Unified Fields: Science and Literary Form by Janine RogersJanine Rogers. Unified Fields: Science and Literary Form. McGill-Queen's University Press. xix, 235. $32.95

2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 534-536
Author(s):  
Madhur Anand
Author(s):  
Alicia Mireles Christoff

This book engages twentieth-century post-Freudian British psychoanalysis in an unprecedented way: as literary theory. Placing the writing of figures like D. W. Winnicott, W. R. Bion, Michael and Enid Balint, Joan Riviere, Paula Heimann, and Betty Joseph in conversation with canonical Victorian fiction, the book reveals just how much object relations can teach us about how and why we read. These thinkers illustrate the ever-shifting impact our relations with others have on the psyche, and help us see how literary figures—characters, narrators, authors, and other readers—shape and structure us too. In the book, novels are charged relational fields. Closely reading novels by George Eliot and Thomas Hardy, the book shows that traditional understandings of Victorian fiction change when we fully recognize the object relations of reading. It is not by chance that British psychoanalysis illuminates underappreciated aspects of Victorian fiction so vibrantly: Victorian novels shaped modern psychoanalytic theories of psyche and relationality—including the eclipsing of empire and race in the construction of subject. Relational reading opens up both Victorian fiction and psychoanalysis to wider political and postcolonial dimensions, while prompting a closer engagement with work in such areas as critical race theory and gender and sexuality studies. The book describes the impact of literary form on readers and on twentieth- and twenty-first-century theories of the subject.


2019 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
V. P. Moskvin

The article considers the positional conditions of the transition of [é] to [ó], the causes of this phonetic transformation, which can be traced back to the Old Russian language, as well as the conditions for its gradual weakening. On this basis, the A.A. Shakhmatov’s hypothesis, interpreting this transition as a type of regressive labialization, was defined more precisely. Stylistically and orthologically significant reflexes of transition [é] to [ó] in the literary form of the modern Russian national language and its non-literary forms have been characterized and systematized.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-219
Author(s):  
Alessandro Casagrande

Abstract The use of a narrative imperfect in Am 7:10–17 after 7:1–9 and the abrupt shift to 8:1–3 frequently compelled critics to determine its literary form. For diachronic studies defining classifications include ‘third-party report’ and ‘apophthegma’. By contrast, synchronic studies emphasize the contextual integration of Am 7:10–17 and concentrate on a narrative analysis. Within this focus it is striking, that the passage is often associated with a ‘drama’ but without assessing the methodological ramifications of such a claim. The present article takes this ‘synchronic gap’ up and relates it to approaches to view drama as a possible genre for prophetic books. In doing so, a reading of Am 7:10–17 as part of a narrator-mediated discourse using a dramatic mode shows that the passage can be deemed an entrance with three speeches integrated into the wider context of 7:1–8:3. Particularly the classification of 7:10a, 12aα, 14aα as narrator’s discourse using a dramatic mode makes this claim plausible.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document