Rewriting and Rewritology: A Poststructuralist Approach to Literary History

Xiao Jinlong

Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art ›› 2016, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (6) : 184-192.

PDF(1274 KB)
Welcome to Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, May. 8, 2025
PDF(1274 KB)
Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art ›› 2016, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (6) : 184-192.
Western Literary Theory and Criticism

Rewriting and Rewritology: A Poststructuralist Approach to Literary History

  • Xiao Jinlong
Author information +
History +

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

Cite this article

Download Citations
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。

 
PDF(1274 KB)

542

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/