Unresolved conflicts and suspended ethics: Reading “The Monster” from the perspective of voice

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Frontiers of Narrative Studies Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1515/fns-2023-2011
Meng Kang
{"title":"Unresolved conflicts and suspended ethics: Reading “The Monster” from the perspective of voice","authors":"Meng Kang","doi":"10.1515/fns-2023-2011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article draws on rhetorical narrative theory and makes a case for Stephen Crane’s employment of the resource voice to communicate the naturalistic theme of “The Monster”. It argues that by modulating voices on different communicative tracks, the author invites us to recognize two pairs of conflicting forces: one of free will and external forces that shows in the causes of Henry’s and Trescott’s heroic acts, and the other of individual agency and collective identity that characterizes the narrative’s engagement with Whilomville. It is my view that the author invites readers to share his naturalistic outlook and refrain from making conclusive ethical judgments on the characters and the community. For readers, attending to the synthesis of tone, style, and values in utterances helps with inferring the author’s rhetorical purposes. To this end, the article also considers Crane’s biographical information and newspaper sketches, calling for the inclusion of contextual and intertextual matters in rhetorical criticism.","PeriodicalId":29849,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers of Narrative Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers of Narrative Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2023-2011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article draws on rhetorical narrative theory and makes a case for Stephen Crane’s employment of the resource voice to communicate the naturalistic theme of “The Monster”. It argues that by modulating voices on different communicative tracks, the author invites us to recognize two pairs of conflicting forces: one of free will and external forces that shows in the causes of Henry’s and Trescott’s heroic acts, and the other of individual agency and collective identity that characterizes the narrative’s engagement with Whilomville. It is my view that the author invites readers to share his naturalistic outlook and refrain from making conclusive ethical judgments on the characters and the community. For readers, attending to the synthesis of tone, style, and values in utterances helps with inferring the author’s rhetorical purposes. To this end, the article also considers Crane’s biographical information and newspaper sketches, calling for the inclusion of contextual and intertextual matters in rhetorical criticism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
未解决的冲突与暂停的伦理:从声音的视角解读《怪物》
摘要本文运用修辞叙事理论,分析了斯蒂芬·克兰在《怪物》中运用资源声音来传达自然主义主题的手法。作者认为,通过在不同的交流轨道上调节声音,作者邀请我们认识到两对相互冲突的力量:一种是自由意志和外部力量,这表现在亨利和特雷斯科特的英雄行为的原因中,另一种是个人能动性和集体身份,这是叙述与威姆维尔的接触的特征。我认为,作者希望读者分享他的自然主义观点,不要对人物和社会做出定论的伦理判断。对于读者来说,注意话语中的语气、风格和价值观的综合有助于推断作者的修辞目的。为此,本文还考虑了克兰的传记信息和报纸素描,呼吁在修辞批评中纳入语境和互文问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Joseph Conrad’s reluctant raconteurs Horizontal metalepsis in narrative fiction Explaining the innovation dichotomy: the contexts, contents, conflicts, and compromises of innovation stories Audience-authored paratexts: legitimation of online discourse about Game of Thrones Figures of discourse in prose fiction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1