yes, because cultural
24:55prescriptions and prohibitions are also
24:57learned by us, generally speaking, in
24:59very early childhood, mainly through
25:01parental upbringing, yes, and we
25:03reproduce them, generally speaking,
25:05without thinking about it too much. We
25:07usually don't reflect; yes, we know
25:09that we should eat with a spoon, yes,
25:12and so on, give up our place to elders,
25:14and so on. We learned all this in early
25:16childhood, also, generally speaking,
25:18unconsciously. And between these two
25:20realms of the unconscious, the
25:22instincts of our physiology, biology—
25:25the it and, yes? The it—these are our
25:27instincts. And this cultural,
25:29unconscious, there is a mediator, yes,
25:32that sphere of the psyche that Fred
25:35called the it or the ego, forgive me,
25:37and the function of this mediator, that
25:40is, our consciousness, is to try to
25:43reconcile the irreconcilable demands
25:45that the it and the superego make of us
25:48. Because the demands of instinct and
25:52the demands of culture are truly always
25:54directly opposed, Freud said. Our lower
25:57unconscious, our instinct, our biology
26:00demands, you're hungry, go take this
26:02pie from him and eat it yourself. You
26:05like this woman, go and take her. It
26:08doesn't matter that she's your sister
26:10or your mother, let's say, and he
26:12stepped on your foot and hurt you, kill
26:14him. Yes, these aggressive, sexual
26:17instincts, instincts associated with
26:20hunger and so on. But culture will say
26:22the opposite: "No, don't take someone
26:24else's pie, go and earn money for your
26:25own." Don't dare touch this woman.
26:28She's your mother or your sister. Find
26:30yourself another suitable, let's say,
26:32passion. And he offended you or hurt
26:35you. Don't touch him, don't dare use
26:37violence against him. Step aside. And
26:39so on. Yes. And so these two powerful
26:41enemies, the self and the superego,
26:44endlessly war within us. And our
26:50conscious part, the one we usually talk
26:52about, the ego, must act as a mediator,
26:55constantly trying to find a compromise.
26:58Sometimes it succeeds, but more often
26:59than not, it doesn't. And in general,
27:03our ego is so exhausted by this work of
27:05finding a compromise between these two
27:08powerful opponents that it constantly
27:11succumbs to this two-way pressure, and
27:13various breakdowns occur within our ego
27:16—neuroses, and in very severe cases,
27:19psychoses—yes, which need to be
27:21treated somehow, somehow corrected,
27:24mended, patched, yes, so that these
27:26holes in our ego, in our consciousness,
27:30can somehow be repaired a little, so
27:32that we can once again function in our
27:35cruel and merciless world. This is how
27:38Freud saw his task. At the same time,
27:41he viewed this situation
27:43pessimistically, generally speaking,
27:45and said that this controversy, this
27:48fierce dispute between the id and the
27:50superego, was inexorable and
27:52insurmountable. It was impossible to
27:54reconcile these two adversaries. They
27:56would forever war within our psyche,
27:59within our soul. And so, a person would
28:02inevitably suffer as long as they lived
28:05, and be continually traumatized. Fred
28:07wrote, yes, that in order to stop
28:09suffering, one must become a stone in
28:11the road, that is, cease to be human.
28:14And Freud saw the task of his therapy,
28:16in principle, very modestly. A person
28:18would be treated a little, adjusted,
28:20their condition slightly improved, and
28:22then, so to speak, they would be sent
28:23back into the world, where they would
28:25suffer new traumas, and then they would
28:27return to the psychoanalyst. So they
28:29lay there on his couch, well, for years
28:31, decades, returning again and again.
28:34And this is inevitable. Such is the
28:36fate of man, an unnatural animal who
28:38lives not only in the realm of nature,
28:41like harmonious little animals, yes,
28:44but also in the realm of sociality and
28:46culture, which has adopted a manner of
28:49warring with our nature. And because of
28:51this, we are such divided creatures,
28:54constantly sitting between two stools
28:56and constantly receiving trauma because
28:58of this. This is, in fact, a rather
29:01bleak picture. Firstly, it has
29:08reinforced radically new ideas about
29:11man, characteristic specifically of 20
29:14th-century literature, because now we
29:18have "m" in place of the former
29:21individual, and "individual" in Latin
29:24means indivisible, as if whole, right?
29:28So instead of the former individual, a,
29:31which appears in literature, say, of
29:34the 10th century, we have a divit, that
29:38is, our psyche is hopelessly divided,
29:41torn. And this division, this internal
29:44dispute, uh, internal controversy, is
29:46insurmountable. It cannot be resolved,
29:50it cannot be fixed. A human being, by
29:54definition, is ontologically, so to
29:57speak, yes, a torn, split,
30:00contradictory creature. Ah, and nothing
30:04can be done about it. Such are the
30:06conditions of our existence in this
30:08world. This is all quite radically
30:11different from, uh, those ideas about
30:13the complexity and contradictions of
30:16human nature that we find in 19
30:17th-century characters. Well, let's
30:21recall, for example, yes, the books of,
30:23I don't know, Tolstoy or Balzac, if we
30:26take Western literature. There, of
30:28course, we find very complex characters
30:31, very internally contradictory,
30:33afflicted by opposing impulses, yes,
30:35and we see that, in general, these
30:37characters are complex, complex natures
30:39. Ah, but this complexity is of a
30:42completely different order than the
30:44complexity of 20 th-century characters.
30:46What is the difference? The difference
30:49is, first of all, that we can always
30:51separate in these characters, yes, good
30:53from evil, as we discussed. And these
30:56struggles inherent in them, for example
30:59, in the soul of Rastenac, Balzac's
31:01hero—yes, the desire for power,
31:03prosperity, wealth, and social
31:05influence constantly contends. And then
31:08there's the best impulse, love for his
31:10sisters, for his mother, a certain
31:12conscientiousness, sensitivity, yes,
31:14the ability to sympathize with the
31:16misfortunes of others. And so, all this
31:18is constantly in a state of struggle
31:20within him, yes. But at the same time,
31:23this struggle, this contradiction,
31:25these counter-intuitive impulses, they
31:28are perceived by Balzac as a kind of
31:30temporary state. This is a Hegelian
31:34scheme. Thesis and antithesis are
31:37present in the soul of, say, Rastenac,
31:39or in the soul of Pierre Bezukhov or
31:41Andrei Balkonsky, any of these heroes
31:43of 10 th-century literature. But
31:46according to Hegel, after the struggle
31:48between thesis and antithesis, we must
31:51achieve a synthesis and rise to a
31:53higher, new level in our personal
31:55development. Having reached this stage,
31:58we again begin, so to speak, to split
32:00internally. The struggle begins again,
32:02but on a different level. Again, thesis
32:04, antithesis, new synthesis. Yes, this
32:06rather harmonious pattern gives rise to
32:09the phenomenon in the psychological
32:11novel, for example, in 19 th-century
32:14psychological fiction, described by the
32:16concept of the dialectic of the soul or
32:18the inner evolution of heroes. That is,
32:21this struggle, controversy, dispute—
32:23it's temporary. It's necessary for the
32:25hero to take a step forward in their
32:27development, upward, or, conversely, to
32:30begin to slide downwards if they
32:31implement the synthesis incorrectly,
32:34where, yes, they begin to degrade, yes.
32:36That's it. But nevertheless, this is a
32:38certain constructed trajectory of
32:40development, where synthesis, the
32:42desired result, is entirely achievable.
32:45And theses and antitheses are struggles
32:47, a temporary state that will
32:48inevitably be overcome. In the 20th
32:50century, the picture is completely
32:51different. This struggle cannot be
32:54overcome. Man is eternally doomed to it
32:57. The struggle, I don't know, between
32:59his physiology and his culture and
33:04sociality, which he has introjected, so
33:06to speak, absorbed, and all these
33:08cultural prohibitions and prescriptions
33:10live within us. Yes, this is
33:12inescapable, it will always be present.
33:16And man, by definition, is a torn,
33:18unhappy, deeply traumatized being,
33:20whose complexity and tornness cannot be
33:23eliminated in any way. This is a very
33:27important consequence, yes, of these
33:30Freudian ideas, which fully emerge and
33:34embrace modernism, creating such heroes
33:37—neither evil nor good, neither bad
33:40nor ugly, simply complex, whose inner
33:43complexity is inescapable, irreducible,
33:46and leads us to no result. It simply
33:49exists as a given. And in the case of
33:53modernist characters, we can hardly
33:56speak of any kind of spiritual progress
33:58or regression, inner growth or
34:01degradation. We can only speak of an
34:04endless process of change within their
34:06souls, because man also exists as
34:08something changeable, something
34:10chimerical, yes, and that this
34:12complexity is constantly present, yes,
34:15but with them it never disappears and
34:17never, generally speaking, transforms
34:19into any new quality. This is precisely
34:23the nature of the heroes of James Joyce
34:26or Virginia Woolf, ah, and to a large
34:29extent Faulkner, yes, those great
34:31modernist authors. A completely
34:34different conception, yes, of man as a
34:37dividual and of this complexity, which
34:40is not at all the complexity of Hegel
34:42with his neat, logical triad. This is
34:45the first point, a very important one,
34:47connected with my perception of the
34:49idea of psychoanalysis. The next point
34:52is connected, in fact, with the
34:54unconscious, with the lower unconscious
34:56, first and foremost, with our
34:58instincts, of course, with our
34:59physiological, animal part, which
35:01Proust, who paid close attention to our
35:03sensory system, was already interested
35:05in. This is its unconscious core
35:09content, as you well know. Yes, in
35:16Freud's classical period, it's libida,
35:19yes, the erotic drive, which Fred makes
35:22the center of our unconscious psyche.
35:27But in his later period, Freud added to
35:29this erotic treatment of libida, also a
35:32complementary, oppositely directed
35:35impulse, which he called Mortido or
35:37Thanatos. This drive toward death and
35:40destruction, on the contrary, he said
35:42that these two drives, these two
35:44instinctive impulses, are two sides of
35:46the same coin. Just as a coin
35:48necessarily has an eagle and a jack, so
35:50in our unconscious psyche these two
35:52drives actually form a single whole,
35:53only sometimes turning one side,
35:55sometimes the other. But this is indeed
35:57, generally speaking, true. If we were
35:59not mortal, we would not need to
36:00reproduce, and, accordingly, conversely
36:02, these two things are, as it were,
36:04truly inseparably connected. And in the
36:07treatment of death, in the treatment of
36:10prolonging life, a legitimate question
36:12arises: why did Fred, in fact, make the
36:14principle of libidinous attraction, the
36:16principle of erotic attraction, the
36:18core content of our psychic unconscious
36:20, our psychic underground? Why, let's
36:23say, didn't he think of basing it all
36:25on, say, the principle of pie? Hunger
36:29is also a very strong instinct, a very
36:31powerful driving force. Why did Freud
36:34decide not to take it, but rather this
36:36very Eros, which he later supplemented
36:39with Thanatos, or Libidin, under the
36:41auspices of Smartid? What's the matter?
36:45In fact, there was much debate about
36:49this, even among Freud's students, and
36:53his followers and even his debunkers.
36:59Because a whole cohort of his students,
37:01for example, Carl Gustav Jung, who is
37:04probably well known to you, or, say,
37:07Gostofadler. They reproached their
37:11teacher for placing excessive emphasis
37:14on sexuality, which is quite
37:16understandable. What's even more
37:19surprising is that among Freud's
37:20followers, there were those who
37:22criticized him for not paying enough
37:23attention to sexuality. This included,
37:26for example, Wilhelm Reich, the
37:27renowned psychotherapist and
37:29psychologist who created character
37:31analysis and body-oriented therapy.
37:34Reich said that Freud had somehow
37:36overly diluted, expanded, and stretched
37:39the concepts of libido and eros to
37:41inconceivable limits. So much so that
37:44it's completely impossible to work with
37:46, and we need to be more specific and
37:48truly talk about the erotic impulse as
37:51something physiologically very concrete
37:53and work with it. But these debates are
37:58quite revealing, because before us,
38:00Freud actually emerges as a classic
38:03scholar of the positivist era, one who
38:05created a new discipline and offered a
38:08very broad and far-reaching initial
38:10terminology. The meaning of each term
38:15Freud introduces is truly multifaceted,
38:18sometimes even closer to metaphor than
38:21to strictly scientific terminology.
38:24Such a term for him is ilibis or eros.
38:29Freud, a materialist and atheist, a
38:32positivist scientist, believes that,
38:35well, what he really does is study life
38:38in the only form known to him, as a
38:41positivist scientist, in the form of
38:44organic life, right? Here's our body,
38:49the primary source and ultimate cause
38:52of all our mental impulses. According
38:55to Freud, all these impulses arise, are
38:58born, develop, and fade away in our
39:00body, right? And the body is our life.
39:06And we can speak of life only in the
39:08language of life itself. And what is
39:10the apotheosis of the life cycle, the
39:13life process? The moment when life
39:16continues itself, when it prolongs its
39:19existence. This, of course, is the act
39:22of reproduction, the emergence of new
39:24life. And Freud made this the
39:27cornerstone of his theory, which is
39:28also completely understandable, yes.
39:32And so, in fact, the body as the
39:35primary source and ultimate cause of
39:38our entire mental life—this is a very
39:41important idea of Freud's, which was
39:44also adopted in literature. And note
39:48that the body as a source of energy, as
39:52the ultimate explanation for all mental
39:55phenomena, as, uh, not just a
39:58receptacle for the soul, but as a
40:01generator, actually generating this
40:04soul—this is precisely the image that
40:07permeates the literature of modernism.
40:11And in fact, modernists are very
40:20attentive to the bodily aspect of human
40:23life, human existence. They will always
40:30pay very close attention to gesture, to
40:34posture, to certain manifestations of
40:37our bodily life, there, I don't know,
40:41blush, pallor, trembling, something
40:45else, right? This is the very physical
40:48and at the same time material writing
40:50of modernism. One of the striking signs
40:53of the revolution taking place compared
40:56to the 19th century. Nearby, we
40:58encounter a situation where, in trying
41:01to convey to us some inner drives, the
41:03inner experiences of a hero, what will
41:06the 19th century do? It will recount
41:09thoughts and feelings, while 20
41:12th-century literature will describe
41:14bodily reactions by which we must judge
41:17what is happening to the soul, to the
41:20inner life. That's it. But in fact,
41:25I'll simply give you two examples, yes,
41:28from two completely different writers
41:31who have nothing in common except the
41:35fact that they belong to the era of
41:38modernism, to a new period in literary
41:41history. These are Ernest Hemingway and
41:45Franzkavka. Hemingway's unique,
41:51recognizable writing is a striking
41:53example of the new psychologism that
41:55arises precisely from these ideas about
41:57the corporeality of all our experiences
41:59and the fact that the body is not only
42:02the vessel of the soul, but also its
42:04generator. And, ah, Hemingway always
42:08conveys the hidden inner life through,
42:12ah, the body, through the visible part
42:15of the iceberg that is man. The soul
42:19looks at us, as if from a fortress,
42:21through the loopholes of the eyes. Yes,
42:24and only by physical reactions can we
42:27adequately judge what is happening to a
42:30person. Body language is much more
42:33eloquent, expressive, and at the same
42:35time more laconic than words, than
42:38attempts at verbal communication.
42:40You've undoubtedly noticed, while
42:42reading Hemingway, that his dialogues
42:45are usually, firstly, very brief, and
42:47secondly, very uninformative. And they
42:49provide minimal information about the
42:51characters 'inner experiences. They are
42:54so provocatively anti-psychological, if
42:57we recall 19 th-century psychologism,
42:59and, in general, Hummingway's
43:01characters never expatiate on their
43:03feelings, thoughts, and experiences. On
43:07the contrary, I always get the
43:08impression, when reading Hemingway's
43:10dialogues, that they're talking about
43:12anything but what's most important.
43:15It's as if they're deliberately
43:16avoiding the most important and vital
43:17things, and instead talking about some
43:19trivial, some trivial matter. Yes,
43:22Hemingway, like most writers of the
43:25modernist generation, is convinced that
43:27words are a very imperfect
43:28communication tool, usually failing to
43:31convey the most important things, and,
43:33on the contrary, tending to confuse us
43:35and distract us from them. And we can
43:38learn the most important things if we
43:41pay more attention to the most frank,
43:44the most eloquent, the most honest, and
43:46expressive language. Nonverbal language
43:49, the language of the body. Hemingway's
43:51texts are therefore very physical and
43:53tangible. Gestures, poses, and the body
43:55movements of his characters—he will
43:57always meticulously record and
43:58expressively describe them. Here's a
44:01short quote from his first novel, "The
44:04Sun Also Rises: Fiesta." The novel has
44:06a double title, right? The novel was
44:08published in 1926. It was Hemingway's
44:10first novel. And a group of these, well
44:14, heroes, friends, travel to Spain, to
44:17Pamplona, to take part in the Fiesta
44:20celebration that will be taking place
44:22there. And so they are there, endlessly
44:25, as is typical of Hringoy's heroes,
44:27visiting various taverns. And so, at
44:30one point, they find themselves in the
44:33company of some ordinary Spaniards in
44:37one of the establishments, where they
44:40are offered a drink with the entire
44:43assembled company. Basque waved his
44:46index finger under Bill's nose and
44:48returned the bottle to him, snapping
44:50the cork. He threw off the wineskin, a
44:52young man snatched it from him, and,
44:54holding it in his outstretched arms, he
44:56raised it high and squeezed it tightly.
44:58So that the wine, upon igniting, gushed
45:00into his mouth. He held the wineskin
45:02far away from himself, and the stream
45:04of wine, describing a gentle trajectory
45:06, flowed into his mouth, and he
45:08swallowed calmly and measuredly. Notice
45:10how carefully and expressively
45:13Haminguey describes these gestures, yes
45:16, and this behavior, these postures,
45:19these manifestations, yes, of
45:21physicality. So, for the Russian
45:24translator, problems arise, because it
45:26is often difficult to find adequate
45:28means in our native language to convey
45:30Haminguey Haminguey's amazingly
45:32detailed descriptions of the characters
45:34' behavior, postures, and gestures.
45:38Body language is much more expressive,
45:39more frank, and more honest than words.
45:44In the same novel, Haminguey simulates
45:46a situation, yes, the meeting of two
45:48lovers, Jake Barnes, the protagonist,
45:50and Brad Ashley. They were in love
45:54before the war, then separated. And as
45:57a result of the injury Jake Barnes
46:00received at the front, he is incapable
46:02of married life. And now he cannot
46:07unite with Brad, cannot marry, cannot
46:10have children, and a future together is
46:13denied them; it is impossible. But they
46:17continue to love each other. And so,
46:21after a long interval, they meet again
46:23for the first time in Paris. And it's
46:28clear, we can, so to speak, guess what
46:30feelings they're experiencing:
46:32excitement, fear, anxiety, perhaps some
46:35kind of hope against all odds, and
46:37somewhere, melancholy, despair, and, at
46:39the same time, joy, and so on. We could
46:44discuss this at length in bad prose or,
46:46say, in the spirit of the 19th century.
46:48But Hamingoy does things differently.
46:50He tells us almost nothing about the
46:53feelings, the experiences that
46:55undoubtedly overwhelm these two
46:57characters with such force. We see how
47:00succinctly and at the same time very
47:02expressively Hamingoy describes their
47:04first meeting. Here they are, talking,
47:08riding together in a taxi, arriving at
47:11the barracks where the rest of their
47:13friends are waiting, and a little while
47:16longer, and they should be in company.
47:19Their tête-à-tête is destroyed. When
47:23the taxi stopped, I got out and paid.
47:25Breda walked out, putting on her hat.
47:28She leaned on my arm as she stepped out
47:29from under the footstool. Her hand was
47:32shaking. I looked very indecent. She
47:35pulled her man's felt hat down over her
47:38eyes and entered the café. These few
47:41gestures contain everything: Bret's
47:44love, her confusion and despair,
47:45concealed by an awkward frown, her
47:48composure that is about to fail her,
47:50and her habit of hiding her feelings at
47:52any cost, and so on, and so on, and so
47:54on. Well, what I'm explaining to you
47:57here is the language of the 19th
47:59century, this is the toolkit of the
48:0119th century. Hammingham walks around
48:04without all that. He conveys all this
48:07to us through the recording of body
48:10language. And only through the body can
48:16one try to guess what it is like, the
48:18hidden life of the soul. Another
48:22example is from Franz Kavka, from his
48:24novel The Trial, where body language
48:26can also be used to interpret the
48:28changes occurring in the hero's inner
48:30world. Josef K is a decent man, a
48:34respectable citizen, a bank procurator.
48:38He finds himself in a strange, indecent
48:40, absurd, and bizarre situation. Out of
48:42the blue, on his birthday—his 33rd
48:45birthday—two men in black uniforms
48:47appear, announce they are guards, and
48:49that he's under arrest, with some kind
48:51of legal process being launched against
48:54him. His home is his recess. They tell
48:56him he can now go to work and generally
48:58live as usual, but the process is
48:59ongoing. From now on, he'll have to
49:01appear in court from time to time.
49:04Josef Kap initially dismisses this as a
49:06misunderstanding, then becomes enraged,
49:08believing it's absurd, a mistake, or
49:10simply not fitting. At first, he tries
49:13to dismiss it as something completely
49:16unrelated to him, but gradually he
49:18becomes more and more drawn into this
49:21process. And so Kavka describes a scene
49:23somewhere near the beginning of the
49:25novel. She's drawn to Iosefuk, who,
49:28having heard about his troubles, has an
49:31uncle arrive from another city, all
49:34agitated and agitated, trying to do
49:36something to help his nephew. And so it
49:40is in the brilliantly written scene of
49:42Iosefuk's conversation with his uncle.
49:44And at first, we see K, yes, taking in
49:46everything that's happening, but not
49:48taking in everything that's happening
49:50to him. He's seriously trying to
49:52distance himself from it. And his
49:54attitude toward the trial, toward the
49:58process, is, for now, ironically
50:01detached. And his uncle delivers a long
50:03monologue about how K's life must now
50:05change. And K gradually begins to be
50:07drawn into the discussion. A sense of
50:10involvement gradually arises within him
50:12. He begins to listen attentively to
50:15his uncle's words, and then, in the end
50:17, it turns out that he's already more
50:19involved in this process than even his
50:21uncle, who seems so agitated and
50:23preoccupied. Here I am again, telling
50:26you all this at length, as writers—
50:28well, admittedly, bad writers, of
50:30course, they are classics—would have
50:32done in the 19th century. How does
50:35Kavka do it? A few phrases, lines of
50:38dialogue, and a few brief comments that
50:41allow us to visualize, at the level of
50:44physical manifestations, the process of
50:46drawing her ZFK into the discussion of
50:49this issue, into the trial, into the
50:52court, and into this new way of life
50:54with which he must now come to terms.
50:57Look. Maybe you should go somewhere?—
51:00his uncle suggests. "For now, but they
51:03might ban me from leaving," said K.,
51:05succumbing to his uncle's train of
51:07thought. This is Kavka's only remark as
51:10an author, commenting on the train of
51:13thought, that is, something related to
51:15the characters 'inner lives. Well, for
51:18the reader, to make things easier, yes,
51:20such a beacon is given. From then on,
51:22everything happens only in the plane of
51:25physical manifestations. "I don't think
51:27they would go for that," said the uncle
51:29thoughtfully. Even if you leave, they
51:31still don't lose their power over you.
51:34And here I was thinking, "said K,
51:36grabbing his uncle's arm to keep him
51:38from stopping." I thought you attached
51:41even less importance to all this than I
51:42did. But look how much you took all
51:46this to heart. Josef! "his uncle
51:48shouted, trying to pull his hand away
51:50and stop. But Kai didn't let go. So,
51:53look, at first they walk side by side,
51:56not holding hands, like respectable
51:59burghers. Then the conversation begins
52:02to captivate them, and Josefka grabs
52:04her uncle's arm and begins to drag him
52:06along. And finally, her uncle stops and
52:09tries to pull his hand away from the
52:10knot, but he already holds it tightly
52:12and won't let go. That's it, the
52:14process of being drawn into the
52:16situation is complete. Her call even
52:18overtook her uncle's. We notice this
52:21from Kavka's comments regarding the
52:24physical gesture. There. Ah, the
52:28ability to work with this material, to
52:32show the reader what's happening in the
52:35characters' inner worlds without
52:38lengthy discussions and descriptions of
52:41thoughts or feelings, but through the
52:44medium of a physical or some other
52:47material sign—this is an important
52:50discovery of modernism, closely linked
52:53to a new understanding of, ah, the
52:57relationships between body and soul,
53:01body and psyche. It would be more
53:05accurate to say: in relation to the
53:07anthropology that exists in modernism.
53:12However, this is not the only discovery
53:15associated with the spread of
53:17psychoanalysis and its assimilation in
53:21literature. In general, the
53:27assimilation of psychoanalysis in
53:30modernist literature follows two such
53:32lines. The first line is the external
53:36assimilation of Freudian metaphors of
53:38sexuality, libidinousness, and eros,
53:40which is connected with the process of
53:43liberating literature and lifting the
53:45taboo of sexuality. This is the first
53:47path. It is the most direct, generally
53:50quite clear. And here, in general, this
53:54plot as such is not very interesting.
53:58We'll say a few words about it now,
54:00though, so we can move on to the second
54:02path to assimilating Freudian metaphors
54:04, a more complex, indirect, and far
54:05more intriguing one for us. Well, first
54:08, about the first path, the head-on
54:11assimilation of Freud's metaphors of
54:13libida, sexuality, and Eros. First, the
54:18reception of these Freudian terms,
54:21metaphors, and all these ideas fell on
54:25well-prepared ground in Western
54:27literature. The process of liberating
54:31literature, the lifting of taboos on
54:33the sexual and erotic spheres, had been
54:36going on for some time in Western
54:37culture at the turn of the century.
54:41You'll recall that the women's question
54:42was actively discussed. We talked about
54:45it, the war of the sexes was discussed,
54:47yes, by Strindberg, for example, or
54:49Ipson, and by many others. Naturalism
54:52did a great deal to prepare the way for
54:54psychoanalysis, because naturalism
54:57already spoke of instincts, yes, which
54:59drive people from deep within, so that
55:02people don't even realize it, right? In
55:06general, the physiological, biological,
55:08and natural components of man occupy an
55:11important place in naturalism. It's no
55:14coincidence that naturalism calls
55:16itself" naturalism, "from the word"
55:17nature of nature. "And there were
55:19discoveries made by 19 th-century
55:22French psychiatrists, like Claude
55:25Bernard, a physiologist, and Charcot, a
55:27psychiatrist with whom, among others,
55:30Freud trained. Fred studied, among
55:33other things, at a salpeterrier clinic,
55:35a famous French one, right? And at one
55:38time, these discoveries were news. And
55:41so, uh, in the Goncourt circle, for
55:43example, at their famous Thursdays, all
55:46sorts of clinical and medical cases
55:48were discussed, like hysteria, which
55:50was considered a sexual disorder back
55:52then, and nymphomania, and all sorts of
55:54other interesting topics. So, the
55:57process of liberation was underway.
55:59Works on this topic had already
56:00appeared there. For example, the famous
56:03, sensational book by Ott Weinger, a
56:05brilliant young man who died very young
56:08, but left behind several works,
56:11including" Sex and Character, "which
56:13was very famous in Russia, among other
56:16places. Rozenov, for example, and
56:18Vasily wrote a lot about it. So, this
56:21process of liberation, the lifting of
56:24this taboo, was ongoing, and its peak
56:27came, of course, in the twenties, in
56:30the post-war period. And the war, of
56:33course, played a huge role in this
56:35turbulent liberation. The proximity of
56:41death, the danger that confronted
56:43soldiers on the battlefields of the
56:45First World War, of course, catalyzed a
56:47thirst for life, a thirst for pleasure,
56:50and a sense of the brevity of such
56:52passing times, the fragility of all
56:54these joys, pleasures, and delights.
56:58And this thirst for life was even more
57:00acute. Freud documented the unity of
57:03Martid and Libid, Thanatos and Eros, in
57:06his later works. This is further
57:09confirmed by the fact that the first,
57:11so to speak, sexual revolution, the
57:14first powerful wave of liberation,
57:16occurred in Europe in the years
57:18immediately following the First World
57:20War. Short skirts, new dances, shake,
57:25cake, factrot, jazz, emancipation, the
57:27sporting life. This phrase was used in
57:31America to describe the entertainment
57:33industry, yes, like nightclubs and
57:35mountain clubs. And all of this is a
57:37manifestation of this acute thirst for
57:39life. And at the same time, these
57:43pleasures, these delights, this pursuit
57:47of, well, briefly temporary moments of
57:50joy and bliss—all of this bore the
57:53imprint of a kind of tragic doom, along
57:56with a sense of the fragility and
57:59transience of all these joys of life.
58:05And here's evidence of this process,
58:07yes, of liberation, which truly bore
58:10the character of, well, a real
58:12revolution, in the twenties. This
58:16evidence is scattered everywhere in
58:18modernist texts. For example,
58:20Hammingway's woman, the boy Brad Ashley
58:23, wears short hair and men's hats. And
58:27when she's infatuated with the
58:29motorcyclist Pedro Romero, and he tells
58:30her that a woman should be feminine,
58:32that you need to grow your hair, she
58:34laughs and says:" Well, what nonsense,
58:36how can you imagine me with long hair?
58:39It's completely impossible. "And Molly
58:41Bloom's Penelope, yes, from a modern
58:45Odyssey, and the heroine of James
58:48Joyce's great modernist novel Ulysses,
58:54indulges in frank recollections of her
58:56many lovers. And in fact, the
58:59eighteenth and final episode of Ulysses
59:01, where we hear Molly's speech, or
59:03rather, a stream of her consciousness,
59:05is how Joyce himself spoke about this
59:07part of his novel. It's the body that
59:11speaks. In a woman, it speaks, only
59:14nature. There's no culture here, no
59:17sociality. Woman is in her essence.
59:20This is nature in its naked, completely
59:23artless form. Well, it's a Joycean
59:27concept, but nevertheless, it's very
59:30characteristic, yes, of this era, this
59:32era of liberation and the lifting of
59:35the taboo on sexuality. And at this
59:39time, books like the famous biological
59:42utopia, biologically social, or rather,
59:45utopia, appear, and David Herbert
59:48Lawrence, the English writer, whose
59:51creative flourishing also occurred in
59:55the twenties. In his novel, for example
1:00:00, Lady Chatterley's Lover, we discover
1:00:02that Lawrence is deeply interested in
1:00:05the influence of the unconscious, the
1:00:08instinctive, on social life. And
1:00:12Lawrence, unlike Freud, tries to offer
1:00:15us a less hopeless view of the
1:00:17controversy between nature and culture,
1:00:20and the instinctive and the social.
1:00:24Lawrence is deeply dissatisfied with
1:00:26the state of modern civilization. He
1:00:28believes our society, our civilization,
1:00:31is deeply repressive. It mercilessly
1:00:34trains, scourges, so to speak, maims,
1:00:37cripples, and disfigures our nature.
1:00:41And in fact, this isn't necessarily the
1:00:44case, Lawrence is convinced. Society
1:00:46can be more harmoniously structured.
1:00:50And the urgency of this dispute, this
1:00:53irreconcilable clash of hostility
1:00:55between the natural and the cultural,
1:00:58can be alleviated if society is
1:01:00structured somewhat differently, if it
1:01:03learns to treat the natural element in
1:01:06man more carefully and delicately. Law
1:01:12expresses some of these hints and ideas
1:01:14on this subject in his novels,
1:01:15particularly in the sensational,
1:01:17scandalous novel" Lady Chatterley's
1:01:19Lover "from the 1920s. Mm, here we see,
1:01:23ah, three worlds, yes. The first world
1:01:27is the world of, uh, the Manor House,
1:01:30yes, uh, this Clifford Chatterley, uh,
1:01:34the legal husband of the main character
1:01:37, Connie. And this is a completely
1:01:41artificial world, where a mechanical
1:01:43order reigns. And the main person, so
1:01:47to speak, in this world, the master of
1:01:49this world, is a, which means
1:01:52Lord Chatterley, and the husband of the
1:01:54main character, who, uh, after the
1:01:57First World War became disabled, a
1:01:59colleague. He sits in a wheelchair.
1:02:02Therefore, he is incapable of being a
1:02:04full-fledged man. And for Lawrence,
1:02:07this is very important. This is his
1:02:11inferiority, yes, in terms of his
1:02:14masculine nature, yes, and at the same
1:02:17time, the commanding position he
1:02:19occupies in the social hierarchy.
1:02:23Everything is the opposite. This
1:02:25creature, who in the natural, yes,
1:02:27world would be, so to speak, at the
1:02:29very bottom of the hierarchy, yes, like
1:02:32a crippled wheelchair user, uh, unable
1:02:34to produce offspring in our, so to
1:02:36speak, world of a repressive
1:02:38civilization that suppresses and
1:02:40banishes nature, yes, here he occupies,
1:02:42on the contrary, the very top position.
1:02:44He is one of those who determine policy
1:02:47, who decides the fate of the modern
1:02:49world. He is a mine owner, he is a
1:02:52magnate, an aristocrat; yes, he belongs
1:02:55to those who, in general, constitute
1:02:57the elite, determining the fate not
1:03:00only of England, but of the entire
1:03:02modern world. And yet here he is,
1:03:05impotent and wheelchair-bound. This is
1:03:07a very fundamental move for Lawrence,
1:03:10emphasizing the unnaturalness, uh, of
1:03:12the civilization that has developed in
1:03:14the West. The first world is the world
1:03:18of the Chatterley estate. And the house
1:03:22and the adjacent courtyard are like
1:03:24this. The second world, completely
1:03:29different but no less frightening, is
1:03:32the world of mining towns, which
1:03:36represent, well, a kind of
1:03:38regurgitation of civilization, its, um,
1:03:42crippled, sick, perverted product. And
1:03:47this world is ugly and monstrous. Here
1:03:53are streets covered in black coal dust,
1:03:55disgusting, hideous buildings, workers
1:03:58in whose appearance we see signs of
1:04:01degeneration. Here is disease and
1:04:03poverty. And so it is in this town that
1:04:07a horse sometimes comes out when he
1:04:09goes for a walk, passes a park, and the
1:04:12park ends and then begins—this is the
1:04:15part where the workers live, the
1:04:17workers 'settlement. These are two
1:04:20opposites. The manor house, yes, and
1:04:23these workers' settlements, ah,
1:04:25represent two images of an ugly,
1:04:27crippled, and at the same time cruel,
1:04:30repressive civilization. And between
1:04:33these two worlds, which are equally
1:04:36disgusting to Lawrence, lies a good
1:04:39world. This is a park, or, in fact, a
1:04:43forest, which belongs to Chaterley. And
1:04:47here, of course, we see that the forest
1:04:50is used as a symbol, a symbol of
1:04:53nature's origins, harmony, naturalness,
1:04:56and beauty. This forest has magnificent
1:04:59trees, beautiful vegetation. Various
1:05:01animals and birds live here. And Connie
1:05:04goes there for walks when she needs to
1:05:06restore her spiritual balance, to be
1:05:08alone. And there she comes into contact
1:05:12with this beautiful, harmonious life of
1:05:15nature. And there she meets her beloved
1:05:18, who serves as a gamekeeper, a
1:05:20forester for her husband, Mellers. And
1:05:24their love affair begins at the moment
1:05:27when the two of them observe, ah,
1:05:29little pheasants, the offspring of
1:05:32pheasants, yes, these little chicks, ah
1:05:35, such golden-fluffy, fragile, charming
1:05:38, but so brave, courageous and full of,
1:05:41ah, life, its living trembling. And so
1:05:46this world of the forest, this park
1:05:48forest, yes, it stands in contrast to
1:05:51these two worlds, which symbolize
1:05:54civilization and truly represent a
1:05:56utopian beginning, harmonious and
1:05:59beautiful. And this union that the
1:06:03horse enters into, this love union with
1:06:06the gamekeeper Mellers, of course, from
1:06:09a social point of view, from the point
1:06:12of view of society, is a blatant,
1:06:15monstrous misalliance. Not only because
1:06:18it is connected with adultery, with
1:06:20marital infidelity, but because Lady
1:06:22Chatterley, who belongs to high society
1:06:24—and let's not forget that Britain in
1:06:26those years was still a completely
1:06:28caste-based, class-based, highly
1:06:30hierarchical society, where castes and
1:06:32different strata were separated from
1:06:34one another. And to fall from one class
1:06:37to another is, in general, a rare
1:06:40occurrence. So, she belongs to the
1:06:42social elite. She is Lady Chatterley.
1:06:44And who is this? This is a man from the
1:06:47lower classes, who is completely out of
1:06:50her league. A groom, a gamekeeper, I
1:06:53don't know who the workers are. They're
1:06:56people of a completely different circle
1:06:57. And yet, what is a blatant alliance,
1:07:03absurd from the point of view of
1:07:06society, yes, and its norms, in
1:07:09Lawrence emerges as a beautiful union,
1:07:12harmonious, and, uh, very blissful. And
1:07:17it's not just physical harmony, which
1:07:20makes their intimacy especially
1:07:22delightful and poetically beautiful,
1:07:25but also a complete harmony that
1:07:27touches the heart and mind. These are
1:07:30people who see the world in the same
1:07:32way, understand life in the same way,
1:07:34and have similar opinions. And, of
1:07:36course, to achieve this, Lawrence needs
1:07:39to make his Mellers an educated and
1:07:41sophisticated man, able to speak
1:07:43literary language, the correct language
1:07:45. And only when he wants to emphasize
1:07:48the difference in social status does
1:07:50Lawrence suddenly begin to switch to
1:07:52some kind of vernacular dialect, using
1:07:55certain words. But, in fact, we mostly
1:07:58hear beautiful literary culture from
1:08:01Whistlers. In contrast, the socially
1:08:06approved and correct marriage of
1:08:09Clifford and Connie, Lord Lady
1:08:11Chaterley, is, from the standpoint of
1:08:14nature, of its laws, a crude and ugly
1:08:17misalliance. Connie, a young, beautiful
1:08:22, healthy woman, destined to be a
1:08:24mother and lover, lives, so to speak,
1:08:27like a shadow, like a hanger-on, with
1:08:30this, so to speak, arrogant, uh,
1:08:33subhuman, no longer a man as a result
1:08:36of this injury, yes, who terrorizes her
1:08:39in every way, forcing her to listen to
1:08:42the hateful Racine. It's very
1:08:45characteristic that Clifford's favorite
1:08:47poet is Racine, for whom everything is
1:08:49correct: geometric precision, such
1:08:51rigid rhythm and metrics, rhetoric, and
1:08:53generally nothing living in this poetry
1:08:55, from Lawrence's point of view.
1:08:58Clifford torments Connie, constantly
1:09:00reciting to her something from Racine's
1:09:02tragedy. And his favorite game is chess
1:09:05—pure intellect, yes, without any
1:09:09warmth, without anything sensual,
1:09:12living, animal, emotional, or vital.
1:09:16And why does Lawrence achieve utopia?
1:09:20Because, in the end, Connie Glifford's
1:09:22marriage, the Chatterleys 'marriage,
1:09:25falls apart. And Connie doesn't
1:09:28announce her lover to him and starts an
1:09:31eco-divorce. The couple separates.
1:09:34Connie and Mellers must also
1:09:36temporarily separate. Mellers also
1:09:38begins divorce proceedings against his
1:09:41wife, who is a terrible woman. She
1:09:47literally devours men alive. And
1:09:48Mellers has been separated from her for
1:09:50a long time. Now he's starting the
1:09:51divorce process. And the heroes are
1:09:53temporarily separated, but they write
1:09:54letters to each other. And they're
1:09:56firmly convinced that once their
1:09:58divorce proceedings are finalized,
1:10:00they'll be able to reunite, get married
1:10:02, and start a happy, wonderful family.
1:10:04And they'll have wonderful offspring.
1:10:06Something, in fact, in the caste-ridden
1:10:08, class-ridden Britain of that time,
1:10:09well, almost unimaginable. And yet,
1:10:13Lawrence paints for us a probable happy
1:10:16ending to this whole story, letting us
1:10:19know that perhaps society, civilization
1:10:22, should reconsider its laws and rules
1:10:26a little in order to somehow, uh, bring
1:10:29people closer to their natural state,
1:10:32not mutilate their essence as much as
1:10:35is done in today's society. So. And
1:10:40this adoption of all these Freudian
1:10:44metaphors—yes, uh, Libid, Eros, ID—
1:10:47we observe, for example, in the era of
1:10:50modernism. This isn't all that
1:10:54complicated and lies on the surface,
1:10:57but it truly defines the face of this
1:10:59literature, for which, generally
1:11:01speaking, everything connected with
1:11:03human sexuality is no longer taboo.
1:11:06This prohibition is rapidly beginning
1:11:08to disappear, as it were. Although
1:11:12relapses into old norms make themselves
1:11:15felt, and sometimes quite forcefully.
1:11:17Yes, you may know that James Joyce's
1:11:20novel" Ulysses "began publication in
1:11:22the modernist magazine The Little
1:11:24Review. And when 14 episodes had been
1:11:29published there, the New York Society
1:11:32for the Suppression of Vice brought a
1:11:35lawsuit against the heads, well,
1:11:38against this magazine, Revw, against
1:11:41its editor, for publishing such an
1:11:47obscene pornographic book as Joyce
1:11:49Ulysses' novel. And the New York
1:11:51Society for the Suppression of Vice won
1:11:53the case. Publication was stopped, and
1:11:56the magazines were fined. And for a
1:12:00long time, censorship in the US and
1:12:02Britain prohibited the publication of
1:12:04Ulysses, which was lifted only in the
1:12:06mid-1930s, giving worthy individuals an
1:12:08opportunity to distinguish themselves
1:12:10through heroic smuggling. They smuggled
1:12:14Ulysses published in France into the
1:12:16United States. Hmingo, in particular,
1:12:20smuggled copies for his acquaintances
1:12:22there, risking being discovered at
1:12:24customs and punished as a smuggler. So,
1:12:27in short, this is truly the reality of
1:12:30the lifting of all these taboos in
1:12:32modernist literature. And this
1:12:34sometimes provoked a front among
1:12:36supporters of the previous classical
1:12:38norms, dating back to the 19th century.
1:12:42So, in general, it was a battle that
1:12:44modernism ultimately won. Another thing
1:12:47is that the lifting of this taboo, the
1:12:50lifting of the taboo on sexuality, ah,
1:12:52was followed by the emergence of new
1:12:54taboo areas in literature and culture.
1:12:57And, in particular, according to a law
1:13:00once again established by Freud, a
1:13:02taboo on topics related to death arose
1:13:05in culture. Well, you've probably
1:13:07noticed, yes, that in our modern
1:13:09society, talking about death is
1:13:10inappropriate. It is indecent to ask a
1:13:13person the question:" What kind of
1:13:14death would you like to die? What do
1:13:16you think about your death? Whatever
1:13:19death you would like, whatever you
1:13:20would like. We immediately have a
1:13:21reaction, you know, such an internal
1:13:23rapture. What an indecent topic. How
1:13:25can you even ask about this? We
1:13:27experience such terrible tension and
1:13:29embarrassment when we find out that
1:13:31someone, let's say, a loved one has
1:13:33died. And so we need to call and
1:13:36somehow react, but we don’t really
1:13:39know how. And either say some vulgar
1:13:41words, well, the so-called condolences,
1:13:43or remain silent altogether. And
1:13:45silence is also somehow indecent, not
1:13:46good. In general, the topic of death is
1:13:49associated with such obvious tension
1:13:51for us, yes, some kind of awkwardness,
1:13:53and discomfort, and even a feeling of
1:13:55some kind of internal shame, yes, which
1:13:58clearly signals the presence of a taboo
1:14:00zone in our modern culture. Yes, the
1:14:02taboo of libido has been removed. About
1:14:06this side of our We can pontificate
1:14:08about life everywhere here, and draw,
1:14:10print, and write whatever we want. But
1:14:13Martida was banned. Incidentally,
1:14:16Hemingway complained about this,
1:14:19writing in his diary while working on
1:14:22his first novel, "The Sun Also Rises,"
1:14:25that the modern artist is completely
1:14:27unable to depict death. He is afraid of
1:14:31this topic and avoids it in every
1:14:32possible way. And in general, the
1:14:35behavior of a modern artist who must
1:14:37write something on a topic related to
1:14:38death, observes, resembles the behavior
1:14:40of a person who is walking down the
1:14:42street and suddenly sees a little girl
1:14:44crossing the road, and a huge truck
1:14:46comes flying out of the corner at her.
1:14:48And at the very moment when this truck
1:14:50is about to hit the girl and leave a
1:14:52dark wet spot, this observer is so
1:14:54scared that he closes his eyes. This is
1:14:56how a modern artist behaves when he
1:14:58needs to write something related to
1:15:00death. It’s just that a zone of
1:15:03silence arises, these blank spots in
1:15:05the text. But Hemingway doesn’t
1:15:07intend to do that. He writes that I am
1:15:10going to write honestly. About the
1:15:12simplest things, yes, The simplest
1:15:15things, love, death, hunger, and so on.
1:15:19Oh, and he even defined the theme of
1:15:21his novel, "Thiesta," at some point: an
1:15:24artist in the death zone. Well, there,
1:15:26you know, the main image is caridas. So
1:15:29, in general, these are all dynamic
1:15:31processes in a polyculture, where, so
1:15:34to speak, all these moments are
1:15:36interconnected. The removal of one
1:15:38thing entails the emergence of another,
1:15:40and vice versa. Well, nevertheless,
1:15:43this literal assimilation of Freud's
1:15:45metaphor of sexuality is only part of
1:15:47the story. As I already said, not the
1:15:49most interesting part. Much more
1:15:51interesting is another path of
1:15:53assimilating the ideas of
1:15:55psychoanalysis. This is the path that
1:15:59led to the development of a radically
1:16:02new psychologism in the literature of
1:16:05the modernist era. And a very important
1:16:11part of Freud's teaching, he already
1:16:13expounded this part even in his famous
1:16:16lectures on introductory psychoanalysis
1:16:19, which were given in Vienna for
1:16:21doctors, and in the mid-1910s, from
1:16:241915 to 1917, Freud these I was giving
1:16:27lectures. Specifically, he talked about
1:16:32the doctrine of artifacts, artificially
1:16:35created, non-random phenomena that had
1:16:37previously been considered either some
1:16:40kind of misunderstanding, or absurdity,
1:16:43or something so enigmatic and
1:16:45mysterious that it wasn't sent from
1:16:48above. But Freud gave this artifact,
1:16:51this artificially created phenomenon, a
1:16:54new meaning and provided a
1:16:55psychological interpretation. Freud
1:16:58initially identified three classes of
1:17:00artifacts. The first are the so-called
1:17:03errors of everyday life, some kind of
1:17:06slips of the tongue, yes, when a person
1:17:08wanted to say one thing, but for some
1:17:10reason ended up saying something else.
1:17:13Some kind of incorrect actions. People
1:17:16used to think it was absurd when a
1:17:18person wanted to say, "My mother-in-law
1:17:20," but said, I don't know, my dog. What
1:17:24a load of crap. Fred says, "No, it's
1:17:25not accidental." The second type of
1:17:28artifact is dreams, of course, yes,
1:17:30which could be considered something
1:17:33mystical, mysterious, not sent from
1:17:35above or, conversely, from some lower
1:17:37realms, Yes, dreams come to us from God
1:17:40or from the evil one. Freud also gave
1:17:43this physiological and psychological
1:17:45interpretation, and considered it a
1:17:48phenomenon of mental life. And finally,
1:17:51the third type is a disorder of mental
1:17:53life, neuroses and psychoses. Later,
1:17:58Frey added a fourth artifact to this
1:18:00list of three artifacts, which he
1:18:03called creativity, and declared
1:18:05creativity a type of neurosis, and the
1:18:07artist a special kind of neurotic who,
1:18:10like any neurotic, suffers from a
1:18:12tendency toward escoping, that is, an
1:18:14escape from unpleasant problems, an
1:18:17escape from the principle of reality
1:18:19and a desire to create his own world
1:18:21where the pleasure principle will reign
1:18:24. Also a kind of neurosis. There. But
1:18:29in fact, all these random slips of the
1:18:32tongue, or dreams, or neuroses are
1:18:34symptoms for Freud, external
1:18:37manifestations. And the causes of these
1:18:41phenomena, however, are hidden in the
1:18:44unconscious. Somewhere, so to speak,
1:18:46they lie beyond our understanding,
1:18:48somewhere deep, in the darkness. So, it
1:18:50is. And all these artifacts represent a
1:18:55fantastical fulfillment of suppressed,
1:18:59repressed, forbidden desires and
1:19:03impulses. And so Freud seeks to
1:19:07reconstruct the path from symptom to
1:19:10cause, to see, yes, the source of these
1:19:13disturbing, unpleasant, simply very
1:19:17painful and dangerous phenomena. And,
1:19:22uh, Freud says that the cause of all
1:19:24these symptoms, all these
1:19:26manifestations, of which the mildest
1:19:28are all sorts of slips of the tongue
1:19:30and mistakes, and the most severe type,
1:19:33yes, of such a symptom, is psychosis,
1:19:35for example, yes, a disorder of our
1:19:37normal, uh, mental activity. The cause
1:19:41of all these phenomena is always, uh,
1:19:43the prohibition we impose on this or
1:19:46that affect. What is affect? It is a
1:19:50strong reaction, yes, of our nervous
1:19:53system, an immediate emotion that
1:19:55arises from something, for example,
1:19:58intense anger or some kind of unbridled
1:20:01delight, yes, and which we impose a
1:20:04prohibition on. In general, it is known
1:20:07, yes, that emotional control is the
1:20:09main condition of existence in a
1:20:11civilized society. Because if we don't
1:20:14control our emotions, civilization will
1:20:16perish. As we said at the beginning of
1:20:18today's meeting, yes, he stepped on my
1:20:20foot, and I killed him. And what a lack
1:20:23of emotional control is, we can clearly
1:20:25see in animal experiments. Take the
1:20:28famous Ladygina Kots, of course, a
1:20:30researcher. She raised her children
1:20:33together with chimpanzee babies to see
1:20:35at what point a human baby moves
1:20:37forward, while a chimpanzee's
1:20:39development stops, yes. And so she says
1:20:42, writes in her notes, yes, that if,
1:20:43for example, a champagne bottle is
1:20:44taken away, it is completely unable to
1:20:45control its emotions. It squeals, rolls
1:20:50on the floor, bites its hands in
1:20:51impotent rage. Man, a civilized
1:20:57creature, imposes blinders and
1:20:58prohibitions on its emotions. And this
1:21:02is a condition for the existence of
1:21:02civilization. Exactly. Yes. And, but
1:21:04this gives rise to painful phenomena in
1:21:07our psyche, when we forbid ourselves to
1:21:11express our feelings. Detained, so The
1:21:14so-called affect, as Freud calls it, an
1:21:17affect that was not allowed to manifest
1:21:19itself, it gives rise to these painful
1:21:22phenomena, especially if there are too
1:21:24many such delays of affect, or the
1:21:27affect was very strong, and we imposed
1:21:29a ban on it. Well, I'll tell you the
1:21:34first case from Freud's practice, and
1:21:36then there will be examples from
1:21:38literature that are comparable to these
1:21:40cases of Freud. Here is a well-known
1:21:44case that Fred cites as an example of
1:21:46such a neurosis that arose from the
1:21:48delay of affect. This is the case of a
1:21:50girl from a decent family, a very
1:21:53prosperous social class, from a
1:21:55well-bred family, yes, who could not
1:21:58drink water from any utensils, so she
1:22:00quenched her thirst only with fruit and
1:22:03therefore was on the verge of
1:22:05exhaustion. Freud began therapy with
1:22:09this girl and quite soon discovered the
1:22:11cause of this phenomenon, the cause of
1:22:13this symptom. The symptom appeared a
1:22:16couple of weeks after the death of the
1:22:18girl's beloved father, who had been ill
1:22:21for a long time. And it was clear that,
1:22:23in In short, things were coming to an
1:22:24end. And the girl was very worried and
1:22:26suffered about this, because she really
1:22:28loved her father very much. So one
1:22:30morning she was going to visit him, to
1:22:32wish him good morning, and on the way
1:22:34she decided to look into the
1:22:35housekeeper's room. She knocked several
1:22:37times, but no one answered. Then she
1:22:39pushed the door, and the door opened.
1:22:42The girl saw a scene. The housekeeper
1:22:45was sitting with her back to the door
1:22:47on a chair, yes, some kind of an
1:22:49armchair, and was giving her little dog
1:22:51a drink from her father's cup. But we
1:22:56can only imagine what feelings raged,
1:22:59so to speak, in the daughter, yes, at
1:23:01the sight of this spectacle of breasts,
1:23:04yes, rage, malice, anger, disgust.
1:23:07Maybe she wanted to push the
1:23:08housekeeper there, kick that dog,
1:23:10snatch the cup from them, but she was a
1:23:13well-bred Victorian girl. She silently
1:23:16closed the door and went on her way.
1:23:18Her father died. Some time passed, this
1:23:21symptom appeared. defiled Father's cup,
1:23:25right? Uh, a delayed affect, right?
1:23:29That delayed affect, gritfreud, it
1:23:31marks everything around it. Affect is
1:23:33like water, right? Put an obstacle in
1:23:35its way, it will find a way to manifest
1:23:37itself in some other way, yes, a method
1:23:39, yes, it will leak out somewhere,
1:23:41penetrate somewhere. All the same, that
1:23:44delayed affect, yes, it marks the
1:23:45entire situation with itself. This
1:23:47affect could have clinged to anything,
1:23:49for example, to the housekeeper's dress
1:23:50, to the breed of the dog. The girl,
1:23:52the young woman could have begun to
1:23:54fear all dogs of that breed, yes, or,
1:23:56for example, to hate them. But it
1:23:58clinged to Father's desecrated cup and,
1:24:00spreading to the dishes, produced this
1:24:03effect. Well, the therapy yielded its
1:24:07favorable, yes, that means, uh, outcome
1:24:11. The nephrosis was cured, the girl was
1:24:15healed safely. And Freudian therapy,
1:24:17according to the principle, where it
1:24:19was, I should become. Freud's approach
1:24:21to psychotherapy was very rationalistic
1:24:24and positivistic. He believed there was
1:24:26no turning back to nature. We must
1:24:29continue to move toward greater
1:24:30civilization, but at the same time
1:24:32expand our capacities for knowledge,
1:24:33for self-understanding, where it has
1:24:35been, the article should be. We must
1:24:38understand what is happening to us, and
1:24:40then our condition will improve. This
1:24:43principle, by the way, was completely
1:24:44unclaimed in the 20th century. But
1:24:47everything Freud wrote about the
1:24:49unconscious, all this became very
1:24:50interesting and generally served as an
1:24:53apology for the irrational. That is,
1:24:55Freud probably would not have been very
1:24:56pleased with how his teachings began to
1:24:58be interpreted already in the 10th
1:24:59century. He, in principle, wanted
1:25:01something completely different. That's
1:25:03exactly the case, right? Here we see
1:25:04how Freud reconstructs the cause from
1:25:07the symptom. Next, we will turn to
1:25:09literary texts. And again, we will take
1:25:12these two examples—Kavka and
1:25:15Homingway—to see how Modernist
1:25:18authors work with these matters,
1:25:21completely inaccessible to our
1:25:23consciousness and words, with the
1:25:26trapped affects we've forbidden
1:25:29ourselves to feel, with the complexes
1:25:32that grow out of them, with the
1:25:34symptoms, yes, that develop. This is
1:25:38how modernist authors begin to work
1:25:40with this material. So, we'll begin our
1:25:42next meeting with a brief analysis of
1:25:45two examples from Hammingham's story "
1:25:47White Elephants" and from the trial of
1:25:49Franz Kavka, and then we'll move on to
1:25:51the era of modernism. Thank you for
1:25:53your attention. See you next week.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Западная литература XX века (лекция - 08). by Интеллигент вшивый, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,912 words across 1,923 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.