论文部分内容阅读
【中圖分类号】G12 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】2095-3089（2017）24-0100-02
Understanding literature is multi-dimensional and variable， as diverse literary criticism and theories have proved. The chapter Shakespeare with Chinese Characteristics， coming from the book River town written by Peter Hessler， has provided a great example relating to this view. By narrating about the experience he taught English literature in a small river town Fuling of Sichuan Province in 1990s， chances have been given for us to see a great mixture： the local culture clashed with western culture； political conceptions faced with western thinking； and local Chinese student met with the western high-educated intellect. If employed from the reader response theories， and the concept of “interpretive community” used to observe the text， Fuling’s students and the author can be seen as two contrasting interpretative communities of which social and ideological contexts share little in common.
As defined in the Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism， “interpretive community” refers to “a group of readers （or interpreters of signs） who share common assumptions about the nature of meaning and who employ common strategies in their readings” （Childers & Hentzi 158）. Less identified an example of an interpretive community as Fuling’s students in 1990s would be， as they were taught “within the framework of Chinese Communism” and they were “patriotic and faithful” and “believe in what they were told” （Hessler 37）. Ideological influence has taken its great effect here， as when asked to adapt Robin Hood’s story students have turned him into either revolutionary or counter-revolutionary figure， and Shakespeare is seen as the representative of the Proletariat and Hamlet deemed a great character as a result of caring for peasantry.
The author’s own interpretive community has also come into examination： with no single political conceptional framework doctrined， ideological influence has taken other forms and poses still unavoidable and evasive in literary criticism. Social perspectives have been overly brought into literature， and literary text has become “social commentary” rather than “art”， and is “forced to serve the political theories”， with schools of “Deconstructionism， Post-Modernism， New Historicism” to take their own points （42）.
The aesthetic unity’s existence itself is a disputable matter. However， it has been proved as a belief under the author’s pen， “the power of great literature” to restore the common human traits and reconnect different cultural groups through political crevices （43）. Interpretive communities’ clashes still functions： the students see in Shakespeare’s love sonnet “a Tang Dynasty beauty” （43）， and when they play the English drama， they has played the king’s role “in a brightly painted cone-shaped Chinese emperor’s crown” and “with the influence of traditional Chinese opera， in which the action is exaggerated and stylized”. Nevertheless with political factors receding， or being “escaped”， the contrasting understandings based on their own cultural experience can interact with each other， and create “something new” （44）.
Hessler’s chapter Shakespeare in Chinese Characteristicsfrom the novel River Town has offered a unique and uncommon view into thinking about interpretive communities’ influence upon readers of their possible interpretation of the literary text. While political factors pose as powerful and influential， and may cause clashing views， aesthetic literary values can still be shared and opinions can be inspired to create and communicate among all groups of readers， as presented in Hessler’s description.
References：
[1] Childers， Joseph & Hentzi， Gary. The Columbia Dictionary of Modern literary and Cultural Criticism. New York： Columbia University Press， 1995. Print.
[2] Hessler， Peter. River Town： Two Years on the Yangtze. New York： Harper Collins， 2001. Print.
Understanding literature is multi-dimensional and variable， as diverse literary criticism and theories have proved. The chapter Shakespeare with Chinese Characteristics， coming from the book River town written by Peter Hessler， has provided a great example relating to this view. By narrating about the experience he taught English literature in a small river town Fuling of Sichuan Province in 1990s， chances have been given for us to see a great mixture： the local culture clashed with western culture； political conceptions faced with western thinking； and local Chinese student met with the western high-educated intellect. If employed from the reader response theories， and the concept of “interpretive community” used to observe the text， Fuling’s students and the author can be seen as two contrasting interpretative communities of which social and ideological contexts share little in common.
As defined in the Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism， “interpretive community” refers to “a group of readers （or interpreters of signs） who share common assumptions about the nature of meaning and who employ common strategies in their readings” （Childers & Hentzi 158）. Less identified an example of an interpretive community as Fuling’s students in 1990s would be， as they were taught “within the framework of Chinese Communism” and they were “patriotic and faithful” and “believe in what they were told” （Hessler 37）. Ideological influence has taken its great effect here， as when asked to adapt Robin Hood’s story students have turned him into either revolutionary or counter-revolutionary figure， and Shakespeare is seen as the representative of the Proletariat and Hamlet deemed a great character as a result of caring for peasantry.
The author’s own interpretive community has also come into examination： with no single political conceptional framework doctrined， ideological influence has taken other forms and poses still unavoidable and evasive in literary criticism. Social perspectives have been overly brought into literature， and literary text has become “social commentary” rather than “art”， and is “forced to serve the political theories”， with schools of “Deconstructionism， Post-Modernism， New Historicism” to take their own points （42）.
The aesthetic unity’s existence itself is a disputable matter. However， it has been proved as a belief under the author’s pen， “the power of great literature” to restore the common human traits and reconnect different cultural groups through political crevices （43）. Interpretive communities’ clashes still functions： the students see in Shakespeare’s love sonnet “a Tang Dynasty beauty” （43）， and when they play the English drama， they has played the king’s role “in a brightly painted cone-shaped Chinese emperor’s crown” and “with the influence of traditional Chinese opera， in which the action is exaggerated and stylized”. Nevertheless with political factors receding， or being “escaped”， the contrasting understandings based on their own cultural experience can interact with each other， and create “something new” （44）.
Hessler’s chapter Shakespeare in Chinese Characteristicsfrom the novel River Town has offered a unique and uncommon view into thinking about interpretive communities’ influence upon readers of their possible interpretation of the literary text. While political factors pose as powerful and influential， and may cause clashing views， aesthetic literary values can still be shared and opinions can be inspired to create and communicate among all groups of readers， as presented in Hessler’s description.
References：
[1] Childers， Joseph & Hentzi， Gary. The Columbia Dictionary of Modern literary and Cultural Criticism. New York： Columbia University Press， 1995. Print.
[2] Hessler， Peter. River Town： Two Years on the Yangtze. New York： Harper Collins， 2001. Print.