尤金Banauch。流动流亡:1940-2006年加拿大犹太流亡作家

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE Pub Date : 2012-01-01 DOI:10.1515/ang-2012-0012
Walter Grünzweig
{"title":"尤金Banauch。流动流亡:1940-2006年加拿大犹太流亡作家","authors":"Walter Grünzweig","doi":"10.1515/ang-2012-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most important consequences of the leftist turn in German literary criticism in the late 1960s was the discovery of a whole new canon of texts written by authors forced to leave the German-speaking countries after the Nazi takeover in 1933. To be sure, renowned authors such as Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann or Franz Werfel had always received attention, but many writers – or artists, or scientists – who had not previously been acknowledged at home remained largely unknown and unread. The openings of the canon which occurred in the post-Sixties also benefitted authors in exile – albeit more for political than literary reasons. This distinction, of course, had become as obsolete as the traditional canon itself. Some thirty years after the discovery of exile literature, with the Sixties at a historical distance, the self-interest of German and Austrian critics in acknowledging exile writers had become apparent. By repatriating these authors, the children of the perpetrator generation tended to rehabilitate their own reputation as much as address the wrongs that had been committed vis-à-vis the exiles. Thus their reluctance to acknowledge these writers’ full biographies. Instead of focusing on their lifetime achievement and looking at them as the literary personalities they had become in the course of four, or five, or six, decades, they reduced them to the exilic condition. In short, they focused on the losses, not only to the exiles themselves but also to Germany and Austria, and neglected the gains made in the New World. In order to change this one-sided approach, the catastrophe defined by Germanistik was to be complemented by the new beginning analysed and commented on by American Studies. A number of investigations of Austrian and German exile writers began to be undertaken in American Studies in the 1990s, including Franzi Ascher-Nash, Mimi Grossberg, Anna Krommer, Felix Pollak, Johannes Urzidil and Wieland Herzfelde. The most recent – and a very successful example – is Ingrid Gehrke’s study of Carl Djerassi, the father of the “pill” and a chemist-turned-writer who wrote, looking back at his career: “If I hadn’t been born a Jew, I wouldn’t have left Vienna and would doubtless have ended up as an Austrian physician ...” – rather than becoming a world-famous scientist. Eugen Banauch’s study of four Jewish exile writers in Canada, however, is the first to solidly bring together the many theories and approaches connected with American cultural studies on the one hand and exile literature on the other. The","PeriodicalId":43572,"journal":{"name":"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE","volume":"35 1","pages":"126 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eugen Banauch. Fluid Exile: Jewish Exile Writers in Canada 1940–2006\",\"authors\":\"Walter Grünzweig\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ang-2012-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the most important consequences of the leftist turn in German literary criticism in the late 1960s was the discovery of a whole new canon of texts written by authors forced to leave the German-speaking countries after the Nazi takeover in 1933. To be sure, renowned authors such as Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann or Franz Werfel had always received attention, but many writers – or artists, or scientists – who had not previously been acknowledged at home remained largely unknown and unread. The openings of the canon which occurred in the post-Sixties also benefitted authors in exile – albeit more for political than literary reasons. This distinction, of course, had become as obsolete as the traditional canon itself. Some thirty years after the discovery of exile literature, with the Sixties at a historical distance, the self-interest of German and Austrian critics in acknowledging exile writers had become apparent. By repatriating these authors, the children of the perpetrator generation tended to rehabilitate their own reputation as much as address the wrongs that had been committed vis-à-vis the exiles. Thus their reluctance to acknowledge these writers’ full biographies. Instead of focusing on their lifetime achievement and looking at them as the literary personalities they had become in the course of four, or five, or six, decades, they reduced them to the exilic condition. In short, they focused on the losses, not only to the exiles themselves but also to Germany and Austria, and neglected the gains made in the New World. In order to change this one-sided approach, the catastrophe defined by Germanistik was to be complemented by the new beginning analysed and commented on by American Studies. A number of investigations of Austrian and German exile writers began to be undertaken in American Studies in the 1990s, including Franzi Ascher-Nash, Mimi Grossberg, Anna Krommer, Felix Pollak, Johannes Urzidil and Wieland Herzfelde. The most recent – and a very successful example – is Ingrid Gehrke’s study of Carl Djerassi, the father of the “pill” and a chemist-turned-writer who wrote, looking back at his career: “If I hadn’t been born a Jew, I wouldn’t have left Vienna and would doubtless have ended up as an Austrian physician ...” – rather than becoming a world-famous scientist. Eugen Banauch’s study of four Jewish exile writers in Canada, however, is the first to solidly bring together the many theories and approaches connected with American cultural studies on the one hand and exile literature on the other. The\",\"PeriodicalId\":43572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"126 - 128\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2012-0012\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANGLIA-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ENGLISCHE PHILOLOGIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2012-0012","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

20世纪60年代末,德国文学批评转向左倾,最重要的后果之一是发现了由1933年纳粹掌权后被迫离开德语国家的作家创作的全新经典。诚然,像贝托尔特·布莱希特、托马斯·曼或弗朗茨·韦尔费尔这样的著名作家一直受到关注,但许多以前在国内没有得到认可的作家、艺术家或科学家在很大程度上仍然不为人知,无人问津。60年代后,正典的开放也使流亡作家受益——尽管更多的是出于政治原因而非文学原因。当然,这种区别已经和传统的正典本身一样过时了。在流亡文学被发现大约30年后,随着60年代的历史距离,德国和奥地利评论家在承认流亡作家方面的自身利益已经变得明显。通过遣返这些作者,作恶者一代的子女倾向于恢复他们自己的声誉,并纠正对-à-vis流亡者犯下的错误。因此,他们不愿意承认这些作家的全部传记。他们没有关注他们一生的成就,也没有把他们看作是在四、五、六十年的时间里成为的文学人物,而是把他们贬为被流放的人。简而言之,他们关注的不仅是流亡者本身的损失,还有德国和奥地利的损失,而忽视了在新大陆取得的成就。为了改变这种片面的做法,德国学派所定义的灾难必须由美国研究分析和评论的新开端来补充。20世纪90年代,美国研究开始对奥地利和德国流亡作家进行调查,包括弗朗齐·阿舍尔-纳什、米米·格罗斯伯格、安娜·克罗默、菲利克斯·波拉克、约翰内斯·乌尔齐迪尔和维兰·赫茨菲尔德。最近的一个非常成功的例子是英格丽德·格尔克(Ingrid Gehrke)对卡尔·杰拉西(Carl Djerassi)的研究。杰拉西是“药丸”之父,也是一名化学家出身的作家,他在回顾自己的职业生涯时写道:“如果我不是生来就是犹太人,我就不会离开维也纳,毫无疑问,我最终会成为一名奥地利医生……——而不是成为世界著名的科学家。然而,Eugen banuch对加拿大四位犹太流亡作家的研究,是第一个将许多与美国文化研究和流亡文学有关的理论和方法牢固地结合在一起的。的
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
Eugen Banauch. Fluid Exile: Jewish Exile Writers in Canada 1940–2006
One of the most important consequences of the leftist turn in German literary criticism in the late 1960s was the discovery of a whole new canon of texts written by authors forced to leave the German-speaking countries after the Nazi takeover in 1933. To be sure, renowned authors such as Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann or Franz Werfel had always received attention, but many writers – or artists, or scientists – who had not previously been acknowledged at home remained largely unknown and unread. The openings of the canon which occurred in the post-Sixties also benefitted authors in exile – albeit more for political than literary reasons. This distinction, of course, had become as obsolete as the traditional canon itself. Some thirty years after the discovery of exile literature, with the Sixties at a historical distance, the self-interest of German and Austrian critics in acknowledging exile writers had become apparent. By repatriating these authors, the children of the perpetrator generation tended to rehabilitate their own reputation as much as address the wrongs that had been committed vis-à-vis the exiles. Thus their reluctance to acknowledge these writers’ full biographies. Instead of focusing on their lifetime achievement and looking at them as the literary personalities they had become in the course of four, or five, or six, decades, they reduced them to the exilic condition. In short, they focused on the losses, not only to the exiles themselves but also to Germany and Austria, and neglected the gains made in the New World. In order to change this one-sided approach, the catastrophe defined by Germanistik was to be complemented by the new beginning analysed and commented on by American Studies. A number of investigations of Austrian and German exile writers began to be undertaken in American Studies in the 1990s, including Franzi Ascher-Nash, Mimi Grossberg, Anna Krommer, Felix Pollak, Johannes Urzidil and Wieland Herzfelde. The most recent – and a very successful example – is Ingrid Gehrke’s study of Carl Djerassi, the father of the “pill” and a chemist-turned-writer who wrote, looking back at his career: “If I hadn’t been born a Jew, I wouldn’t have left Vienna and would doubtless have ended up as an Austrian physician ...” – rather than becoming a world-famous scientist. Eugen Banauch’s study of four Jewish exile writers in Canada, however, is the first to solidly bring together the many theories and approaches connected with American cultural studies on the one hand and exile literature on the other. The
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: The journal of English philology, Anglia, was founded in 1878 by Moritz Trautmann and Richard P. Wülker, and is thus the oldest journal of English studies. Anglia covers a large part of the expanding field of English philology. It publishes essays on the English language and linguistic history, on English literature of the Middle Ages and the Modern period, on American literature, the newer literature in the English language, and on general and comparative literary studies, also including cultural and literary theory aspects. Further, Anglia contains reviews from the areas mentioned..
期刊最新文献
The “Ecological Imperative” in Literary Studies Thomas D’Urfey’s Adaptation of Cervantes’s Quixote: The Comical History of Don Quixote The Maypole of Merry Vagabonds: Hawthorne’s “The Seven Vagabonds” and the Birth of Conservative Utopia The Cosmopolitan Stranger in Muriel Spark’s The Finishing School “Words, Words, Words”: Mourid Barghouti’s Appropriation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in I Saw Ramallah
×
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