Thin Culture, High Art: Gogol, Hawthorne, and Authorship in Nineteenth-Century Russia and America. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature by Anne Lounsbery (review)

Abstract

53° SEER>87> 3> JULY2OO9 seemunreasonable to expecta seriousacademicpublisher to investa little timeand attention inensuring thatthecontent reachesthesamestandard. In themeantime, one can butexpress thewishthattheauthor willnotabandon the subjectof Franco-Russian linguistic contactsand thatshe willuse her knowledge and herskills to embarkon a moreprofound investigation ofan area wheremuchremains tobe elucidated. University ofGlasgow /Bologna J.A. Dunn Lounsbery, Anne. Thin Culture, High Art: Gogol,Hawthorne, and Authorship in Kineteenth-Century Russia and America.Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature. Harvard University Press,Cambridge,MA and London, 2007.ix + 342pp. Notes.Index.£17.95:€23.40:$27.50(paperback). WhycompareNikolaiGogol' and NathanielHawthorne, twoseemingly very different writers fromtwoverydifferent cultures? In her book, Lounsbery givesus morethanamplereasonstodo so. The readercomesawaywith, first of all, a deeperunderstanding of each of thetwowriters underdiscussion and secondly, a different lenswithwhichto examinetheworksofthetwo authors. Lounsbery seestheparallelsbetweenGogol' and Hawthorne as stemming from important parallelsbetweennineteenth-century Russianand American history and culture.She explainsthateach of the two societiesfeltitself deficient and derivative whencomparedwithEurope,and thateach ofthe twoauthorsrespondedto his 'culture'by £mak[ing] artfromthisnothing' (p. 2). This response,in turn,opened paths,Lounsberyasserts,forlater Russianand American writers to createnationalliteratures thatspoke'deep' 'truths' in spiteofthecultural lacks(p. 21). She talksabouttheresponse ofGogol' and Hawthorne to variousaspects ofprint culture, and abouttheirresponseto a position betweenoralculture and print culture. In a section on DeadSouls, shetellsus thatGogol' suspects bothoral and printculture. Hawthorne, in TheHouseofthe Seven Gables, she writes, seesoralculture as beingauthentic. Lounsbery's book is well organized.She first lays the groundwork for her comparisons of Gogol' and Hawthorneby speakingabout the role of writers and institutions inRussiaand theUnitedStatesinthefirst halfofthe nineteenth century. She thendividesthebookintothreeparts.Each partis dividedintothreesections. The first sectionofPartOne focuses on Gogol"s early writings; the second, on Hawthorne's;and a concludingsection interweaves thetwo.PartTwo isdividedintoa section on an analysis oí Dead Souls; a section on TheHouse ofthe Seven Gables; and a conclusion thatcompares and contrasts thetwonovels.PartThree focuseson a sectionthatanalyses Gogol"s writings on Rome ('Rome'); a sectionon Hawthorne's writings on Rome,specifically, TheMarble Faun;and a conclusion thatspeaksofboth.An epilogueis entitled 'Canonization, Influence, Judgment'. Lounsbery knowsthesecondary sources.She is generous inherattribution to otherscholars.At the same time,when her interpretations differ from REVIEWS 53I theirs, she saysso. Witnessherdisagreements withRobertMaguire,Nancy Ruttenburg, SusanneFussoand YuriMann,all ofwhoseworks shepraisesin otherpartsofherbook. WithinThinCulture, HighArtare many worthwhile individualinsights aboutnineteenth-century RussianandAmerican culture, aboutGogol',about Hawthorne, and about thelinking of thesetwowriters, theirwritings, and their placesinsociety. Therearetoomanytolistthemallwithin theconfines ofthisreview. One exampleis thatLounsbery highlights thefactthatGogol' waswriting at a timein Russiawhenliterature was moving awayfrom being read at salonstowardbeing in printin thickjournals(p. 15). She writes, 'Americaneverdevelopedtheinstitutions necessary forthekindofcoherent upper-classliterary societythat sustainedRomantic-erapoets in Russia (nopermanent salons,no sophisticated albumverse,etc.)'(p. 15).In contrast tothesituation inRussia,shecontinues, theperiodof1820-50in theUnited Statesusheredin a 'mass marketforbooks' (p. 16). Americanpublishers started to (inthewordsofWilliamCharvat),'cater'more'to [public]taste' (p. 17)Both Russia and America,Lounsberywrites,differed fromEurope. In Europe,shesays,there was an educatedelitewhohad 'theleisure, education, and freedom to read [.. .] forthesake ofreading'(p. 18).'In Americaand Russia,thecategories of"literature" and "public"provedmoreproblematic' (p. 18).BothGogol' and Hawthorne, sheexplains, 'exerted positive influence through an almostperverse use oftheabsencesthought tocharacterize lifein their respective countries: absenceofa readership, absenceofa culture inthe Europeansense,and especially absenceofa literature' (p. 20). Amongthe mostvaluable pages of the book are Lounsbery'sanalyses of Gogol "s Evenings on a Farm nearDikankaand Dead Souls. Her thoughtful discussion makesthisreaderwantto return toEvenings rather thanto dismiss it as merely an immature workwritten alongthewayto 'Petersburg Tales' and Dead Souls.Lounsbery cogently writes, 'Dead Soulsrepresents thefundamentally unstable worldbeingcreatedbyprint culture's promiscuous circulationof "information"' (p. 139).In a fascinating discussion, sheplacestheentire novelwithin thecontext ofconsumer capitalism and 'neweconomicrelations' (p. 140),exchangeand the 'serfs-on-paper' beingmoved around (pp. 140, I41)Lounsbery comesup withintriguing parallelsand divergences whenshe places thesetwo writers side by side. Both,she writes, were preoccupied withthegaze oftheaudience.Ultimately, Lounsbery explains, Gogol"s and Russia'sgoal fortheroleofliterature and thewriter was towantto connect withthepublic,withthepeople,whereasHawthorne's and America'swas to moveawayfrom thepublicintoan isolatedaesthetic cocoon. Both wroteabout art and Rome. In 'Rome', says Lounsbery,Gogol' juxtaposessuperficiality and theempty materialism ofParistoRome'seternal spiritual values.Hawthorne, in TheMarble Faun,sheexplains, seesin Rome a 'glutofartand history' that'recallsthe "floodofprint"thatoverwhelmed Gogol in Paris: but where Gogol saw in the Italian capital a colossality promising an antidoteto modernity's fragmentation and excess,Hawthorne 532 SEER, 87, 3, JULY...