| Abstract: | 「古雅的東方女性」及其文學市場: 從亞/美文學檔案庫(1912至1982)中重新思構世界/少數文學「小眾／少數族裔文學」的正典化在過去數十年來是相當顯明，也是相當耐人尋味的現象，因為嚴格來說，「少數族裔經典」是個自相矛盾的修辭語1。在這項計畫中，我選了1912至1982年間最具代表性的亞裔美籍和亞洲太平洋女性作家，並經由出版社、編輯和審稿人等市場力量仲裁或體現者, 來檢視她們的作品與市場力量之間的關係。我選擇的年代—1912至1982—是策略性的歷史斷代，目標是勾繪出從「第一位亞洲的美國女作家」水仙花(Sui Sin Far)所出版的《春郁太太及其它作品》到「第一位現代主義亞裔作家」車學敬(Theresa Hak Kyung Cha)的死亡, 這數十年間具體可辨識的的變異，這段時期間, 我們也同時目睹了少數文學從早期的「陋巷區隔」的民族文學「進化」到今日蓬勃發展的世界文學。在這項計畫中，我主張少數文學中一向對代表性、(不)可見性或刻板印象的關注, 往往把重點放在文本或作者的「存活與否」上, 而忽視了「適應律力」的問題，其實, 即使今日己成為正典的文本, 也一樣在難逃這樣的適應律力。我的標題「古雅的東方女性」所指的不僅是傳統上對亞/美人士的再現上難掩的東方主義情結，更重要的， 我想指出的是「小眾／少數族裔文學」中根本的雙重性的問題: 很有趣的，古雅和恥辱這兩個詞彙古意上皆有個（女性）生殖器的意思, 在「小眾／少數族裔文學」裏，成功和失敗，或古雅和恥辱這兩者其實是互為表裏的。我提議我們藉由進一步擴大亞/美文庫檔案，來分析出版商對作家主題與風格的裁權，並進一步了解這些文本後面那位面目不清的(主流)讀者。我選擇了三組作家，把這些作家和他們的個人檔案當作一種指標，再進一步研究其後的文學市場這個巨大的「文化檔案庫」：從早期的伊頓姐妹(the Eaton sisters)、二次大戰期間的海外華人凌叔華和張愛玲，到戰後正典女作家湯婷婷(Maxine Hong Kingston)和車學敬(Teresa Hak-Kyung Cha)。我的目標是從她們常提到的編輯顧問做為出發，並認真去看待這些線索，即使她們常在提到編審意見或被拒稿的經驗時，往往語意含糊或匆匆帶過，如果我們仔細探究，並佐以對於當時出版紀錄的分析，當能對這些作者／作品與少數文學正典化的問題有更深入的理解。我計劃將研究的出版社檔案包括:Charles Scribner’s Sons, Howard University Press ,Knopf, the Grove, Cassell & Company, Ltd., Harcourt, Bruce, H. Holt and Company, 及 World Book Company 等。除了與作家的通信之外，我也將藉分析出版社的清單目錄，來標識市場上生產（或被拒絕）的題材上「民族誌的不均衡」。此計畫的成果將有助於進一步釐清「小眾／少數族裔文學」在跨文化、翻譯和跨國主義這樣一個新的地理政治框架中的新意含。在第一年的計畫中，我將專注於 20世紀初到第一次世界大戰結束這段時期，也就是伊頓姐妹出版最為活躍的一段時間。伊頓姐妹倆人皆寫不少有自傳色彩的故事，其間編輯者的身影不斷反覆的出現。在這一年，我會追踨其相闗的出版商，以此資料勾繪出作為一個少數作家在當年出版所面臨的情況。在第二年，我會轉談二戰時期，並討討移居海外的作家張愛玲和凌叔華。在探討他們在英美的社群朋友以及他們和主要書刊的專業關係之際，我想指出的是英語文學在第二次世界大戰後的文化出版事業上的帝國霸權的角色。第三年，我會轉移到70年代末到80年代初，即多元文化的建制化的初端，並探究兩個標把文本的出版：湯亭亭(Maxine Hong Kingston)的《女戰士》 (The Woman Warrior)和車學敬(Theresa Hak Kyung Cha)的Dictée 。除了出版者的文檔外，我也將分析從珍‧克藍瑪(Jane Kramer)在紐約時報上讓湯亭亭的「小說」成為舉國皆知的評論，以及其後大量的各式評論。通過分析和比較兩位作家早期的評論，我將指出一個新的少數文學的典律已儼然成形，不過，它提醒我們要繼續參與、干預和重構少數文學這個持續的張力。 The “Quaint Orientals” and their Literary Market: Re-Worlding Minor Literature through Asian/American Archive, 1912-19821 The canonization of minor/minority literature in the last few decades is conspicuous; it is also an intriguing phenomenon because, strictly speaking, “minority canon” is an oxymoron.2 In this project, I choose the most exemplary Asian American and Asian Pacific women writers from 1912 to 1982 to investigate the relationship between their works and the power of the marketplace embodied and arbitrated by their publishers, editors, and reviewers. The period is chosen strategically to chart the identifiable shifts since the publication of the book by the “first Asian American woman writer,” Sui Sin Far’s Mrs. Spring Fragrance and Other Stories, to the death of (arguably) the first canonized modern/ist Asian American writer, Teresa Hak-Kyung Cha. The historical period also sees the evolution of minor literature from the early ghetto-ized ethnic literature to the burgeoning of world literature. In this project, I argue that the critical attention to representation, (in)visibility, or stereotyping in minority discourses neglects to see the imperative to adaptation even for the texts which survive and become canonized. My title, “Quaint Orientals,” speaks not only about the Orientalist representation but also, and more importantly, the doubleness of success and failure, or of quaint and shame of minor literature, as both words have a curious etymological connection to (female) genitalia. I propose that we expand the Asian/American archive in order to analyze the dictation of the publishers, the subjects they published, and the elusive “reader” of minor literature. I choose three groups of writers and use them and their personal archives as guides to this larger “cultural archive” of the literary market: the Eaton sisters, the Chinese expatriates Ling Shuhua and Eileen Chang, and the post-war canonical writers Maxine Hong Kingston and Teresa Hak-Kyung Cha. My aim is to use their references to the editors as indexes and begin to take seriously such tongue-in-cheek, passing mentions of rejection or editorial advice by examining the archives of the small and popular presses, such as Charles Scribner’s Sons (NY), Howard University Press (Washington DC), Knopf (New York), the Grove (New York), Cassell & Company, Ltd. (London), Harcourt, Bruce (New York), H. Holt and Company (New York), and World Book Company (Manila and the Philippines, later New York), etc. In addition to the personal correspondence, I want to examine the involved publishers’ catalogues to sort out the “ethnographical unevenness” in the subjects they produce (or reject) in the market. The results that this project yields will help to reconceptualize the category of “minor literature” in a new geopolitical framework of transculturation, translation, and transnationalism. During the first year of the project, I will focus on the early twentieth century to the end of the First World War when we see the publication of the works of the Eaton sisters. Both of the Eaton sisters write autobiographical accounts in which the figure of the editor appears repeatedly. I will track down these involved publishers to present a picture of what it is like to publish as a minor writer at that time. In the second year I will turn to the World War II period and examine the cases of the Chinese expatriates Eileen Chang and Ling Shuhua. Examining their circle of friends and their professional relationships to major British and American presses, I will also consider the imperialism of English literature in the print culture after World War II. In the third year, I will move to the late 70s to the early 80s, i.e., the advent of institutional multiculturalism, and examine the publication of the two banner texts: Maxine Hong Kingston’s The Woman Warrior and Teresa Hak-Kyung Cha’s Dictée. Besides the publishers’ archives, I will also analyze the copious reviews since Jane Kramer’s New York Times piece that raises Kingston’s “novel” to the level of national attention. By analyzing and 1The year 1912 marks the publication of Sui Sin Far’s Mrs. Spring Fragrance and Other Writings; 1982 is the year of Teresa Ha-Kyung Cha’s death. I will explain the strategic periodization in the following sections. 2 I intentionally blur the distinction between minor and minority literature. The “minor” in Deleuze and Guattari’s “minor literature” (in Kafka) is not bout ethnicity or identity; given Deleuze andGuattari’s politics, it is even against identity. But in practice, teaching “minor literature” often means literature of non-mainstream texts. This tendency to slide between these terms-- from minor literature to minority literature to world literature—is one that I want to bring under examination. comparing their earlier reviews, I will demonstrate that a new paradigm of minor literature has arrived. It nevertheless reminds us to continue to engage, intervene, and re-world such an ongoing strain of minor literature. 研究期間：9908 ~ 10007 |
