The Act of Reading as a Rite of Passage: Iurii Andrukhovych’s Rekreatsii

Abstract

The late 1980s and early 1990s saw an intensive re-examination and change of long lasting cultural paradigms and value systems in Ukrainian culture. A period of transition and crisis, these years culminated in 1991 with achievement of political independence and constitution of Ukraine as a discrete political, economical and cultural entity. This event was preceded by diverse processes of transformation. One of first social institutions to be affected was literature. The proliferation of dissenting voices that dared to condemn politicization of culture was, perhaps, one of most obvious and certain indications of literary institution's intramural reorganization. Authors such as Oksana Zabuzhko, Iurii Andrukhovych, Viktor Neborak and others, clearly pronounced necessity of re-conceptualizing function of artists in society and declared, in a purely modernist manner, that art should not serve political and social ends. The challenge, as dissenting authors saw it, was to return to literature its normal function. Zabuzhko felicitously phrased it thus: the type [of literature] that could devote itself without any reservations to things 'eternal' (the only thing that ultimately interests art!), to primordial questions of love and death, to essence of being human and to meaning of life.' In this context, publication of Andrukhovych's scandalous novella Rekreats,2 was a daring attempt, a real intellectual challenge. Given historical moment and complex narrative structure of text itself,3 it is hardly surprising that Andrukhovych's work initiated a debate on subject of its literary qualities and cultural value.4 As one critic pointed out, readership at time clearly split into two opposing camps.5 On one hand there were readers, representing predominantly Diaspora, who expressed a clearly negative judgment. In their opinion, novella displayed a lack of national pride and respect for cultural history and literary traditions of Ukraine. They accused Andrukhovych of amorality and antipatriotism. Particularly interesting in this regard are letters to editors of Suchasnist'.6 Those criticizing Andrukhovych's novella used designations such as khaltura7 and ornohrafiia8; novel was described as an abuse [znushchannia] of native language and Shevchenko's word. A reader from Ukraine was even more sarcastic. She defined Andrukhovych's style as pseudo-intellectual toilet pornography [tualetnoporno-psevdo-intelektual'nyi.] 10 On other hand, novella attracted interest of some prominent Ukrainian literary critics who approached it as a highly sophisticated, postcolonial and postmodernist discourse. Not surprisingly, positive readings presented a totally different picture. Andnukhovych was praised for his sober realism and ability to speak boldly, without false patriotic pathos about his society. In Mykola Riabchuk's view, novella was an explicitly satirical text that assumed a playful and carnivalesque stance, and was endowed with a lively plot, realistic characters and a clever denouement. 12 The interpretations of M. Pavlyshyn and Slobodanka M. Vladiv-Glover were in same vein.13 My interest in novella is not inspired by above mentioned discussion. The focus of present analysis is on use of folkloric images, techniques and narrative patterns, and their processing under conditions of contemporary literary experimentation. More specifically, I am interested in semiotic mechanism(s) that govern renascence of national folkloric inventory in discourse of recent Ukrainian prose. I consider, Iurii Andrukhovych's novella Rekreats as an illustration of these mechanisms.14 My study advances idea that, today, centuries-old oral tradition of Ukrainian folklore is questioned and ambivalently re-discovered as part of modem Ukrainian self. It appears that, at present, folkloric texts are denied elevated status of being ultimate embodiments of national psyche. …