注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

张在新

John Zaixin Zhang

 
 
 

日志

 
 

Misreading of Ambivalence in Pamela  

2010-05-15 10:28:45|  分类: +我的论文 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

Poetzinger and Jones here (in their annotated bibliography) misread my analysis of the narrator’s ambivalence toward logocentrism (privilege of speech over writing) in Pamela. This ambivalence in Richardson displaces and destabilizes the binary opposition between speech and writing, displacement being the second step in Derrida’s “double writing.” But Poetzinger and Jones didn’t seem to get that point, although their introduction in the first paragraph indicates that writing, in my reading of the novel, is as “originary” as speech. As we know, in the logocentric tradition the binary opposition is clear: speech is one step closer to truth, and writing, in that tradition, is only a signifier of another signifier (speech) in its representation of truth (see my essay next in this folder). – John Zaixin Zhang, May 15, 2010

See their comments in the second paragraph below.

14 May 2010 http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/m/morillo/public/pambib.htm

Kim Poetzinger and Shawna Jones

Eng 563

3.8.10

Zhang, John Zaixin. "Free play in Samuel Richardson's Pamela." Papers on Language & Literature 27.3 (1991): 307-319. Print.

Zhang’s main argument in “Free play” is that through its epistolary style, Pamela negates the logocentric argument. The logocentric argument states that speech is more representative of truth than writing, because writing is only a secondary replica of speech.  In other words, writing is less valuable as a representation of reality because it is removed from it. Zhang cites Jacques Derrida, who claims that the relationship between the actual, which he calls the “signified,” and the written word, which he calls the “signifier” is arbitrary, and that the supposed distance between them is also arbitrary. Zhang argues that there is a “free play” between the written word and reality in Pamela; because Pamela’s letters not only chronicle events, but influence them, her writing produces reality rather than imperfectly reflecting it. Pamela’s writing is not a skewed rendering of her reality; her letters allow her to create what Mr. B refers to as their own novel, shaping the events in Pamela’s life into a romance.

However, Zhang also claims that writing is debased in comparison with speech in Pamela, according to the logocentric tradition, contrary to his conclusion that Pamela  nullifies logocentrism. In waffling between these two ideas, Zhang confuses the point he is trying to make. Further, his arguments for the discrediting of writing in Pamela are dubious; for example; he posits that the episode where Pamela writes questions for Mrs. Jewkes to answer aloud – in an effort to prove the innocence of her “scribbling’ -- debases writing because of the playful and unnecessary nature of the interaction.  Alternatively, however, Pamela’s insistence on Mrs. Jewkes answering her questions out loud closes her out from the conspiracy Pamela creates within her writing. Pamela is forced to correspond through writing with Mr. Williams in an effort to escape her imprisonment, but cannot speak to him.  Viewed in this light, Pamela’s game with Mrs. Jewkes hardly debases writing; speech, in this case, becomes facetious. While Zhang makes excellent points about how free play in Pamela negates the logocentric argument, he confuses his argument by including a contradictory theory with insufficient evidence.

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(309)| 评论(0)
推荐

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017