Balbina Hoppe
{"title":"Schulz niesceniczny?","authors":"Balbina Hoppe","doi":"10.26881/sf.2019.13.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many theater reviewers consider Cinnamon Shops and the Sanatorium under the Sign of the Hourglass to be unspecific, impossible to translate into the language of the theater. Paradoxically, Schulz's theater reception is still growing, new performances, happenings and performances are created. The question arises whether today, in the era of post-dramatic theater, there is still a category such as “indecency” or should literary works be divided into those that can be shown in the theater and those that are not suitable for it. The article confronts the embarrassing concept of “indecency” on the example of Bruno Schulz's prose. It juxtaposes the harmful voices of critics with the rich theatrical reception of his work. It is an attempt to cleanse Schulz's work of accusations of indecency as a category now obsolete, anachronistic.","PeriodicalId":113600,"journal":{"name":"Schulz/Forum","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schulz/Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sf.2019.13.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多戏剧评论家认为《肉桂店》和《沙漏标志下的疗养院》不具体,不可能翻译成剧院的语言。矛盾的是,舒尔茨的戏剧接待仍在增长,新的表演,事件和表演被创造出来。问题是,在后戏剧时代的今天,是否还有“不雅”这样的范畴,或者文学作品是否应该分为可以在戏剧中展示的和不适合在戏剧中展示的。本文以布鲁诺·舒尔茨的散文为例,直面“不雅”这一尴尬的概念。它将评论家的有害声音与他的作品的丰富的戏剧接受并置。这是为了洗清舒尔茨作品中对猥亵行为的指控,认为这是一个已经过时、不合时宜的类别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Schulz niesceniczny?
Many theater reviewers consider Cinnamon Shops and the Sanatorium under the Sign of the Hourglass to be unspecific, impossible to translate into the language of the theater. Paradoxically, Schulz's theater reception is still growing, new performances, happenings and performances are created. The question arises whether today, in the era of post-dramatic theater, there is still a category such as “indecency” or should literary works be divided into those that can be shown in the theater and those that are not suitable for it. The article confronts the embarrassing concept of “indecency” on the example of Bruno Schulz's prose. It juxtaposes the harmful voices of critics with the rich theatrical reception of his work. It is an attempt to cleanse Schulz's work of accusations of indecency as a category now obsolete, anachronistic.
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