Search

Taking its direction from seminal works in the field of play theory, this dissertation examines ludic elements in the textual practices and intellectual community of the Union of Real Art (Ob”edinenie real’nogo iskusstva or OBeRIu). I use the concept of play to elucidate how the group used literature as an unconventional medium for the pursuit of special forms of knowledge and to explore the intimate genre of performance that shaped the association’s collective identity as a group of writers and thinkers. The four chapters that comprise this dissertation each examine one facet of how play shaped the OBeRIu’s shared literary practice. In the first chapter, I contrast the performative strategies of the OBeRIu members (or the oberiuty) with those of the Russian Futurists, demonstrating that the OBeRIu approach to spectacle possesses an ‘existential’ dimension that is quite alien to that of Futurism. I argue that Futurist performance is best characterized by what Hans-Georg Gadamer has called “aesthetic differentiation,” a hermeneutic tradition that foregrounds the autonomy of the artwork while ignoring its rootedness in broader spheres of cultural activity. In contrast, the members of the OBeRIu (the oberiuty), were engaged in what some theorists have called deep play: they showed little interest in the épatage tradition practices by the Futurists and drew no meaningful distinction between art and life.I suggest that performative strategies of the oberiuty can be productively interpreted according to Gadamer’s concept of “self-presentation,” a notion that proves immensely useful for understanding not only the group’s theater, but their written work as well. In my second chapter, I show how the OBeRIu’s playful approach to writing was underscored by their commitment to an epistemic understanding of literature: they believed that literary pursuits constitute a unique form of knowledge. I suggest that the texts produced by the oberity frustrate the boundary that supposedly distinguishes poetry and philosophy. I demonstrate how even a playfully ‘absurd’ text such as Daniil Kharms’s “Blue Notebook No. 10” can be read as a work of philosophy—in this case as a kind of performative refutation of Kantian metaphysics. I suggest that the epistemic register of OBeRIu literature can be likened to what Roger Caillois has called games of ilinx—their texts induce a kind of cognitive vertigo that pushes readers towards forms of knowledge that cannot be properly conceptualized. As a form of epistemic play, OBeRIu texts open onto the world even as they exist ‘beyond’ it, inviting readers to appreciate in poetry what Gadamer called “the joy of knowledge.” In the third chapter of this dissertation I argue that the commitment of the oberiuty to an epistemic understanding of literary art places them squarely at odds with premises fundamental to the theories of Russian Formalism. Indeed, I demonstrate how the OBeRIu as a group deliberately problematize the Formalist concept of literariness. I demonstrate that the poetic episteme of the group took direction from Russian Orthodox theology, particularly the concept of the eikon. The epistemic nature of OBeRIu ‘nonsense’ precludes interpreting their texts as exercises in Shklovskian estrangement. Instead, I suggest that Gadamer’s notion of recognition is invaluable for understanding the work of the oberiuty. Their literary work articulates something and in doing so adds to our understanding of the world. In the final chapter I consider the community of chinari, which constituted a kind of intimate ‘inner circle’ for the OBeRIu that was both more private and longer lived than the Union of Real Art itself. I suggest that the chinari circle can be understood as part of a discernible line of extra-institutional play communities in the history of Russian letters that began with the Arzamas Society of Obscure People. I argue that play was the raison d’être of the chinari community and largely defined the sense they had of themselves as an intellectual community. Considering closely Leonid Lipavsky’s Conversations, a more or less authentic record of the group’s discussions between 1933 and 1934, I suggest that the group used the speech genre of bullshit quite productively—it was both a fun way to explore ideas and, more importantly, a phenomenally effective way to foster their collective bond.

M.A. (French) Milan Kundera is known for being almost obsessive in guarding his privacy, and in the manner in which he controls any translations of his writings. Despite such strictures, the works of this former exile from Czechoslovakia, who now resides in France and writes in French, have been translated and disseminated to a worldwide audience of readers. It is not only his fictional writings which have earned him kudos, but also his ventures into non-fiction, viz. literary criticism. Having April 1st as a birth date was to have a dramatic impact on Kundera, who later declared that this significant date, which is frequently associated with humorous pranks, pushed him to assume the role of philosophical fool in his writings. It is the different manifestations of games which come under scrutiny in this study, as represented in the seven short stories which make up the anthology Laughable Loves (Risibles Amours). Following an investigation of the differences between ancient and modern perception of what qualifies as ‘play’ or ‘games’, the games theories of reputed authors such as Johan Huizinga, Roger Caillois and Stuart Brown are used to form the theoretical basis of this part of the study. The research is further augmented by Eric Berne’s theory on the psychology underlying the games people play, as it manifests in interpersonal relationships. However, no study of games would be complete without investigating the dark side of play, when the game is corrupted through the actions of the players, referees or spectators, or when what starts as a battle of wills spirals into what could best be described as war games. In the pages of this anthology the reader is introduced to various characters who dare to think they can manipulate other people or events, but end up being played by those very people, or by circumstances beyond their control.

In December 1925, Vladimir Nabokov said that "everything in the world plays" and that "everything good in life - love, nature, the arts and domestic puns - is play." This thesis argues that, after December 1925, play was Nabokov's leading idea. Previous critics have spoken of Nabokov as a playful writer but have not drawn on the untranslated early Russian texts; have rarely discussed the actual games depicted in his novels; and have been vague on what it means to call Nabokov a playful writer. This thesis argues that Nabokov's novels after 1925 are all playful or game-like in different ways related to the games they depict, and become ever more radically so. It provides a chronological narrative of play as the evolving subject and style of Nabokov's writing. The first chapter discusses the sources of Nabokov's idea of aesthetic play in Kant, Schiller, and Nietzsche. The second chapter traces the emergence of play in Nabokov's earliest writings, from 1918 to 1925, isolating the themes of play of self, play as make-believe, and play as violence. The third chapter looks at how in King, Queen, Knave (1927) and The Luzhin Defense (1930), Nabokov adopted the scheme of Lewis CarrolPs two Alice books, first using cards as an image of play and freedom, then chess as an image of rule and game. The fourth chapter shows that in the 1930s Nabokov wrote about play in contrast to work, and deals with Glory (1931), Despair (1934), Invitation to a Beheading (1935-6), and The Gift (1937-8; 1952). The fifth chapter is about free play in Nabokov's American writing, and emphasises the influence of Joyce's Finnegans Wake. It covers Bend Sinister (1947), Speak, Memory (1951; 1967), Lolita (1955) and Ada (1969). The sixth chapter argues that Pale Fire (1962) belongs to the genre of the literary game, and is in complex intertextual relation to a previous literary game, Pope's Dunciad.