首页> 外文学位 >Rhetorical genre theory and literary modernism: A study of T. S. Eliot's 'The Waste Land', George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-four', and Friedrich Nietzsche's 'On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense'
【24h】

Rhetorical genre theory and literary modernism: A study of T. S. Eliot's 'The Waste Land', George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-four', and Friedrich Nietzsche's 'On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense'

机译:修辞体裁理论与文学现代主义:艾略特的《荒原》,乔治·奥威尔的《十九四十四》和弗里德里希·尼采的《非道德意义上的真理与谎言》研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Two dominant tendencies surface in the decision-making of modernist writers as they attempt to address and accommodate the shifting social, cultural, and historical aspects of literary modernism. The reactionary author desires resolution to situations, and becomes frustrated and angst-ridden when such an end cannot be attained; the revolutionary author is willing to experiment with styles and forms, and to break formal boundaries in the search for provisional meaning. Considering genre use in light of the contemporary ideas of Rhetorical Genre Theory (RGT) can help us understand how both tendencies manifest themselves. The study discusses a spectrum of modernist writers: by looking at Eliot as a high modernist, Orwell as a late modernist, and Nietzsche as an early modernist, I will compare and evaluate how all three authors exhibit both the reactionary and revolutionary tendencies in their rhetorical use of multiple genres. My contention is that the revolutionary artistic aspirations of Eliot in the "Game of Chess" section of The Waste Land and Orwell in Nineteen Eighty Four are in the service of a conservative, reactionary desire for stability and resolution. When resolution is not forthcoming, they become trapped in a mindset characterized by frustration and cynicism and which results in the strained layering and juxtaposition of genres. By examining an early essay by Nietzsche, in whom the drive to resolution (or complete meaning) is subordinate to his revolutionary drive for artistic experimentation, we can observe a significant rhetorical difference in his mixing of genres as a more comprehensive case of RGT in action.
机译:现代主义作家在试图解决和适应文学现代主义不断变化的社会,文化和历史方面时,存在两种主要的倾向。反动作家渴望解决局势,当无法达到这一目的时,就会感到沮丧和焦虑。这位革命作家愿意尝试样式和形式,并打破形式界限以寻求临时意义。根据现代修辞流派理论(RGT)的思想来考虑流派的使用,可以帮助我们理解两种倾向如何表现出来。该研究讨论了一系列现代主义作家:通过将艾略特(Eliot)视为高级现代主义者,将奥威尔(Orwell)视为晚期现代主义者,以及将尼采(Nietssche)视为早期现代主义者,我将比较和评估这三位作家在修辞学上如何表现出反动和革命倾向使用多种流派。我的论点是,《荒原》和《八十四世纪的奥威尔》“国际象棋”部分中的艾略特革命性的艺术抱负,是出于对稳定和解决的保守,反动的渴望。如果无法解决问题,他们就会陷入以挫败感和玩世不恭为特征的思维定势中,这会导致流派的层次感和并列性。通过研究尼采的早期论文,其中分辨率(或完整意义)的驱动力是他对艺术实验的革命驱动力的附属条件,我们可以观察到他在体裁混合中的重大修辞学差异,这是RGT在行动中更为全面的案例。 。

著录项

  • 作者

    Blythe, Bradley M.;

  • 作者单位

    Laurentian University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 Laurentian University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Language Rhetoric and Composition.;Philosophy.;Literature American.;Literature English.;Literature Modern.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2007
  • 页码 148 p.
  • 总页数 148
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号