诗学的契合与批评的误读——什克洛夫斯基对斯特恩《项狄传》的接受  

The Correspondence of Poetics and the Misreading of Criticism——On Shklovsky’s Acceptance of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy

作　　者：张婉玲 赵晓彬[1] Zhang Wanling;Zhao Xiaobin

机构地区：[1]哈尔滨师范大学斯拉夫语学院

出　　处：《俄罗斯文艺》2021年第4期131-139,共9页Russian Literature & Arts

基　　金：国家社科基金项目《什克洛夫斯基文艺理论与批评范式研究》(21BWW001);哈尔滨师范大学博士研究生创新项目《什克洛夫斯基欧美文学批评研究》(HSDBSCX2020-19)阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：作为斯特恩批评史上最重要的研究者之一,什克洛夫斯基一直以来并未得到应有的重视,其由斯特恩而生发的诗学思想亦无系统深入的探讨。在对《项狄传》的具体研究中,他摒弃了学界一贯的主题性或情感性阐释方法,将目光转向了科学化的叙事形式批评,对叙事情节、叙事时间、陌生化等小说写作技巧与手法进行阐述,并开辟了对感伤主义风格的新颖解读视角。什克洛夫斯基的诗学批评方法与斯特恩写作意图存在着内在契合,同时前者的批评也因建立在自身的诗学理论基础上而具有鲜明的误读色彩。As one of the most important researchers in the history of Laurence Sterne’s criticism,Viktor Shklovsky has not been given due attention,and his poetics which originated from Sterne has not been explored systematically and deeply.In the specific study of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy,he abandoned the traditional thematic or emotional interpretation methods and turned his attention to scientific narrative criticism,expounded the writing skills and techniques of novels,such as narrative plot,narrative time and defamiliarization,and at the same time opened up a new angle of view to interpret the sentimental style.The method of Viktor Shklovsky’s poetic criticism is consistent with Sterne’s writing intention,and,meanwhile,Shklovsky’s criticism also has a misreading because it is based on his own poetic theory.

关 键 词：什克洛夫斯基 斯特恩 《项狄传》 诗学 误读 

分 类 号：I561.074[文学—其他各国文学]