Rewriting and Rewritology: A Poststructuralist Approach to Literary History

Abstract

Abstract: Research on literary history is the most fundamental way to construct the knowledge system of literature, which is mainly divided historically into two schools: contextualism and formalism. They both have major defects, which are caused by their thinking in logocentric binary opposition. A shift of our perspective to poststructuralist binary complementation may enable us to realize that all texts of literary discourse are formed by a rewriting of other discursive texts. Correspondingly, the most proper approach to literary history is to probe into the dynamic complicated relationship between a text of literary discourse and its pretexts. This approach,termedrewritology,includes four major steps: analyzing the similarities and differences between a literary text and its pretexts; explaining the reason for its rewriting of the latter; elucidating the value of its content and meaning; and determining its achievements and status. It is a comparatively ideal approach that has the best of contextualism and formalism.

Key words: literary history, contextualism, formalism, Rewritology

Xiao Jinlong. Rewriting and Rewritology: A Poststructuralist Approach to Literary History[J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2016, 36(6): 184-192.

References

Bennet,Tonny.“Counting and Seeing the Social Action of Literary Form:Franco Morretti and the Sociology of Literature.”Cultural Sociology3.2(2009):333 42.
哈罗德·布鲁姆:《影响的焦虑》,徐文博译。北京:三联书店,1989年。[Bloom,Harold.The Anxiety of Influence.Beijing:SDXPress,1989.]
---:《西方正典》,江宁康译。南京:译林出版社,2005年。[---.The Western Canon.Trans.Jiang Ninkang.Nanjing:Yilin Press,2005.]
Derrida,Jacques.Acts of Literature.Ed.Derek Attridge.New York&London:Routlidge,1992.
---.Of Grammatology.Trans.Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1997.
Harris,W.V..Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory.New York:Greenwood Press,1992
马克思恩格斯:《马克思恩格斯选集》第2卷。北京:人民文学出版社,1996年。[Marx,Karl,and Friedrich Engels.Selections of K.Marx and F.Engels.Vol.2.Beijing:People’s Publishing House,1996.]
Moi,T.The Kristeva Reader.Oxford:Blackwell,1986.
Moretti,Franco.Atlas of the European Novel,1800 1900.London:Verso,1998.
Nietzsche,Friedrich.“On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense.”Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language.Ed.&trans.Gilman,Sander L.Oxford University Press,1989.
Perkins,David.Is literary History Possible?Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press,1992.
Rhys,Jean.“An Interview by Diana Vreeland.”Paris Review1(1979):230 45.
---.Jean Rhys Letters 1931 1966.Eds.Francis Wyndham,and Diana Melly.London:Andre Deutsch,1984.
Saussure,Ferdinard.Course in General Linguistics.Trans.Wade Baston,New York:McG raw-Hill,1966.
Shklovsky,Viktor Borisovich.“Art as Technique.”Twentieth Century Western Critical Theory.Ed.Zhu Gang.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Tally,Rober.Spatiality.London and New York:Routledge,2013.
(1)德里达1969年在巴黎一个理论研讨班上发表了两部长篇演讲,第一部分是对柏拉图和马拉美的“摹仿”论的讨论,第二部分是对马拉美作品的解读。参见:Jacques Derrida.Acts of Literature.Ed.Attridge,Derek.New York&London:Routlidge,1992.pp.127 80.
(2)详论参见肖锦龙:“德里达的文学本质观---从《双重部分》的第一部分谈起”,《外国文学评论》5(2000):12028。
(3)详论参见肖锦龙:“重写、问题意识、历史见证法---论琼·里斯《茫茫藻海》的后殖民主义种族书写方式”,《学术月刊》8(2014):144 52。

[1]	Feng Wei. Acceptance Dilemma and the Value Turn of Popular Fiction in the late Qing Dynasty from the Perspective of Literary History： A Case Study of Courtesan Novel [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2023, 43(1): 171-179.
[2]	Zheng Xiong. Multidimensional Construction and Deconstruction of the Claim that the Eight-Legged Essay Was Epitomized in the Ming Dynasty [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2021, 41(2): 146-157.
[3]	Zhu Hongbo, Wang Xinxin. Narratives of Journey to the West in Overseas Sinology [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2021, 41(1): 15-25.
[4]	Chang Hengchang. Collected Essays of the Qing Dynasty and the Concept of Literary History in the Early Twentieth Century [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2019, 39(2): 126-133.
[5]	Yingjin Zhang. English Scholarship on Modern Chinese Literature in the Past Fifty Years [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2016, 36(4): 39-60.
[6]	Li Song. Reflections on the Post-Modernist Concept of Literary History in A New Literary History of America [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2016, 36(1): 201-208.
[7]	Tang Yunyun. Weng Fanggang's Song-Dynasty Poetics in the Perspective of Literary History [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2015, 35(5): 158-166.
[8]	Chen Jun. New Changes and Redemption: On the Russian Formalism's Genre Theory [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2015, 35(3): 139-145.
[9]	Yang Lei. Re-evaluating "Foregrounding": The Prague School's Contributions to Aesthetics [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2015, 35(2): 81-88.
[10]	Lai Qinfang. "Form" as a Term in Chinese Aesthetics [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2015, 35(1): 35-44.
[11]	Yang Jian'gang. Marxism's Assimilation with and Borrowing from Formalism in Fredric Jameson's Literary Criticism [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2015, 35(1): 196-204.
[12]	Huang Yi. The Value Re-Establishment of Modern Chinese Literature and the Reconfiguration of Literary History Since the 1980s and Overseas Chinese Studies [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2014, 34(4): 27-36.
[13]	Guo Qingcai. Ye Shi's Distinction Between Discourse and Literariness and His Concept of Literary History [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2014, 34(4): 146-154.
[14]	Zhang Zhongmou. The Interaction Between Genres and Its Significance for Literary History [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2014, 34(3): 133-145.
[15]	Wang Daqiao. On the Methodological Evolution and its Limitation of Literature Anthropology [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2014, 34(2): 42-49.