J. Baetens, Carmen Van den Bergh, B. V. D. Bossche
This article offers first a brief historical overview of the photo novel, which is much more than a comics with photographs. Key to a good understanding of the genre is the close connection with the world of women's weeklies and melodrama culture. In a second part, the article addresses the issue of authorship in photo novels and the tension between collective authorship and individual creation and examines the role of the editorial voice of the magazine, which is paramount in the world of the photo novel, where individual creations were not always signed. In its third and last part, the article offers a close-reading of a rare document, a 1956 photo novel manual by Ennio Jacobelli, entitled Istruzione pratiche per la realizzazione del fotoromanzo (“practical guide for the production of a photonovel”). In our analysis, the main focus is on the gap between the actual production of the photo novel in these years and the models and advices given by the manual.
这篇文章首先简要介绍了摄影小说的历史概况，它远不止是一部有照片的漫画。要想更好地理解这一类型，关键是与女性周刊和情节剧文化的世界有着密切的联系。在第二部分中，文章讨论了摄影小说的作者身份问题，以及集体作者身份和个人创作之间的紧张关系，并探讨了杂志编辑声音的作用，这在摄影小说的世界中是至关重要的，因为个人创作并不总是署名的。在第三部分也是最后一部分，文章细读了一份罕见的文件，一本1956年Ennio Jacobelli的摄影小说手册，题为《Istruzione pratiche per la realizzazione del fotoromanzo》（“摄影小说制作实用指南”）。在我们的分析中，主要关注的是近年来写真小说的实际制作与手册中给出的模型和建议之间的差距。
{"title":"How to Write a Photo Novel. Ennio Jacobelli’s Istruzioni pratiche per la realizzazione del fotoromanzo (1956)","authors":"J. Baetens, Carmen Van den Bergh, B. V. D. Bossche","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4834","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers first a brief historical overview of the photo novel, which is much more than a comics with photographs. Key to a good understanding of the genre is the close connection with the world of women's weeklies and melodrama culture. In a second part, the article addresses the issue of authorship in photo novels and the tension between collective authorship and individual creation and examines the role of the editorial voice of the magazine, which is paramount in the world of the photo novel, where individual creations were not always signed. In its third and last part, the article offers a close-reading of a rare document, a 1956 photo novel manual by Ennio Jacobelli, entitled Istruzione pratiche per la realizzazione del fotoromanzo (“practical guide for the production of a photonovel”). In our analysis, the main focus is on the gap between the actual production of the photo novel in these years and the models and advices given by the manual.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44460667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Davidson, Guy and Nicola Evans (eds.), Literary Careers in the Modern Era (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015)","authors":"Alex Ciorogar","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4965","url":null,"abstract":"A review of Guy Davidson, Nicola Evans (eds.), Literary Careers in the Modern Era , Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2015. IX, 240 pp. $90.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48505845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The death and resurrection of Sherlock Holmes, a contrarian reading in which Holmes helps the murderer, and the century-long tradition of the Holmesian Great Game with its pseudo-scholarly readings in light of an ironic conviction that Holmes is real and Arthur Conan Doyle merely John Watson’s literary agent. This paper relies on these events in the afterlife of Sherlock Holmes in order to trace an outline of the author function as it applies to the particular case of Doyle as the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories. The operations of the author function can be hard to identify in the encounter with the apparently natural unity of the individual work, but these disturbances at the edges of the function make its effects more readily apparent. This article takes as its starting point the apparently strong author figure of the Holmesian Great Game, in which “the canon” is delineated from “apocrypha” in pseudo-religious vocabulary. It argues that while readers willingly discard provisional readings in the face of an incompatible authorial text, the sanctioning authority of the author functions merely as a boundary for interpretation, not as a personal-biographical control over the interpretation itself. On the contrary, the consciously “writerly” reading of the text serves to reinforce the reliance on the text as it is encountered.The clear separation of canon from apocrypha, with the attendant reinforced author function, may have laid the ground not only for the acceptance of contrarian reading, but also for the creation of apocryphal writings like pastiche and fan fiction.
{"title":"The Final Problem: Constructing Coherence in the Holmesian Canon","authors":"Camilla Ulleland Hoel","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4836","url":null,"abstract":"The death and resurrection of Sherlock Holmes, a contrarian reading in which Holmes helps the murderer, and the century-long tradition of the Holmesian Great Game with its pseudo-scholarly readings in light of an ironic conviction that Holmes is real and Arthur Conan Doyle merely John Watson’s literary agent. This paper relies on these events in the afterlife of Sherlock Holmes in order to trace an outline of the author function as it applies to the particular case of Doyle as the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories. The operations of the author function can be hard to identify in the encounter with the apparently natural unity of the individual work, but these disturbances at the edges of the function make its effects more readily apparent. This article takes as its starting point the apparently strong author figure of the Holmesian Great Game, in which “the canon” is delineated from “apocrypha” in pseudo-religious vocabulary. It argues that while readers willingly discard provisional readings in the face of an incompatible authorial text, the sanctioning authority of the author functions merely as a boundary for interpretation, not as a personal-biographical control over the interpretation itself. On the contrary, the consciously “writerly” reading of the text serves to reinforce the reliance on the text as it is encountered.The clear separation of canon from apocrypha, with the attendant reinforced author function, may have laid the ground not only for the acceptance of contrarian reading, but also for the creation of apocryphal writings like pastiche and fan fiction.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44210364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores Shakespeare’s verbal indebtedness to works that have been attributed to Thomas Kyd, encompassing plays such as Soliman and Perseda , King Leir , and Arden of Faversham . Significantly, Martin Mueller has created an electronic corpus called Shakespeare His Contemporaries , which consists of over 500 plays dated between 1552 and 1662. Shakespeare His Contemporaries lists play pairs that share large numbers of dislegomena consisting of four words or more, and therefore provides empirical data that can help researchers to explore the intertextual relationships between early modern texts. This article investigates the nature of these parallels, drawing upon the idea of Shakespeare’s aural, or ‘actor’s memory’, and concludes that in order to distinguish between authorship and influence in contested texts like Arden of Faversham , more work needs to be done to ascertain the patterns of influence in Shakespeare’s plays.
{"title":"Kyd and Shakespeare: Authorship versus Influence","authors":"Darren Freebury-Jones","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4833","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores Shakespeare’s verbal indebtedness to works that have been attributed to Thomas Kyd, encompassing plays such as Soliman and Perseda , King Leir , and Arden of Faversham . Significantly, Martin Mueller has created an electronic corpus called Shakespeare His Contemporaries , which consists of over 500 plays dated between 1552 and 1662. Shakespeare His Contemporaries lists play pairs that share large numbers of dislegomena consisting of four words or more, and therefore provides empirical data that can help researchers to explore the intertextual relationships between early modern texts. This article investigates the nature of these parallels, drawing upon the idea of Shakespeare’s aural, or ‘actor’s memory’, and concludes that in order to distinguish between authorship and influence in contested texts like Arden of Faversham , more work needs to be done to ascertain the patterns of influence in Shakespeare’s plays.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46658649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As recent adaptation theory has shown, classic-novel adaptation typically sets issues connected to authorship and literal and figurative ownership into play. This key feature of such adaptations is also central to the screen versions of Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones (1749). In much of Fielding’s fiction, the narrator, typically understood as an embodiment of Fielding himself, is a particularly prominent presence. The author-narrator in Tom Jones is no exception: not only is his presence strongly felt throughout the novel, but through a variety of means, ‘The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling’ is also distinctly marked as being under his control and ownership. The two adaptations of Fielding’s novel, a 1963 film and a 1997 television series, both retain the figure of the author-narrator, but differ greatly in their handling of this device and its consequent thematic ramifications. Although the 1963 film de-emphasises Henry Fielding’s status as proprietor of the story, the author-narrator as represented in the film’s voiceover commentary is a figure of authority and authorial control. In contrast, the 1997 adaptation emphasises Fielding’s ownership of the narrative and even includes the author-narrator as a character in the series, but this ownership is undermined by the irreverent treatment to which he is consistently subjected. The representations of Henry Fielding in the form of the author-narrator in both adaptations are not only indicative of shifting conceptions of authorship, but also of the important interplay between authorship, ownership and adaptation more generally.
{"title":"Staging Henry Fielding: The Author-Narrator in Tom Jones On Screen","authors":"Eli Løfaldli","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V6I1.4835","url":null,"abstract":"As recent adaptation theory has shown, classic-novel adaptation typically sets issues connected to authorship and literal and figurative ownership into play. This key feature of such adaptations is also central to the screen versions of Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones (1749). In much of Fielding’s fiction, the narrator, typically understood as an embodiment of Fielding himself, is a particularly prominent presence. The author-narrator in Tom Jones is no exception: not only is his presence strongly felt throughout the novel, but through a variety of means, ‘The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling’ is also distinctly marked as being under his control and ownership. The two adaptations of Fielding’s novel, a 1963 film and a 1997 television series, both retain the figure of the author-narrator, but differ greatly in their handling of this device and its consequent thematic ramifications. Although the 1963 film de-emphasises Henry Fielding’s status as proprietor of the story, the author-narrator as represented in the film’s voiceover commentary is a figure of authority and authorial control. In contrast, the 1997 adaptation emphasises Fielding’s ownership of the narrative and even includes the author-narrator as a character in the series, but this ownership is undermined by the irreverent treatment to which he is consistently subjected. The representations of Henry Fielding in the form of the author-narrator in both adaptations are not only indicative of shifting conceptions of authorship, but also of the important interplay between authorship, ownership and adaptation more generally.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47355752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper focusses on a particular moment at the beginning of the seventeenth century which has been considered to be transitional in terms of how the profession of playwright was perceived. It explores the complex authorial identities of playwrights who were also simultaneously poets and stage actors, roles which both in different ways created tensions with the role of playwright. Via an examination of the stage figure of Nobody which became popular at this time on the London stage, the paper suggests that filling the multiple roles of poet, playwright and player often led to a conflicted relationship with the idea of authorship. Metadramatic readings of the anonymous 1606 playbook Nobody and Somebody appear to support this suggestion, and to indicate that the figure of Nobody could be emblematic of the tensions and conflicts experienced by the player-playwright-poet at this time.
这篇论文关注的是17世纪初的一个特殊时刻，这个时刻被认为是剧作家职业如何被认知的过渡时期。它探讨了剧作家复杂的作者身份，他们同时也是诗人和舞台演员，这些角色以不同的方式与剧作家的角色产生了紧张关系。通过对当时在伦敦舞台上流行的舞台人物“Nobody”的研究，本文表明，填补诗人、剧作家和演员的多重角色往往导致与作者概念的冲突关系。对1606年匿名剧本《Nobody and Somebody》的元戏剧解读似乎支持这一观点，并表明Nobody的形象可能象征着当时玩家-剧作家-诗人所经历的紧张和冲突。
{"title":"Somebody and Nobody: the Authorial Identity of the Player-Playwright-Poet in the Early Modern Theatre","authors":"Anthony Archdeacon","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3879","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3879","url":null,"abstract":"This paper focusses on a particular moment at the beginning of the seventeenth century which has been considered to be transitional in terms of how the profession of playwright was perceived. It explores the complex authorial identities of playwrights who were also simultaneously poets and stage actors, roles which both in different ways created tensions with the role of playwright. Via an examination of the stage figure of Nobody which became popular at this time on the London stage, the paper suggests that filling the multiple roles of poet, playwright and player often led to a conflicted relationship with the idea of authorship. Metadramatic readings of the anonymous 1606 playbook Nobody and Somebody appear to support this suggestion, and to indicate that the figure of Nobody could be emblematic of the tensions and conflicts experienced by the player-playwright-poet at this time.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68395498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Though already famous, wealthy, and squarely established as a popular chronicler of the early twentieth century, humorist Ring Lardner’s foray into a serious literary career with Charles Scribner’s Sons Publishing Company is best characterized as an act of authorial resistance. Rather than evolve into the “serious” author the firm had hoped for, Lardner chose to lampoon himself, authorship, publishing, and serious writers with a series of prefaces written for his Scribner’s titles. In the prefaces to How to Write Short Stories (with Samples) (1924) and The Love Nest and Other Stories (1926), Lardner resisted overtures to rebrand and remarket himself by reminding the public of his strengths: satire, comedy, and manipulation. The result: pieces as textually nonsensical and arbitrary as many of his writings on the surface, yet carefully constructed to expose the underside of socio-cultural mores, the publishing industry, and the fraternity of “serious” writers he never intended to join.
{"title":"Refusing the Serious: Authorial Resistance in Ring Lardner’s Prefaces for Scribner’s","authors":"Ross K. Tangedal","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3877","url":null,"abstract":"Though already famous, wealthy, and squarely established as a popular chronicler of the early twentieth century, humorist Ring Lardner’s foray into a serious literary career with Charles Scribner’s Sons Publishing Company is best characterized as an act of authorial resistance. Rather than evolve into the “serious” author the firm had hoped for, Lardner chose to lampoon himself, authorship, publishing, and serious writers with a series of prefaces written for his Scribner’s titles. In the prefaces to How to Write Short Stories (with Samples) (1924) and The Love Nest and Other Stories (1926), Lardner resisted overtures to rebrand and remarket himself by reminding the public of his strengths: satire, comedy, and manipulation. The result: pieces as textually nonsensical and arbitrary as many of his writings on the surface, yet carefully constructed to expose the underside of socio-cultural mores, the publishing industry, and the fraternity of “serious” writers he never intended to join.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68395342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay considers the curious way Laurence Sterne communicates with and reflects on his literary predecessors, most often Alexander Pope, by writing love letters to women. Focusing primarily on his correspondence with Elizabeth Draper, Barnes contends that, even as Sterne looks back to Pope to guarantee himself a place in literary history, he looks forward to women like Draper to ensure his name will survive. Thus, erotic correspondence becomes an important way of ensuring Sterne’s literary estate, or as he terms it, his “futurity.” “Orna Me”—a phrase that means, roughly, “ornament me” or “set me off,” and that Sterne got from Pope and Swift, who got it from Cicero—allows Sterne to plug in to a literary tradition that privileges collaboration: append something of yours to something of mine. It is this idea of letter-writing as correspondence, a collaborative process between friends or lovers, that unites Sterne to his female correspondent and to literary tradition all at once.
{"title":"Orna Me: Laurence Sterne’s Open Letter to Literary History","authors":"Celia B. Barnes","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3878","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3878","url":null,"abstract":"This essay considers the curious way Laurence Sterne communicates with and reflects on his literary predecessors, most often Alexander Pope, by writing love letters to women. Focusing primarily on his correspondence with Elizabeth Draper, Barnes contends that, even as Sterne looks back to Pope to guarantee himself a place in literary history, he looks forward to women like Draper to ensure his name will survive. Thus, erotic correspondence becomes an important way of ensuring Sterne’s literary estate, or as he terms it, his “futurity.” “Orna Me”—a phrase that means, roughly, “ornament me” or “set me off,” and that Sterne got from Pope and Swift, who got it from Cicero—allows Sterne to plug in to a literary tradition that privileges collaboration: append something of yours to something of mine. It is this idea of letter-writing as correspondence, a collaborative process between friends or lovers, that unites Sterne to his female correspondent and to literary tradition all at once.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68395470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A review of Amy E. Robillard and Ron Fortune's (eds) Authorship Contested: Cultural Challenges to the Authentic Autonomous Author . New York, and London: Routledge, 2015. 214 pp. £100.
{"title":"Robillard, Amy E. and Ron Fortune (eds). Authorship Contested. Cultural Challenges to the Authentic Autonomous Author (New York, and London: Routledge, 2015)","authors":"Alex Ciorogar","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V5I2.3857","url":null,"abstract":"A review of Amy E. Robillard and Ron Fortune's (eds) Authorship Contested: Cultural Challenges to the Authentic Autonomous Author . New York, and London: Routledge, 2015. 214 pp. £100.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68395238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A review of The Afterlives of Eighteenth-Century Fiction . Ed. by Daniel Cook and Nicolas Seager. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. x + 304pp. £65.
{"title":"Daniel Cook and Nicolas Seager, eds. The Afterlives of Eighteenth-Century Fiction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)","authors":"Kim Simpson","doi":"10.21825/AJ.V5I1.2531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21825/AJ.V5I1.2531","url":null,"abstract":"A review of The Afterlives of Eighteenth-Century Fiction . Ed. by Daniel Cook and Nicolas Seager. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. x + 304pp. £65.","PeriodicalId":30455,"journal":{"name":"Authorship","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68395170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：