困难的不透明关于阅读差异

IF 0.2 4区 文学 0 LITERATURE PARAGRAPH Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.3366/para.2024.0448
Kasia Mika-Bresolin
{"title":"困难的不透明关于阅读差异","authors":"Kasia Mika-Bresolin","doi":"10.3366/para.2024.0448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues for a redefinition of difficulty in relation to the inextricable violence of modernity and examines the consecutive challenge to notions of understanding and interpretation — of a text, of language or of the other — that this repositioning brings. To this end, the article offers a nuanced rereading of Steiner’s canonical fourfold categorization of difficulty, in dialogue with, first, Édouard Glissant’s opacity and, second, Jonathan Pugh and David Chandler’s theorizations of ‘abyssal thought’, an approach emerging from Caribbean and critical Black studies, exploring the key challenge it poses to forging an unmasterful, after Julietta Singh, comparative literary practice. With an equal attention to the theoretical and pedagogical dimensions of reading difficulty, the article emphasizes the importance of the accretive and embodied nature of the reading process and offers a repositioning of textual difficulty, as a meeting site of opacities, and a reformulation of a difficult, unmasterful reading practice, after catastrophe and with others.","PeriodicalId":44142,"journal":{"name":"PARAGRAPH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Difficult Opacity: On Reading Difference\",\"authors\":\"Kasia Mika-Bresolin\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/para.2024.0448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article argues for a redefinition of difficulty in relation to the inextricable violence of modernity and examines the consecutive challenge to notions of understanding and interpretation — of a text, of language or of the other — that this repositioning brings. To this end, the article offers a nuanced rereading of Steiner’s canonical fourfold categorization of difficulty, in dialogue with, first, Édouard Glissant’s opacity and, second, Jonathan Pugh and David Chandler’s theorizations of ‘abyssal thought’, an approach emerging from Caribbean and critical Black studies, exploring the key challenge it poses to forging an unmasterful, after Julietta Singh, comparative literary practice. With an equal attention to the theoretical and pedagogical dimensions of reading difficulty, the article emphasizes the importance of the accretive and embodied nature of the reading process and offers a repositioning of textual difficulty, as a meeting site of opacities, and a reformulation of a difficult, unmasterful reading practice, after catastrophe and with others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PARAGRAPH\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PARAGRAPH\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2024.0448\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PARAGRAPH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2024.0448","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文论证了与现代性不可分割的暴力相关的 "困难 "的重新定义,并探讨了这种重新定位对理解和阐释--对文本、语言或他人--的概念所带来的连续挑战。为此,文章通过与爱德华-格利桑(Édouard Glissant)的不透明性以及乔纳森-普(Jonathan Pugh)和戴维-钱德勒(David Chandler)的 "深渊思想 "理论(一种源自加勒比和黑人批判研究的方法)的对话,对斯坦纳经典的四重困难分类法进行了细致入微的重读,并探讨了它对在朱丽叶塔-辛格之后建立一种非主流的比较文学实践所提出的关键挑战。文章对阅读困难的理论和教学层面给予了同等关注,强调了阅读过程的增殖性和体现性的重要性,并将文本困难重新定位为一个不透明的交汇点,以及在灾难之后与他人一起重新制定一种困难的、无法掌握的阅读实践。
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
Difficult Opacity: On Reading Difference
This article argues for a redefinition of difficulty in relation to the inextricable violence of modernity and examines the consecutive challenge to notions of understanding and interpretation — of a text, of language or of the other — that this repositioning brings. To this end, the article offers a nuanced rereading of Steiner’s canonical fourfold categorization of difficulty, in dialogue with, first, Édouard Glissant’s opacity and, second, Jonathan Pugh and David Chandler’s theorizations of ‘abyssal thought’, an approach emerging from Caribbean and critical Black studies, exploring the key challenge it poses to forging an unmasterful, after Julietta Singh, comparative literary practice. With an equal attention to the theoretical and pedagogical dimensions of reading difficulty, the article emphasizes the importance of the accretive and embodied nature of the reading process and offers a repositioning of textual difficulty, as a meeting site of opacities, and a reformulation of a difficult, unmasterful reading practice, after catastrophe and with others.
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
PARAGRAPH
PARAGRAPH LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Founded in 1983, Paragraph is a leading journal in modern critical theory. It publishes essays and review articles in English which explore critical theory in general and its application to literature, other arts and society. Regular special issues by guest editors highlight important themes and figures in modern critical theory.
期刊最新文献
Archiving Ruins and Aftershocks: Myriam Chancy’s New Narratives of the Haiti Earthquake The Stay of Poetry: Notes on the Poetry of Norma Cole Dead Loss: Freud and the Aesthetics of Mourning Dance Studies and the Commons Life inside Logos: Discourse, Anthropogenesis and World-Effects in Cassin and Sloterdijk
×
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