林达·加伯的女同性恋历史小说方法(综述)

IF 0.5 2区 文学 0 LITERATURE STUDIES IN THE NOVEL Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1353/sdn.2023.a899464
S. Allen
{"title":"林达·加伯的女同性恋历史小说方法(综述)","authors":"S. Allen","doi":"10.1353/sdn.2023.a899464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"nineteenth-century novel, Before Borders does not address the dramatic shift in thinking about national allegiance that occurred at this time as the concept of citizenship began to compete with, and in some cases replace, that of subjecthood. The novel creates subjects, but does it create citizens? The distinction between subjects and citizens or between feudal allegiance and democratic participation raises the spectre of those who were excluded from national belonging. DeGooyer acknowledges that even the most liberal seventeenthand eighteenth-century thinkers questioned the extension of British naturalization law to include non-white, non-European, and non-Protestant peoples. Novels arguably were more liberal, but DeGooyer avoids discussing literary naturalization and racial difference with the exception of the white protagonist’s use of blackface in Frances Burney’s The Wanderer (1814), focusing instead on religious difference in Richardson’s Sir Charles Grandison (1753) and Maria Edgeworth’s Harrington (1817). DeGooyer aims her argument about the novel’s formal abilities to naturalize at canonical authors (if not canonical works) for strategic reasons: namely, to emphasize that questions of mobility and allegiance were not a fringe concern for eighteenth-century writers. Yet, in doing so, she misses the opportunity not just to complicate an argument that rests primarily on the experiences of elite white Protestants, but also to examine early instances of a problem that continues to plague debates about naturalization today— racial prejudice. Before Borders takes risks and boldly explores big ideas at a time when working conditions for literary scholars often function like borders, constricting the possibilities of intellectual enterprise. Its unevenness is perhaps an effect of its disciplinary border crossings, as it returns us to a time when law and literature were not the disparate fields they are today.","PeriodicalId":54138,"journal":{"name":"STUDIES IN THE NOVEL","volume":"55 1","pages":"237 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Novel Approaches to Lesbian History by Linda Garber (review)\",\"authors\":\"S. Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/sdn.2023.a899464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"nineteenth-century novel, Before Borders does not address the dramatic shift in thinking about national allegiance that occurred at this time as the concept of citizenship began to compete with, and in some cases replace, that of subjecthood. The novel creates subjects, but does it create citizens? The distinction between subjects and citizens or between feudal allegiance and democratic participation raises the spectre of those who were excluded from national belonging. DeGooyer acknowledges that even the most liberal seventeenthand eighteenth-century thinkers questioned the extension of British naturalization law to include non-white, non-European, and non-Protestant peoples. Novels arguably were more liberal, but DeGooyer avoids discussing literary naturalization and racial difference with the exception of the white protagonist’s use of blackface in Frances Burney’s The Wanderer (1814), focusing instead on religious difference in Richardson’s Sir Charles Grandison (1753) and Maria Edgeworth’s Harrington (1817). DeGooyer aims her argument about the novel’s formal abilities to naturalize at canonical authors (if not canonical works) for strategic reasons: namely, to emphasize that questions of mobility and allegiance were not a fringe concern for eighteenth-century writers. Yet, in doing so, she misses the opportunity not just to complicate an argument that rests primarily on the experiences of elite white Protestants, but also to examine early instances of a problem that continues to plague debates about naturalization today— racial prejudice. Before Borders takes risks and boldly explores big ideas at a time when working conditions for literary scholars often function like borders, constricting the possibilities of intellectual enterprise. Its unevenness is perhaps an effect of its disciplinary border crossings, as it returns us to a time when law and literature were not the disparate fields they are today.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"STUDIES IN THE NOVEL\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"237 - 239\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"STUDIES IN THE NOVEL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/sdn.2023.a899464\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"STUDIES IN THE NOVEL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sdn.2023.a899464","RegionNum":2,"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

19世纪的小说《边界之前》并没有谈到在公民身份的概念开始与服从概念竞争,并在某些情况下取代服从概念的时候,人们对国家忠诚的想法发生了戏剧性的转变。这部小说创造了主题,但它创造了公民吗?臣民和公民之间的区别,或封建效忠和民主参与之间的区别引起了那些被排除在国家归属之外的人的恐惧。DeGooyer承认,即使是最自由的十八世纪思想家也对英国入籍法的扩展提出了质疑,将非白人、非欧洲人和非新教徒包括在内。小说可以说更自由,但德古耶避免讨论文学归化和种族差异,除了弗朗西斯·伯尼的《流浪者》(1814)中白人主人公使用黑人面孔,而是在理查森的《查尔斯·格兰迪森爵士》(1753)和玛丽亚·埃奇沃斯的《哈灵顿》(1817)中关注宗教差异。DeGooyer将她关于小说归化规范作家(如果不是规范作品的话)的正式能力的论点,目的是出于战略原因:即强调流动性和忠诚问题不是18世纪作家关注的边缘问题。然而,在这样做的过程中,她错过了一个机会,不仅使主要基于白人新教徒精英经历的争论复杂化,而且还错过了审视一个问题的早期例子的机会,这个问题在今天继续困扰着关于入籍的辩论——种族偏见。Before Borders敢于冒险,大胆探索重大思想,而此时文学学者的工作条件往往像边界一样,限制了知识企业的可能性。它的不均衡可能是其学科边界交叉的影响,因为它让我们回到了一个法律和文学领域不像今天这样截然不同的时代。
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
Novel Approaches to Lesbian History by Linda Garber (review)
nineteenth-century novel, Before Borders does not address the dramatic shift in thinking about national allegiance that occurred at this time as the concept of citizenship began to compete with, and in some cases replace, that of subjecthood. The novel creates subjects, but does it create citizens? The distinction between subjects and citizens or between feudal allegiance and democratic participation raises the spectre of those who were excluded from national belonging. DeGooyer acknowledges that even the most liberal seventeenthand eighteenth-century thinkers questioned the extension of British naturalization law to include non-white, non-European, and non-Protestant peoples. Novels arguably were more liberal, but DeGooyer avoids discussing literary naturalization and racial difference with the exception of the white protagonist’s use of blackface in Frances Burney’s The Wanderer (1814), focusing instead on religious difference in Richardson’s Sir Charles Grandison (1753) and Maria Edgeworth’s Harrington (1817). DeGooyer aims her argument about the novel’s formal abilities to naturalize at canonical authors (if not canonical works) for strategic reasons: namely, to emphasize that questions of mobility and allegiance were not a fringe concern for eighteenth-century writers. Yet, in doing so, she misses the opportunity not just to complicate an argument that rests primarily on the experiences of elite white Protestants, but also to examine early instances of a problem that continues to plague debates about naturalization today— racial prejudice. Before Borders takes risks and boldly explores big ideas at a time when working conditions for literary scholars often function like borders, constricting the possibilities of intellectual enterprise. Its unevenness is perhaps an effect of its disciplinary border crossings, as it returns us to a time when law and literature were not the disparate fields they are today.
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
STUDIES IN THE NOVEL
STUDIES IN THE NOVEL LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: From its inception, Studies in the Novel has been dedicated to building a scholarly community around the world-making potentialities of the novel. Studies in the Novel started as an idea among several members of the English Department of the University of North Texas during the summer of 1965. They determined that there was a need for a journal “devoted to publishing critical and scholarly articles on the novel with no restrictions on either chronology or nationality of the novelists studied.” The founding editor, University of North Texas professor of contemporary literature James W. Lee, envisioned a journal of international scope and influence. Since then, Studies in the Novel has staked its reputation upon publishing incisive scholarship on the canon-forming and cutting-edge novelists that have shaped the genre’s rich history. The journal continues to break new ground by promoting new theoretical approaches, a broader international scope, and an engagement with the contemporary novel as a form of social critique.
期刊最新文献
"I wouldn't trust that map": Fraudulent Geographies in Late Victorian Lost World Novels Swallowing the Whole: World, Planet, and Totality in the Planetary Fiction of H. G. Wells Dreaming of Manderley: Individualism, Aging, and the Novel A Cursed Circle: Confronting Patriarchal and Colonizing Legacies in Silvia Moreno-Garcia's Mexican Gothic Dislocating the Language of Modernity in Amitav Ghosh's The Circle of Reason
×
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