“Crimean Notes. 1916–1921” by S. N. Shil: Tragedy of place in аuto-documentary reproduction
Authors:   Institute of Philology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences  (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation), Proskurina E. N. 
Published: December 2021

For the first time, the paper presents the analysis of the “Crimean Notes” written by S. Shil in 1921. The text itself and its author are not well known to the modern reader. The study reveals the structure of the author’s voice, with the participant, observer, and witness modes being distinguished. The function of each mode and the unifying creative task, i. e., the author’s For the first time, the paper presents the analysis of the “Crimean Notes” written by S. Shil in 1921. The text itself and its author are not well known to the modern reader. The study reveals the structure of the author’s voice, with the participant, observer, and witness modes being distinguished. The function of each mode and the unifying creative task, i. e., the author’s For the first time, the paper presents the analysis of the “Crimean Notes” written by S. Shil in 1921. The text itself and its author are not well known to the modern reader. The study reveals the structure of the author’s voice, with the participant, observer, and witness modes being distinguished. The function of each mode and the unifying creative task, i. e., the author’s For the first time, the paper presents the analysis of the “Crimean Notes” written by S. Shil in 1921. The text itself and its author are not well known to the modern reader. The study reveals the structure of the author’s voice, with the participant, observer, and witness modes being distinguished. The function of each mode and the unifying creative task, i. e., the author’s For the first time, the paper presents the analysis of the “Crimean Notes” written by S. Shil in 1921. The text itself and its author are not well known to the modern reader. The study reveals the structure of the author’s voice, with the participant, observer, and witness modes being distinguished. The function of each mode and the unifying creative task, i. e., the author’s desire to document the facts presented, are determined. As a participant and observer, Shil is quite subjective in her assessments of real circumstances, while as a witness, an eyewitness to an event, she adheres to an impartial assessment. The paper demonstrates the difference between female auto-documentary and S. Shil’s notes that show the absence of emotional saturation, imaginary rather than real facts and impressions. The features of the memoirist’s perception of the revolutionary events in Crimea, as well as the Russian exodus, are analyzed. Shil’s changing position in relation to the revolution – from joyful hopes to disappointments – is demonstrated. The small distance between the events that took place and their description, the absence of a time gap between life and the text influence the author’s position. This distance deficit prevents the formation of the author’s “historical vision,” showing itself only very rarely in the text. However, of obvious value is the factual material given in the notes is a new addition to the already available auto-documentary corpus of works about the Crimea during the revolution and the Russian exodus.