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 : Masashi Asai (검색결과 5 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
Mythologizing the Place: Lawrence’s Mining Country and Yeats’s Thoor Ballylee
Masashi Asai 한국로렌스학회 2017 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.25 No.2
Lawrence and W. B. Yeats—the two great modernists and the “last Romantics” both depict and treat certain places with special significance. We might be able to call this literary strategy “mythologizing.” Lawrence, especially in his later years, nostalgically mythologizes his home mining country with a certain degree of romanticization of his father and the intimate comradeship of the miners. Yeats employs a similar strategy of mythologizing rural Celtic places, Sligo in particular, and later the tower he bought as the dwelling for his new family and a symbol of his artistic creation. Both writers did this by strongly and significantly projecting their ideas and ideals onto these localities. Lawrence portrays the mine and miners with a sense of the possibility of man’s immediate and non-self-conscious relationship, and hence its glory, whilst disregarding to a large extent the harshness of the working conditions and dangers, and the miserable aspects of their home life. Yeats’s case is more complex. He is very keen and conscious of the Ireland’s nation-building under the British colonization. His strategy is to aestheticize or “Celtify” Ireland, making full use of the dying folklore and fairy tales. Later he makes Thoor Ballylee the symbol of his aesthetics and the ideal Ireland. In this paper I will discuss how and why they transform the places they know intimately well to the places onto which they project their own ambitions and wishes, hence “mythologize” them.
-
To Know, or To Be, That is the Question: D. H. Lawrence`s View of Human Consciousness
Masashi Asai 한국로렌스학회 2008 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.16 No.2
Throughout his life, Lawrence is preoccupied by the action of human consciousness, especially by its function called "knowing." In Fantasia of the Unconscious he proclaims quite definitely: "The final aim is not to know, but to be. There never was a more risky motto than that: Know thyself. You`ve got to know yourself so that you can at least be yourself. `Be yourself` is the last motto." And this motto is untiringly supported by his life-long assertion that blood consciousness is more essential than mental consciousness. This assertion has a variation from time to time, but the essence of his message is: man has an innate core of being which he calls the "naive core," but over the time this core is cumulatively covered, and eventually dominated, by man`s later attainment of intellect, and this phenomenon has overturned the original balance that man once had: hence the present human ailment of self-consciousness and the loss of spontaneity. What we need to do, then, is to recover this balance. -The latter part of this message seems very sound, but the premise of his assertion needs reconsideration. What does he mean by saying that blood consciousness is dominated by mental consciousness? Presuming that this is true, is it such an abominable thing as he asserts? Aren`t there any positive aspects in the phenomenon? An important question to be asked is whether or not Lawrence`s dichotomy of "blood consciousness" and "mental consciousness" on the issue of "knowing" is still valid. An even more fundamental issue is his dichotomy of "to know" and "to be," or to expand the question, his dichotomic world view itself. Having become so familiar with these dualities or parallelisms in his works, we Lawrence scholars tend to take them for granted. In this paper I reconsider the relationship between the two concepts and the validity of such world view.
-
Lawrence and Joyce: Rethinking Modernism
Masashi Asai 한국로렌스학회 2023 D.H. 로렌스 연구 Vol.31 No.2
Lawrence and Joyce, two modernist giants, are traditionally considered opposites; or rather, those who appreciate either one’s work do not seem to share the praise for the other. From the Leavis’ early decision that Lawrence is “how radically unlikely Joyce,” this basic view has been taken for granted and thus the discussion has been avoided for generations. In the meantime, the two “parties” have each produced Lawrence- and Joyce-industries without many academic connections or exchanges. It is true that a major source of such a view is the novelists themselves. Both authors throw harsh comments to each other. And their respective admirers have more or less been confirming their views. In this paper, I will try to elucidate the reality of this chasm by examining, first, Lawrence’s and Joyce’s ideas of the novel. They both “wrecked the whole structure of the novel” by “their technical innovations” (Walter Allen), but the way they “wreck” is contrasting. I then survey the opinions of both parties who endorse the two authors’ merits respectively. To make my discussion more concrete, I examine their treatment of marriage and adultery in Lady Chatterley’s Lover and Ulysses. Though the general tendency has not been optimistic about the possible reconciliation or convergence of the two novelists and their admirers, their difference sheds a fruitful light to a fundamental question of the function or mission of the novel. If we can elucidate their achievements clearly enough, they can offer ample ground to understand the huge literary and cultural movement called Modernism.
KCI
KISS연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
