论文部分内容阅读
自20世纪九十年代起,盛行于美国的各种文学理论和文化批评理论开始在美国学界遭受冷遇,国外的文学研究开始走上一条文本细读与实证研究紧密结合的务实的批评之路。美国艺术与科学院院士克劳德·罗森的专著《上帝、格利佛与种族灭绝》堪称是这一研究范式的典范。这部研究18世纪比较文学的学术著作,举凡所见均依据细致的文本分析以及大量的旅行和探险文献资料。作者的学术眼光独到高远,从文学人类学批评的角度切入,将格列佛、上帝与种族灭绝三个貌似毫不相干的概念置于“野蛮与欧洲想象”这一框架中进行了精辟的比较与分析。作者对斯威夫特、蒙田、萧伯纳、王尔德等作家笔下有关野蛮和杀戮的书写进行了精细的解读,透过浅层的言语修辞来窥视暴力行为的实施过程,试图撩开欧洲有关野蛮“他者”的文化想象面纱。全书博大精深,视野开阔,字里行间流露出罗森敏锐的问题意识和极为精湛的分析问题的能力。罗森的论述并不轻易指向结论,但在丰富的资料比照和精细的文本分析中,读者不难发现他思想的锋芒。他不是一个非此即彼的二元论批评家,也不是一个立场中立的中庸主义者,他的观点常常发人之未发,令人耳目一新。从学术批评的角度来看,罗森的研究有三大亮点:一是言之有物、不故弄玄虚;二是视野开阔,勇于创新;三是以微发著,思维活跃。这种扎实的研究方法和学术创新精神值得我国比较文学和外国文学研究者认真借鉴。
Since the 1990s, various theories of literary theory and cultural criticism prevailing in the United States began to be cold-shouldered in the academic circle in the United States. Foreign literary studies began to embark on a pragmatic approach of criticism closely integrated with empirical study. The monograph of God, Griffith and Genocide by Claude Rosen, an American Academy of Arts and Sciences academician, is a model for this research paradigm. This academic work on comparative literature in the 18th century was based on careful text analysis and extensive travel and exploration literature. The author’s academic vision is unique and lofty. From the perspective of literary anthropology criticism, the seemingly unrelated concept of Gulliver-God and genocide is put forward in the framework of “barbarism and European imagination” Comparison and analysis. The author carries out a careful reading of the writings on barbarism and slaughter written by writers such as Swift, Montaigne, George Bernard Shaw, and Wilde. Through superficial rhetoric of rhetoric, the author peeks through the process of violence and attempts to turn aside the relevant European barbarism. Other "cultural imagination veil. The book is broad and profound, broadening horizons, revealing Rosen’s acute problem awareness and extremely sophisticated ability to analyze problems. Rosen’s argument does not point easily to conclusions, but readers can easily find the edge of his ideas in rich material comparison and elaborate text analysis. He is neither a binary or non-critical critic nor a neutral one who is neutral in his position. His views are often unrelated and refreshing. From the academic criticism point of view, Rosen’s research has three major bright spots: First, there is something in the world that does not make a mystery; Second, the field of vision is open to innovation; Third, with micro-hair, active thinking. This solid research method and academic innovation deserves our country’s comparative literature and foreign literature researchers to draw lessons from.