创造历史。

이희원
{"title":"创造历史。","authors":"이희원","doi":"10.5040/9781472551320.ch-002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines both Brian Friel's historical discussion about making history and his own process of making history in Making History to see how his historical drama enacts issues addressed by Linda Hutcheon - topics such as the blurring of history and fiction and the questioning of metanarratives. While Friel acknowledges that history is always a fiction, he is also committed to the project of recording historical facts in another tune. Friel's self-conscious use of such double historical activities enables him to make us question the grand narrative, as shown in Lombard's nationalist accounts of the life of Hugh O'Neill. Unlike Lombard, Friel makes the history of Hugh O'Neill as that of a divided figure, who sustains a delicate balance between supporting his fellow chieftains and a semblance of loyalty to the English Queen. It is ironical that while Friel sees himself as a postmodernist who deconstructs Lombard's nationalistic version of O'Neill, he also accepts Lombard's view that history is a narrative made by a historian-maker. Friel shares with Lombard many historical ideas, but the O'Neill biography Friel is writing in this play is similar to the biography O'Neill himself wants to be written, that is, the story of a contradictory man torn between the cultural values of Englishness and Irishness. Just as Friel's O'Neill finds himself divided between the local hostilities of Anglo-Irish relations and the wider prospects of European politics, so Friel posits himself in a carefully balanced dialectic between Lombard's theory and O'Neill's wish (to depict himself as a contradictory man). Friel's use of meta-historical dramatic technique enables him to exhibit a postmodern skepticism of historical narratives. But the play cannot simply be assimilated into the canon of postmodernism. Friel's love of life and instinctivedesire to understand one's inner mind, as represented in his depiction of O'Neill as a divided self, seem to weaken his unrelenting postmodern analysis, a radical demystification of history as a fiction.","PeriodicalId":72483,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MAKING HISTORY.\",\"authors\":\"이희원\",\"doi\":\"10.5040/9781472551320.ch-002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines both Brian Friel's historical discussion about making history and his own process of making history in Making History to see how his historical drama enacts issues addressed by Linda Hutcheon - topics such as the blurring of history and fiction and the questioning of metanarratives. While Friel acknowledges that history is always a fiction, he is also committed to the project of recording historical facts in another tune. Friel's self-conscious use of such double historical activities enables him to make us question the grand narrative, as shown in Lombard's nationalist accounts of the life of Hugh O'Neill. Unlike Lombard, Friel makes the history of Hugh O'Neill as that of a divided figure, who sustains a delicate balance between supporting his fellow chieftains and a semblance of loyalty to the English Queen. It is ironical that while Friel sees himself as a postmodernist who deconstructs Lombard's nationalistic version of O'Neill, he also accepts Lombard's view that history is a narrative made by a historian-maker. Friel shares with Lombard many historical ideas, but the O'Neill biography Friel is writing in this play is similar to the biography O'Neill himself wants to be written, that is, the story of a contradictory man torn between the cultural values of Englishness and Irishness. Just as Friel's O'Neill finds himself divided between the local hostilities of Anglo-Irish relations and the wider prospects of European politics, so Friel posits himself in a carefully balanced dialectic between Lombard's theory and O'Neill's wish (to depict himself as a contradictory man). Friel's use of meta-historical dramatic technique enables him to exhibit a postmodern skepticism of historical narratives. But the play cannot simply be assimilated into the canon of postmodernism. Friel's love of life and instinctivedesire to understand one's inner mind, as represented in his depiction of O'Neill as a divided self, seem to weaken his unrelenting postmodern analysis, a radical demystification of history as a fiction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472551320.ch-002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472551320.ch-002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

本文考察了布赖恩·弗里尔在《创造历史》中关于创造历史的历史讨论和他自己创造历史的过程,以了解他的历史剧如何演绎琳达·哈钦所解决的问题——诸如历史和小说的模糊以及对元叙事的质疑等主题。虽然弗里尔承认历史永远是虚构的,但他也致力于以另一种方式记录历史事实。弗里尔对这种双重历史活动的自觉使用,使他能够让我们质疑宏大的叙事,正如伦巴第对休·奥尼尔生活的民族主义描述所显示的那样。与伦巴第不同的是,弗里尔把休·奥尼尔的历史描绘成一个分裂的人物,他在支持其他酋长和对英国女王表面上的忠诚之间保持着微妙的平衡。具有讽刺意味的是,虽然弗里尔认为自己是一个后现代主义者,解构了伦巴第对奥尼尔的民族主义版本,但他也接受伦巴第的观点,即历史是由历史学家创造的叙述。弗里尔与伦巴第有许多共同的历史观点,但弗里尔在这部戏剧中写的奥尼尔传记与奥尼尔自己想写的传记相似,也就是说,一个在英国文化价值观和爱尔兰文化价值观之间挣扎的矛盾人物的故事。正如弗里埃尔笔下的奥尼尔发现自己在盎格鲁-爱尔兰关系的局部敌意和欧洲政治的更广阔前景之间分裂一样,弗里埃尔在伦巴第的理论和奥尼尔的愿望(将自己描绘成一个矛盾的人)之间谨慎地平衡了辩证法。弗里尔对元历史戏剧技巧的运用使他表现出对历史叙事的后现代怀疑主义。但是,这部戏剧不能简单地融入后现代主义的经典。弗里尔对生活的热爱和对了解一个人内心的本能渴望,在他对奥尼尔的描述中表现为一个分裂的自我,这似乎削弱了他无情的后现代分析,一种对历史作为小说的激进的去神秘化。
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
MAKING HISTORY.
This paper examines both Brian Friel's historical discussion about making history and his own process of making history in Making History to see how his historical drama enacts issues addressed by Linda Hutcheon - topics such as the blurring of history and fiction and the questioning of metanarratives. While Friel acknowledges that history is always a fiction, he is also committed to the project of recording historical facts in another tune. Friel's self-conscious use of such double historical activities enables him to make us question the grand narrative, as shown in Lombard's nationalist accounts of the life of Hugh O'Neill. Unlike Lombard, Friel makes the history of Hugh O'Neill as that of a divided figure, who sustains a delicate balance between supporting his fellow chieftains and a semblance of loyalty to the English Queen. It is ironical that while Friel sees himself as a postmodernist who deconstructs Lombard's nationalistic version of O'Neill, he also accepts Lombard's view that history is a narrative made by a historian-maker. Friel shares with Lombard many historical ideas, but the O'Neill biography Friel is writing in this play is similar to the biography O'Neill himself wants to be written, that is, the story of a contradictory man torn between the cultural values of Englishness and Irishness. Just as Friel's O'Neill finds himself divided between the local hostilities of Anglo-Irish relations and the wider prospects of European politics, so Friel posits himself in a carefully balanced dialectic between Lombard's theory and O'Neill's wish (to depict himself as a contradictory man). Friel's use of meta-historical dramatic technique enables him to exhibit a postmodern skepticism of historical narratives. But the play cannot simply be assimilated into the canon of postmodernism. Friel's love of life and instinctivedesire to understand one's inner mind, as represented in his depiction of O'Neill as a divided self, seem to weaken his unrelenting postmodern analysis, a radical demystification of history as a fiction.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The President's Page Research methodology. FORTISSIMO! Binding. And Now For Something Completely Different
×
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