(716)
|
| 真文學及假書寫：博蘭，布朗肖的先驅者 |
| Real Literature and False Writing: Jean Paulhan, Maurice Blanchot’s Precursor |
 |
| 作者 |
潘怡帆 |
| Author |
Yi-fan Pan |
| 關鍵詞 |
文學、
書寫、
詮釋、
創造、
虛構、
誤解
|
| Keywords |
literature,
writing,
interpretation,
creation,
misunderstanding
|
| 摘要 |
文學既有書寫知識的現實意義，也有書寫創作的抽象藝術之意。此雙重意涵造成40年代法國作家博蘭以「修辭或溝通」的提問辯證文學定義。布朗肖繼而將其思考轉化為對書寫多重性的再辯證。本文藉由重構這兩位作者作品間的書寫關係，說明從文學危機到文學轉機之間的變化。全文共分三個部分。第一部分，以博蘭作品《塔布花或人文裡的恐怖》為核心，辯證他所謂文學恐怖所造成的文學危機。第二部分，以布朗肖作品《文學如何可能？》為觀點，說明他如何解讀博蘭作品中的思維轉折。第三部分，透過分析原作及評論間的詮釋關係，論證布朗肖書寫思考中「創造及誤解」間的一體兩面，並由此重新定位布朗肖文學評論的意義及價值。 |
| Abstract |
The literature has both reality meanings of presenting the general knowledge and the abstract meanings of aesthetic arts. This “double meaning” leads Jean Paulhan to question the definition of literature between rhetoric and communication. Later, Maurice Blanchot proves his idea about the multiplicity of writing based on this thought of Paulhan. This paper is trying to reconstruct the relationship between two authors and demonstrate the variation amid crisis and revolution. This article is divided into three parts. The first part is going to explore how Paulhan argued what he so-called “the literary terror” according his book Les Fleurs de Tarbes ou La Terreur dans les lettres. And the second part is attempting to show the interpretation of Blanchot in Comment la littérature est-elle possible?, what has been transited by the idea of Paulhan. The third part is going to analyse the relation between the origin and the critic interpretation script, and then prove the thoughts of Blanchot’s idea of writing — the duality of creation and misunderstanding. In conclusion, this is going to re-define the meaning and the value of Blanchot’s literary criticism. |
|
|
|
