Technics and Time, 3: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise (review)
Technics and Time, 3: Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise (review)
复制标题
技术与时间，3：电影时间与不适问题（评论）
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Mcgowan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Mcgowan
对于那些在主题层面上涉及羞耻的小说，人们不禁要问，他的理论将如何处理那些公然炫耀羞耻、炫耀自己可耻失败的文本，比如萨尔曼·拉什迪（Salman Rushdie）的《羞耻》（1983），不幸的是，比韦斯只顺带提到过。然而，比韦斯的书构成了对后殖民理论的一种受欢迎的原创干预，他提出的问题触及了后殖民困境的核心：“想象一种殖民关系的所有残余都被克服的文学，这意味着什么？”怎样才能给后殖民时代存在的耻辱以恰当的文学形式？”(192)。这些问题是至关重要的，而比维斯的“一种从作家的羞耻和减法意识中解脱出来的写作”的愿景无疑为我们指明了正确的方向。
disparagingly) with novels that engage with shame on a thematic level, one wonders how his theory would approach texts which flaunt shame as overtly and which celebrate their own shameful failure as ostentatiously, as Salman Rushdie’s Shame (1983), unfortunately only mentioned by Bewes in passing. Nevertheless, Bewes book constitutes a welcome and original intervention in postcolonial theory, and the questions he asks go to the heart of the postcolonial dilemma: “What would it mean to imagine a literature in which every residue of the colonial relation has been overcome? How might one give adequate literary form to the shame of postcolonial existence?” (192). These questions are crucial, and Bewes’ vision of “a writing freed from the shaming, subtractive consciousness of a being who writes” surely points us in the right direction.