Abstract:Since Watt, the novel's eventual cultural predominance has often been read as inseparable from the ascendance of secularism and the demise of religious thought. The novel's master-plot has thus naturally been understood as a historical one not unlike Lukács's account of an individual becoming within a temporality without transcendence. yet it is interesting that neither secular history nor what Girard called 'transcendent presence that is free to abrogate becoming' can account for the way some major novels generate multiple, fiercely oppositional meanings through a complex play with literary mode and narrative models of temporality. This essay reads some revisions of parable in modern Russian literature, and then Coetzee's co-opting of that tradition in The Master of Petersburg, to consider how such fictions can complicate any boundary between the secular and the religious minds as they dramatize the search for a master-plot itself as a problem for the novel.

中文翻译：

---

“这不是寓言”：屠格涅夫、陀思妥耶夫斯基和库切中浪子的转变

摘要：自瓦特以来，小说最终的文化优势常常被解读为与世俗主义的兴起和宗教思想的消亡密不可分。因此，这部小说的主要情节自然地被理解为一个历史情节，这与卢卡奇对个人在没有超越性的时间性中的描述不同。然而有趣的是，无论是世俗历史还是吉拉德所说的“可以自由废除生成的超验存在”，都无法解释一些主要小说通过文学模式和时间性叙事模式的复杂游戏产生多重、强烈对立的意义的方式。这篇文章阅读了现代俄罗斯文学中对寓言的一些修订，然后库切在《彼得堡大师》中吸收了这一传统，