Preface

Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI:10.1080/15021866.2018.1557427
Matthew Wilkens, Julie Holledge, K. Gjesdal
{"title":"Preface","authors":"Matthew Wilkens, Julie Holledge, K. Gjesdal","doi":"10.1080/15021866.2018.1557427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Computational methods are not taking over the humanities,” Matthew Wilkens wrote in 2015 (11). If this may be true on a general basis, it seems safe to say that digital humanities have clearly made their way into Ibsen Studies, as the monograph A Global Doll’s House. Ibsen and Distant Visions (2016) by Julie Holledge et al. clearly shows. Jens Morten Hanssen’s article “Digital Humanities and Theatre Studies: New Perspectives on the Early Reception of Ibsen on the German Stage” is an important addition to this growing field of studies, and shows how computational methodologies can provide new insights into materials – such as the introduction of Ibsen in Germany – that were previously thought to be thoroughly studied. For instance, computational approaches provide new answers to what probably is the greatest enigma of the German reception of Ibsen, namely, the failure of A Doll’s House after the positive reception of Pillars of Society. Liyang Xia’s article “A Myth that Glorifies: Rethinking Ibsen’s early reception in China” also engages with an established narrative and brings significantly new evidence, as well as historiographical reflections, on the legacy of Ibsen on the Chinese stage. Xia shows how there are strong reasons to doubt that the 1914 Shanghai staging of A Doll’s House by the Spring Willow Society, which has long been considered the first performance of Ibsen in China, actually took place. If this is the case, the history of Ibsen in China has to be rewritten, and later actors, especially female student groups, should be given credit for having introduced Ibsen’s plays to the country. Besides historical research, Xia also engages in a critical reflection on the narrative about Ibsen’s Chinese reception that has been proposed in the last four decades. The third article, Marit Aalen’s and Anders Zachrisson’s “Peer Gynt and Freud’s The Uncanny,” draws upon the rich bibliography on Ibsen and Freud, but by focusing on a play, Peer Gynt, that is not usually read from this perspective. Through a close reading of scenes from the play, Aalen and Zachrisson show how the","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15021866.2018.1557427","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021866.2018.1557427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“Computational methods are not taking over the humanities,” Matthew Wilkens wrote in 2015 (11). If this may be true on a general basis, it seems safe to say that digital humanities have clearly made their way into Ibsen Studies, as the monograph A Global Doll’s House. Ibsen and Distant Visions (2016) by Julie Holledge et al. clearly shows. Jens Morten Hanssen’s article “Digital Humanities and Theatre Studies: New Perspectives on the Early Reception of Ibsen on the German Stage” is an important addition to this growing field of studies, and shows how computational methodologies can provide new insights into materials – such as the introduction of Ibsen in Germany – that were previously thought to be thoroughly studied. For instance, computational approaches provide new answers to what probably is the greatest enigma of the German reception of Ibsen, namely, the failure of A Doll’s House after the positive reception of Pillars of Society. Liyang Xia’s article “A Myth that Glorifies: Rethinking Ibsen’s early reception in China” also engages with an established narrative and brings significantly new evidence, as well as historiographical reflections, on the legacy of Ibsen on the Chinese stage. Xia shows how there are strong reasons to doubt that the 1914 Shanghai staging of A Doll’s House by the Spring Willow Society, which has long been considered the first performance of Ibsen in China, actually took place. If this is the case, the history of Ibsen in China has to be rewritten, and later actors, especially female student groups, should be given credit for having introduced Ibsen’s plays to the country. Besides historical research, Xia also engages in a critical reflection on the narrative about Ibsen’s Chinese reception that has been proposed in the last four decades. The third article, Marit Aalen’s and Anders Zachrisson’s “Peer Gynt and Freud’s The Uncanny,” draws upon the rich bibliography on Ibsen and Freud, but by focusing on a play, Peer Gynt, that is not usually read from this perspective. Through a close reading of scenes from the play, Aalen and Zachrisson show how the
分享
查看原文
前言
“计算方法并没有取代人文学科,”Matthew Wilkens在2015年写道(11)。如果这在总体上是真的,那么可以肯定地说,数字人文学科显然已经进入了易卜生研究,就像专著《全球玩偶之家》一样。Julie Holledge等人的《易卜生与远见卓识》(2016)清楚地表明了这一点。Jens Morten Hanssen的文章《数字人文与戏剧研究:德国舞台上易卜生早期接受的新视角》是这一不断发展的研究领域的重要补充,并展示了计算方法如何为材料提供新的见解,例如易卜生在德国的介绍,这些材料以前被认为是经过彻底研究的。例如,计算方法为德国接受易卜生的最大谜团提供了新的答案,即在积极接受社会支柱之后,玩偶之家的失败。夏的文章《光辉的神话:反思易卜生在中国的早期接受》也采用了一种既定的叙事,并为易卜生的遗产在中国舞台上带来了重要的新证据和历史反思。夏表示,有充分的理由怀疑1914年春柳社在上海上演的《玩偶之家》,长期以来被认为是易卜生在中国的第一场演出,是否真的发生了。如果是这样的话,易卜生在中国的历史必须被改写,后来的演员,尤其是女学生团体,应该因为把易卜生的戏剧介绍到了中国而受到赞扬。除了历史研究,夏还对过去四十年来提出的易卜生接受中国人的叙事进行了批判性反思。第三篇文章,Marit Aalen和Anders Zacharsson的《Peer Gynt和Freud的Uncanny》,借鉴了关于易卜生和弗洛伊德的丰富参考书目,但重点关注了一部通常不从这个角度阅读的戏剧《Peer Gint》。通过仔细阅读剧中的场景,Aalen和Zacharsson展示了
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信