http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : ( Bernard O`donoghue ) (검색결과 4 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Borders in Brian Friel`s Translations
( Bernard O`donoghue ) 한국영어영문학회 2013 영어 영문학 Vol.59 No.6
Brian Friel`s most discussed play Translations was published and first performed in 1981 at the height of the Northern Irish Troubles. Inevitably its critical reception centered on political meanings-for example, whether the play was primarily concerned with the colonial activity involved in the English renaming of Irish place names in the early nineteenth century. If the play was primarily concerned with this act of linguistic appropriation, then the question of absolute historical accuracy is crucial, so interpretations hostile to the play accused it of inaccuracies (for example such minutiae as whether rifles were armed with bayonets or not). In fact, the play is not about this kind of political appropriation at all, but about mutual misapprehension and lack of understanding. This essay analyzes several scenes of the play to show how nobody wholly understands anyone else-a social circumstance which is represented in linguistic terms, through Irish, English, Greek and Latin. The critical failure to understand the play in its own dramatic terms is ironically a modern instance of the same failure of mutual comprehension. This paper has been showing the particular ways in which Irish cultural history is heteroglossic. My intention is to focus on a particular way of how the condition of Ireland is distinctive in dealing with its linguistic amalgam and to suggest the irony that a play which has been so concerned with the complexities and confusions of borders and partitions should be suspected of having a simple or monolithic solution to such issues.
-
Mature Stealing : Yeats and Heaney as Examples
Bernard O’Donoghue 한국예이츠학회 2014 한국예이츠 저널 Vol.43 No.-
20세기 시학과 평론은, T. S. 엘리엇의 「전통과 개성」(1921년)과 해롤드 블룸의 영향의 두려움 (1973년)에서부터 지금까지, 앞의 작가의 나중의 작가에 대한 영향과 전범의 개념을 많이 다루었다. 본 논문은 예이츠를 전범으로 다루는데, 예이츠 이후의 작가로 먼저 오든을 간략하게 다루고 셰이머스 히니를 집중 고찰한다. 본 논문의 주장은, 예이츠의 영향이 통상 부정적이었다는 주장이 흔하지만, 그는 히니의 시학에 대한 생각에 지속적인 영향이 있는 것이 사실이다. (히니는 1978년 이 영향에 대한 질문을 던지는 「예이츠는 전범인가?」라는 유명한 글을 썼다.) 나는 마지막으로 그 영향이 사회적 정황보다는 “예술”의 문제일 때 좋은 것이라 주장한다. 즉, “모범적인 작가”라는 표현은 어려운 정치적 시대에—옳든 그르든—정치적 관심을 초월한다고 느끼는 작가들을 칭찬하는 것을 보게 된다는 말이다. 이것은 그들의 시대에 대해서 예이츠와 히니의 평가에도 해당되는 말이다. Twentieth-century poetics and criticism have been much concerned with the ideas of example and influence of earlier writers on later, from T.S. Eliot’s “Tradition and the Individual Talent”(1921) to Harold Bloom’s Anxiety of Influence (1973), and afterwards. This paper considers the example of Yeats for his successors, first briefly for Auden but then extensively for Seamus Heaney. It argues that, while the influence of Yeats has often been said to be negative, in fact he has been a constant presence in Heaney’s thinking on poetics (he wrote in 1978 a celebrated essay “Yeats as an Example?” questioning that influence). I argue, finally, that influence seems to be agreed to be good when it is a matter of “Art” rather than public circumstance: we find the phrase “an exemplary artist” many times in praise of writers in troubled political times who are felt—rightly or not—to be “above” political concerns. This is true of the evaluation of both Yeats and Heaney in relation to their times.
-
-
KCI
KISS연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
