叙事策略与历史重构

出版时间：2009-4  出版社：四川大学出版社  作者：曾传芳  页数：279  

内容概要

　　《叙事策略与历史重构：威廉·斯泰伦历史小说研究》采用历史一传记的研究方法，探讨斯泰伦两部历史小说的主题和创作意义；通过细读文本梳理了作家重构历史的叙事策略；使用史学理论说明反思历史、重构历史的积极意义，并应用相关的主体和身份建构理论、创伤理论和叙事学理论分析小说人物的塑造。　　《叙事策略与历史重构：威廉·斯泰伦历史小说研究》的引言概述了作家斯泰伦进行文学创作的时代背景，简要地分析了作家文学创作的3个阶段及其特点，以及集中研究他的两部历史小说的价值和意义。　　第一章首先辨析了“历史”的两种内涵，然后论述了有关理论和学说对历史再现功能的质疑，并继而指出文学是重构人类历史的另一有效手段，历史小说尤其肩负这一重任。在此基础上，《叙事策略与历史重构：威廉·斯泰伦历史小说研究》分析了斯泰伦在作品中重构历史时所使用的叙事策略，及其在重构历史中所体现出的历史观和撰史观。　　第二章主要分析斯泰伦在《纳特？特纳的自白》中如何重构一部白人和黑人共同的历史。斯泰伦立足于现实，通过重述历史人物——黑人奴隶纳特·特纳——个人的历史来重新审视奴隶制，重构生活在奴隶制社会中白人与黑人的历史。该章首先分析作家如何颠覆传统历史文本中纳特·特纳的形象，然后使用叙事学、身份建构等理论，阐述作家如何将抽象化、模式化的历史人物塑造得栩栩如生，并赋予他以独立的人格、完整的身份和人性的光辉。纳特·特纳一生经历了建立个人身份、集体身份和叙述身份的历程；并最终认识到人与人之间、白人和黑人之间，唯有博爱、谅解才能解决冲突，并获得自我的救赎，暴力只能加深个人的信仰危机和生存危机。　　第三章分析作家在《苏菲的选择》中重构的关于纳粹“大屠杀”事件的无以言说的历史。本章指出，斯泰伦通过讲述苏菲在奥斯威辛集中营和随后来到美国的生活经历来反观和重新解读“大屠杀”；作家以此为契机，记录了小说叙述者通过了解苏菲的过去，深受教育而成长的历程；同时，《叙事策略与历史重构：威廉·斯泰伦历史小说研究》分析了苏菲的双重身份：她既是受害者，同时又具备纳粹同谋的一些特征；还分析了纳粹分子身上表现出来的人性因素，从而探讨了小说对善与恶二元对立并存关系的理解。

作者简介

　　曾传芳（1968——），文学博士，英语副教授，四川外语学院出国培训部副主任。1999—2000年在英国留学，获诺丁汉大学英语语言文学硕士学位；2004—2007年在上海外国语大学学习，获英语语言文学博士学位。已在《四川外语学院学报》、《外国文学研究》等刊物上发表论文10余篇。

书籍目录

IntroductionChapter One History and the Reconstruction of History1.1 “History” and “the past”1.2 Fiction：An alternative to represent the past1.3 William Tyron's narrative strategies towards the reconstruction of historyChapter Two The Confessions of Nat Turner：Reconstructing the Common History of the White and Black2.1 Nat Turner in the traditional historical narratives2.2 Nat Turner in the Confessions of Nat Turner2.3 The reconciliation between the white and the black：Thevoiceofthe1 960sChapter Three Sophie's Choice：Reconstructing the Unspeakable History of the Holocaust3.1 Silence-The most fitting response to the Holocaust?3.2 Reconstructing Sophie's history3.3 Juxtaposing Auschwitz with the quotidian3.4 Defining the evil of the Holocaust in pursuit of redemptionConclusionAppendixⅠAppendixⅡWorksCited

章节摘录

　　The context of a scientific model， historians could be seen as serious contenders for an objective truth， which could ultimately be reached through the application of proper procedures. The confident scientific approach towards history continued largely unabated through the twentieth century. The pattern was set at the century's beginning by J.B. Bury. He announced the divorce of history from her traditional humanities partners. The subject， he claimed， had “begun to enter in to closer relations with the sciences， which deal objectively with the facts of the universe.”1　　Indisputably both Aristotelian and Thucydides' approach to history are idealistic and optimistic. Their view of history presupposes that there is a past reality or the existence of a unitary historical truth waiting to be discovered and described. The historian works with amend like a mirror， clear， gleaming-bright， accurately centered， displaying the shape of things just as he receives them； thus perfect correspondences between the past and historical accounts can be attained. So by virtue of the traditional his stereographical belief， the past can be retrieved and constructed as it really was in the corresponding historical narratives and texts. Nevertheless such traditional confidence in historian's access to history， and the description of the approaches employed by historians， have increasingly come to seem somewhat over-simplistic and untrue， as the developments both within and outside the discipline of history begin to reveal what has remained unknown.　　……