The article is about Arthur Hailey, an American writer.
The article presents information about Harper Lee, an American writer.
The book is devoted to one of the most prominent American writers, Norman Mailer who had a vivid imagination. He was one of those authors who visualized themselves as well as their works, and on the contrary novelized their country and reality. N. Mailer was a very public person. He revealed his publicity being a novelist, essayist, journalist, playwright, screenwriter, actor and even a film director. Besides one may find lots of his radio and TV interviews. This is one more aspect of his literary work, because his unique feature is a correlation between the art of writing and the media. America is Mailer’s beloved subject. More over his America is an Individual. It is a lifelike image created with all its complexities by means of speculating on real facts and people. In this sense there is another interesting trait of Mailer’s work: through the period analyzed in the book he coped with both fiction and non-fiction. In doing so the writer dramatized the best and the worst of American life by connecting the life of his characters to the life of the nation. And his characters are preeminently illustrious Americans, the symbols of this country. Chronological order of publications is replaced by aspects: history, mythology, imagination. This is the study of Mailer’s combination of fiction and non-fiction, fact and document, history and reality, visualization and novelization by studying his books: Harlot’s Ghost, Oswald’s Tale. An American Mystery, The Ancient Evenings, The Gospel According to the Son, Tough Guys Don’t Dance, The Castle in the Forest
The paper reconstructs, in the context of actual problems of Russian historical memory and basing on archives of various provenance and the then publications, a biography of M.-B. Hadjetlaché (aka Yu. Kazi-Bek Akhmetukov, G. Ettinger, etc., ca 1868–1929) – a Circassian writer, Muslim journalist, Russian adventurist and double-dealer; the arguments for his being born Jewish are provided. In comparison of this biography with his self-narratives, his constructing of Circassian and Muslim identity is analyzed. In particular, ideas (and their sources) of what Muslim belonging means, both inside and outside the Muslim milieu (that of Russian Muslim intelligentsia), are investigated; the role of mass Orientalism and the crossovers of different cultural spaces in the formation of Muslim self-representations is emphasized, as well as the perception of ‘being Muslim’ as culture rather than religion. The question of whether Hadjetlaché was a Muslim is taken on the brink of forgery and forging, imposture and invention of identity, and his using the latter politically as his ‘symbolic capital’ is demonstrated.
The article presents informaton about a popular American writer Dan Brown
The paper analyses the discourse on pan-Islamism (the perceived Islamic menace both to the ‘global’ European civilization and the integrity of the Russian Empire) in Russian imperial structures (especially, the Ministry of the Interior) during 1910–1914. The discourse is considered as one of the institutionalized ways of constructing Russia’s ‘own’ Muslim other (along with the foreign one) and, simultaneously, as construction of an ‘internal enemy’. The key question considered in the paper is why the discourse preserved its productivity and explanatory force in spite of its instrumentalization revealed in the correspondence between the center and the local authorities and inter-ministerial conflicts (analyzed, mainly, for Turkestan and Bukhara): it shows that the discourse used to be manipulated according to situational needs. The complexity of the discourse’s functions is suggested as an explanation of its force. Its Orientalism (where Muslims were seen as an organic cultural / racial whole) combined with conspiracy theory formed a channel for the spy-mania that would explode in the WWI years: the nationalizing, unifying trends countering imperial diversity made their common ground. Its instrumentalization was going on within the framework of the same myth. Yet in the interaction with the positive (but equally ‘Orientalist’) modeling of the Empire’s ‘loyal’ Muslim subjects, ‘pan-Islamism’ tended to be reinterpreted as a ‘revolutionary’ political party, thus echoing the fears born in the Russian revolutionary context. Mass literature nourished the whole. Compensating for the frustrations of the eve of WWI, the complex seems to reflect the officials’ vision of their own role as alienated from the population of the Empire and having but the intelligence service methods for controlling and governing it, while the colonial and domestic political orders were tightly intertwined.