恐怖想象:简·科特、怪诞和《麦克白,麦克白》

James Tink
{"title":"恐怖想象:简·科特、怪诞和《麦克白,麦克白》","authors":"James Tink","doi":"10.18778/2083-8530.24.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Throughout Jan Kott’s Shakespeare Our Contemporary, a keyword for the combination of philosophical, aesthetic and modern qualities in Shakespearean drama is “grotesque.” This term is also relevant to other influential studies of early-modern drama, notably Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea of the carnivalesque, as well as Wolfgang Kayser’s psychoanalytic criticism. Yet if this tradition of the Shakespearean grotesque has problematized an idea of the human and of humanist values in literature, can this also be understood in posthuman terms? This paper proposes a reading of Kott’s criticism of the grotesque to suggest where it indicates a potential interrogation of the human and posthuman in Shakespeare, especially at points where the ideas of the grotesque or absurdity indicate other ideas of causation, agency or affect, such as the “grand mechanism” It will then argue for the continuing relevance of Kott’s work by examining a recent work of Shakespearean adaptation as appropriation, the 2016 novel Macbeth, Macbeth by Ewan Fernie and Simon Palfrey which attempts a provocative and transgressive retelling of Macbeth that imagines a ‘sequel’ to the play that emphasises ideas of violence and ethics. The paper argues that this creative intervention should be best understood as a continuation of Kott’s idea of the grotesque in Shakespeare, but from the vantage point of the twenty-first century in which the grotesque can be understood as the modification or even disappearance of the human. Overall, it is intended to show how the reconsideration of the grotesque may elaborate questions of being and subjectivity in our contemporary moment just as Kott’s study reflected his position in the Cold War.","PeriodicalId":40600,"journal":{"name":"Multicultural Shakespeare-Translation Appropriation and Performance","volume":"1 6","pages":"71-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Horrible Imaginings: Jan Kott, the Grotesque, and “Macbeth, Macbeth”\",\"authors\":\"James Tink\",\"doi\":\"10.18778/2083-8530.24.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Throughout Jan Kott’s Shakespeare Our Contemporary, a keyword for the combination of philosophical, aesthetic and modern qualities in Shakespearean drama is “grotesque.” This term is also relevant to other influential studies of early-modern drama, notably Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea of the carnivalesque, as well as Wolfgang Kayser’s psychoanalytic criticism. Yet if this tradition of the Shakespearean grotesque has problematized an idea of the human and of humanist values in literature, can this also be understood in posthuman terms? This paper proposes a reading of Kott’s criticism of the grotesque to suggest where it indicates a potential interrogation of the human and posthuman in Shakespeare, especially at points where the ideas of the grotesque or absurdity indicate other ideas of causation, agency or affect, such as the “grand mechanism” It will then argue for the continuing relevance of Kott’s work by examining a recent work of Shakespearean adaptation as appropriation, the 2016 novel Macbeth, Macbeth by Ewan Fernie and Simon Palfrey which attempts a provocative and transgressive retelling of Macbeth that imagines a ‘sequel’ to the play that emphasises ideas of violence and ethics. The paper argues that this creative intervention should be best understood as a continuation of Kott’s idea of the grotesque in Shakespeare, but from the vantage point of the twenty-first century in which the grotesque can be understood as the modification or even disappearance of the human. Overall, it is intended to show how the reconsideration of the grotesque may elaborate questions of being and subjectivity in our contemporary moment just as Kott’s study reflected his position in the Cold War.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multicultural Shakespeare-Translation Appropriation and Performance\",\"volume\":\"1 6\",\"pages\":\"71-85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multicultural Shakespeare-Translation Appropriation and Performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18778/2083-8530.24.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, BRITISH ISLES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multicultural Shakespeare-Translation Appropriation and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18778/2083-8530.24.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, BRITISH ISLES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在简·科特的《当代莎士比亚》中,描述莎士比亚戏剧中哲学、美学和现代特质的一个关键词是“怪诞”。这个术语也与其他对早期现代戏剧有影响的研究有关,特别是米哈伊尔·巴赫金的狂欢主义思想,以及沃尔夫冈·凯瑟的精神分析批评。然而,如果莎士比亚怪诞的传统对文学中人类和人文主义价值的观念提出了质疑,那么这也可以在后人类的角度来理解吗?本文提出对科特对怪诞的批评的解读,以表明它在哪里暗示了对莎士比亚的人类和后人类的潜在质疑,特别是在怪诞或荒谬的想法暗示了因果关系、代理或影响的其他想法的地方,比如“大机制”。然后,通过研究最近的一部莎士比亚改编作品,2016年的小说《麦克白》,论证科特作品的持续相关性。由尤恩·弗尼和西蒙·帕尔弗雷创作的《麦克白》这本书试图以一种挑衅和越界的方式重述《麦克白》,想象出这部剧的“续集”,强调暴力和道德观念。本文认为,这种创造性的干预应该被最好地理解为科特对莎士比亚怪诞思想的延续,但从21世纪的有利位置来看,怪诞可以被理解为人类的修改甚至消失。总的来说,它旨在展示对怪诞的重新思考如何在我们当代阐述存在和主体性的问题,就像科特的研究反映了他在冷战中的立场一样。
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
Horrible Imaginings: Jan Kott, the Grotesque, and “Macbeth, Macbeth”
Throughout Jan Kott’s Shakespeare Our Contemporary, a keyword for the combination of philosophical, aesthetic and modern qualities in Shakespearean drama is “grotesque.” This term is also relevant to other influential studies of early-modern drama, notably Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea of the carnivalesque, as well as Wolfgang Kayser’s psychoanalytic criticism. Yet if this tradition of the Shakespearean grotesque has problematized an idea of the human and of humanist values in literature, can this also be understood in posthuman terms? This paper proposes a reading of Kott’s criticism of the grotesque to suggest where it indicates a potential interrogation of the human and posthuman in Shakespeare, especially at points where the ideas of the grotesque or absurdity indicate other ideas of causation, agency or affect, such as the “grand mechanism” It will then argue for the continuing relevance of Kott’s work by examining a recent work of Shakespearean adaptation as appropriation, the 2016 novel Macbeth, Macbeth by Ewan Fernie and Simon Palfrey which attempts a provocative and transgressive retelling of Macbeth that imagines a ‘sequel’ to the play that emphasises ideas of violence and ethics. The paper argues that this creative intervention should be best understood as a continuation of Kott’s idea of the grotesque in Shakespeare, but from the vantage point of the twenty-first century in which the grotesque can be understood as the modification or even disappearance of the human. Overall, it is intended to show how the reconsideration of the grotesque may elaborate questions of being and subjectivity in our contemporary moment just as Kott’s study reflected his position in the Cold War.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Transformative Potential and Utopian Performative: Postdramatic Hamlet in Turkey “To Make Dark Heaven Light:” Transcending the Tragic in Sintang Dalisay An Interview with Stratis Panourios Utopia, Arcadia and the Forest of Arden From Race and Orientalism in A Midsummer Night’s Dream to Caste and Indigenous Otherness on the Indian Screen
×
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