对话、城市研究和战争时代

M. Davidson
{"title":"对话、城市研究和战争时代","authors":"M. Davidson","doi":"10.1177/27541258221101236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"George Orwell wrote two introductions to Animal Farm. One went unpublished, only being discovered in 1971, some 21 years after Orwell’s death. If it had gone unfound, we would be without one of Orwell’s most enduring political statements; something we will return to shortly. The second introduction to Animal Farm was written in March 1947 for a Ukrainian translation. Orwell had been approached to write it by 24-year-old Ihor Ševčenko. Ševčenko was of Ukrainian origin, his parents having fled the Russian Revolution to live in Poland. After the war, Ihor had been recruited by an old school friend to translate British and American news for Ukrainian refugees in British-occupied Germany. There he would find Ukrainians wondering how an English writer who had never visited the Soviet Union could so vividly dramatize their own traumatic experiences. World War Two resulted in two million Ukrainian Displaced People. These were housed in 100 camps scattered across Eastern Europe. Any hopes that the occupying Allied Forces had about their swift repatriation were often dashed. Many Ukrainians resisted being sent “back” to the Soviet Union, nationality having become incongruent with citizenship. The camps therefore became sites of nation-building, with landless Ukrainians bound together by their collective sense of identity and shared experience. The contemporary relevance of these Displaced People cannot escape us. As I write, bombs fall on Mariupol and Kyiv, and over four million Ukrainians (and counting) find themselves in refugee camps. Forced from home, Ukrainians are again forging and reaffirming their national identity in absentia. Ševčenko wanted Orwell’s permission to translate Animal Farm after he had read the farmyard fable to eager audiences within the camps. Orwell had somehow managed to articulate something the Ukrainian refugees knew so well: that a myth was perpetuating an exploitative social system. Orwell gave Ševčenko his consent and wrote an introduction. In it, Orwell writes: “I do not wish to comment on the work; if it does not speak for itself, it is a failure” (2012: np). Saying little about the book, Orwell’s introduction is mainly biographical. However, he did feel the need to provide two clarifications for his Ukrainian readers. The first simply explains that Animal Farm does not exactly follow the chronology of the Russian Revolution. The second corrects what Orwell feared might be a potential misreading:","PeriodicalId":206933,"journal":{"name":"Dialogues in Urban Research","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dialogues, Urban Research, and Times of War\",\"authors\":\"M. Davidson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/27541258221101236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"George Orwell wrote two introductions to Animal Farm. One went unpublished, only being discovered in 1971, some 21 years after Orwell’s death. If it had gone unfound, we would be without one of Orwell’s most enduring political statements; something we will return to shortly. The second introduction to Animal Farm was written in March 1947 for a Ukrainian translation. Orwell had been approached to write it by 24-year-old Ihor Ševčenko. Ševčenko was of Ukrainian origin, his parents having fled the Russian Revolution to live in Poland. After the war, Ihor had been recruited by an old school friend to translate British and American news for Ukrainian refugees in British-occupied Germany. There he would find Ukrainians wondering how an English writer who had never visited the Soviet Union could so vividly dramatize their own traumatic experiences. World War Two resulted in two million Ukrainian Displaced People. These were housed in 100 camps scattered across Eastern Europe. Any hopes that the occupying Allied Forces had about their swift repatriation were often dashed. Many Ukrainians resisted being sent “back” to the Soviet Union, nationality having become incongruent with citizenship. The camps therefore became sites of nation-building, with landless Ukrainians bound together by their collective sense of identity and shared experience. The contemporary relevance of these Displaced People cannot escape us. As I write, bombs fall on Mariupol and Kyiv, and over four million Ukrainians (and counting) find themselves in refugee camps. Forced from home, Ukrainians are again forging and reaffirming their national identity in absentia. Ševčenko wanted Orwell’s permission to translate Animal Farm after he had read the farmyard fable to eager audiences within the camps. Orwell had somehow managed to articulate something the Ukrainian refugees knew so well: that a myth was perpetuating an exploitative social system. Orwell gave Ševčenko his consent and wrote an introduction. In it, Orwell writes: “I do not wish to comment on the work; if it does not speak for itself, it is a failure” (2012: np). Saying little about the book, Orwell’s introduction is mainly biographical. However, he did feel the need to provide two clarifications for his Ukrainian readers. The first simply explains that Animal Farm does not exactly follow the chronology of the Russian Revolution. The second corrects what Orwell feared might be a potential misreading:\",\"PeriodicalId\":206933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialogues in Urban Research\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialogues in Urban Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/27541258221101236\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogues in Urban Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27541258221101236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

乔治·奥威尔为《动物庄园》写了两篇介绍。其中一篇没有发表,直到1971年奥威尔去世21年后才被发现。如果没有找到它,我们将失去奥威尔最经久不衰的政治宣言之一;我们稍后会回到这个话题。《动物庄园》的第二篇导言是1947年3月为乌克兰语翻译而写的。24岁的Ihor Ševčenko找到奥威尔写这本书。Ševčenko是乌克兰裔,他的父母因俄国革命而逃往波兰。战争结束后,伊霍尔被一位老同学招募,为英国占领的德国的乌克兰难民翻译英美新闻。在那里,他会发现乌克兰人想知道,一个从未访问过苏联的英国作家,如何能如此生动地将他们自己的创伤经历戏剧化。第二次世界大战导致200万乌克兰人流离失所。这些难民被安置在分布在东欧的100个难民营中。盟军占领军对他们迅速遣返的任何希望往往都破灭了。许多乌克兰人拒绝被“送回”苏联,因为国籍与公民身份已经变得不一致。因此,这些营地成为国家建设的场所,没有土地的乌克兰人通过他们的集体认同感和共同的经历联系在一起。我们无法忽视这些流离失所者的当代意义。在我写这篇文章的时候,炸弹落在马里乌波尔和基辅,超过400万乌克兰人(还在增加)发现自己在难民营里。被迫背井离乡的乌克兰人再次在缺席的情况下塑造和重申自己的民族认同。Ševčenko想要得到奥威尔的许可,把《动物庄园》翻译给集中营里热切的观众听。奥威尔在某种程度上成功地表达了乌克兰难民非常清楚的事情:一个神话正在使一个剥削性的社会制度永久化。奥威尔同意Ševčenko,并写了一篇介绍。在信中,奥威尔写道:“我不想评论这部作品;如果它不为自己说话,它就是一个失败”(2012:np)。关于这本书,奥威尔的介绍很少,主要是传记式的。不过,他确实觉得有必要向乌克兰读者澄清两点。第一个简单地解释说,《动物庄园》并不完全遵循俄国革命的年代。第二句纠正了奥威尔担心的潜在误读:
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
Dialogues, Urban Research, and Times of War
George Orwell wrote two introductions to Animal Farm. One went unpublished, only being discovered in 1971, some 21 years after Orwell’s death. If it had gone unfound, we would be without one of Orwell’s most enduring political statements; something we will return to shortly. The second introduction to Animal Farm was written in March 1947 for a Ukrainian translation. Orwell had been approached to write it by 24-year-old Ihor Ševčenko. Ševčenko was of Ukrainian origin, his parents having fled the Russian Revolution to live in Poland. After the war, Ihor had been recruited by an old school friend to translate British and American news for Ukrainian refugees in British-occupied Germany. There he would find Ukrainians wondering how an English writer who had never visited the Soviet Union could so vividly dramatize their own traumatic experiences. World War Two resulted in two million Ukrainian Displaced People. These were housed in 100 camps scattered across Eastern Europe. Any hopes that the occupying Allied Forces had about their swift repatriation were often dashed. Many Ukrainians resisted being sent “back” to the Soviet Union, nationality having become incongruent with citizenship. The camps therefore became sites of nation-building, with landless Ukrainians bound together by their collective sense of identity and shared experience. The contemporary relevance of these Displaced People cannot escape us. As I write, bombs fall on Mariupol and Kyiv, and over four million Ukrainians (and counting) find themselves in refugee camps. Forced from home, Ukrainians are again forging and reaffirming their national identity in absentia. Ševčenko wanted Orwell’s permission to translate Animal Farm after he had read the farmyard fable to eager audiences within the camps. Orwell had somehow managed to articulate something the Ukrainian refugees knew so well: that a myth was perpetuating an exploitative social system. Orwell gave Ševčenko his consent and wrote an introduction. In it, Orwell writes: “I do not wish to comment on the work; if it does not speak for itself, it is a failure” (2012: np). Saying little about the book, Orwell’s introduction is mainly biographical. However, he did feel the need to provide two clarifications for his Ukrainian readers. The first simply explains that Animal Farm does not exactly follow the chronology of the Russian Revolution. The second corrects what Orwell feared might be a potential misreading:
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
Bohm's theory of orders as a basis for a unified urban theory Leaving post-anything urban studies behind? Regarding the Pain of Indigenous Others Beyond nostalgia for the Herrenvolk industrial economy The Perils of Commodification Gaps
×
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