頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | On Postmodern Parody: The Case of Donald Barthelme |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | Ni,Flora P. H.; | 書刊名 | 靜宜人文學報 |
| 卷 期 | 12 2000.03[民89.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁83-106 |
| 分類號 | 874.57 |
| 關鍵詞 | Parody; Dialogism; Intertextuality; Recontextualization; M. M. Bakhtin; Donald barthelme; Postmodern fiction; The king; |
| 語 文 | 英文(English) |
| 英文摘要 | Parody has a long history; however, it has been disparaged and neglected by critics in literary history. This tendency to disfavor parody may be attributed to the aesthetic criterion that Aristotle had established in Poetics－a criterion that demands "seriousness" and moral purpose of any worthy literary work. Since than, this criterion has become a canon that poets and critics follow with no doubt. For example, the Roman poet Horace（65-8 B.C.）had always admonished in his verse letters to the Piso family (which later were collected and turned into Art of Poetry) that the purpose of poetry is "to delight and to instruct." In the sixteenth century, Sir Philip Sidney refuted the Puritan's accusation that poetry had been corrupting man's pure soul and argued for the seriousness and sacredness of poetry. Poetry, according to Sidney, originated from the Bible as King David's psalms had evidenced it. Sidney therefore asserted that poetry aimed from the stat "to teach and to delight" its readers. Down to the Romantic movement in the latte eighteenth century, Williams Wordsworth challenged the poetic traditions by advocating revolutionary concepts concerning the language of poetry, the rhyme scheme, form, subject matter, character, theme, etc. However, Wordsworth had not contradicted the established maxim of "seriousness" as he still contended in "Preface to Lyrical Ballads" that the poet wrote poems with intent on wisdom revelation and moral teaching. Based on these face, it is understandable why parody－a genre which has been mistaken as nothing more than a parasitic text of rustic humor and language－has suffered like comedy the fate of being scorned, belittled, and neglected by critics. But thy cycle of history seems to take another turn and a change occurs to the fate of parody. Since the 1960s and with the rise of postmodern fiction, we have witnessed a frequent application of parody in fiction-writing－be it used as a technique, a form, a mode or a satire. Critics, for these three decades, have noticed this phenomenon and begun to undertake a serious study of parody. Nevertheless, the long negligence of parody has brought about a lack of clear definition in its development and, consequently, caused controversy. For example, Linda Hutcheon defines parody in A Theory of Parody as repetition with different and focuses on the intertextuality and (re)contextualization of parody. Comic effect constitutes the primary element of parody, insists Margaret A. Rose in Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-modern. Yet, Gary Saul Morson Challenges Rose's assertion in his "Parody's, History, and Metaparody" and, following M.M. Bakhtin, emphasizes instead parody's dialogic and subversive nature. And the debate still goes on. Given the fact that parody plays an important role in postmodern fiction, this paper accordingly aims at analyzing its various functions and synthesizing the critics' arguments. Donald Barthelme's The King will be the example to illustrate the multiformity of parody－that is, parody as a social satire, a comedy (including a black one ), a strategy to renovate an ossified style, genre, or a particular literary text, and above all a powerful means to dialogize and subvert certain literary/historical discourses as products of power relations and ideological implications. The ultimate objective of this paper is to foreground the "hidden" seriousness of parody as a literary genre so as to re-evaluate parody's status in literary history. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。