{"title":"Existential Revision in Philip Roth's The Breast","authors":"James Duban","doi":"10.1353/pan.2020.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Why might Philip Roth, in 1980, have published a revised edition of The Breast (1972), and what do many of his emendations have to do with recent scholarly disclosure of the existential concerns of the original narrative? How, moreover, in the second edition, does de facto co-authored narrative technique pertain to Sartre's tenet that consciousness arises as an upsurge of nothingness amid the dross substance of non-reflective Being? I conclude that in the revised edition Roth imbues David Kepesh, his once-autonomous narrator, with levels of authorial cognizance that subordinate Kepesh's early outlooks to the consciousness-usurping intrusion of the author—now the author-narrator. That act of domination may dramatize Sartre's description of the existential \"look,\" which stands to usurp the consciousness of \"the Other.\" The act of thus revising an already existential narrative illustrates the flight of the Sartrian \"For-Itself\" toward \"the higher functions of consciousness.\"","PeriodicalId":42435,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"1 1","pages":"83 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2020.0004","RegionNum":4,"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:Why might Philip Roth, in 1980, have published a revised edition of The Breast (1972), and what do many of his emendations have to do with recent scholarly disclosure of the existential concerns of the original narrative? How, moreover, in the second edition, does de facto co-authored narrative technique pertain to Sartre's tenet that consciousness arises as an upsurge of nothingness amid the dross substance of non-reflective Being? I conclude that in the revised edition Roth imbues David Kepesh, his once-autonomous narrator, with levels of authorial cognizance that subordinate Kepesh's early outlooks to the consciousness-usurping intrusion of the author—now the author-narrator. That act of domination may dramatize Sartre's description of the existential "look," which stands to usurp the consciousness of "the Other." The act of thus revising an already existential narrative illustrates the flight of the Sartrian "For-Itself" toward "the higher functions of consciousness."
期刊介绍:
Partial Answers is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal that focuses on the study of literature and the history of ideas. This interdisciplinary component is responsible for combining analysis of literary works with discussions of historical and theoretical issues. The journal publishes articles on various national literatures including Anglophone, Hebrew, Yiddish, German, Russian, and, predominately, English literature. Partial Answers would appeal to literature scholars, teachers, and students in addition to scholars in philosophy, cultural studies, and intellectual history.