优先考虑:大卫·福斯特·华莱士《考虑龙虾》中的巴特比、阶级和种族灭绝

M. Eve
{"title":"优先考虑:大卫·福斯特·华莱士《考虑龙虾》中的巴特比、阶级和种族灭绝","authors":"M. Eve","doi":"10.16995/C21.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the case for reading Herman Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener” as a key intertext for David Foster Wallace’s 2004 essay, “Consider the Lobster”. Focusing upon Wallace’s assertion that “it may well be that an ability to form preferences is the decisive criterion for real suffering” the piece reads Wallace’s work through the lenses of capital, class, political aesthetics, ecology, and genocide. Ultimately, though, this article argues that Wallace’s essay ends with ethical stalemate since Wallace is unwilling to commit to a political stance. It is, as I here argue, as though Wallace’s essay would “prefer not to” make an actual decision.","PeriodicalId":272809,"journal":{"name":"C21 Literature: Journal of 21st-Century Writings","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preferential Consideration: Bartleby, Class, and Genocide in David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster”\",\"authors\":\"M. Eve\",\"doi\":\"10.16995/C21.17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article presents the case for reading Herman Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener” as a key intertext for David Foster Wallace’s 2004 essay, “Consider the Lobster”. Focusing upon Wallace’s assertion that “it may well be that an ability to form preferences is the decisive criterion for real suffering” the piece reads Wallace’s work through the lenses of capital, class, political aesthetics, ecology, and genocide. Ultimately, though, this article argues that Wallace’s essay ends with ethical stalemate since Wallace is unwilling to commit to a political stance. It is, as I here argue, as though Wallace’s essay would “prefer not to” make an actual decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":272809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"C21 Literature: Journal of 21st-Century Writings\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"C21 Literature: Journal of 21st-Century Writings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.16995/C21.17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"C21 Literature: Journal of 21st-Century Writings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16995/C21.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了将赫尔曼·梅尔维尔的《抄写员巴特比》作为大卫·福斯特·华莱士2004年的文章《考虑龙虾》的重要互文来阅读的案例。这篇文章聚焦于华莱士的论断,“形成偏好的能力很可能是真正痛苦的决定性标准”,通过资本、阶级、政治美学、生态和种族灭绝的镜头来解读华莱士的作品。然而,本文最终认为,华莱士的文章以道德僵局结束,因为华莱士不愿意承诺政治立场。正如我在这里所说的,华莱士的文章似乎“宁愿不”做出一个实际的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Preferential Consideration: Bartleby, Class, and Genocide in David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster”
This article presents the case for reading Herman Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener” as a key intertext for David Foster Wallace’s 2004 essay, “Consider the Lobster”. Focusing upon Wallace’s assertion that “it may well be that an ability to form preferences is the decisive criterion for real suffering” the piece reads Wallace’s work through the lenses of capital, class, political aesthetics, ecology, and genocide. Ultimately, though, this article argues that Wallace’s essay ends with ethical stalemate since Wallace is unwilling to commit to a political stance. It is, as I here argue, as though Wallace’s essay would “prefer not to” make an actual decision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Listen Up: Collective Armenian Genocide Postmemory in Micheline Aharonian Marcom’s Three Apples Fell from Heaven Book Review of Bill Ashcroft's Utopianism in Postcolonial Literatures Review: Megen de Bruin-Molé, Gothic Remixed: Monster Mashups and Frankenfictions in 21st Century Literature. Bloomsbury Academic, 2020 Review of The Comic Turn in Contemporary English Fiction, by Huw Marsh #MeToo and the Northern Ireland Troubles: Anna Burns' Milkman
×
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