Literary Reputation in the Modern Literary Field: The Critic’s View

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article focuses on the concept of literary reputation and its research. Based on the concept of cultural mediation, literary production is considered broader than the author—reader pair and includes other intermediaries — critics, publishers, editors, etc., who form interpretations of a literary product, support the literary canon, and thereby participate in the construction of literary reputation. Reputation is understood as a consistent and stable assessment of an individual, formed through discussion in a social group, that is, discursively. Literary reputation has a relational origin, it is formed not only on the basis of the author's texts, but also as a result of the statements of other actors in the literary field; it is a social construct that combines the artistic value of a literary product, institutional recognition and cultural expectations. An empirical reconstruction of literary reputation based on 35 semi-structured interviews with literary critics shows that, since such a reputation is formed not only through texts, but also through interaction with critics, publishers and other intermediaries, and also depends on public perception, a modern writer is forced to go beyond purely creative activities. He must not only create works, but also actively shape his media image by participating in public communications, managing reputational capital, which depends on recognition, image, personal views and is influenced by public opinion and media scandals.

About the authors

Alexander Pavlovich Ryazancev

HSE University

Email: ariazantsev@hse.ru
SPIN-code: 5720-5839
Graduate Student Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Вербилович О.Е. «Запрещенный прием»: инвалидность и публичный скандал в традиционных и интернет-медиа // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2018. № 1. С. 253–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2018.1.13 EDN: YQUCQO
  2. Квале С. Исследовательское интервью. М.: Смысл, 2003. EDN: QXGGCB
  3. Лакофф Д., Джонсон М. Метафоры, которыми мы живем / Пер. с англ А.Н. Баранова, А.В. Морозовой. М.: Издательство Эдиториал УРСС, 2004. EDN: QRAADX
  4. Рейтблат А.И. Как Пушкин вышел в гении: Историко-социологические очерки о книжной культуре Пушкинской эпохи. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2001. EDN: ZSIOEF
  5. Adut A. (2012) A Theory of the Public Sphere. Sociological Theory. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 238–262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112467012
  6. Amlinger C. (2021) Schreiben: Eine Soziologie Literarischer Arbeit. Berlin: Suhrkamp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/arb-2022-0047
  7. Anderson C., Shirako A. (2008) Are Individuals’ Reputations Related to Their History of Behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 94. No. 2. P. 320–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.320
  8. Barnwell A. (2015) Enduring Divisions: Critique, Method, and Questions of Value in the Sociology of Literature. Cultural Sociology. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 550–566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975515587716
  9. Backe H.-J. (2015) The Literary Canon in the Age of New Media. Poetics Today. Vol. 36. No. 1–2. P. 1–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2879757
  10. Becker H.S. (1982) Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520934870
  11. Bourdieu P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  12. Bourdieu P. (1996) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  13. Childress C. (2017) Under the Cover: The Creation, Production, and Reception of a Novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1vxm7zv
  14. Clifford J., Marcus G.E. (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  15. Cottrell C.A., Neuberg S.L., Li. N.P. (2007) What Do People Desire in Others? A Sociofunctional Perspective on the Importance of Different Valued Characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 92. No. 2. P. 208–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208
  16. Craik K.H. (2008) Reputation: A Network Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  17. De Bellaigue E. (2008) “Trust Me. I’m an Agent”: The Ever-Changing Balance between Author, Agent and Publisher. Logos. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 109–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2959/logo.2008.19.3.109
  18. De Bruin E.N.M., van Lange P.A.M. (1999) Impression Formation and Cooperative Behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 29. P. 305–328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3%3C305::AID-EJSP929%3E3.0.CO; 2-R
  19. English J. (2005) The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  20. English J. (2010) Everywhere and Nowhere: The Sociology of Literature after “the Sociology of Literature”. New Literary History. Vol. 41. No. 2. P. 5–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2010.0005
  21. Emerson R.M, Fretz R.I., Shaw L.L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  22. Feinberg M., Willer R., Keltner D. (2012) Flustered and Faithful: Embarrassment as a Signal of Prosociality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 102. No. 1. P. 81–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025403
  23. Feinberg M., Willer R., Schultz M. (2014) Gossip and Ostracism Promote Cooperation in Groups. Psychological Science. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 656–664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613510184
  24. Franssen T., Kuipers G. (2013) Coping with Uncertainty, Abundance and Strife: Decision-Making Processes of Dutch Acquisition Editors in the Global Market for Translations. Poetics. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 48–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2012.11.001
  25. Fuller D., Sedo D.R. (2013) Reading Beyond the Book: The Social Practices of Contemporary Literary Culture. London; New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203067741
  26. Fürst H. (2018) Making the Discovery: The Creativity of Selecting Fiction Manuscripts from the Slush Pile. Symbolic Interaction. Vol. 41. No. 4. P. 513–532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.360
  27. Gabriel M. (2020) Fiktionen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
  28. Geertz C. (1977) The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
  29. Goffman E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
  30. Griswold W. (1987) The Fabrication of Meaning: Literary Interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 92. No. 5. P. 1077–1117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/228628
  31. Jazaieri H., Allison M.L., Campos B., Young R.C., Keltner D. (2019) Content, Structure, and Dynamics of Personal Reputation: The Role of Trust and Status Potential within Social Networks. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Vol. 22. No. 7. P. 964–983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218806056
  32. Knöchelmann M. (2024) Cultural Intermediation and Civil Society: Towards a Hermeneutically Strong Conception. Cultural Sociology. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 374–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755241228891
  33. Lang G. E., Lang K. (1988) Recognition and Renown: The Survival of Artistic Reputation. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 94. No. 1. P. 79–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/228952
  34. Laurenson D., Swingewood A. (1971) The Sociology of Literature. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
  35. Marquard O. (2020) Über die Unvermeidlichkeit der Geisteswissenschaften. In: Zukunft braucht Herkunft: Philosophische Essays. Ditzingen: Reclam. P. 171–189.
  36. Moretti F. (2005) Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History. London; New York: Verso.
  37. Mouffe С. (1995) “Post Marxism: Democracy and Identity”. Environment and Planning: Society and Space. Vol. 13. P. 259–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d130259
  38. Murray S. (2015) Digital Literary Cultures. New Media & Society. Vol. 17. No. 6. P. 935–950.
  39. Murray S. (2018) The Digital Literary Sphere: Reading, Writing, and Selling Books in the Internet Era. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  40. Negus K. (2002) The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and the Enduring Distance between Production and Consumption. Cultural Studies. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 501–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380210139089
  41. Parkhurst Ferguson P., Desan P., Griswold W. (1988) Editors’ Introduction: Mirrors, Frames, and Demons: Reflections on the Sociology of Literature. Critical Inquiry. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 421–430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/448448
  42. Rindova V.P., Williamson I.O., Petkova A.P., Sever J.M. (2005) Being Good or Being Known: An Empirical Examination of the Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences of Organizational Reputation. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 48. No. 6. P. 1033–1049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573108
  43. Roberts P.W., Dowling G.R. (2002) Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 23. No. 12. P. 1077–1093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.274
  44. Steiner A. (2018) The Global Book: Micropublishing, Conglomerate Production, and Digital Market Structures. Publishing Research Quarterly. Vol. 34. No. 1. P. 118–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9558-8
  45. Tennie C., Frith U., Frith C.D. (2010) Reputation Management in the Age of the World-Wide Web. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol. 14. No. 11. P. 482–488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.003
  46. Thompson J.B. (2010) Merchants of Culture: The Publishing Business in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  47. Whitmeyer J.M. (2000) Effects of Positive Reputation Systems. Social Science Research. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 188–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1999.0663
  48. Willer R. (2009) Groups Reward Individual Sacrifice: The Status Solution to the Collective Action Problem. American Sociological Review. Vol. 74. No. 1. P. 23–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400102

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Канал журнала в Telegram: t.me/inter0000

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).