近期伦敦写作中对城市现实的挑战:伊恩·辛克莱的《鬼奶》和约翰·兰彻斯特的《资本》

Ingo Berensmeyer, Catharina Löffler
{"title":"近期伦敦写作中对城市现实的挑战:伊恩·辛克莱的《鬼奶》和约翰·兰彻斯特的《资本》","authors":"Ingo Berensmeyer, Catharina Löffler","doi":"10.1163/9789004369207_013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the possibilities of contemporary London writing to challenge established spatial orders of the city (and the City) of London. Formally, these range from the realist techniques of the social novel to more experimental forms that use elements of what has been termed ‘psychogeography’ and/or ‘schizocartography’. In a comparative reading, the article examines two examples: John Lanchester’s Capital (2012) and Iain Sinclair’s Ghost Milk: Calling Time on the Grand Project (2011), paying particular attention to their mix of factual and fictional writing, their modes of urban resistance, and their urban/literary politics. At a time of both global and local crises, the question arises which literary strategies of representation are more promising or effective in capturing and provoking political resistance. Is the conventional semantisation of space in the realist novel more effective than the rambling, subjective semiosis of the psychogeographer, or can we automatically assume that (following a modernist aesthetic) a narrative that challenges the reader’s ordinary habits of perception will also carry greater social or political efficacy? Or is this contrast between realism and experimentalism a distorted view of the actual development of current London writing? Perhaps these texts have more in common than what appears to separate them.","PeriodicalId":364268,"journal":{"name":"Resistance and the City","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging Urban Realities in Recent London Writing: Iain Sinclair’s Ghost Milk and John Lanchester’s Capital\",\"authors\":\"Ingo Berensmeyer, Catharina Löffler\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789004369207_013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores the possibilities of contemporary London writing to challenge established spatial orders of the city (and the City) of London. Formally, these range from the realist techniques of the social novel to more experimental forms that use elements of what has been termed ‘psychogeography’ and/or ‘schizocartography’. In a comparative reading, the article examines two examples: John Lanchester’s Capital (2012) and Iain Sinclair’s Ghost Milk: Calling Time on the Grand Project (2011), paying particular attention to their mix of factual and fictional writing, their modes of urban resistance, and their urban/literary politics. At a time of both global and local crises, the question arises which literary strategies of representation are more promising or effective in capturing and provoking political resistance. Is the conventional semantisation of space in the realist novel more effective than the rambling, subjective semiosis of the psychogeographer, or can we automatically assume that (following a modernist aesthetic) a narrative that challenges the reader’s ordinary habits of perception will also carry greater social or political efficacy? Or is this contrast between realism and experimentalism a distorted view of the actual development of current London writing? Perhaps these texts have more in common than what appears to separate them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":364268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resistance and the City\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resistance and the City\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004369207_013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resistance and the City","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004369207_013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了当代伦敦写作挑战伦敦城市(和城市)既定空间秩序的可能性。形式上,这些方法的范围从社会小说的现实主义技巧到使用被称为“心理地理学”和/或“精神解剖学”的元素的更具实验性的形式。在比较阅读中,本文考察了两个例子:约翰·兰彻斯特的《资本》(2012)和伊恩·辛克莱的《鬼奶:呼唤大工程的时间》(2011),特别关注他们的事实和虚构写作的混合,他们的城市抵抗模式,以及他们的城市/文学政治。在全球和地方危机的时刻,出现了一个问题,即哪种文学表现策略更有希望或更有效地捕捉和激起政治抵制。现实主义小说中对空间的传统语义是否比心理地理学家的杂乱无章、主观的符号学更有效,或者我们是否可以自动假设(遵循现代主义美学)一种挑战读者普通感知习惯的叙事也会带来更大的社会或政治功效?或者,现实主义和实验主义之间的对比是对当前伦敦写作实际发展的扭曲看法?也许这些文本有更多的共同之处,而不是将它们分开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenging Urban Realities in Recent London Writing: Iain Sinclair’s Ghost Milk and John Lanchester’s Capital
This article explores the possibilities of contemporary London writing to challenge established spatial orders of the city (and the City) of London. Formally, these range from the realist techniques of the social novel to more experimental forms that use elements of what has been termed ‘psychogeography’ and/or ‘schizocartography’. In a comparative reading, the article examines two examples: John Lanchester’s Capital (2012) and Iain Sinclair’s Ghost Milk: Calling Time on the Grand Project (2011), paying particular attention to their mix of factual and fictional writing, their modes of urban resistance, and their urban/literary politics. At a time of both global and local crises, the question arises which literary strategies of representation are more promising or effective in capturing and provoking political resistance. Is the conventional semantisation of space in the realist novel more effective than the rambling, subjective semiosis of the psychogeographer, or can we automatically assume that (following a modernist aesthetic) a narrative that challenges the reader’s ordinary habits of perception will also carry greater social or political efficacy? Or is this contrast between realism and experimentalism a distorted view of the actual development of current London writing? Perhaps these texts have more in common than what appears to separate them.
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
×
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