Angel Valentinov Angelov
(In Literary journal, 31/2020)
The first of Boyan Manchev’s major studies is his doctoral thesis that deals with the problem of the narrative system in Dostoyevsky’s novels, from Crime and Punishment to The Brothers Karamazov. The goal that the former PhD candidate set for himself at the time was to create a theory on the meaning of the narrative text. The formulation of the problem is based on the notion that narrative models are immanent to human thought and their study should therefore be associated with the fundamental categories of thinking and the linguistic concepts which actualise them. The goal and the formulation alike are a testament to the scope and power of Manchev’s conceptual thought.
Taking up Hristo Todorov’s notion of the ideogenetic order of the basic linguistic concepts (being, modality, possession, action, actualised by the verbs be, can, want, must, have, do), Boyan Manchev launches a study on the linguistic, rather than the philosophical relation between subject and object. It is a rare occurrence in our humanitarian tradition to state a Bulgarian concept as a starting point, which is why I wish to emphasize Boyan Manchev’s conceptual adherence to Hristo Todorov’s research work. In this particular study of Boyan Manchev, amongst others, I detect a peculiar tendency of his thinking – the evasion of oppositions and a desire to supplement concepts akin to his work, as well as such that are not. According to Manchev, Hristo Todorov’s productive notion will be supplemented by a new dimension since the proper object of research will be the vertical genetic axis, the generation of the narrative on a primary semantic level. In the end of his analysis of Dostoyevsky’s Idiot, Manchev states that his thesis on the essential completeness of the narrative text does not confront with Bakhtin’s idea of the incompleteness of the character in Dostoyevsky’s novels and that he would accept Bakhtin’s thesis, although under a certain condition. Manchev’s concept of narratology is a philosophical one, yet it is also established through close attention towards the peculiarities of the literary narrative, “without any attempt to reduce it to a logical algorithm”. From among Manchev’s principal concepts, I will focus my general overview on the concept of “existential transition”. It appears in the title of the larger of the two publications dealing with its narratological interpretation of Dostoyevsky’s novels – Manchev himself treats it as particularly important. The existential transition connects two qualitatively different states and leads to the transformation of the existential status of the character, basically affecting the fundamentals of his existence. At its core is the character’s desire; the modality of desire is fundamental in narratological terms. According to Manchev’s conclusion, the essence of the narrative text could be synthesized though the following general formula: “a narrative about the experience of realising a particular desire”. I believe one could not be as precise and concise. In the existential transition, argues Manchev, lies the essential objective of the narrative: to personify into a dynamic and temporal perspective the static fundamentals of the world, to effectuate a transition between ontologically disunited existential modes – a process resulting in the establishment of meaning as a cardinal category of the human world. Boyan Manchev accepts the possibility, which is namely his goal, of constructing a universal scheme of relations in the narrative text. The final conclusion is that the existential transition is in itself a catastrophic essence. And since this transition defines the organization of the text, the nature of the universe, whose image is constructed by the media of narrative fiction, is likewise catastrophic. Under catastrophic, however, Manchev understands the condition whereby a particular system continues to exist on a qualitatively new level. In this case, the existential dimension as personified and the systematic dimension as based on the textual organization combine together into one. How does Boyan Manchev define this qualitatively new level? Without abandoning the logical rigidity of his exposition, he sees the emergence – a remarkable occurrence – of an “excess of value”, which in turn is defined as hope. It is namely hope, according to Manchev, that is the final “emotional” message of all of Dostoyevsky’s later novels. And if we supplement this with the aforementioned concept of meaning as a cardinal category of the human world, the logical analysis would therefore serve Manchev as a means of outlining certain values that largely determine human life. Rereading the conclusion, I wished (state of modality) it were developed in more detail. Still rereading, I noticed that in his list of inventors of narratological conceptions Manchev has omitted the names of Umberto Eco, Claude Bremond, Levi-Strauss. Naturally, one could not mention everything, nor is it necessary. Yet, if his relation to Greimas and Propp is clearly stated, then I would like to learn more about his relation to Étienne Souriau whom he mentions alongside all others. Does Souriau’s notion of “diegesis” (L’Univers filmique,1953) bear any relation to Manchev’s narratological analysis? Furthermore, is the notion of existential transition influenced by „Of the Mode of Existence of the Work To-Be-Made” (the last part of The Different Modes of Existence), although Souriau refers not only to the work of art?
Boyan Manchev’s study is an exceptional achievement of Bulgarian narratology, yet why has the author deemed it unnecessary to publish it in full?
Judging by the research work done so far, one can anticipate many more conclusive and insightful studies in the future.
Here’s to many more creative years, Boyan!
Translated from the Bulgarian by Philip Stoilov