Pub Date : 2005-03-22DOI: 10.4324/9781315634500-13
John G. Rodden
YOU SEE THE placards waved at every rally of the Christian Right, as well as in many gatherings of the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant sects: "W.W.J.D.?" And yet secular intellectuals are not without their own oracle, and (with the exception of the Marxist Left) the coveted (and presumed) patronage of their patron saint knows no bounds. "The most heterogeneous following a writer can ever have accumulated," said his close friend, George Woodcock, about Orwell's "faithful" (53). "W.W.G.O.D.?" they ask recurrently. (Why not simply an Orwell website, a cyberspace hotline named www.GOD.net?) As a headline in the New York Times Book Review did indeed phrase it in September 2002, on one-year anniversary of al Qaeda's attacks: "What Would Orwell Do?" (Shulevitch). Yes, that question seemingly arises whenever a public issue provokes a major intellectual debate and splits the ranks of the Left and/or Right. Then "St. George" is called to arms, with the battle-certified catchwords from Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four of the "Big O" packed in the polemical arsenals of his self-appointed mouthpieces, ready to be fired off at his name-drop. (Indeed, just days after "9-11," the conservative British critic Geoffrey Wheatcroft suggested that British soldiers shipped out to Afghanistan should pack Orwell's essays in their knapsacks.) One could multiply the examples, but the point is clear: More than a half-century after his death, Orwell remains "a writer well worth stealing," as he once said of Dickens. Since his death in January 1950, his soul has been up for grabs. Today, polemically minded intellectuals are still playing what Ben Wattenberg recently referred to in his PBS talk show devoted to Orwell as "that wonderful parlor game" called "How Would Orwell Stand Today?" (One is tempted to reply: Being 100, he wouldn't.) Nonetheless, the "game" often has its illicit darker sides: mantle-stealing, body-snatching, and political grave-robbing. It's an ideological shell game (usually with clever sleight-of-hand), whereby the participants move Orwell's coffin to the left or right. I One recalls the comment of the poet William Empson, Orwell's wartime colleague at the BBC and the author of Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930), on reading Animal Farm: "You must expect to be 'misunderstood' on a large scale...." Yes--and he has been. Empson himself reported that his young son, a supporter of the Conservative Party, was "delighted" with Animal Farm and considered it "very strong Tory propaganda" (Crick, 430). Similar misreadings have occurred with Nineteen Eighty-Four--for instance, during the early Cold War era, the last four digits of the John Birch Society's national number were "1-9-8-4." And, as happened with Orwell and both Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, sometimes the author himself inadvertently contributed to such misreadings. "Orwellian" misreadings have occurred partly because readers have identified so strongly with him that they have projec
你可以看到，在基督教右翼的每一次集会上，以及在天主教会和主流新教教派的许多集会上，都挥舞着这样的标语:“W.W.J.D.?”然而，世俗知识分子并非没有自己的神谕，而且(马克思主义左派除外)他们的守护神梦寐以求的(和假定的)庇护是没有界限的。“一个作家所能积累的最多样化的追随者，”他的密友乔治·伍德科克(George Woodcock)这样评价奥威尔的“忠实信徒”(53页)。“W.W.G.O.D.?”他们反复地问。(为什么不干脆建一个奥威尔网站，一个名为www.GOD.net的网络热线呢?)2002年9月，在基地组织袭击一周年之际，《纽约时报书评》(New York Times Book Review)的一个标题确实这样写道:“奥威尔会怎么做?”(Shulevitch)。是的，每当一个公共问题引发了重大的知识分子辩论，并分裂了左翼和/或右翼的行列时，这个问题似乎就会出现。然后，“圣乔治”被召集起来，他自封的喉舌里装满了《动物农场》和《1984》中经过战斗验证的流行语，准备在他的名字出现时开火。(事实上，就在“9-11”事件发生几天后，英国保守派评论家杰弗里·惠特克罗夫特(Geoffrey Wheatcroft)就建议，派往阿富汗的英国士兵应该把奥威尔的随笔装进背包里。)我们可以列举更多的例子，但有一点是明确的:在奥威尔去世半个多世纪后，他仍然是“一个非常值得窃取的作家”，就像他曾经对狄更斯说的那样。自从1950年1月他去世后，他的灵魂就一直在被争夺。今天，有争论意识的知识分子仍在玩本·瓦滕伯格最近在他的PBS脱口秀节目中提到的“奇妙的室内游戏”，这个游戏叫做“奥威尔今天会站在哪里?”(有人很想回答:作为100岁的人，他不会这么做。)尽管如此，这种“游戏”往往有其不正当的阴暗面:偷衣、抢尸、政治盗墓。这是一场意识形态的空壳游戏(通常有巧妙的手法)，参与者将奥威尔的棺材向左或向右移动。人们想起了诗人威廉·Empson，他是奥威尔在BBC的战时同事，也是《七种歧义》(1930)的作者，在阅读《动物庄园》时的评论:“你必须做好被大规模‘误解’的准备....”。是的——他一直是这样。Empson自己报告说，他年幼的儿子是保守党的支持者，他对《动物农场》感到“高兴”，并认为它是“非常有力的保守党宣传”(Crick, 430)。类似的误读也发生在《1984》上——例如，在冷战早期，约翰·伯奇协会(John Birch Society)的国家号码的最后四位数字是“1-9-8-4”。而且，就像在奥威尔、《动物农场》和《一九八四》中发生的那样，有时作者本人也会无意中造成这种误读。之所以会出现“奥威尔式”的误读，部分原因是读者对他的认同感如此强烈，以至于他们把自己的需求和愿望投射到他身上。他们的身份认同是由奥威尔对读者的“反叛者”和知识分子的“普通人”的吸引力、他激进的人文主义所体现的道德英雄主义、以及他文学风格表面上的“纯粹”和简单等因素引起的。还有一些更黑暗的原因导致了人们的困惑:因为《一九八四》的口号可以很容易地反作用于他，因为他激进的“左派良心”立场可能看起来像是叛徒的反社会主义，因为政治上精明的知识分子注意到朝拜他的人群涌向他的坟墓——因此认为这是“非常值得偷的”。那么，我们是否应该部分地“责怪奥威尔”与绑匪合作呢?还是因为他“缺乏远见”，没有意识到他的作品在他死后被利用或滥用?一点也不相反，细心的读者的任务是深入细节，看看作家有时是如何邀请或参与他们自己的挪用，看看为什么一个作家如此容易受到这种奥威尔式的“面部犯罪”的影响，温斯顿·史密斯(Winston Smith)会(自豪地)称之为“奥威尔式的”扭曲。…
{"title":"On the Ethics of Admiration-And Detraction","authors":"John G. Rodden","doi":"10.4324/9781315634500-13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634500-13","url":null,"abstract":"YOU SEE THE placards waved at every rally of the Christian Right, as well as in many gatherings of the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant sects: \"W.W.J.D.?\" And yet secular intellectuals are not without their own oracle, and (with the exception of the Marxist Left) the coveted (and presumed) patronage of their patron saint knows no bounds. \"The most heterogeneous following a writer can ever have accumulated,\" said his close friend, George Woodcock, about Orwell's \"faithful\" (53). \"W.W.G.O.D.?\" they ask recurrently. (Why not simply an Orwell website, a cyberspace hotline named www.GOD.net?) As a headline in the New York Times Book Review did indeed phrase it in September 2002, on one-year anniversary of al Qaeda's attacks: \"What Would Orwell Do?\" (Shulevitch). Yes, that question seemingly arises whenever a public issue provokes a major intellectual debate and splits the ranks of the Left and/or Right. Then \"St. George\" is called to arms, with the battle-certified catchwords from Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four of the \"Big O\" packed in the polemical arsenals of his self-appointed mouthpieces, ready to be fired off at his name-drop. (Indeed, just days after \"9-11,\" the conservative British critic Geoffrey Wheatcroft suggested that British soldiers shipped out to Afghanistan should pack Orwell's essays in their knapsacks.) One could multiply the examples, but the point is clear: More than a half-century after his death, Orwell remains \"a writer well worth stealing,\" as he once said of Dickens. Since his death in January 1950, his soul has been up for grabs. Today, polemically minded intellectuals are still playing what Ben Wattenberg recently referred to in his PBS talk show devoted to Orwell as \"that wonderful parlor game\" called \"How Would Orwell Stand Today?\" (One is tempted to reply: Being 100, he wouldn't.) Nonetheless, the \"game\" often has its illicit darker sides: mantle-stealing, body-snatching, and political grave-robbing. It's an ideological shell game (usually with clever sleight-of-hand), whereby the participants move Orwell's coffin to the left or right. I One recalls the comment of the poet William Empson, Orwell's wartime colleague at the BBC and the author of Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930), on reading Animal Farm: \"You must expect to be 'misunderstood' on a large scale....\" Yes--and he has been. Empson himself reported that his young son, a supporter of the Conservative Party, was \"delighted\" with Animal Farm and considered it \"very strong Tory propaganda\" (Crick, 430). Similar misreadings have occurred with Nineteen Eighty-Four--for instance, during the early Cold War era, the last four digits of the John Birch Society's national number were \"1-9-8-4.\" And, as happened with Orwell and both Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, sometimes the author himself inadvertently contributed to such misreadings. \"Orwellian\" misreadings have occurred partly because readers have identified so strongly with him that they have projec","PeriodicalId":41150,"journal":{"name":"MIDWEST QUARTERLY-A JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT","volume":"130 1","pages":"284"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2005-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70654267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ONE OF THE MAJOR distinguishing traits of the Modernist Poets--which has also been one of their legacies bestowed upon subsequent generations--is their interest in philosophical ideas that explore the nature of an individual's relationship with the external world. Even at the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is still difficult to avoid the influence of the Modernist Poets. The Modernists were the first generation of poets to write in direct response to the modern milieu that essentially separates us in experience from all previous eras. Their revolutions in form, subject, style, theme, and philosophy have transformed poetry from the strictly metered forms and styles of the previous centuries into the highly solipsistic, and as Randy Malamud termed it in The Language of Modernism, the "difficult, confusing, obfuscatory" (2) forms poetry often takes. Whether most current poets believe it or not, they still show the presence of the Modernists (for better and for worse) in their writing, despite the pervasive application of the term postmodernism. The preoccupation of some postmodernist poetry with what Paul Hoover defined in the Introduction to Postmodern American Poetry as "'the death of God and the author," and with "oppositional strategies" such as "the empty sign" (xxvii), is largely an intensification of modernism, in that the writing still responds to modern urban culture, and that postmodernist writing still utilizes many of the same techniques--juxtaposition, irony, and paradox--as the modernists used. The prevailing assumption of much postmodern poetry, that the poet's primary expression is one of solipsistic self-reflexivity with a tendency toward nihilism, has been a guiding literary concept for several decades. While on the surface the solitary nature of being a poet seems to validate many of the philosophical suppositions of literary deconstructionism, I have always harbored doubts about the creative possibilities of what seems to be a very narrow view of experience. It was from this impetus that I began to search for philosophical ideas that would better represent my own thinking and intuition about the creative impulse and would offer a more fertile set of assumptions and ideals for creative activity. It is in the work of Process Philosophers Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead in relation to the concept of the individual's experience of and interaction with temporality that my own hunches about the nature of creativity are best represented. My proposal is a simple as this: that Bergson's and Whitehead's views of temporality are fundamental principles, and the concept of the essential interrelatedness of things provides the basis for a much more fruitful artistic aesthetic that I am terming the poetics of process, than does current deconstructive postmodern poetics. Nietzsche and the Responses to the External World by Modernism and Postmodernism The influence of philosophy on the Modernist Poets, and particularly the phi
{"title":"Poetry and Process","authors":"April Fallon","doi":"10.2307/j.ctt1w0dbmn.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1w0dbmn.9","url":null,"abstract":"ONE OF THE MAJOR distinguishing traits of the Modernist Poets--which has also been one of their legacies bestowed upon subsequent generations--is their interest in philosophical ideas that explore the nature of an individual's relationship with the external world. Even at the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is still difficult to avoid the influence of the Modernist Poets. The Modernists were the first generation of poets to write in direct response to the modern milieu that essentially separates us in experience from all previous eras. Their revolutions in form, subject, style, theme, and philosophy have transformed poetry from the strictly metered forms and styles of the previous centuries into the highly solipsistic, and as Randy Malamud termed it in The Language of Modernism, the \"difficult, confusing, obfuscatory\" (2) forms poetry often takes. Whether most current poets believe it or not, they still show the presence of the Modernists (for better and for worse) in their writing, despite the pervasive application of the term postmodernism. The preoccupation of some postmodernist poetry with what Paul Hoover defined in the Introduction to Postmodern American Poetry as \"'the death of God and the author,\" and with \"oppositional strategies\" such as \"the empty sign\" (xxvii), is largely an intensification of modernism, in that the writing still responds to modern urban culture, and that postmodernist writing still utilizes many of the same techniques--juxtaposition, irony, and paradox--as the modernists used. The prevailing assumption of much postmodern poetry, that the poet's primary expression is one of solipsistic self-reflexivity with a tendency toward nihilism, has been a guiding literary concept for several decades. While on the surface the solitary nature of being a poet seems to validate many of the philosophical suppositions of literary deconstructionism, I have always harbored doubts about the creative possibilities of what seems to be a very narrow view of experience. It was from this impetus that I began to search for philosophical ideas that would better represent my own thinking and intuition about the creative impulse and would offer a more fertile set of assumptions and ideals for creative activity. It is in the work of Process Philosophers Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead in relation to the concept of the individual's experience of and interaction with temporality that my own hunches about the nature of creativity are best represented. My proposal is a simple as this: that Bergson's and Whitehead's views of temporality are fundamental principles, and the concept of the essential interrelatedness of things provides the basis for a much more fruitful artistic aesthetic that I am terming the poetics of process, than does current deconstructive postmodern poetics. Nietzsche and the Responses to the External World by Modernism and Postmodernism The influence of philosophy on the Modernist Poets, and particularly the phi","PeriodicalId":41150,"journal":{"name":"MIDWEST QUARTERLY-A JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT","volume":"36 1","pages":"256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2004-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68729196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-01-01DOI: 10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim060110007
K. Evans
WHAT DID MELVILLE FOLLOW into the Pacific? Besides other Melvilles and Gansvoorts, besides whales? I think he had a hunch that there was some very good theater being played out in that sea, and that after acting like a banker and a school teacher he thought acting like a sailor would be a bit of a lark. The spectacle of the Pacific, though, as opposed to his short stint across the Atlantic, swallowed up and spat out a new Herman. What I mean by swallowed is that great blue basin and its inhabitants gave young Melville a serious attack of performance anxiety; learning the ropes as a sailor or whaler in the Pacific did not only mean knowing how to handle yourself--it was also an awareness of yourself and your place at all times. Even a little slip in relation to those ropes and you'd be sure to knot them around your neck (witness Ahab). As Melville digested the Pacific it digested him--he did not merely pass through but was absorbed, was made a part of that thing he came to see. In the process he got, what I would call, wet, a condition from which he never recovered. (I do not mean to imply that his new state was like an illness, but like taking on a life-long exposure to the elements.) This fishy distinction marks him off from many European and American visitors to the Pacific who managed to float on the surface of their performance consciousness, maintaining a visitor's edge, a spectator's worldliness, a sense of humor bound up with a feeling of authority that resulted in a certain buoyant faith in their own vantage points. Another way to label this difference is to say that Melville dipped into skepticism (relaxed into it, like one relaxes into a bath) when many of his peers held firmly to other models--most notably that cushion against worldly oddities, irony. In the Pacific, irony often served as a visitor's head-abovewater floatational device. In that new place of dubious sign and season, it was easy to sink into a certain distrust, a creeping suspicion that the rules guiding one's behavior and understanding suddenly did not apply. In order to protect themselves from such a devastating self-examination, tourists stayed sure through devices like irony. Irony both depends upon and fosters a community that must know the same things. And that community must share the joke on a third group that is excluded from knowing those things, that is somehow in the wrong. As Wayne Booth has said, there are three points of connection necessary for irony to take place: one who makes, one who catches, and one who misses. This kind of humor throws a line back home--depends on someone getting it, assumes that there is an `it' to get. As Pacific scholar Greg Dening concludes in Mr. Bligh's Bad Language, his novel exploration of theater and mutiny: "Irony was the enlightened's trope.... Irony requires a perspective, a line of vision that the onlooker has but not the participant" (373). The South Seas, however, swamped Melville's flotational device--though it did n
梅尔维尔跟随什么进入太平洋?除了梅尔维尔家和甘斯沃特家的人，除了鲸鱼?我想他有一种预感，那片海域正在上演一出非常精彩的戏剧，在扮演了银行家和学校老师之后，他觉得扮演一个水手会有点好玩。然而，与他在大西洋彼岸的短暂停留相反，太平洋的壮观景象吞噬并吐出了一个新的赫尔曼。我所说的吞下去是指那个蓝色的大盆和盆里的居民给年轻的梅尔维尔带来了严重的表演焦虑;在太平洋上当一名水手或捕鲸船手并不仅仅意味着知道如何控制自己，还意味着要时刻意识到自己和自己的位置。那些绳子只要一滑，你就一定会把它们套在你的脖子上(亚哈就是一个例子)。正如梅尔维尔消化了太平洋一样，太平洋也消化了他——他不仅仅是经过了太平洋，而是被吸收了，成为他所要看的东西的一部分。在这个过程中，他得了一种我称之为“湿”的病，一种他再也没有恢复过来的病。(我并不是说他的新状态就像一种疾病，而是说他一生都暴露在自然环境中。)这种可疑的区别使他与许多前往太平洋的欧洲和美国游客区别开来，这些游客设法浮在他们表演意识的表面上，保持着游客的边缘，观众的世俗，一种与权威感相结合的幽默感，这种幽默感导致了对自己有利位置的某种乐观的信心。给这种差异贴上标签的另一种方式是说，梅尔维尔陷入了怀疑主义(放松地进入怀疑主义，就像一个人放松地进入浴缸一样)，而他的许多同行都坚持其他模式——最明显的是，对世俗怪事的缓冲，讽刺。在太平洋，讽刺常常是游客的浮在水面上的工具。在这个可疑的星座和季节的新地方，很容易陷入某种不信任，一种逐渐蔓延的怀疑，认为指导自己行为和理解的规则突然不适用了。为了保护自己免受这种毁灭性的自我反省，游客们通过讽刺等手段来保持自信。讽刺既依赖于也促进了一个必须知道同样事情的群体。这个群体必须把这个笑话分享给第三个群体，这个群体被排除在这些事情之外，这在某种程度上是错误的。正如韦恩·布斯(Wayne Booth)所说，讽刺的发生需要有三点联系:一个是制造，一个是抓住，还有一个是错过。这种幽默让人想起了一句台词——取决于别人是否理解，假设有一个“它”可以理解。正如太平洋学者格雷格·丹宁(Greg Dening)在布莱先生的《坏语言》(Mr. Bligh’s Bad Language)中总结的那样，他的小说探索了戏剧和叛乱:“讽刺是开化者的修辞....反讽需要一种视角，一种旁观者拥有而参与者没有的视野”(373)。然而，南海淹没了梅尔维尔的漂浮装置——尽管这并没有使他失去幽默感。当托拜厄斯·格林(和梅尔维尔一起逃离阿库什纳河的纽约人)把他抛弃在泰皮山谷时，梅尔维尔变成了那个危险的东西，一个与旅行隔绝的游客。梅尔维尔面对的不是同类相食的威胁，也不是放荡的性行为，也不是面部纹身。留给他的是表演和接受自己的笑话的多重责任。他不仅是“接球”的人，也必须是“得分”的人——甚至有时是“失球”的人。(梅尔维尔在太平洋期间的书面记录大致如下:他在马克萨斯群岛跳船，最终到达了泰皮瓦伊——或者他称之为泰皮瓦伊山谷的地方，这个故事将成为他第一部小说《泰皮》的主题，这部小说于1846年从太平洋回来后完成。他在那里待了大约四周，然后乘坐“朱莉娅”号杂草钻机返回海上。大部分船员，包括梅尔维尔，都悄然叛变，最后被暂时囚禁在塔希提岛。…
{"title":"Pacific Poetics: Melville's South Seas Laugh","authors":"K. Evans","doi":"10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim060110007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim060110007","url":null,"abstract":"WHAT DID MELVILLE FOLLOW into the Pacific? Besides other Melvilles and Gansvoorts, besides whales? I think he had a hunch that there was some very good theater being played out in that sea, and that after acting like a banker and a school teacher he thought acting like a sailor would be a bit of a lark. The spectacle of the Pacific, though, as opposed to his short stint across the Atlantic, swallowed up and spat out a new Herman. What I mean by swallowed is that great blue basin and its inhabitants gave young Melville a serious attack of performance anxiety; learning the ropes as a sailor or whaler in the Pacific did not only mean knowing how to handle yourself--it was also an awareness of yourself and your place at all times. Even a little slip in relation to those ropes and you'd be sure to knot them around your neck (witness Ahab). As Melville digested the Pacific it digested him--he did not merely pass through but was absorbed, was made a part of that thing he came to see. In the process he got, what I would call, wet, a condition from which he never recovered. (I do not mean to imply that his new state was like an illness, but like taking on a life-long exposure to the elements.) This fishy distinction marks him off from many European and American visitors to the Pacific who managed to float on the surface of their performance consciousness, maintaining a visitor's edge, a spectator's worldliness, a sense of humor bound up with a feeling of authority that resulted in a certain buoyant faith in their own vantage points. Another way to label this difference is to say that Melville dipped into skepticism (relaxed into it, like one relaxes into a bath) when many of his peers held firmly to other models--most notably that cushion against worldly oddities, irony. In the Pacific, irony often served as a visitor's head-abovewater floatational device. In that new place of dubious sign and season, it was easy to sink into a certain distrust, a creeping suspicion that the rules guiding one's behavior and understanding suddenly did not apply. In order to protect themselves from such a devastating self-examination, tourists stayed sure through devices like irony. Irony both depends upon and fosters a community that must know the same things. And that community must share the joke on a third group that is excluded from knowing those things, that is somehow in the wrong. As Wayne Booth has said, there are three points of connection necessary for irony to take place: one who makes, one who catches, and one who misses. This kind of humor throws a line back home--depends on someone getting it, assumes that there is an `it' to get. As Pacific scholar Greg Dening concludes in Mr. Bligh's Bad Language, his novel exploration of theater and mutiny: \"Irony was the enlightened's trope.... Irony requires a perspective, a line of vision that the onlooker has but not the participant\" (373). The South Seas, however, swamped Melville's flotational device--though it did n","PeriodicalId":41150,"journal":{"name":"MIDWEST QUARTERLY-A JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT","volume":"44 1","pages":"195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64407749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ring Lardner and the Other","authors":"C. Cagle","doi":"10.5860/choice.30-5449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.30-5449","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41150,"journal":{"name":"MIDWEST QUARTERLY-A JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT","volume":"35 1","pages":"109-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"1993-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71042922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","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：