读麦克黑尔读品钦,还是品钦还是后现代主义者?

Q2 Arts and Humanities Orbit (Cambridge) Pub Date : 2014-10-25 DOI:10.7766/ORBIT.V2.2.68
S. Bourcier
{"title":"读麦克黑尔读品钦,还是品钦还是后现代主义者?","authors":"S. Bourcier","doi":"10.7766/ORBIT.V2.2.68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Readings of Thomas Pynchon's novels are central to Brian McHale's theorization of the difference between modernist and postmodernist writing. McHale's argument that the difference resides in a shift from an 'epistemological dominant' to an 'ontological dominant' is, conversely, the foundation of his understanding of Pynchon. However, his reading of Against the Day , which suggests that the novel's use of multiple 'genre mirrors' aims to represent historical 'truth', sits uneasily within this literary-historical narrative. This essay argues that since for McHale postmodernism's ontological plurality ultimately refers back to discursive plurality, there is in fact no contradiction here. It further argues that Pynchon's project of pluralizing what McHale calls 'novelistic ontology' is no longer synonymous with 'de-conditioning' modernist readers: Pynchon's readers have either long since surrendered modernist modes of reading, or are postmodern natives who never practised them in the first place.","PeriodicalId":37450,"journal":{"name":"Orbit (Cambridge)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reading McHale reading Pynchon, or, Is Pynchon still a postmodernist?\",\"authors\":\"S. Bourcier\",\"doi\":\"10.7766/ORBIT.V2.2.68\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Readings of Thomas Pynchon's novels are central to Brian McHale's theorization of the difference between modernist and postmodernist writing. McHale's argument that the difference resides in a shift from an 'epistemological dominant' to an 'ontological dominant' is, conversely, the foundation of his understanding of Pynchon. However, his reading of Against the Day , which suggests that the novel's use of multiple 'genre mirrors' aims to represent historical 'truth', sits uneasily within this literary-historical narrative. This essay argues that since for McHale postmodernism's ontological plurality ultimately refers back to discursive plurality, there is in fact no contradiction here. It further argues that Pynchon's project of pluralizing what McHale calls 'novelistic ontology' is no longer synonymous with 'de-conditioning' modernist readers: Pynchon's readers have either long since surrendered modernist modes of reading, or are postmodern natives who never practised them in the first place.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orbit (Cambridge)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orbit (Cambridge)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7766/ORBIT.V2.2.68\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orbit (Cambridge)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7766/ORBIT.V2.2.68","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

阅读托马斯·品钦的小说是布赖恩·麦克海尔关于现代主义和后现代主义写作差异的理论的核心。相反,麦克海尔认为,这种差异在于从“认识论的主导”到“本体论的主导”的转变,这是他对品钦理解的基础。然而,他对《逆日而行》的解读表明,这部小说使用了多种“体裁镜子”,旨在表现历史的“真相”,这在文学历史叙事中显得很不自在。本文认为,对麦克黑尔来说,后现代主义的本体论多元性最终指的是话语多元性,因此这里实际上并不存在矛盾。它进一步论证道,品钦将麦克海尔所称的“小说本体论”多元化的计划不再等同于“去条件化”的现代主义读者:品钦的读者要么早就放弃了现代主义的阅读模式,要么是后现代的当地人,从一开始就没有实践过这些模式。
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
Reading McHale reading Pynchon, or, Is Pynchon still a postmodernist?
Readings of Thomas Pynchon's novels are central to Brian McHale's theorization of the difference between modernist and postmodernist writing. McHale's argument that the difference resides in a shift from an 'epistemological dominant' to an 'ontological dominant' is, conversely, the foundation of his understanding of Pynchon. However, his reading of Against the Day , which suggests that the novel's use of multiple 'genre mirrors' aims to represent historical 'truth', sits uneasily within this literary-historical narrative. This essay argues that since for McHale postmodernism's ontological plurality ultimately refers back to discursive plurality, there is in fact no contradiction here. It further argues that Pynchon's project of pluralizing what McHale calls 'novelistic ontology' is no longer synonymous with 'de-conditioning' modernist readers: Pynchon's readers have either long since surrendered modernist modes of reading, or are postmodern natives who never practised them in the first place.
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
Orbit (Cambridge)
Orbit (Cambridge) Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Orbit: Writing Around Pynchon is a journal that publishes high quality, rigorously reviewed and innovative scholarly material on the works of Thomas Pynchon, related authors and adjacent fields in 20th- and 21st-century literature. We publish special and general issues in a rolling format, which brings together a traditional journal article style with the latest publishing technology to ensure faster, yet prestigious, publication for authors.
期刊最新文献
The Flight of the Junky: Existential Posthumanism and Immanent Life in Early Burroughs Forget-me-not: Giving Voice to Memory in Mark Z. Danielewski's "The Familiar" and Elsa Morante's "La Storia" Introduction: Becoming Familiar with The Familiar, or, The Imaginary Novel and the Imagination Into the Catsum. Mark Z. Danielewski's Arithmopoetics ‘Questionable + Intelligence’: Inter + Legere
×
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