An aim of this article was to analyze and interpret multifaceted semantic of motives for lying in the novel Women’s Lies by Lyudmila Ulitskaya mainly on the basis of the text’s content as well as related to it preceded annotations, essayistic and journalistic utterances of an actress. We declare that the “laboratory analyze” of women’s lies in its various scenes makes a leading opinion and basic motive of the novel. At the beginning of the conclusion we are concentrating on the author`s definition of lie, so we can later refer to mythological-historical-literary roots. In the context of above mentioned facts, it is interesting that Ulitskaya divides lie on masculine and feminine. Ulitskaya, in her typical way, referring to cultural-religious archetypes and symbols, indicates the roots of masculine lie pertaining even to the Old Testament, as contrary to “pleasant feminine lie”. In this regard, the mythological characters of Odysseus and Penelope are also recognized as representatives. After all, in the content of the analyzed piece are only presented various examples of female lies, and, in our opinion, exposed as an element of the third plane, which unites natural sciences and literature.
The study aims to contribute to research on the onomastic-stylistic diversity of Polish prose in the late 20th century. In focus are those onomastic properties of literature that reveal connections between names and language in the process of creating non-mimetic, literary-style fiction. These properties also point to the nature of proper names as they function in a literary work of art — that work being a post-modern intellectual-literary game. The names used in the novel (anthroponyms, toponyms, chrematonyms, also zoonyms) mainly derive from the author’s linguistic creativity: they contribute to the world-view projected through the text. That world-view is “purposefully and totally unusual”, different from the real world.
The evolution of David Harvey’s scientific interests. David Harvey’s work is a significant example of evolution and differences in contemporary human geography. It is characterised especially by three features related to one another: a constant change in scientific and research interests, a tendency to bridge the divisions between geographical specialities and scientific disciplines and the inclination towards deep theoretical and methodological reflection. A temporal and problem analysis allows distinguishing two phases of his research interests. In the first, neopositivist one, Harvey discusses methodological aspects of geography, being part of the process of changes in the research pattern of the maternal discipline; in the second, as a confirmed Marxist and radical geographer, he critically analyses contemporary urbanisation and the ideas of postmodernism and neoliberalism. Along with the evolution of scientific and research interests, Harvey’s approach to the examined issues changes – from an inquisitive researcher, concerned with the state of a native scientific discipline, he becomes a critical observer and a reformer of the surrounding reality.