小说理论总论[1]外文翻译资料
2022-12-24 16:32:58
Theories of the Novel[1]
The novel is now recognized as a major genre, the most representative literary product of European and American culture since the Romantic period. But as recently as three decades ago, it had not achieved this recognition and general acceptance. Traces of the marginal status assigned to the novel can still be found in college curricula whose historical sequences of courses in “literature” do not include prose narratives. The purposes and methods of critics of the novel after World War II were in large part determined by their desire to demonstrate the importance of the genre at a time when claims about literary merit were based on analysis of form. So long as discussions of the novel emphasized its subject matter and content,disregarding the formal issues that were then important in criticism and aesthetics, it would remain an uncanonized genre in literary study.
The New Critics, by fixing their attention on individual poems, had shown that claims about aesthetic value and meaning could be backed up by detailed analysis of form. One way to attain for the novel the esteem traditionally accorded to other genres would be to show that its techniques are as subtle and complex and its forms as significant as those of the epic, of drama, and of poetry. After World War II,a number of critics applied themselves to this task. In his essay “ Technique as Discovery” (1947), Mark Schorer proposed a view of the novel that was soon to gain wide acceptance: “ Modern criticism has shown us that to speak of content as such is not to speak of art at all,but of experience; and that it is only when we speak of the achieved content, the form, the work of art as a work of art, that we speak as critics. The difference between content, or experience, and achieved content, or art, is technique. When we speak of technique, then, we speak of nearly everythinghellip;hellip;We are no longer able to regard as seriously intended criticism of poetry which does not assume these generalizations; but the case for fiction has not yet been established.”Schorerrsquo;s essay was reprinted in Forms of Modern Fiction (1948),a collection of essays in accord with his own view. In the second edition of that book (1959),William Van Orsquo;Connor,the editor, noted that “criticism of fiction, of the sort that had been devoted to poetry,was relatively rare” when the book was originally published;“since then,it has become a commonplace.”
Schorer and most of his contemporaries disregarded or criticized the inherited technical vocabulary that treated the novel as a combination of plot, character, setting, and theme (terms that also apply to drama). The techniques specific to the novel involve the authorrsquo;s relation to the narrator, the narratorrsquo;s relation to the story, and the ways in which they provide access to the minds of characters— matters of “ point of view.” If we assume that the author tries to achieve objective,realistic representation—free from intrusive commentary that would turn characters into puppets by judging them as soon as they are introduced, and credible by virtue of the ways in which we gain access to minds and events— then analysis of point of view becomes a means of understanding how form and content are fused in the novel. But form is not solely a matter of how the story is told; it can involve the structure of image, metaphor, and symbol that emerge from the action, and therefore the novel can be studied with methods that have been successfully applied to poetry. Joseph Frankrsquo;s essay “Spatial Form in Modern Literature” (1945) was an influential example of such analysis, and he discussed two other topics that were to prove important in narrative theory: the treatment of time (an aesthetic as well as a representational concern), and the relationship between the novel and the structures of myth.
Analysis of point of view, images, and symbols converge in discussions of “ the stream of consciousness,” which Lawrence Bowling (1950) defined as that narrative method by which the author attempts to give a direct quotation of the mind— not merely of the language area but of the whole consciousness”Books by Robert Humphrey (1954) and Melvin Friedman (1955) described stream-of-consciousness techniques and traced their history, respectively; in The Psychological Novel, 1900—1950 (1955), Leon Edel treated the rendering of consciousness in the broader context of the symbolist novel,which, he said, requires us to read “ prose fiction as if it were poetry(207).
Ideally, a “ theory of the novel” would contribute to our understanding of all novels, regardless of when they were written. But literary theories are seldom if ever ideal; their strengths and limitations arise from the practical problems they are intended to solve. In attempting to show that the novel repays theoretical study, critics found that recent novels provided the best evidence for their arguments.Modern novelists, from Gustave Flaubert and Henry James to the present, had discussed many of the techniques emphasized by the critics, and thus it was no coincidence that their works provided the best examples of narrative objectivity, artistic manipulation of point of view, the use of symbols or images as motifs, and subtle representations of consciousness.
A theory of the novel based on the critical tenets of a particular historical situation and emphasizing the literature of a particular period cannot escape certain limitations. Before the late nineteenth century,English and American novelists had not been particularly concerned with the formal refinements emphasized by some of their successors,and any description of the novel based on these techniques can lead to partial or prejudicial assessments of its earlier exemplars. Some post war critics who emphasized the form of the novel tended to find fault with t
剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料
小说理论总论[1]
现在,小说已经被认为是一种重要的文类,是一种自浪漫主义时代以来欧美文化中最有代表性的文学产品。但在三十年之前,它还并没有获得普遍的承认和接受。从学院的课程表中可以发现一系列“文学”课程并不包括散文叙事作品,由此可见,小说地位低下的迹象至今仍然存在。在第二次世界大战以后,小说批评家的目的和方法主要被下述愿望所支配:在主张文学优劣应该基于形式分析的时代下,他们想证明小说这一文类的重要性。只要有关小说的讨论仍然仅仅强调题材与内容,而无视当时在文学批评和美学中非常重要的形式问题,小说在文学研究中就始终只能是一个不登大雅之堂的文类。
新批评家们通过对具体诗篇的研究发现,关于美学价值和意义的主张其实可以为细致的形式分析所支持。为小说争取像其他文类一样被传统尊重的方法之一是,证明它的技巧也可以像史诗、戏剧和诗歌的技巧一样微妙复杂,它的形式也可以像这些文类的形式一样饱含深意。第二次世界大战之后,一些批评家开始致力于这项任务。在论文《作为发现的技巧》中,马克·肖勒提出了一种不久就广为接受的有关小说的看法:“现代批评家已经向我们证明,谈论内容本身根本就不是谈论艺术,而是谈论经验;仅仅当我们谈论已经被成就了的内容即形式,以及把它当作艺术作品的时候,我们才开始成为批评家说话。内容或经验与已经被成就了的内容或艺术,它们之间的不同在于技巧。因而,当我们谈论技巧时,我们几乎就是在谈论一切hellip;hellip;我们已经不能再把这些不接受普遍规则的诗歌批评视为用心严肃的批评,但是对于小说来说,这一点尚未做到。”肖勒的论文后来被收入《现代小说形式》(1948)一书中,而后肖勒又转载收集了《现代小说的形式》(1948)中与自己观点一致的文章,并发表于该书第二版(1959)。编者威廉· 冯·奥康纳注意到:“当小说成为一本普通书的时候,对小说的批评等同于对诗歌的那种批评的情况,是比较少见的。”
肖勒及其大多数同时代人都轻视或批评那些传统的术语,因为它们只把小说当作情节、人物、背景和主题(这些术语也用于戏剧)的结合来对待。小说特有的技法包括作者与叙述者的关系,叙述者与故事的关系,以及它们所提供的进入人物内心的方式,即“视点”问题都很少被提及。如果我们假定,作者试图成就客观的、真实的再现,即没有硬行闯入的评论,一方面,由于人物刚被介绍就受到评判,人物因此就变成了作者的傀儡,另一方面,那些使我们能够接近人物心理和事件的方式也让人信服,因此,对于视点的分析就成为理解小说形式与内容如何融合的一个手段。但是形式并非仅仅是关于故事如何被讲述的问题;它也可以包括意象的结构、隐喻以及从行动中浮现出来的象征,因此小说是可以用已经被成功应用于诗歌的方法来研究的。约瑟夫·弗兰克的论文《现代文学中的空间形式》(1945)就是这类分析中一部很有影响的作品。他讨论了后来在叙事理论中被证明十分重要的两个问题:对时间的处理(这既涉及再现问题,也涉及美学问题),以及小说与神话的诸种结构的关系。
视点的分析、意象、象征三者在关于“意识流”的诸多讨论中汇合。劳伦斯· 鲍林(1950)把“ 意识流” 定义为“一种叙述方法,作者试图借此提供内心的直接引语——不仅是语言领域的,而且是整个意识的直接引语”。罗伯特·汉弗雷(1954)的书和梅尔文·弗里德曼的书(1955)都描述了意识流的技巧,追溯了它们的历史;在《心理小说:1900-1950》(1955)中,莱昂·埃德尔用象征主义小说这一更广泛的语境来论述如何再现意识的问题。他说象征主义小说要求我们“把散文小说当成诗一样”来读(207)。
理想地说,一种“小说理论”就应该有助于我们理解一切小说,无论它们是什么时候写成的。但是文学理论很少能尽善尽美,它们的力量与局限都来自于它们打算解决的实际问题。在试图证明小说也适合理论研究时,批评家们发现最近的小说为他们的论点提供了最佳例证。现代小说家们,从古斯塔夫·福楼拜和亨利·詹姆斯直到当代,已经讨论过许多被这些批评家们所强调的技巧。因此,他们的作品提供了有关叙述客观性、对视点的艺术操纵、使用象征或意象作为母题,以及对意识的微妙再现等议题的最好的例子。一种基于某一特定历史环境的批评原则,并着重于某一特定时期文学的小说理论,是无法避免某些局限性的。十九世纪晚期以前,英美小说家们并不关心他们的某些后继者所强调的形式上的精致,因此,任何基于这些技巧所做出的有关小说的描述都有可能导致对更早的小说做出片面的或偏颇的评价。某些强调小说形式的战后批评家们倾向于挑剔那些先于或反对这一艺术传统的小说家们所用的方法,另一些人则把小说的发展过程描述为,从偶然的、无心的方法进化为二十世纪的对意识的完美呈现。
第二次世界大战之后,关于小说形式特征的强调并非没有遇到挑战。哈里·莱文(1963)提出,这种情况某种程度上是历史环境所造成的:在十九世纪三十年代的大萧条期间,批评家们感到有必要把文学简缩为社会学;在战后时期,“小说的”形式特性得到了充分注意,但其社会方面却又一次遭到忽视,而这些可能标志着“在历史本身的压力之下的退却”。莱昂内尔·特里林(1948)认为专注于小说形式对批评家和小说家来说都是一种危险:“在当前这个时代,自觉地全神贯注于形式几乎肯定会使小说家,尤其是年轻小说家受到局限hellip;hellip;形式意味着完整与首尾相贯,决心仅被视为一切矛盾的均衡,尽管这样理解的形式有其明显的魅力,但它却不足以服务于现代经验”。
对这些批评家来说,使小说区别于其他文类的两个方面在于其内容和题材——对生活的全部多样性的表现。事实上,正是由于脱离了老套的形式和虚假的情境,小说才得以获得生命。因此,免受形式约束可被视为小说的规定性特征。从对传统故事的无署名的重复到独创性故事的充满环境细节,这一过程说明了小说通常被认为是一种“现实主义的” 文类的原因。从这一角度看,小说的技巧多样性来源于经验本身的多样性。如果形式就只等同于文体的精致,那么,按照特里林的看法,我们就必须承认,“小说正如很多人说过的那样,乃是最不lsquo;艺术的rsquo;文类”。但是形式也可以被这样不同地看待:“当小说毫不关心自己的艺术效果时,当它执著于道德影响时,或者当它直截了当地报告它所认为的客观事实的一切时,小说才开始实现自己的最佳艺术效果。”李维斯同意特里林的说法,他说,“英国传统的伟大小说家们的确关心形式,但是只是在伦理意义上,而不是在美学意义上。”例如,如果我们想研究想简·奥斯丁的《爱玛》在形式上的完美,“我们发现它其实只能从道德关注的角度受到赞扬,而道德关注正是这位小说家对生活的特殊兴趣”。
作为一种被设想成的由人类价值标准所形成的再现性文类,小说引来了广泛的评论。批评家可以将它视为人们在一个稳固的社会结构中由于自己的境遇和阶级出身而面对的问题的记录,或者是在社会变迁过程中个人所面对的问题的记录。小说可以起报告作用,使人们意识到那些以前的文化和文学并不重视的各种人类状况。它可以记录潜在于历史学家的不以个人为主的编年史之下的人类经验,这些经验也许会说明这些历史。更一般地说,小说可以被设想成这样一个领域,在这里幻想(以沿袭的信仰和意识形态、自尊自大、虚浮矫饰、浪漫欲望、占有欲望为其形式)与现实(这些空中楼阁之下的社会与经济情况)交会。如果个人借小说来掩盖和实现其目标,即社会习俗是小说的一个焦点,那么金钱就不是那么显著的另一个焦点,因为它是混淆自我与社会规定,道德价值与物质价值的地方。在这一批评传统中,再现出来的真实以及强调的道德问题和教育目的联系起来:即使当小说不再说教的时候,它也还是可以被用来获取有关生活的知识。
大多数英美批评家认为小说产生于对它出现的那个时代的解释。以其技术特征为核心的批评家认为,主观观点和意识记录在文学中占有重要地位,对于那些把小说设想为社会现实之刻画的人来说,它的出现标志着中产阶级作为历史创造力量的兴起。它的兴起结束了这样的时代:那时,文学把贵族之外的一切人物都描绘成粗鲁的、滑稽的,或不值得认真看待的对象。欧文·豪与莱斯利·菲德勒同意菲利普·拉夫,莱文和特里林的看法,认为资产阶级及其物质占有欲是构成小说的主要因素,并推动了人物和社会趋向我们的现状。因此小说也等同于对社会和文化问题的诊断。瓦尔特·艾伦(1955)与伊恩·瓦特(1957)肯定下述观点:以现实主义为特征的小说产生于十八世纪,是对社会、哲学和有关历史的概念中所发生的种种变化的反应。
前面我已说过,有关小说的诸种定义都隐含着某种评价的方法和某一关于该文类的历史。依据技巧来定义,小说的发展过程被视为趋向完善的进化过程,这一完善在二十世纪得到实现。当它被设想为记录人类经验的再现性时,小说的历史和成就就被看得不同了:伟大的小说家是十九世纪和二十世纪早期的现实主义者,从简·奥斯丁和巴尔扎克到托马斯·曼,二十世纪欧洲两位最重要的批评家,乔治·卢卡契和艾里希·奥尔巴赫,就都赞成这一观点。这一观点在十九世纪五十年代的美国批评家中是极为流行的。现实主义的拥护者在二十世纪小说中发现了衰落的迹象,在第二次世界大战后的十年间,或许是因为那个曾为小说提供种种主题的阶级结构已被后工业资本主义的“大众社会”所取代,一些批评家提出,“小说的灭亡”可能即将来临。对于那些相信小说是其时代的准确反映的人来说,描写荒诞古怪人物的“美国新哥特式”小说和“垮掉的一代的小说”只能被视为作者颓废的证据,或被读作文化溃解的寓言。
-
[美]华莱士·马丁,当代叙事学[M],美国:康奈尔大学出版社,1986:15-20. uarr;
剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号:[24769],资料为PDF文档或Word文档,PDF文档可免费转换为Word