“Koestler最好的作品之一”

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Zénó Vernyik
{"title":"“Koestler最好的作品之一”","authors":"Zénó Vernyik","doi":"10.5325/reception.14.1.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article analyzes the immediate critical reception of Arthur Koestler’s Arrival and Departure. The third novel published in his lifetime, it was the first Koestler wrote in English. Although a commercial success, his biographies disagree on the novel’s critical reception: some claim it was a success, others talk of a reserved or hostile reception. As a part of an ongoing larger project, the present article shows, based on the analysis of sixty reviews published between 1943 and 1946, that the novel had an unqualified critical success. Further, through comparing this reception to that of Thieves in the Night, it pinpoints that Arrival and Departure is both comparatively less obscure than Thieves in the Night, and, unlike in the case of the other novel, the contemporary status of Arrival and Departure is not the result of an uncritical rehashing of old critical remarks. This quantitatively informed treatment is then juxtaposed to a discussion of three specific claims of the early reviews (flat characters, weak plot, and a polemical structure) in terms of their connection to the book’s genre. Finally, the paper emphasizes that regardless of the iconic status of Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler clearly should not be considered as a one-book wonder.","PeriodicalId":40584,"journal":{"name":"Reception-Texts Readers Audiences History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“One of Koestler’s Best”\",\"authors\":\"Zénó Vernyik\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/reception.14.1.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article analyzes the immediate critical reception of Arthur Koestler’s Arrival and Departure. The third novel published in his lifetime, it was the first Koestler wrote in English. Although a commercial success, his biographies disagree on the novel’s critical reception: some claim it was a success, others talk of a reserved or hostile reception. As a part of an ongoing larger project, the present article shows, based on the analysis of sixty reviews published between 1943 and 1946, that the novel had an unqualified critical success. Further, through comparing this reception to that of Thieves in the Night, it pinpoints that Arrival and Departure is both comparatively less obscure than Thieves in the Night, and, unlike in the case of the other novel, the contemporary status of Arrival and Departure is not the result of an uncritical rehashing of old critical remarks. This quantitatively informed treatment is then juxtaposed to a discussion of three specific claims of the early reviews (flat characters, weak plot, and a polemical structure) in terms of their connection to the book’s genre. Finally, the paper emphasizes that regardless of the iconic status of Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler clearly should not be considered as a one-book wonder.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reception-Texts Readers Audiences History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reception-Texts Readers Audiences History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/reception.14.1.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reception-Texts Readers Audiences History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/reception.14.1.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了阿瑟·库斯勒的《到达与离开》在评论界的直接反响。这是他一生中出版的第三部小说,也是他第一部用英语写的小说。尽管这部小说在商业上取得了成功,但评论界对他的评价却不尽相同:一些人认为这是一部成功的小说,另一些人则认为这是一部保守的或充满敌意的小说。作为一个正在进行的更大项目的一部分,本文基于对1943年至1946年间发表的60篇评论的分析,表明这部小说在评论界取得了绝对的成功。此外,通过与《夜贼》的比较,作者指出,《到达与离开》相对而言都没有《夜贼》那么晦涩,而且,与其他小说不同,《到达与离开》的当代地位并不是对旧批评言论不加批判地重复的结果。这种定量的信息处理然后与早期评论的三个具体主张(扁平的角色,薄弱的情节和争论性的结构)的讨论并置,就它们与书的类型的联系而言。最后,本文强调,尽管《正午的黑暗》具有标志性的地位,但阿瑟·库斯勒显然不应该被视为一本书的奇迹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“One of Koestler’s Best”
This article analyzes the immediate critical reception of Arthur Koestler’s Arrival and Departure. The third novel published in his lifetime, it was the first Koestler wrote in English. Although a commercial success, his biographies disagree on the novel’s critical reception: some claim it was a success, others talk of a reserved or hostile reception. As a part of an ongoing larger project, the present article shows, based on the analysis of sixty reviews published between 1943 and 1946, that the novel had an unqualified critical success. Further, through comparing this reception to that of Thieves in the Night, it pinpoints that Arrival and Departure is both comparatively less obscure than Thieves in the Night, and, unlike in the case of the other novel, the contemporary status of Arrival and Departure is not the result of an uncritical rehashing of old critical remarks. This quantitatively informed treatment is then juxtaposed to a discussion of three specific claims of the early reviews (flat characters, weak plot, and a polemical structure) in terms of their connection to the book’s genre. Finally, the paper emphasizes that regardless of the iconic status of Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler clearly should not be considered as a one-book wonder.
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
Reception-Texts Readers Audiences History
Reception-Texts Readers Audiences History HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Reception: Texts, Readers, Audiences, History is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal published once a year. It seeks to promote dialog and discussion among scholars engaged in theoretical and practical analyses in several related fields: reader-response criticism and pedagogy, reception study, history of reading and the book, audience and communication studies, institutional studies and histories, as well as interpretive strategies related to feminism, race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, and postcolonial studies, focusing mainly but not exclusively on the literature, culture, and media of England and the United States.
×
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