Between Tenderness and Cruelty. The Character of Jack the Ripper in the Early Work of Ingmar Bergman

Abstract

A short tale about one of Jack the Ripper’s earliest childhood memories is the literary debut of Ingmar Bergman from 1944. The character of Jack is often considered as an early alter ego of the Swedish director that represents an extraordinary combination of tenderness and cruelty. As the narrator of the story, Jack reports on the event that took place in his childhood. The story of murder, which will repeat itself in his adult life, can be interpreted as a projection of the author’s fears and anxieties, which were related, among other things, to the birth of his younger sister. Jack’s character will reappear repeatedly in Bergman’s subsequent works, especially in his early films from the 1940s, such as Crisis, and his presence will often be associated with the motifs of macabre, sadism but also love. 

Menippean satire is an ancient form of prose whose inclusiveness still prevents scholars from reaching an agreement on its one generic definition. While in its classical understanding the genre is regarded as long-extinct, some argue that its elements were carried on to the works of postmodern authors unafraid to experiment with new means of literary expression – B.S. Johnson being their prime example. At first, the author’s outward hostility towards well-established conventions makes it highly unlikely for him to draw inspiration from ancient genres such as the Menippean satire. Is it then possible that while still being an uncompromised experimenter, he was also a worthy successor of classical parodists?

Echoing James E. Irby’s (Borges’s editor’s) claim that that “all writers are more or less faithful amanuenses of the spirit, translators and annotators of pre-existing archetypes,” this paper aims to analyze affinities between Johnson’s penultimate novel, Christie Malry’s Own Double-Entry (1973), and the features of the Menippean satire as specified by, among others, Mikhail Bakhtin in Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics (1984) and H. Rikonnen in Menippean Satire as a Literary Genre (1987). While in its classical understanding this ancient form of prose is regarded long-extinct, these scholars argue that its elements can be found in the works of the more inventive modern authors. In fact, as Brian McHale suggests: “Postmodernist fiction is the heir of Menippean satire and its most recent historical avatar” (Postmodernist Fiction, 1987, p. 172).

 The paper is an attempt at presenting Johnson more in line with classical tradition, suggesting that it is possible to analyze his works in a broader critical spectrum and thus move them from the peripheral to the mainstream literary discourse. It also raises the question of the (im)possibility of an artistic creation in total isolation from any formerly known conventions. 

Marko Vovchok’s Correspondence: Unsolved Issues of Attribution, Dating and Commenting

The article deals with the publication of a part of the collection of Marko Vovchok’s letters dating back to early years of the 20th century. In particular, it studies Vasyl Domanytsky’s letters to Marko Vovchok and her letters in reply to him. The story of publishing of the writer’s letters started in 1920s. The fourth volume of Marko Vovchok’s Stories (1928) edited by Oleksandr Doroshkevych contained, among others, 98 letters written by the author to various people and 120 letters addressed to her. Insufficient studying of Marko Vovchok’s collection of letters caused a number of mistakes concerning their attribution in the edition, in particular, her letters to Vasyl Domanytsky were mistakenly attributed as letters to Fedir Matushevsky. The editors corrected this mistake in later editions, but they made some other mistakes during the preparation of the edition. The six letters from Vasyl Domanytsky that are analyzed here, were first published in Letters to Marko Vovchok (1979). Currently, 694 Marko Vovchok’s letters and 527 letters addressed to her are published and available to scholars. The detailed analysis of this collection of letters rises a number of questions that need to be answered. Upon reading carefully correspondence between Marko Vovchok and Vasyl Domanytsky and notes to them as well as comparing their letters to their biographies, the author of the article suggests re-attributing some of the writer’s letters addressed to Vasyl Domanytsky, Volodymyr Naumenko, and Fedir Matushevsky. The article also highlights incorrect commenting of some realia that are mentioned in the letters, which is often caused by incorrect dating. The offered version corresponds fully to well-known facts from the writer’s biography and eliminates inconsistencies that were caused by incorrect attribution.