菲利普·罗斯《乳房》中的存在主义修正

IF 0.4 4区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
James Duban
{"title":"菲利普·罗斯《乳房》中的存在主义修正","authors":"James Duban","doi":"10.1353/pan.2020.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Why might Philip Roth, in 1980, have published a revised edition of The Breast (1972), and what do many of his emendations have to do with recent scholarly disclosure of the existential concerns of the original narrative? How, moreover, in the second edition, does de facto co-authored narrative technique pertain to Sartre's tenet that consciousness arises as an upsurge of nothingness amid the dross substance of non-reflective Being? I conclude that in the revised edition Roth imbues David Kepesh, his once-autonomous narrator, with levels of authorial cognizance that subordinate Kepesh's early outlooks to the consciousness-usurping intrusion of the author—now the author-narrator. That act of domination may dramatize Sartre's description of the existential \"look,\" which stands to usurp the consciousness of \"the Other.\" The act of thus revising an already existential narrative illustrates the flight of the Sartrian \"For-Itself\" toward \"the higher functions of consciousness.\"","PeriodicalId":42435,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"1 1","pages":"83 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Existential Revision in Philip Roth's The Breast\",\"authors\":\"James Duban\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pan.2020.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Why might Philip Roth, in 1980, have published a revised edition of The Breast (1972), and what do many of his emendations have to do with recent scholarly disclosure of the existential concerns of the original narrative? How, moreover, in the second edition, does de facto co-authored narrative technique pertain to Sartre's tenet that consciousness arises as an upsurge of nothingness amid the dross substance of non-reflective Being? I conclude that in the revised edition Roth imbues David Kepesh, his once-autonomous narrator, with levels of authorial cognizance that subordinate Kepesh's early outlooks to the consciousness-usurping intrusion of the author—now the author-narrator. That act of domination may dramatize Sartre's description of the existential \\\"look,\\\" which stands to usurp the consciousness of \\\"the Other.\\\" The act of thus revising an already existential narrative illustrates the flight of the Sartrian \\\"For-Itself\\\" toward \\\"the higher functions of consciousness.\\\"\",\"PeriodicalId\":42435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"83 - 99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2020.0004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2020.0004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:为什么菲利普·罗斯(Philip Roth)在1980年出版了修订版的《乳房》(1972),他的许多修订版与最近对原始叙事存在主义担忧的学术披露有什么关系?此外,在第二版中,事实上的共同创作的叙事技巧如何与萨特的信条有关,即意识是在非反思存在的糟糠中作为虚无的高潮而产生的?我的结论是,在修订后的版本中,罗斯给他曾经自主的叙述者大卫·科佩什灌输了一定程度的作者认知,使科佩什早期的观点屈从于作者——现在的作者——叙述者——篡夺意识的入侵。这种统治行为可能会戏剧化萨特对存在主义“外观”的描述,这种描述会篡夺“他者”的意识。这样修改一个已经存在的叙述的行为说明了萨特式的“自我”向“意识的更高功能”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。
Existential Revision in Philip Roth's The Breast
Abstract:Why might Philip Roth, in 1980, have published a revised edition of The Breast (1972), and what do many of his emendations have to do with recent scholarly disclosure of the existential concerns of the original narrative? How, moreover, in the second edition, does de facto co-authored narrative technique pertain to Sartre's tenet that consciousness arises as an upsurge of nothingness amid the dross substance of non-reflective Being? I conclude that in the revised edition Roth imbues David Kepesh, his once-autonomous narrator, with levels of authorial cognizance that subordinate Kepesh's early outlooks to the consciousness-usurping intrusion of the author—now the author-narrator. That act of domination may dramatize Sartre's description of the existential "look," which stands to usurp the consciousness of "the Other." The act of thus revising an already existential narrative illustrates the flight of the Sartrian "For-Itself" toward "the higher functions of consciousness."
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Partial Answers is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal that focuses on the study of literature and the history of ideas. This interdisciplinary component is responsible for combining analysis of literary works with discussions of historical and theoretical issues. The journal publishes articles on various national literatures including Anglophone, Hebrew, Yiddish, German, Russian, and, predominately, English literature. Partial Answers would appeal to literature scholars, teachers, and students in addition to scholars in philosophy, cultural studies, and intellectual history.
×
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