BAKHTIN, Mikhail. Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski (Versão de 1929) [Problems of Dosto evsk y’s Crea tive Arts¹ (1929 Edition)]. Traduçã o, notas e glossário de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Volkóva Américo [Translation, notes and glossary by Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Vólkova Américo]. Ensaio introdutório de Sheila Grillo [Introductory Essay by Sheila Grillo]. 1a edição [1st edition]. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2022, 381p.

BAKHTIN, Mikhail. Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski. (Versão de 1929) [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creative Arts1. (1929 Edition). ]. Tradução, notas e glossário de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. Ensaio introdutório de Sheila Grillo. 1a. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2022. 381p

The ability to see time, to read time, in the spatial whole of the world and, on the other hand, to perceive the filling of space not as an immobile background, a given that is completed once and for all, but as an emerging whole, an event – this is the ability to read in everything signs that show time in its course, beginning with nature and ending with human customs and ideas (all the way to abstract concepts)

Mikhail Bakhtin²

An artistic work, a literary work, a philosophical treatise, a point of view about the functioning of language at a given time integrate the temporal flow of artistic, literary, philosophical, and linguistic thought in two ways. On the one hand, they constitute a situated point of view about the values circulating in a society, to which they actively respond. They materialize in texts, understood more broadly, as any form of artistic, cultural, literary, philosophical, linguistic production thematized within the spheres of production, circulation and reception of a given time. On the other hand, at the moment of its realization, this same production becomes part of currents of discourses that circulate and permeate reflections produced in other times and spaces by other people, provoking responses from other interlocutors located in those other times and spaces. Many of these discourses are impossible to recover, as they have already been actively assimilated by us and, therefore, we no longer perceive the other who is present in our words. But there are other discourses that can be recovered, and therefore allow us to hear the voice of the other, to whom we can respond actively and clearly.

It so happens that this perception and, consequently, the recovery of voices can no longer be understood in the same way as they were originally produced in their places of origin. Other times, other spaces and other people imply other responses and new points of views about a thought or a fact. In other words, the discourses, perceived as someone else’s, are submitted to the movement of the axes of time, space, and person. This means that they are updated by the dialogue that is established with the new spatiotemporal positioning of the other, producing other and new meanings for the artistic work, the literary text, the philosophical thought, the cultural event, etc. This review, in its turn, deals with the possibility of looking into the past with the eyes of the present.

Here in Brazil, until recently, we knew from Bakhtinian researchers that there was a work on Dostoevsky produced by Bakhtin in the 1920s, but translation was not available in Brazilian Portuguese. We got to know this 1929 text by means of an Italian translation. We also knew from an essay in Estética da criação verbal [Aesthetics of Verbal Creation], entitled “A respeito de problemas da obra de Dostoiévski” [Concerning Problems in Dostoevsky’s Creative Arts], that Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski [Problems in Dostoevsky’s Poetics],³ originally published in 1963, was the result of a reformulation of an earlier text produced by Bakhtin in 1929. According to a footnote by Paulo Bezerra, the translator of the 1963 work to Brazilian Portuguese, which accompanies the essay on Estética da criação verbal, “this first title, published in 1929, was later reformulated in 1963” (N.T., 2006, p.193).⁴ We also knew that the 1929 text would probably have the Portuguese title of Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creative Arts], as this title had already been indicated by Bakhtin when stating that he could not give his 1929 work “any other title than Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creative Arts” (Bakhtin, 2006, p.195).⁵

Through the chapter “Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski e estudos da linguagem” [Problems in Dostoevsky’s Poetics and Language Studies] published in Bakhtin, dialogismo e polifonia [Bakhtin, Dialogism and Polyphony] (Brait, 2009), we also learned that in the 20’s Bakhtin “reported that he was writing a work on Dostoevsky and hoped to finish it soon” (p.47);⁶ and, also through an article in a Petrograd newspaper of the same period, that “a monograph on Dostoevsky was being prepared for publication” (p.47). ⁷ Brait (2009, p.46), ⁸ when reflecting on the work published in Brazil under the title Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski,⁹ states that the importance of Bakhtin’s work on Dostoevsky besides playing an

essential role for language studies, artistic or not, requires a look at the intricacies of a trajectory that leads to this completion, including texts, translations, interlocutors who participated, at different times, in this construction.¹⁰

As we can see, we knew a lot about Bakhtin’s text on Dostoevsky produced in the 1920s, but we did not have it in our language until now. In a very well-kept edition, the Brazilian publishing house Editora 34 launches, in the second half of 2022, the Brazilian Portuguese version of Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creative Arts], with translation, glossary and notes by Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. According to Grillo and Vólkova, this is an edition “translated, in our language, from the first version of the seminal text by Mikhail Bakhtin, which came to light in 1929” (Grillo; Vólkova, 2022, p.7).¹¹

We noticed the care taken with the edition from the book flap, signed by professor and researcher Elena Vássina from the area of Russian literature and culture at the University of São Paulo. She brings to light some information about the historical moment in which the work was written and published. The professor argues that “the young Bakhtin delivered the manuscript of his first book to Priboi publishing house a few days before his arrest, on December 24, 1928” (Vássina, 2022, Book Flap).¹² According to the professor, “it is important to note that Bakhtin’s main ideas about Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novels and about dialogism took shape along the 1920s.”¹³ And she completes the information by saying that “was the time of the consolidation of the Soviet regime and ideology, when only one voice – monological and totalitarian – came to dominate the country” (Vássina, 2022, Book Flap),¹⁴ to which the text by Bakhtin responded, producing a counterword in opposition to the thought that had been installed.

In addition, the work has an important introductory note in which the reason for choosing the term ‘obra’ [work (creative arts)] instead of ‘criação’ [creation] to compose the title is presented, since, according to the translators, both forms are possible in the translation from Russian to Portuguese. In addition to the term ‘obra’ having already circulated in Brazil with reference to this 1929 text, this term constitutes “a perfectly possible version of the Russian term.”¹⁵ Therefore, there was a decision to “keep the term ‘obra’ in the title” (p.8).¹⁶ However, the care with the use of terms goes beyond the title, since the translators claim that they do not fail to consider the possibility of using the term ‘criação’ when the text refers to “Dostoevsky’s creative process, and ‘obra’, in the passages in which the term refers to the author’s set of writings” (Grillo; Vólkova, 2022, p.8).¹⁷

Sheila Vieira de Camargo Grillo, one of the translators, signs the introductory essay, entitled “Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski: gênese do texto e fontes bibliográficas” [Problems in Dostoevsky’s work: genesis of the text and bibliographic sources]. This study that precedes Bakhtin’s text aims to “provide the reader with elements for a better understanding of the concept of polyphonic novel, proposed by Mikhail Bakhtin in the 1929 text” (p.9).¹⁸ Certainly, the essayist goes much further than the proposed objective, revealing herself to be truly inscribed in the proposal of Bakhtinian thought by recovering the origins of Bakhtin’s text through primary and secondary sources. In addition, she also recovers the precursors of the idea of polyphony in Russia, showing that the Russian scholar’s work dialogues with his contemporaries, responding to the theoretical thinking of his time. After an exhaustive and very relevant survey of authors, currents, and thoughts about the criticism on Dostoevsky’s works, and Bakhtin’s Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski being one of them, the essayist formulates the hypothesis that “the architecture of Dostoevsky’s novel proposed by Bakhtin (...) tried to resolve the conflict between a collapsing principle of collectivity and the emergence of an individualistic society” (p.29).¹⁹ She concludes her reflection by stating that

[i]n the face of the tragedy caused by isolation and individualism, Bakhtin proposes his own perspective: polyphony and dialogic relationships, which seek to account for the tense coexistence of personalized ideas in the midst of the conflict of worldviews. Just as Dostoevsky’s artistic ethics projects a form that looks to the future, the Bakhtinian concept of polyphony is designed to understand a world in constant transformation, plural, unfinished, full of singularities in egalitarian dialogue with each other (p.44).²⁰

As we enter Bakhtin’s text, right in the preface, the author establishes the parameters for the analysis of Dostoevsky’s work, when he says that “this book is limited to addressing only the theoretical problems of Dostoevsky’s creation. We had to exclude all historical problems” (p.51).²¹ We notice here a first movement towards the evolution of Bakhtin’s thought, if we observe the historical treatment that the author gives to later works, including the 1963 version of this same text, entitled Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics.²² Even though he proposes to exclude those possible historical problems in this 1929 work, Bakhtin’s awareness of the importance of the historical process is present in his thought in relation to the methodological work of observation and analysis of Dostoevsky’s work, as he understands that the methodological ideal must consider that “every theoretical problem must necessarily be guided by a historical perspective” (p.51).²³ The preface ends by presenting a critique of the formalist and ideological readings of Dostoevsky’s work made at the time, understood by Bakhtin as narrow, since they fail to look at the author’s work through the lenses of “revolutionary innovation in the of the novel as an artistic form” (p.52),²⁴ that is, the polyphonic novel. In opposition to the formalist and ideological point of view, Bakhtin then presents his study proposal, dividing the work into two parts: “In the first part of the book we will present the general conception of the new type of novel that Dostoevsky created. In the second part we will detail our thesis in concrete analyses of the word in its social functions in the works of Dostoevsky” (p.52).²⁵

As to the first part of the work, pages 55 to 153, entitled “Parte I – O romance polifônico de Dostoiévski (colocação do problema)” [Part I – Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novel (posing the problem)], Bakhtin organizes his reflections into 4 sections: “1. A principal peculiaridade da criação de Dostoiévski e sua elucidação na literatura crítica; 2. O personagem em Dostoiévski; 3. A ideia em Dostoiévski; 4. As funções do enredo de aventura nas obras de Dostoiévski” [1. The Main Peculiarity of Dostoevsky’s Creation and its Elucidation in Critical Literature; 2. The Character in Dostoevsky; 3. The Idea in Dostoevsky; 4. The Functions of the Adventure Plot in Dostoevsky’s Works]. This organization proposed by the author tries to build a positioned and relatively organic point of view about Dostoevsky’s writing project. To this end, Bakhtin starts from the following work thesis:

all the elements of the romance structure in Dostoevsky are profoundly peculiar; they are all determined by the new artistic objective, which only he knew how to set and solve in all its breadth and depth: the task of building a polyphonic world and destroying the constituted forms of the predominantly monologic (or monophonic) European novel (Bakhtin, 2022, pp.58-59).²⁶

The second part of the work is entitled “Parte II – A palavra em Dostoiévski (Ensaio de estilística)” [Part II – The Word in Dostoevsky (Stylistics Essay)], pages 157 to 306, and is organized into “1. Tipos da palavra prosaística: a palavra em Dostoiévski; 2. A palavra monológica do personagem e a palavra narrativa das novelas de Dostoiévski; 3. A palavra do personagem e a palavra da narração nos romances de Dostoiévski; 4. O diálogo em Dostoiévski” [1. Types of the Prosaistic Word: The Word in Dostoevsky; 2. The Character’s Monologic Word and the Narrative Word from Dostoevsky’s Novels; 3. The Word of the Character and the Word of the Narration in Dostoevsky’s Novels; 4. The Dialogue in Dostoevsky]. In this part, dedicated to the analysis of Dostoevsky’s works, the author focuses his reflections on what he calls “presence of words with double orientation” (p.158)²⁷ and seeks to “offer a full and exhaustive classification of words from the point of view of this new principle,”²⁸ that is, words oriented to the object of speech and to the word of others, to another speech, to the other.

Care with translation is present not only in the general organization of the text, but also in the explanatory notes regarding the translation choices. An example of this is the question related to the Russian terms slovo [word, speech] and rietch [speech, discourse, language]. In a note about the choice to translate slovo from Russian to ‘word’ in Portuguese instead of ‘discourse,’ a possible meaning used as synonyms in the text, the translators inform that “in the second paragraph, it is clear that here Bakhtin uses slovo as synonymous with rietch (speech, discourse, language)”.²⁹ In spite of that, the choice for translating ‘slovo’ for ‘word’ instead of ‘discourse,’ in addition to following the first meaning of the term, also aims to maintain the “terminological variation between the two, slovo and rietch, both used by Bakhtin” (N. T., p.157).³⁰

It is mainly in this second part of Bakhtin’s text that we also more clearly perceive the publisher’s larger project. Bakhtin proposes to treat and analyze “words with double articulation that contain, as a necessary aspect, the relationship with the utterance of others” (Bakhtin, 2022, p.158)³¹ and to “offer a full and exhaustive classification of words from the point of view of this new principle” (Bakhtin, 2022, p.158).³² We realize that the works analyzed by the author are translations into Brazilian Portuguese made directly from the Russian language by professors, researchers of the Russian language and renowned translators of literary and theoretical works. This project of the publisher offers the reader great coherence and safety not only in the construction of theoretical knowledge arising from the reading of this work, but also in the possibility of research carried out in the literary works translated and cited in Bakhtin’s analyses and reflections.

Sheila Grillo signs the afterword, entitled “Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski no espelho da crítica soviética e estrangeira” [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Work in the Mirror of Soviet and Foreign Criticism] where she puts the critics of Bakhtin’s work, when Bakhtin’s text was released in the then Soviet Union, into dialogue in the best discursivedialogical style. This way, she offers us the possibility of visualizing the polemics regarding the book founded between rejection and acceptance “with reservations”³³ to Bakhtin’s theoretical points of view through clippings of texts produced at that time. Following the hypothesis that “the analysis of this (partial) reception by the critic can reveal to us the impasses of the understanding, as well as the perceptible background of the addressee of the discourse and the evaluative horizon of POD³⁴” (Grillo, 2022, p.307),³⁵ the translator and essayist masterfully leads us to the sphere of reception of Bakhtin’s work, offering us the possibility of following the dialogic tension built based on Bakhtin’s proposal at the time.

The work ends with a “Glossário” [Glossary] of terms that uncover the theoretical and philosophical positioning of the translators in face of the supposedly more polemical concepts used in the work. This final piece of work by the translators will help us better understand uses and meanings of words and expressions chosen in the translation of the text. We want to highlight two of them. Fistly, the treatment given to speech/discourse (riétch) in which the translators clarify that they translated it “as ‘discourse,’ when referring to the narrator or a general way of expression of a character throughout a work, and as ‘speech,’ when it comes to the oral interventions of the characters, that is, their replies in a dialogue” (Grillo; Américo, 2022, p.356).³⁶ Secondly, we also want to highlight the treatment given to collocations in the text. As an example, we bring about the term ‘palavra’ [word] and its combinations with other terms. In the glossary, we find the following sets of colligations and their definitions: neutral word; word, verbal; bivocal word; word with double orientation; directed word; word directed and immediately oriented to its object, word direct and intentional, word immediately intentional; author’s word; hagiographic word; ideological word; objectified or represented word; character’s word; penetrating word; refracting word; dry word, informative and formal; word about oneself or confessional word.³⁷

We conclude this review by resuming the epigraph, as we understand that this translation published in the 21st century, almost about one hundred years after the work was launched in the Soviet Union, becomes a discursive “event.” Through this translation, we can read “signs that show time in its course” in which the work was originally published, while also perceiving the innovation of the translation proposal through the translators’ interference in the essays presented and the footnotes produced. This is a text that, in its present event, takes up the past, renewing it through a careful and positioned Brazilian translation, confirming that the strength of Bakhtinian thought continues to constitute us. As Sheila Grillo well explains it, “Bakhtin seems to have adapted his text according to the 1920s Soviet Union’s evaluative horizon” (Grillo, 2022, p.349),³⁸ while “Bakhtin’s polyphony proves to be surprisingly up to date and potent” (Grillo, 2022, p.44).³⁹

Research Data and Other Materials Availability

The contents underlying the research text are included in the manuscript.

REFERÊNCIAS

• BAKHTIN, Mikhail. A respeito de problemas da obra de Dostoiévski. In: Estética da criação verbal Introdução de Paulo Bezerra. Prefácio à edição francesa de Tzvetan Todorov. Tradução do russo de Paulo Bezerra. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006. p.193-204.
• BAKHTIN, Mikhail. Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski (Versão de 1929). Tradução, notas e glossário de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. Ensaio introdutório e posfácio de Shiela Grillo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2022.
• BRAIT, B. (org.). Problemas da poética de Dostoiévski e estudos da linguagem. In: Bakhtin, dialogismo e polifonia São Paulo: Editora Contexto, 2009. p.45-72.

• 1
  Creative arts corresponds to the English translation of the title of Bakhtin’s 1929 work, proposed by Gary Morson and Caryl Emerson in MORSON, Gary Saul; EMERSON, Caryl. Polyphony: Authoring a Hero. In: Mikhail Bakhtin. Creation of Prosaics. California: Stanford University Press, 1990, p.231.
• 2
  BAKHTIN, M. The Bildungsroman and Its Significance in the History of Realism (Toward a Historical Typology of the Novel. In: Speech Genres & Other Late Essays. Translated by Vern W. McGee and Edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986. pp.10-59; p.25.
• 3
  BAKHTIN, M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. 8th printing. Translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
• 4
  In Portuguese: “Este primeiro título, publicado em 1929, foi posteriormente reformulado em 1963.”
• 5
  In Portuguese: “outro título senão o de Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski.”
• 6
  In Portuguese: “contava que estava escrevendo um trabalho sobre Dostoiévski e esperava terminar logo .”
• 7
  In Portuguese: “uma monografia sobre Dostoiévski estava sendo preparado para a publicação.”
• 8
  Brait’s chapter makes a commented survey of the texts that contributed to the construction of Problems in Dostoevsky's poetics. The chapter details issues about the first version of the text from the 1920s, including the summary of the work, which is very close to the summary presented in the recently published Portuguese translation.
• 9
  For reference, see footnote 3.
• 10
  In Portuguese: “papel essencial para os estudos da linguagem, artística ou não, exige um olhar sobre os meandros de uma trajetória que leva a essa finalização, incluindo textos, traduções, interlocutores que participaram, em diferentes momentos, dessa construção.”
• 11
  In Portuguese: “traduzida, em nossa língua, a partir da primeira versão do texto seminal de Mikhail Bakhtin, que veio à luz em 1929.”
• 12
  In Portuguese: “o jovem Bakhtin entregou o manuscrito deste seu primeiro livro à editora Priboi a lguns dias antes de ser preso, em 24 de dezembro de 1928.”
• 13
  In Portuguese: “é importante notar que as principais ideias de Bakhtin sobre os romances polifônicos de Dostoiévski e sobre o dialogismo formaram-se ao longo da década de 1920.”
• 14
  In Portuguese: “era a época da consolidação do regime e da ideologia soviética, quando apenas uma voz – monológica e totalitária – passou a dominar o país.”
• 15
  In Portuguese: “uma versão perfeitamente possível do termo russo.”
• 16
  In Portuguese: “manter a palavra ‘obra’ no título.”
• 17
  In Portuguese: “processo criativo de Dostoiévski, e por ‘obra’, nas passagens em que o termo se refere o conjunto de escritos do autor.”
• 18
  In Portuguese: “proporcionar ao leitor elementos para uma melhor compreensão do conceito de romance polifônico, proposto por Mikhail Bakhtin no texto de 1929.”
• 19
  In Portuguese: “a arquitetônica do romance de Dostoiévski proposta por Bakhtin (...) tentava resolver o conflito entre um princípio de coletividade em vias de ruir e o surgimento de uma sociedade individualista .”
• 20
  In Portuguese: “[d]iante da tragédia causada pelo isolamento e pelo individualismo, Bakhtin propõe um olhar próprio: a polifonia e as relações dialógicas, que procuram dar conta da convivência tensa de ideias personalizadas em meio ao conflito de visões de mundo. Assim como a ética artística de Dostoiévski projeta uma forma que olha para o futuro, o conceito de polifonia bakhtiniano é elaborado para compreender um mundo em constante transformação, plural, inconcluso, repleto de singularidades em diálogo igualitário entre si (...)”
• 21
  In Portuguese: “o presente livro se limita a abordar apenas os problemas teóricos da criação de Dostoiévski. [O autor teve] que excluir todos os problemas históricos”.
• 22
  For reference, see footnote 3.
• 23
  In Portuguese: “todo problema teórico deve ser necessariamente orientado por uma perspectiva histórica.”
• 24
  In Portuguese: “inovação revolucionária no campo do romance como forma artística .”
• 25
  In Portuguese: “Na primeira parte do livro apresentaremos a concepção geral do novo tipo de romance que Dostoiévski criou. Na segunda parte detalharemos nossa tese em análises concretas da palavra em suas funções sociais nas obras de Dostoiévski.”
• 26
  In Portuguese: “todos os elementos da estrutura romanesca em Dostoiévski são profundamente peculiares; todos são determinados pelo novo objetivo artístico, que somente ele soube colocar e resolver em toda a sua amplitude e profundidade: a tarefa de construir um mundo polifônico e destruir as formas constituídas do romance europeu, predominantemente monológico (ou monofônico).”
• 27
  In Portuguese: “presença de palavras com dupla orientação.”
• 28
  In Portuguese: “oferecer uma classificação plena e exaustiva das palavras do ponto de vista desse novo princípio.”
• 29
  In Portuguese: “no segundo parágrafo, fica claro que aqui Bakhtin utiliza slovo como sinônimo de riétch (fala, discurso, linguagem).”
• 30
  In Portuguese: “variação terminológica entre os dois, slovo e riétch, ambos empregados por Bakhtin”
• 31
  In Portuguese: “palavras com dupla articulação que contêm, como aspecto necessário, a relação com o enunciado alheio.”
• 32
  In Portuguese: “oferecer uma classificação plena e exaustiva das palavras do ponto de vista desse novo princípio.”
• 33
  In Portuguese: “com reservas.”
• 34
  Abbreviation proposed by the translator for ‘Problems of Dostoevsky Creative Arts’ in Brazilian Portuguese.
• 35
  In Portuguese: que “a análise dessa recepção (parcial) pela crítica pode nos revelar os impasses da compreensão, bem como o fundo aperceptível do destinatário do discurso e o horizonte valorativo de POD.”
• 36
  In Portuguese: “por ‘discurso’, quando se refere ao narrador ou a um modo geral de expressão de um personagem ao longo de uma obra, e por ‘fala’, quando se trata das intervenções orais dos personagens, isto é, das suas réplicas em diálogo.”
• 37
  In Portuguese: “palavra à revelia ; palavra, verbal; palavra bivocal; palavra com dupla orientação; palavra direcionada; palavra direta e imediatamente direcionada para seu objeto, palavra direta e intencional, palavra imediatamente intencional; palavra do autor; palavra hagiográfica; palavra ideológica; palavra objetificada ou representada; palavra do personagem; palavra penetrante; palavra refratora; palavra seca, informativa e protocolar; palavra sobre si mesmo ou palavra confessional.”
• 38
  In Portuguese: “Bakhtin parece ter adaptado seu texto em função do horizonte valorativo da União Soviética dos anos 1920.”
• 39
  In Portuguese: “a polifonia de Bakhtin revela-se surpreendentemente atual e potente.”

• Reviews

  Due to the commitment assumed by Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso [Bakhtiniana. Journal of Discourse Studies] to Open Science, this journal only publishes reviews that have been authorized by all involved.

Review I

About the reviewer SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

The manuscript submitted for evaluation is a critical review of a work published by Editora 34 the title of which is: Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski (Versão de 1929) [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creative Arts (1929 Edition)]. Tradução, notas e glossário de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Volkóva Américo [Translation, notes and glossary by Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Vólkova Américo]. Ensaio introdutório de Sheila Grillo [Introductory essay by Sheila Grillo]. 1a edição [1st edition]. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2022, 381p. As it is a review, the text does not necessarily have the obligation to present a title, as, in fact, it does not.

The objective of the text is not literally registered, but it is outlined in the very act of elaboration of the genre review, the objective of which is the critical appreciation of a cultural artifact, as it is the case of the work we are reviewing, being consistent with the activity the author set out to do.

The author demonstrates knowledge of the text, although the highlight of the review is more on the thorough and well-done work of the translators with regard to translation and editing and less on the content itself of the work, as we can gather from pages 5 and 6. Evidently, the reviewer does a consistent job, resorting both to the introductory essay prepared by one of the translators – who is also an essayist – as well as using sources from specialized scholars on the theme addressed in the book, with a view to a more robust foundation about the author's ideas [Bakhtin]. It is, therefore, a very (in)formative text.

The review fulfills its objective, offering the reader, especially the beginner, a good contextualization of the moment of emergence of the work, its main content, the technical treatment of the translation, as well as the presentation of all the parts that make up the set, aspects that, added together, work as a reading key for the book.

Finally, I highlight the appropriate language for the genre, with clarity of the ideas developed. I draw attention, however, to the need for a linguistic revision, according to small problems highlighted in the body of the text and/or in the comment balloons. Therefore, I consider the work relevant and necessary for the student of the works of the Bakhtin Circle, especially the one who may have a first contact with the text via this review, which from the academic point of view, meets the intended objectives.

N.b.: Although it does not necessarily constitute an element that undermine the quality of the content of the work, I emphasize the need for a linguistic review of the aspects highlighted in the body of the text. ACCEPTED WITH RESTRICTIONS

• peer review recommendation: accept-in-principle

Review II

About the reviewer SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

The review under the title “BAKHTIN, Mikhail. Problemas da obra de Dostoiévski (Versão de 1929) [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creative Arts (1929 Edition)]. Tradução, notas e glossário de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Volkóva Américo [Translation, notes and glossary by Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Vólkova Américo]. Ensaio introdutório de Sheila Grillo [Introductory essay by Sheila Grillo]. 1a edição [1st edition]. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2022, 381p.” is well structured and appropriate to the proposed theme. It brings a logical sequence of the items arranged in this work and develops the main points addressed by Bakhtin in this edition presented by the translators Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Volkóva Américo. Like the introductory essay that offers the reader components for a better understanding of the polyphonic novel and presents other Russian interlocutors of literary criticism and theory. The goals of the text are clear, well developed and coherent with the proposed bibliography for this production. The content is relevant and up to date, making it a good contribution to Bakhtinian studies and clarifies terms that diverge in other translations, such as “work” and “creation.” It is a well-constructed, practical, didactic and with simple language, which facilitates the use of these concepts in this area of knowledge. Therefore, I recommend publishing. ACCEPTED

• peer review recommendation: accept

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  12 Dec 2022
• Date of issue
  Jan-Mar 2023

History

• Received
  25 Sept 2022
• Accepted
  24 Oct 2022