Author’s Problem in G. Rcheulishvili’s Works

Abstract

The author's English summary from the article:

Key words: author, deconstruction, existence, imegination, body.

Events, which developed in Georgian literature starting from the 1950s, may be considered as “reconstruction” process of the historical-cultural values, which followed the 1920-1940s “deconstruction” and as the return of logocentrism. In parallel with the given processes, in western literature, the problem of freedom of limits, interpretation of the text and of authorship, became the subject to intense theoretical discussions and speculations. Perception of G. Rcheulishvili’s creative searches, in conformity with the chain of these problems, reveals his harsh reaction towards the tendencies of destruction of common literature law: behind the defragmentation of the image of the character he sees the tendency of destruction of the monolith figure of an author and of the authoritative discourse of an author in general; and perceives it as the concerning stage of social-cultural process, with its differing accents in the west and in the soviet.

When evaluating the literature of the 20th century, Guram clearly shows the dissatisfaction with the general tendencies in the world literature process – both the “western melancholy” and pathetic discourse of the changer of the masses. He denies the writer’s traditional-classical (preacher) and soviet (ideological leader) models and attempts to demonstrate the will to freedom of a creator. For him, literature is the discourse of power, but its perverted type. He tries to stop the process of the destruction of the imagination image of an author by strengthening the author-narrator’s function in the text. Thus, Guram’s attitude towards the narration process includes the signals of both tendencies: the signs of destruction of author’s “Me”, caused by time and also the attempts to strengthen it.

Rcheulishvili’s works are the claim that – “Author – I am him.” Neither the traditional author’s status, nor its current reduction is satisfactory to him. He desires to feel himself as part of event existence of his own text. The given process of realization of the author’s “me” is implemented in the method not traditional to the Georgian literature of that period: by means of radical breakthrough of the “me” from its own frames and by searching for it by means of alter ego. It is less oriented on social factors; he interested in the human’s life energy and metaphysical, existential events of the “me”. The existential and psychological nature of desire becomes the object of intensive processing – as the passion and alienation; as the destruction of the object of passion and denial.

Guram comprehends his own time and space as unprotected, without borders, not only due to external – historical-social and political factors, but also because of man’s internal, unconscious determination. He feels time as the end of certain setting, which is “the last day historically too.” Along with the given admission, Guram gradually faces the will for settlement, although he is less into perfection-precision of esthetical boundaries. To the contrary, curiosity pushes him towards trying to understand the invisible inner and outer limits of the human capabilities. In accordance with the given task he makes his goal to extend the limits of meanings till “esthetical obscurity”, to connect material “with inner form”, without external creative and notional references.

He does not aim to outline the text, does not limit the narration with strict plot-compositional frames, uses inhomogeneous and often “non-literature” material for describing the story and creates the imitation of self-flow of narration (“Trusting the Pen”). Despite the aforementioned, he very carefully moves on the borderline between an author and a narrator, in order for the objectivization and rationalization of feelings and/or extensive freedom of narration not to destroy the psychological reality of a narrator and the esthetic unity of the text. In his case the problem of creative sincerity is related to the ethos of freedom and is considered in playing/sincerity opposition context.

In other words, he attempts to get over the law and plans to create the esthetic for the new existential reality of a Georgian man and he stands for the given idea with the claim that he is protecting the author’s will. Author’s “me” is represented in Rcheulishvili’s texts in different ways: the author enters the text as the narrator and character (Alaverdoba, Nameless from Uplistsikhe, Iulon); his visual and bodily image is specially accentuated; documentary, biographical element of the narrative is activated; the narrator and characters have the author’s name (Alaverdoba, Iulon, Irina and Me, Death in the Mountains and etc.)

Published in the journal Sjani, vol. 16 (2015), pp. 212–231. Open the paper