Features of subtext in E. Hemingway and R. Carver’s dialogues (based on the analysis of their short stories)
https://doi.org/10.26907/2782-4756-2024-75-1-106-112
Abstract
The article provides a comparative analysis of the implication features used in the dialogues of the stories by Ernest Hemingway and Raymond Carver, his follower of the second half of the 20th century. Our analysis is based on their texts written in different years. Employing specific examples, we analyzed the authors’ work on the use of the main subtext elements: A pause or silence, incompleteness and repetitions. The highlighted elements of the implication allow us to make conclusions about the direct influence of Hemingway on the poetics of Raymond Carver’s stories. The comparison of the presented techniques illustrates the authors’ strategies used for the emotional involvement of the reader in the process of deciphering the text, as well as the desire to compress the text without losing its semantic depth.
The relevance of the article is determined by the growing interest in the realistic short story, in particular, in the creative legacy of Raymond Carver. The articles and works, devoted to his prose and poetic works, continue to appear in foreign and Russian literary criticism. The analysis of the subtext peculiarities in dialogues allows us to contribute to the study of dialogue strategies, which in the 20th-century literature perform the plot-moving function and disclose psychological characteristics of the character. In addition, the comparative analysis of the writers’ stories helps understand the features of Raymond Carver’s creative method.
The methodological basis of the article is the cultural-historical and comparative methods.
About the Author
E. A. KharrasovaRussian Federation
Elvira A. Kharrasova - Assistant Professor, Kazan Federal University.
18 Kremlyovskaya Str., Kazan, 420008
References
1. Saltzman, A. Understanding Raymond Carver. 190 p. Columbia, S. C., University of South Carolina Press. (In English)
2. Shalamov, V. (2013). Sobranie sochinenii: v 6 t. + t. 7, dop. [Collected Works: In 6 volumes + 7, sup.]. 528 p. Moscow, Knizhnyi Klub Knigovek. (In Russian)
3. Dorofeeva, L. N. (1976). A. P. Chekhov i E. Kheminguei [Anton Chekhov and E. Hemingway]. Traditsii i novatorstvo v sovremennoi zarubezhnoi literature. 568 p. Irkutsk. (In Russian)
4. Shchechina, E. O. (2014). “Poetikaaisberga”: stilisticheskie osobennosti maloi prozy A. P. Chekhova, E. Khemingueya i Dzh. D. Selindzhera [“Iceberg Poetics”: Stylistic Features of Short Prose by A. P. Chekhov, E. Hemingway and J. D. Salinger]. Vestnik magistratury. No. 6-1 (33). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/poetika-aysberga-stilisticheskie-osobennosti-maloy-prozy-a-p-chehova-e-hemingueya-i-dzh-d-selindzhera (accessed: 10.08.2023). (In Russian)
5. Robert Paul Lamb. (2010). Art Matters: Hemingway, Craft, and the Creation of the Modern Short Story. 306 p. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press. (In English)
6. Lelis, E. I. (2012). Rol' zvukovykh povtorov v formirovanii podtekstov i smyslov prozaicheskogo teksta [The Role of Sound Repetitions in the Formation of Subtextual Meanings of Prose Text]. Mnogoyazychie v obrazovatel'nom prostranstve. No. 4. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/rol-zvukovyh-povtorov-v-formirovanii-podtekstovyh-smyslov-prozaicheskogo-teksta (accessed: 20.07.2023). (In Russian)
7. Hemingway, E. (1966). The Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. 516 p. New York, Scribner. (In English)
8. Carver, R. (2009). Collected Stories. 1046 p. New York, Library of America. (In English)
9. Molchanie v dialoge – dialog v molchanii (2000) [Silence in Dialogue – Dialogue in Silence]. Mova іkul'tura. Vip. 1. T. 1: Filosofiiaiazykaikul'tury. Pp. 116–120. Kiїv, Vidavnichii Dіm Dmitra Burago. (In Russian)
10. Heltzel, E. (2018). Empty Calories: Food as Sign in the Works of Raymond Carver. A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University, 83 p. (In English)
Review
For citations:
Kharrasova E.A. Features of subtext in E. Hemingway and R. Carver’s dialogues (based on the analysis of their short stories). Philology and Culture. 2024;(1):106-112. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/2782-4756-2024-75-1-106-112