两次世界大战之间的荷兰文学领域的边境控制

Q3 Arts and Humanities Nederlandse Letterkunde Pub Date : 2019-11-01 DOI:10.5117/nedlet2019.3.003.wagn
J. Wagner, R. Grüttemeier
{"title":"两次世界大战之间的荷兰文学领域的边境控制","authors":"J. Wagner, R. Grüttemeier","doi":"10.5117/nedlet2019.3.003.wagn","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Border control in the Dutch literary field between the wars. The literary critic A.M. de Jong and Nieuwe Zakelijkheid\n \n \n Powerful critics around the journal Forum (1932-1935) like Hendrik Marsman and Menno ter Braak branded authors of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid to be no more than reporters and imitating followers – as opposed to ‘real’ writers of literature. However, from a field theoretical perspective, what seems to be a critical judgment in a literary debate, on closer inspection turns out to be about delimitating the borders of the literary field against a young group of journalists trying to find their way into literature. Against this background the present article focuses on Forum-opponent A.M. de Jong and his use of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid, situated within the debate on the term and the concept in other art disciplines as painting or architecture. The article argues that De Jong’s concept of literature reveals more similarities with his assumed antagonists than current research claims.","PeriodicalId":39266,"journal":{"name":"Nederlandse Letterkunde","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grenscontroles in het Nederlandse literaire veld van het interbellum\",\"authors\":\"J. Wagner, R. Grüttemeier\",\"doi\":\"10.5117/nedlet2019.3.003.wagn\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Border control in the Dutch literary field between the wars. The literary critic A.M. de Jong and Nieuwe Zakelijkheid\\n \\n \\n Powerful critics around the journal Forum (1932-1935) like Hendrik Marsman and Menno ter Braak branded authors of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid to be no more than reporters and imitating followers – as opposed to ‘real’ writers of literature. However, from a field theoretical perspective, what seems to be a critical judgment in a literary debate, on closer inspection turns out to be about delimitating the borders of the literary field against a young group of journalists trying to find their way into literature. Against this background the present article focuses on Forum-opponent A.M. de Jong and his use of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid, situated within the debate on the term and the concept in other art disciplines as painting or architecture. The article argues that De Jong’s concept of literature reveals more similarities with his assumed antagonists than current research claims.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nederlandse Letterkunde\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nederlandse Letterkunde\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5117/nedlet2019.3.003.wagn\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nederlandse Letterkunde","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5117/nedlet2019.3.003.wagn","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

战争期间荷兰文学领域的边境管制。文学评论家A.M.de Jong和Nieuwe Zakelijkheid在《论坛》杂志(1932-1935)上有强大的评论家,如Hendrik Marsman和Menno ter Braak,认为《Nieuwe zakelijkhei》的作者只不过是记者和模仿追随者,而不是“真正的”文学作家。然而,从场域理论的角度来看,在文学辩论中,一个似乎是批判性的判断,经过更仔细的观察,结果是划定了文学场域的边界,反对一群试图进入文学的年轻记者。在这种背景下,本文重点关注论坛的反对者A.M.de Jong和他对Nieuwe Zakelijkheid的使用,这一术语和概念在绘画或建筑等其他艺术学科中存在争议。这篇文章认为,德容的文学概念比目前的研究主张更能揭示出他与假想对手的相似之处。
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
Grenscontroles in het Nederlandse literaire veld van het interbellum
Border control in the Dutch literary field between the wars. The literary critic A.M. de Jong and Nieuwe Zakelijkheid Powerful critics around the journal Forum (1932-1935) like Hendrik Marsman and Menno ter Braak branded authors of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid to be no more than reporters and imitating followers – as opposed to ‘real’ writers of literature. However, from a field theoretical perspective, what seems to be a critical judgment in a literary debate, on closer inspection turns out to be about delimitating the borders of the literary field against a young group of journalists trying to find their way into literature. Against this background the present article focuses on Forum-opponent A.M. de Jong and his use of Nieuwe Zakelijkheid, situated within the debate on the term and the concept in other art disciplines as painting or architecture. The article argues that De Jong’s concept of literature reveals more similarities with his assumed antagonists than current research claims.
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
Nederlandse Letterkunde
Nederlandse Letterkunde Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Wat maakt elektronische literatuur (niet) toegankelijk? Aandacht voor irrelevantie. Voskuils Het Bureau als proto-databankroman Van oude mannen en de dames die erbij staan. De liefdesopvattingen van de Rose-Cassamus Een goddelijke braakbal. Maxim Februari’s Klont en de esthetiek van dataficering De verbeelding van het internet in de Nederlandse literatuur van de jaren negentig
×
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