不是板球，不是经典?接收限制的个案研究

IF 0.3 3区社会学 0 CLASSICS Classical Receptions Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-07 DOI:10.1093/CRJ/CLAA022

A. H. Lushkov

{"title":"不是板球，不是经典?接收限制的个案研究","authors":"A. H. Lushkov","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article offers a reading of the coverage of the 2013–14 Ashes series by way of exploring the limits of classical reception. Focusing on the poetics of recusal (recusatio, praetritio) and their place in advertising memory sanctions as site of contested power, I suggest that although the coverage lacks explicit reference to classical material, it nevertheless can be read as classical by analogy, and as such ought to be treated as a case of classical reception.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not cricket, not classics? A case study in the limits of reception\",\"authors\":\"A. H. Lushkov\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article offers a reading of the coverage of the 2013–14 Ashes series by way of exploring the limits of classical reception. Focusing on the poetics of recusal (recusatio, praetritio) and their place in advertising memory sanctions as site of contested power, I suggest that although the coverage lacks explicit reference to classical material, it nevertheless can be read as classical by analogy, and as such ought to be treated as a case of classical reception.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Classical Receptions Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Classical Receptions Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA022\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Classical Receptions Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA022","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过探索古典接受的局限性，对2013-14年《灰烬》系列的报道进行了解读。关注回避的诗学(recusatio, praetritio)及其在广告记忆制裁中作为有争议的权力场所的地位，我认为，尽管报道缺乏对经典材料的明确参考，但它仍然可以通过类比来阅读经典，因此应该被视为经典接受的案例。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Not cricket, not classics? A case study in the limits of reception

This article offers a reading of the coverage of the 2013–14 Ashes series by way of exploring the limits of classical reception. Focusing on the poetics of recusal (recusatio, praetritio) and their place in advertising memory sanctions as site of contested power, I suggest that although the coverage lacks explicit reference to classical material, it nevertheless can be read as classical by analogy, and as such ought to be treated as a case of classical reception.

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

Classical Receptions Journal Multiple-

CiteScore

0.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量