从边缘阅读:纳胡姆·泰特与莎士比亚的《李尔王》作为文化产品的比较

R. Basuki, M. Meilinda
{"title":"从边缘阅读:纳胡姆·泰特与莎士比亚的《李尔王》作为文化产品的比较","authors":"R. Basuki, M. Meilinda","doi":"10.9744/kata.12.2.192-209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nahum Tate’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s King Lear was so successful in Restoration theatre. Modern critics, however, regard Tate’s work as a second class drama which deserves mockery and dismiss it from master narratives of the history of English theatre. Therefore, we examine the ‘fields of cultural production’ of Shakespeare’s and Nahum Tate’s King Lear from Shakespeare’s time to the present to find out how each period values a certain work of literature. In the discussion, we would like to argue that the shifting ‘fields of cultural production’ determines the acceptance and rejection of Nahum Tate’s King Lear. By analyzing the ‘fields of cultural productions’ of both plays, we show that Tate’s has been excluded from the canonization within modern field of production’s discourses because of shifting circles of belief.","PeriodicalId":30120,"journal":{"name":"Kta A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reading from the Margin: Examining Nahum Tate’s vs. Shakespeare’s King Lear as Cultural Products\",\"authors\":\"R. Basuki, M. Meilinda\",\"doi\":\"10.9744/kata.12.2.192-209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Nahum Tate’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s King Lear was so successful in Restoration theatre. Modern critics, however, regard Tate’s work as a second class drama which deserves mockery and dismiss it from master narratives of the history of English theatre. Therefore, we examine the ‘fields of cultural production’ of Shakespeare’s and Nahum Tate’s King Lear from Shakespeare’s time to the present to find out how each period values a certain work of literature. In the discussion, we would like to argue that the shifting ‘fields of cultural production’ determines the acceptance and rejection of Nahum Tate’s King Lear. By analyzing the ‘fields of cultural productions’ of both plays, we show that Tate’s has been excluded from the canonization within modern field of production’s discourses because of shifting circles of belief.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kta A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kta A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.12.2.192-209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kta A Biannual Publication on the Study of Language and Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.12.2.192-209","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

纳胡姆·泰特改编的莎士比亚的《李尔王》在复辟时期的剧院大获成功。然而,现代评论家认为泰特的作品是值得嘲笑的二等戏剧,并将其从英国戏剧史的大师叙事中剔除。因此,我们考察了莎士比亚和纳胡姆·泰特的《李尔王》从莎士比亚时代到现在的“文化生产领域”,以找出每个时期对某一部文学作品的重视程度。在讨论中,我们想论证“文化生产领域”的转变决定了对纳胡姆·泰特的《李尔王》的接受和拒绝。通过对两部戏剧的“文化生产场域”的分析,我们发现泰特在现代生产场域的话语中被排除在外是由于信仰圈的转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reading from the Margin: Examining Nahum Tate’s vs. Shakespeare’s King Lear as Cultural Products
Nahum Tate’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s King Lear was so successful in Restoration theatre. Modern critics, however, regard Tate’s work as a second class drama which deserves mockery and dismiss it from master narratives of the history of English theatre. Therefore, we examine the ‘fields of cultural production’ of Shakespeare’s and Nahum Tate’s King Lear from Shakespeare’s time to the present to find out how each period values a certain work of literature. In the discussion, we would like to argue that the shifting ‘fields of cultural production’ determines the acceptance and rejection of Nahum Tate’s King Lear. By analyzing the ‘fields of cultural productions’ of both plays, we show that Tate’s has been excluded from the canonization within modern field of production’s discourses because of shifting circles of belief.
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
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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