{"title":"其他死后","authors":"B. Edwards","doi":"10.1632/S0030812923000366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It was a fortunate coincidence that while I was reading the exquisite and devastating oeuvre of Abdulrazak Gurnah and editing the cluster of articles on his fiction that appears in this issue, I was also preparing to give a talk at a conference on Toni Morrison at Princeton University (sitesofmemorysymposium.org/), held in conjunction with the opening of a small but revelatory exhibition of papers and artifacts drawn from her personal archive. Fortunate not because they happen to be fellow winners of the Nobel Prize for literature— even if Morrison was one of the previous awardees Gurnah said he admired as he jokingly told an interviewer at the Swedish Academy in April 2022 that “it’s great to join this team” (“Abdulrazak Gurnah, Nobel Prize in Literature”)—but because it provided an opportunity to take account of the unexpected parallels between their bodies of work. While upon first glance there might appear to be an ocean of difference between their styles as novelists, an infinite distance between the “small patch[es] of ground” they cover (“Abdulrazak Gurnah with Susheila Nasta” 354), they might be said to share a determination to “translate the historical into the personal,” as Morrison once phrased it (“Toni Morrison” 103), shifting our attention from the large-scale forces of slavery, war, colonialism, and migration to the intimacies of individual lives. There are methodological similarities too. Both start with memory, but not because their novels are driven by an autobiographical impulse.Morrison’s insistence on what she calls “the ruse of memory” in writing fiction is not meant to grant some absolute authority to the recollection of personal experience. Instead for her the term memory signals “a form of willed creation. It is not an effort to find out the way it really was—that is research. The point is to dwell on the way it appeared and why it appeared in that particular way” (“Memory” 385). Likewise, Gurnah notes that for the migrant writer “it’s memory that becomes the source and your subject,” but “you don’t always remember accurately and you begin to recall things you didn’t even know you remembered,” with the result that “the stories take on a","PeriodicalId":47559,"journal":{"name":"PMLA-PUBLICATIONS OF THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Other Afterlives\",\"authors\":\"B. Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.1632/S0030812923000366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It was a fortunate coincidence that while I was reading the exquisite and devastating oeuvre of Abdulrazak Gurnah and editing the cluster of articles on his fiction that appears in this issue, I was also preparing to give a talk at a conference on Toni Morrison at Princeton University (sitesofmemorysymposium.org/), held in conjunction with the opening of a small but revelatory exhibition of papers and artifacts drawn from her personal archive. Fortunate not because they happen to be fellow winners of the Nobel Prize for literature— even if Morrison was one of the previous awardees Gurnah said he admired as he jokingly told an interviewer at the Swedish Academy in April 2022 that “it’s great to join this team” (“Abdulrazak Gurnah, Nobel Prize in Literature”)—but because it provided an opportunity to take account of the unexpected parallels between their bodies of work. While upon first glance there might appear to be an ocean of difference between their styles as novelists, an infinite distance between the “small patch[es] of ground” they cover (“Abdulrazak Gurnah with Susheila Nasta” 354), they might be said to share a determination to “translate the historical into the personal,” as Morrison once phrased it (“Toni Morrison” 103), shifting our attention from the large-scale forces of slavery, war, colonialism, and migration to the intimacies of individual lives. There are methodological similarities too. Both start with memory, but not because their novels are driven by an autobiographical impulse.Morrison’s insistence on what she calls “the ruse of memory” in writing fiction is not meant to grant some absolute authority to the recollection of personal experience. Instead for her the term memory signals “a form of willed creation. It is not an effort to find out the way it really was—that is research. The point is to dwell on the way it appeared and why it appeared in that particular way” (“Memory” 385). Likewise, Gurnah notes that for the migrant writer “it’s memory that becomes the source and your subject,” but “you don’t always remember accurately and you begin to recall things you didn’t even know you remembered,” with the result that “the stories take on a\",\"PeriodicalId\":47559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PMLA-PUBLICATIONS OF THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PMLA-PUBLICATIONS OF THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1632/S0030812923000366\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PMLA-PUBLICATIONS OF THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1632/S0030812923000366","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这是一个幸运的巧合,当我在阅读阿卜杜拉扎克·古尔纳精美而震撼人心的作品,并在这期杂志上编辑关于他的小说的文章时,我也在普林斯顿大学准备在一个关于托尼·莫里森的会议上发表演讲(sitesofmemorysymposium.org/),),与此同时,一个小型但具有启发性的展览开幕了,展出了从她的个人档案中抽出的论文和手工艺品。幸运的不是因为他们碰巧是诺贝尔文学奖的得主——尽管莫里森是古尔纳之前钦佩的获奖者之一,他曾在2022年4月在瑞典学院接受采访时开玩笑地说:“加入这个团队真是太好了”(“阿卜杜勒拉扎克·古尔纳,诺贝尔文学奖”)——而是因为这提供了一个机会,让我们考虑到他们的作品之间意想不到的相似之处。虽然乍一看,他们作为小说家的风格似乎有天壤之别,他们所涵盖的“一小块土地”之间存在无限的距离(“Abdulrazak Gurnah with Susheila Nasta”354),但他们可能会说,他们都有“将历史转化为个人”的决心,正如莫里森曾说过的那样(《托尼·莫里森》(Toni Morrison)),将我们的注意力从奴隶制、战争、殖民主义和移民等大规模力量转移到个人生活的亲密关系上。两者在方法上也有相似之处。他们都是从记忆开始的,但不是因为他们的小说是由自传体的冲动驱动的。莫里森在小说写作中坚持她所说的“记忆的诡计”,并不是要赋予个人经历的回忆某种绝对的权威。相反,对她来说,记忆这个词象征着“一种意志创造的形式”。这不是一种努力,以找出它真正的方式-这是研究。重点是要详述它出现的方式,以及它为什么以这种特殊的方式出现”(《记忆》385)。同样,古纳指出,对于移民作家来说,“记忆成为了素材和主题”,但“你并不总是记得准确,你开始回忆起一些你甚至不知道自己记住的事情”,结果是“故事呈现出一种模糊的感觉。
It was a fortunate coincidence that while I was reading the exquisite and devastating oeuvre of Abdulrazak Gurnah and editing the cluster of articles on his fiction that appears in this issue, I was also preparing to give a talk at a conference on Toni Morrison at Princeton University (sitesofmemorysymposium.org/), held in conjunction with the opening of a small but revelatory exhibition of papers and artifacts drawn from her personal archive. Fortunate not because they happen to be fellow winners of the Nobel Prize for literature— even if Morrison was one of the previous awardees Gurnah said he admired as he jokingly told an interviewer at the Swedish Academy in April 2022 that “it’s great to join this team” (“Abdulrazak Gurnah, Nobel Prize in Literature”)—but because it provided an opportunity to take account of the unexpected parallels between their bodies of work. While upon first glance there might appear to be an ocean of difference between their styles as novelists, an infinite distance between the “small patch[es] of ground” they cover (“Abdulrazak Gurnah with Susheila Nasta” 354), they might be said to share a determination to “translate the historical into the personal,” as Morrison once phrased it (“Toni Morrison” 103), shifting our attention from the large-scale forces of slavery, war, colonialism, and migration to the intimacies of individual lives. There are methodological similarities too. Both start with memory, but not because their novels are driven by an autobiographical impulse.Morrison’s insistence on what she calls “the ruse of memory” in writing fiction is not meant to grant some absolute authority to the recollection of personal experience. Instead for her the term memory signals “a form of willed creation. It is not an effort to find out the way it really was—that is research. The point is to dwell on the way it appeared and why it appeared in that particular way” (“Memory” 385). Likewise, Gurnah notes that for the migrant writer “it’s memory that becomes the source and your subject,” but “you don’t always remember accurately and you begin to recall things you didn’t even know you remembered,” with the result that “the stories take on a
期刊介绍:
PMLA is the journal of the Modern Language Association of America. Since 1884, PMLA has published members" essays judged to be of interest to scholars and teachers of language and literature. Four issues each year (January, March, May, and October) present essays on language and literature, and the November issue is the program for the association"s annual convention. (Up until 2009, there was also an issue in September, the Directory, containing a listing of the association"s members, a directory of departmental administrators, and other professional information. Beginning in 2010, that issue will be discontinued and its contents moved to the MLA Web site.)