当代美国编史性元小说中的政治介入
|
摘要
本篇论文主要探讨当代美国编史性元小说中的政治介入问题。“编史性元小说”这个名称是由著名文论家、加拿大多伦多大学教授琳达·哈钦在《后现代主义的诗学》(1988)一书中提出的,现已在后现代主义文学批评中产生了广泛的影响。在这类后现代小说中存在着一个巨大的悖论:一方面,小说将历史上真实可考的事件和人物融入故事、构筑情节,营造出一种强烈的历史感;另一方面,作品又具有元小说的自我指涉特征,在叙述中揭示小说的写作过程及其虚构本质。在编史性元小说中,将这两个对立的双方联系起来的就是作品对社会政治和意识形态的批判。本文从新历史主义和后现代主义的视角出发,并借助历史编纂学中的有关理论,将《但以理书》、《火刑示众》和《天秤星座》这三部典型的美国后现代小说置入作家写作当时所处的政治氛围中进行解读,旨在揭示当代美国小说艺术上的典型特征和介入政治的诉求,并澄清我们对后现代主义文学的批判力量、美学追求以及政治介入等问题上尚存的误解。
历史、政治和文学之间总是有着千丝万缕的关联,相互影响,彼此映射。自上世纪七十年代以来,美国后现代主义小说中显露出了一种新的趋势――我们不妨将其称为“回归历史”。有学者更加明确地指出:“当代叙事文学中最显著的特征之一就是对各种历史叙事兴趣的再次觉醒”。与此同时,文学理论的演进和发展却对历史书写产生了前所未有的影响。产生于上世纪八十年代的新历史主义带着解构主义的批评气魄修复了文学研究的历史纬度,喊出了“文本就是历史,历史就是文本”的名言。海登·怀特将“历史文本”同小说一样视为“文学性的人工制品”。从此,历史和小说都只是“话语”;虚构话语和非虚构话语之间的区别不复存在。利奥塔将后现代状况总结为“对元叙事的质疑”。后现代主义理论对传统历史编纂学产生了空前挑战。美国著名史学理论家格奥尔格·伊格尔斯(Georg G. Iggers)在其《二十世纪的历史编纂学——从科学客观性到后现代的挑战》(1997)一书中,就流露出对历史是否还能作为一门独立学科而存在的隐忧。在这种情况下,后现代派小说在回归历史、重写历史方面拥有了比以往任何文学流派都更充分的理据和更重要的作用。概观美国文学的发展和演变,没有任何一次文学运动像后现代主义这样对传统哲学思想和文学本身产生了如此强烈的冲击。毫不夸张地说,后现代主义文学改变了美国的文艺格局。
然而,许多著名文学理论家,无论是保守派还是激进派,都对后现代主义进行了批判,将其认定为“非历史”和“去政治”。例如,丹尼尔·贝尔认为美国小说自六十年代中期以来就日趋“自闭”和“脱离现实”;詹姆逊将后现代主义归纳为“平面无深度”和“政治介入的缺席”;伊格尔顿批判了后现代主义的“去历史化”和“缺乏政治内容”。
在文本细读的基础上,本文深入剖析所选三部作品中的“编史性元小说”特征,在此基础上将作品置入作家写作当时的政治氛围中进行解读,并试图对上述著名文论家关于后现代主义的批判做出回应。本篇论文有选择地借用琳达·哈钦、利奥塔、鲍德里亚等理论家关于后现代的有关阐述,米歇尔·福柯、海登·怀特关于新历史主义的论断,以及卢卡契和哈贝马斯对现代主义的批判,对选取的三部小说进行解读,指出以《但以理书》、《火刑示众》和《天秤星座》为代表的当代美国“编史性元小说”在重写历史的基础上有力地介入了政治生活,当代美国晚期后现代小说中显露出明显的“政治转向”。
在《但以理书》中,多克特罗将我们带回了冷战时期麦卡锡主义阴云下的“世纪要案”——罗森堡事件。历史上,尽管只有戴维·格林格拉斯的供词为证,朱利叶斯和埃塞尔·罗森堡夫妇还是于1953年6月19日因被指控将原子弹机密透露给前苏联而被先后送上纽约星星监狱里的电椅上处死。虽然小说对部分历史细节做了改动,但还是忠实地再现了以“冷战狂想症”为代表的麦卡锡时期的历史氛围和文化语境。小说提供了从上世纪三十年代到六十年代期间的美国民族心态的一个全景图。与这种历史观照形成对比的是作品里呈现出来的自我指涉性:作者声音经常侵入正常叙述,而且小说中出现了三个不同的结尾。作为一部编史性元小说,《但以理书》不仅重返历史、改写历史,而且还介入了政治生活。通过描写艾萨克森夫妇(实指罗森堡夫妇)的受害给他们的一对子女(但以理和苏珊)留下的心灵创伤,小说将美国冷战时期的政治体制推上了审判台。《但以理书》写于新左派学生运动日益高涨的六十年代末。小说不仅声援了以艾萨克森夫妇为代表的老左派,而且还回应了当时的新左派运动。小说通过对但以理和苏珊在抗议越战游行中的遭遇,以及在小说最后,但以理在新左派学生占领哥伦比亚大学情势下被赶出图书馆等事件,表达了作家对新左派运动既同情又批判的复杂感情。
同样是以罗森堡间谍案为题材,库弗的《火刑示众》聚焦于罗森堡夫妇被处以电刑的前三天里所发生那些动人心弦的事件。《火刑示众》是当代文学中第一部以尚且在世的真实人物作为主要人物的小说。作品中不仅点了两百多个政要的名,而且大胆地以尼克松作为主要叙述者。此外,五十年代那些标志性的历史事件(如朝鲜战争、麦卡锡主义反共运动等)都出现在小说的叙述当中。在这部小说中,自我指涉性体现在尼克松对罗森堡一案的调查反映了库弗自身对该案的探究;尼克松在调查过程中所经历的挫败和绝望折射出了库弗在写作《火刑示众》这部皇皇巨著过程的真实困境。作为一部重要的编史性元小说,《火刑示众》从另一角度展示了编史性元小说如何将形式实验和政治介入融为一体。通过将死刑从禁闭的星星监狱搬到纽约市的时代广场,并将凄哀的死刑变成一场闹剧表演,库弗上演了一场耻辱的狂欢。小说不仅批判了罗森堡一案中对正义的亵渎,而且对七十年代的“水门事件”进行了讽刺。小说的主要叙述者尼克松,不仅是艾森豪威尔的副总统、罗森堡一案中的调查者,而且还是“水门事件”的主角。通过将尼克松刻画成一个出尽洋相的丑角,小说讽刺了尼克松后来在“水门事件”中蒙受的羞辱,并对政府妨碍司法公正进行了抨击。
德里罗的《天秤星座》进一步展现了当代美国编史性元小说中的政治介入。小说重写了一个给美国民族精神上留下永久创伤的重大事件——1963年11月22日肯尼迪总统在达拉斯遇刺。小说不仅将与这一事件有关的主要历史人物一一融入故事,而且还以长达二十六卷的《沃伦报告》作为参照对象。《天秤星座》深深植根于历史语境,文献纪实般地再现了肯尼迪遇刺这一历史时刻。但这部小说不是一部传统的历史小说,而是具有元小说的自我指涉特征。在小说中,中情局退休分析家尼古拉斯·布兰奇签约撰写一部肯尼迪遇刺的密史。布兰奇的这一角色实为德里罗自己的化身。面对与日俱增的文献和资料,布兰奇越来越感觉无法完成撰写任务。布兰奇的这一梦魇般的遭遇也反映了德里罗面对长达二十六卷的《沃伦报告》所陷入的困境。《天秤星座》没有按照“官方事实”来重写肯尼迪遇刺,而是否定了《沃伦报告》里的官方结论,揭示了另一个可能存在的事实:肯尼迪并非被奥斯瓦尔德一人所杀,而是被一个由中情局和古巴反叛分子组成的阴谋所害。不仅如此,美国政府,甚至约翰逊总统本人,在调查展开时对整个事件进行了极力掩盖。小说写于上世纪八十年代中期,正值里根政府陷入自“水门事件”以来最严重的政治危机——伊朗军售事件。在中情局和反叛分子试图推翻尼加拉瓜共产党政权的密谋曝光后,总统和政府部门极力掩盖对伊军售和资助尼加拉瓜反叛武装分子。由于伊朗军售事件中暴露出来的政治问题与肯尼迪遇刺后的情形高度相似,德里罗在小说中对官方结论的否定也是对里根政府间接地进行了批判。
本篇论文将《但以理书》、《火刑示众》和《天秤星座》视为典型的编史性元小说,分析了作品中存在的悖论——既营造历史感又具有自我指涉性。本文将这三部小说置入作品写作之时的政治氛围中进行解读,考察了作品从“文本内”和“文本外”介入现实政治生活的方式,进而指出当代美国编史性元小说并非“去政治”而是“介入政治”。显而易见,这三部作品既相对独立,又构成有机整体,揭示了这类后现代小说重写历史、介入政治的不同路径。在当代美国小说的发展中,形式试验派和传统现实主义派都面临各自难以摆脱的困境。编史性元小说较好地解决了小说中美学追求和政治介入的融合,代表了当代美国小说发展的一个重要方向。
This dissertation seeks to mark out and explore the issue of political engagement in contemporary American fiction. In particular, I will examine three selected texts: E. L. Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel, Robert Coover’s The Public Burning, and Don DeLillo’s Libra, which I argue that best embody the political engagement in contemporary American histroriographic metafiction.
History, politics and literature are intricately interwoven. Admittedly, literature does not only represent but also reacts to the politico-historical situation in which it is produced. American fiction produced since the 1970s, to a large degree, has been characterized by“a return to history.”As the concept of“history,”both in historiography and in literature, has undergone tremendous change, postmodern novelists have a more significant role to assume in their reconstruction of history. Perhaps it is no exaggeration to suggest that postmodernism has changed the literary landscape of the United States. Never before, in the literary history of the United States, has any other literary movement exerted such a strong influence upon traditional philosophical conceptions and literature itself. Despite the considerable scholarship devoted to the studies of postmodernism, little consensus has been achieved on even some of the most fundamental questions regarding the subject. While some supporters welcome postmodernism, its detractors vehemently attack it from various angles. For instance, Daniel Bell argues that American fiction since the 1960s“became increasingly autistic”and“the voice of the novelist grew more and more disembodied,”Fredric Jameson attacks the“flatness, depthlessness, superficiality”and“absence of political interventions,”Terry Eagleton criticizes postmodernism for its alleged“depthless, styleless, dehistoriczed”tendency, its“empty of political content”in particular, to name only the most important.
Partly as a response to these theorists’attacks on postmodernism, this dissertation examines the paradoxes of the three selected texts as historiographic metafiction, and their different approaches to engaging in the external political life. By placing and situating the three texts back into the political climate of the moment of writing, I argue that contemporary American historiographic metafiction, and by extension late postmodernism, is not“apolitical”but“politically engaged”in social reality. Late postmodernism indicates an explicit“political turn”in terms of its depiction and reinterpretation of major political events in recent history.
As a fictional adaptation of the Rosenberg Case in the early 1950s, Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel best exemplifies the inherent paradox of historiographic metafiction: self-reflexivity is juxtaposed with historical grounding. Notably, it does not argue for the innocence of the Isaacsons (the fictional counterparts of the Rosenbergs), but traumatizes the survivals from the frantic persecution. The psychological breakdown and deformity of the Isaacson children reveal the influence of the persecution on two generations. By relating the Old Left communists with the New Left students, the novel criticizes the anarchism and violence of the New Left movement.
Robert Coover’s The Public Burning is another imaginary reconstruction of the trial and executions of the condemned Rosenbergs. Coover’s version of this emotionally charged event combines metafictional techniques with historically verifiable events and personages. By transforming the grave executions at Sing Sing prison into a circus event in Times Square, the novel creates a carnival of shame. With Richard Nixon as its principal narrator, the novel also offers a satirical foreshadow of the humiliation that the later President experienced in the Watergate Scandal.
Libra, Don DeLillo’s recreation of assassination of John F. Kennedy, is also an exemplary text of historiographic metafiction. It is a novel deeply grounded in historical context while explicitly concerned with the process of fiction-making. By telling an alternative truth, the novel refutes the“official truth”contained in the Warren Report. Written in the wake of the Iran-Contra Affair, the most serious political crisis since the Watergate, the novel implicitly attacks the pervasive dishonesty and manipulation of power of the Reagan Administration.
The major paradox of historiographic metafiction lies in the contradiction between its historicity and self-reflexivity. What accommodates these two contradictory impulses is the critique of ideology and politics embedded in this kind of postmodern fiction. Based on a close reading of the three selected texts, together with a consideration of the political climate of their moment of writing, this dissertation serves as a tentative refutation of the “apolitical”accusation of postmodernism by some of our best known theorists. As contemporary American fiction has been led by the radical experimentalists and traditional realists to different predicaments, contemporary American historiographic metafiction, by reuniting the aesthetic pursuit with political engagement, indicates a new direction towards“the replenishment of literature.”
历史、政治和文学之间总是有着千丝万缕的关联,相互影响,彼此映射。自上世纪七十年代以来,美国后现代主义小说中显露出了一种新的趋势――我们不妨将其称为“回归历史”。有学者更加明确地指出:“当代叙事文学中最显著的特征之一就是对各种历史叙事兴趣的再次觉醒”。与此同时,文学理论的演进和发展却对历史书写产生了前所未有的影响。产生于上世纪八十年代的新历史主义带着解构主义的批评气魄修复了文学研究的历史纬度,喊出了“文本就是历史,历史就是文本”的名言。海登·怀特将“历史文本”同小说一样视为“文学性的人工制品”。从此,历史和小说都只是“话语”;虚构话语和非虚构话语之间的区别不复存在。利奥塔将后现代状况总结为“对元叙事的质疑”。后现代主义理论对传统历史编纂学产生了空前挑战。美国著名史学理论家格奥尔格·伊格尔斯(Georg G. Iggers)在其《二十世纪的历史编纂学——从科学客观性到后现代的挑战》(1997)一书中,就流露出对历史是否还能作为一门独立学科而存在的隐忧。在这种情况下,后现代派小说在回归历史、重写历史方面拥有了比以往任何文学流派都更充分的理据和更重要的作用。概观美国文学的发展和演变,没有任何一次文学运动像后现代主义这样对传统哲学思想和文学本身产生了如此强烈的冲击。毫不夸张地说,后现代主义文学改变了美国的文艺格局。
然而,许多著名文学理论家,无论是保守派还是激进派,都对后现代主义进行了批判,将其认定为“非历史”和“去政治”。例如,丹尼尔·贝尔认为美国小说自六十年代中期以来就日趋“自闭”和“脱离现实”;詹姆逊将后现代主义归纳为“平面无深度”和“政治介入的缺席”;伊格尔顿批判了后现代主义的“去历史化”和“缺乏政治内容”。
在文本细读的基础上,本文深入剖析所选三部作品中的“编史性元小说”特征,在此基础上将作品置入作家写作当时的政治氛围中进行解读,并试图对上述著名文论家关于后现代主义的批判做出回应。本篇论文有选择地借用琳达·哈钦、利奥塔、鲍德里亚等理论家关于后现代的有关阐述,米歇尔·福柯、海登·怀特关于新历史主义的论断,以及卢卡契和哈贝马斯对现代主义的批判,对选取的三部小说进行解读,指出以《但以理书》、《火刑示众》和《天秤星座》为代表的当代美国“编史性元小说”在重写历史的基础上有力地介入了政治生活,当代美国晚期后现代小说中显露出明显的“政治转向”。
在《但以理书》中,多克特罗将我们带回了冷战时期麦卡锡主义阴云下的“世纪要案”——罗森堡事件。历史上,尽管只有戴维·格林格拉斯的供词为证,朱利叶斯和埃塞尔·罗森堡夫妇还是于1953年6月19日因被指控将原子弹机密透露给前苏联而被先后送上纽约星星监狱里的电椅上处死。虽然小说对部分历史细节做了改动,但还是忠实地再现了以“冷战狂想症”为代表的麦卡锡时期的历史氛围和文化语境。小说提供了从上世纪三十年代到六十年代期间的美国民族心态的一个全景图。与这种历史观照形成对比的是作品里呈现出来的自我指涉性:作者声音经常侵入正常叙述,而且小说中出现了三个不同的结尾。作为一部编史性元小说,《但以理书》不仅重返历史、改写历史,而且还介入了政治生活。通过描写艾萨克森夫妇(实指罗森堡夫妇)的受害给他们的一对子女(但以理和苏珊)留下的心灵创伤,小说将美国冷战时期的政治体制推上了审判台。《但以理书》写于新左派学生运动日益高涨的六十年代末。小说不仅声援了以艾萨克森夫妇为代表的老左派,而且还回应了当时的新左派运动。小说通过对但以理和苏珊在抗议越战游行中的遭遇,以及在小说最后,但以理在新左派学生占领哥伦比亚大学情势下被赶出图书馆等事件,表达了作家对新左派运动既同情又批判的复杂感情。
同样是以罗森堡间谍案为题材,库弗的《火刑示众》聚焦于罗森堡夫妇被处以电刑的前三天里所发生那些动人心弦的事件。《火刑示众》是当代文学中第一部以尚且在世的真实人物作为主要人物的小说。作品中不仅点了两百多个政要的名,而且大胆地以尼克松作为主要叙述者。此外,五十年代那些标志性的历史事件(如朝鲜战争、麦卡锡主义反共运动等)都出现在小说的叙述当中。在这部小说中,自我指涉性体现在尼克松对罗森堡一案的调查反映了库弗自身对该案的探究;尼克松在调查过程中所经历的挫败和绝望折射出了库弗在写作《火刑示众》这部皇皇巨著过程的真实困境。作为一部重要的编史性元小说,《火刑示众》从另一角度展示了编史性元小说如何将形式实验和政治介入融为一体。通过将死刑从禁闭的星星监狱搬到纽约市的时代广场,并将凄哀的死刑变成一场闹剧表演,库弗上演了一场耻辱的狂欢。小说不仅批判了罗森堡一案中对正义的亵渎,而且对七十年代的“水门事件”进行了讽刺。小说的主要叙述者尼克松,不仅是艾森豪威尔的副总统、罗森堡一案中的调查者,而且还是“水门事件”的主角。通过将尼克松刻画成一个出尽洋相的丑角,小说讽刺了尼克松后来在“水门事件”中蒙受的羞辱,并对政府妨碍司法公正进行了抨击。
德里罗的《天秤星座》进一步展现了当代美国编史性元小说中的政治介入。小说重写了一个给美国民族精神上留下永久创伤的重大事件——1963年11月22日肯尼迪总统在达拉斯遇刺。小说不仅将与这一事件有关的主要历史人物一一融入故事,而且还以长达二十六卷的《沃伦报告》作为参照对象。《天秤星座》深深植根于历史语境,文献纪实般地再现了肯尼迪遇刺这一历史时刻。但这部小说不是一部传统的历史小说,而是具有元小说的自我指涉特征。在小说中,中情局退休分析家尼古拉斯·布兰奇签约撰写一部肯尼迪遇刺的密史。布兰奇的这一角色实为德里罗自己的化身。面对与日俱增的文献和资料,布兰奇越来越感觉无法完成撰写任务。布兰奇的这一梦魇般的遭遇也反映了德里罗面对长达二十六卷的《沃伦报告》所陷入的困境。《天秤星座》没有按照“官方事实”来重写肯尼迪遇刺,而是否定了《沃伦报告》里的官方结论,揭示了另一个可能存在的事实:肯尼迪并非被奥斯瓦尔德一人所杀,而是被一个由中情局和古巴反叛分子组成的阴谋所害。不仅如此,美国政府,甚至约翰逊总统本人,在调查展开时对整个事件进行了极力掩盖。小说写于上世纪八十年代中期,正值里根政府陷入自“水门事件”以来最严重的政治危机——伊朗军售事件。在中情局和反叛分子试图推翻尼加拉瓜共产党政权的密谋曝光后,总统和政府部门极力掩盖对伊军售和资助尼加拉瓜反叛武装分子。由于伊朗军售事件中暴露出来的政治问题与肯尼迪遇刺后的情形高度相似,德里罗在小说中对官方结论的否定也是对里根政府间接地进行了批判。
本篇论文将《但以理书》、《火刑示众》和《天秤星座》视为典型的编史性元小说,分析了作品中存在的悖论——既营造历史感又具有自我指涉性。本文将这三部小说置入作品写作之时的政治氛围中进行解读,考察了作品从“文本内”和“文本外”介入现实政治生活的方式,进而指出当代美国编史性元小说并非“去政治”而是“介入政治”。显而易见,这三部作品既相对独立,又构成有机整体,揭示了这类后现代小说重写历史、介入政治的不同路径。在当代美国小说的发展中,形式试验派和传统现实主义派都面临各自难以摆脱的困境。编史性元小说较好地解决了小说中美学追求和政治介入的融合,代表了当代美国小说发展的一个重要方向。
This dissertation seeks to mark out and explore the issue of political engagement in contemporary American fiction. In particular, I will examine three selected texts: E. L. Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel, Robert Coover’s The Public Burning, and Don DeLillo’s Libra, which I argue that best embody the political engagement in contemporary American histroriographic metafiction.
History, politics and literature are intricately interwoven. Admittedly, literature does not only represent but also reacts to the politico-historical situation in which it is produced. American fiction produced since the 1970s, to a large degree, has been characterized by“a return to history.”As the concept of“history,”both in historiography and in literature, has undergone tremendous change, postmodern novelists have a more significant role to assume in their reconstruction of history. Perhaps it is no exaggeration to suggest that postmodernism has changed the literary landscape of the United States. Never before, in the literary history of the United States, has any other literary movement exerted such a strong influence upon traditional philosophical conceptions and literature itself. Despite the considerable scholarship devoted to the studies of postmodernism, little consensus has been achieved on even some of the most fundamental questions regarding the subject. While some supporters welcome postmodernism, its detractors vehemently attack it from various angles. For instance, Daniel Bell argues that American fiction since the 1960s“became increasingly autistic”and“the voice of the novelist grew more and more disembodied,”Fredric Jameson attacks the“flatness, depthlessness, superficiality”and“absence of political interventions,”Terry Eagleton criticizes postmodernism for its alleged“depthless, styleless, dehistoriczed”tendency, its“empty of political content”in particular, to name only the most important.
Partly as a response to these theorists’attacks on postmodernism, this dissertation examines the paradoxes of the three selected texts as historiographic metafiction, and their different approaches to engaging in the external political life. By placing and situating the three texts back into the political climate of the moment of writing, I argue that contemporary American historiographic metafiction, and by extension late postmodernism, is not“apolitical”but“politically engaged”in social reality. Late postmodernism indicates an explicit“political turn”in terms of its depiction and reinterpretation of major political events in recent history.
As a fictional adaptation of the Rosenberg Case in the early 1950s, Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel best exemplifies the inherent paradox of historiographic metafiction: self-reflexivity is juxtaposed with historical grounding. Notably, it does not argue for the innocence of the Isaacsons (the fictional counterparts of the Rosenbergs), but traumatizes the survivals from the frantic persecution. The psychological breakdown and deformity of the Isaacson children reveal the influence of the persecution on two generations. By relating the Old Left communists with the New Left students, the novel criticizes the anarchism and violence of the New Left movement.
Robert Coover’s The Public Burning is another imaginary reconstruction of the trial and executions of the condemned Rosenbergs. Coover’s version of this emotionally charged event combines metafictional techniques with historically verifiable events and personages. By transforming the grave executions at Sing Sing prison into a circus event in Times Square, the novel creates a carnival of shame. With Richard Nixon as its principal narrator, the novel also offers a satirical foreshadow of the humiliation that the later President experienced in the Watergate Scandal.
Libra, Don DeLillo’s recreation of assassination of John F. Kennedy, is also an exemplary text of historiographic metafiction. It is a novel deeply grounded in historical context while explicitly concerned with the process of fiction-making. By telling an alternative truth, the novel refutes the“official truth”contained in the Warren Report. Written in the wake of the Iran-Contra Affair, the most serious political crisis since the Watergate, the novel implicitly attacks the pervasive dishonesty and manipulation of power of the Reagan Administration.
The major paradox of historiographic metafiction lies in the contradiction between its historicity and self-reflexivity. What accommodates these two contradictory impulses is the critique of ideology and politics embedded in this kind of postmodern fiction. Based on a close reading of the three selected texts, together with a consideration of the political climate of their moment of writing, this dissertation serves as a tentative refutation of the “apolitical”accusation of postmodernism by some of our best known theorists. As contemporary American fiction has been led by the radical experimentalists and traditional realists to different predicaments, contemporary American historiographic metafiction, by reuniting the aesthetic pursuit with political engagement, indicates a new direction towards“the replenishment of literature.”
引文
1 This essay originally took the form of a lecture by White given at the Comparative Literature Colloquium of Yale University on 24 January, 1974.
1 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001): 23.
1 Adam J. Sorkin, ed, Politics and the Muse: Studies in the Politics of Recent American Literature (Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1989).
2 See Michael North, The Political Aesthetic of Yeats, Eliot and Pound (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991).
3 See Derek Hirst and Richard Strier, eds, Writing and Political Engagement in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999).
4 See Jack L. Siler, Poetic Language and Political Engagement in the Poetry of Keats (New York: Routledge, 2008).
1 Kenneth Millard, Contemporary American Fiction: An Introduction to American Fiction Since 1970 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000).
2 Kathryn Hume, American Dream, American Nightmare: Fiction since 1960 (Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2000).
2 See The New York Times Book Review, May 21, 2006: 16-19.
1 Sangjun Jeong, Representing the Rosenberg Case: Coover, Doctorow and the Consequence of Postmodernism (Seoul, Korea: Seoul National University, 1994). This book grows out of Sangjun Jeong’s 1991 dissertation of the same title at the University of Hawaii.
2 Virginia Carmichael, Framing History: The Rosenberg Story and the Cold War (Minneapolis and London: U of Minnesota P, 1993). This book is based on Carmichael’s 1991 dissertation entitled“The Rosenberg Story(ies): A Literary History”at Rice University.
3 David Endicott,“Spectacular Fictions: The Cold War and the Making of Historical Knowledge.”Diss. Ball State University, 1998.
2 See John Barth, Lost in the Funhouse: Fiction for print, tape, live voice (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1968).
1 See Herwig Friedl and Dieter Schulz,“A Multiplicity of Witnesses: E. L. Doctorow at Heidelberg.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christopher D. Morris (Jackson: U of Mississippi P, 1998): 121.
1 Among others, in the fields of historical studies and philosophy, there are similar pronouncements. Prominent works on the topic include: Francis Fukuyama. The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992); Paul S. Miklowitz, Metaphysics to Metafictions: Hegel, Nietzsche, and the End of Philosophy (Albany, N.Y.: State U of New York P, 1998).
2 John Barth,“The Literature of Exhaustion.”Atlantic Monthly August 1967: 29-34. This essay has been widely read and discussed, but Mr. Barth considered most of the interpretations of his essay misunderstanding. Partly due to this dissatisfaction, he published another equally famous essay titled“The Literature of Replenishment”in the same journal in 1980. Towards the end of the essay, he offers a clarification that emphasizes“The Literature of Exhaustion”was not the effective exhaustion of language or of literature, but of“the aesthetic of high modernism.”Both essays now appear in his volume of collected writings The Friday Book: Essays and Other Nonfiction (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1984).
3 Ronald Sukenick, The Death of the Novel and Other Stories (New York: The Dial Press, Inc., 1969).
1 See John Clayton,“Radical Jewish Humanism: The Vision of E. L. Doctorow.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton: Review Press, 1983): 109-119.
1 See the back cover of trade paperback edition. E. L. Doctorow, The Book of Daniel (New York: Random House, 2007).
2 Among all the people who offer support to the Rosenbergs or ask President Eisenhower for clemency are Jean-Paul Sartre, the President of France Vincent Auriol, Vatican Pope Pius XII, atomic scientists Harold Urey and Albert Einstein, to name just the most important.
3 See David and Riesman and Nathan Glazer,“The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes,”Partisan Review, 22, No. 1 (Winter, 1955): 64.
1 See J. Edgar Hoover,“The Crime of the Century: The Case of the A-Bomb Spies,”Reader’s Digest, May 1951. 149-168.
See Junsong Chen,"Dwelling in the Ambiguity History:An Interview with E.L.Doctorow."Foreign Literature 4(2009): 86-91.
1 According to David Lodge, postmodern fiction suggests that the world resists interpretation through such techniques as contradiction, permutation, discontinuity, randomness, excess, and short circuit. See David Lodge, The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy and the Typology of Modern Literature (Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1977): 239-245.
1 For more detailed evaluation of the Old Left, see Maurice Isserman, If I Had a Hammer…: The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left (New York: Basic Books, 1987).
1 A Political Fable (1980), Whatever Happened to Gloomy Gus of the Chicago Bears (1987), Charlie in the House of Rue (1980), Spanking the Maid (1981), Briar Rose (1996), Ghost Town (1998), Stepmother (2004).
2 Pricksongs & Descants (1969), In Bed One Night and Other Brief Encounters (1983), A Night at the Movies or, You Must Remember This (1987), A Child Again (2005).
1 See Paul Gray,“Uncle Sam Takes on the Phantom,”Time, Vol. 110, Issues 1-9, 1977: 484.
1 Originally Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were scheduled to be executed at 11:00 P. M. on Friday, June 19. But the Rosenbergs are Jew, and the time set for the execution will run against the Jewish Sabbath. From the sundown on Friday until the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night is the time of rest and worship for Jews. Considering it is unacceptable to burn the condemned in the time of their religious worship, the judge reschedule the execution to be carried out at 8: 00 P. M. on Friday, June 19, minutes before sundown.
2 In 1953, the U. S. Federal Bureau of Prisons did not operate an electric chair, so the Rosenbergs were transferred to the New York State-run Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossing, N. Y. for execution.
1 Norman Podhoretz, for example, called The Public Burning a“cowardly lie”in his review of the novel. See“Uncle Sam and the Phantom,”Saturday Review, 17 September 1977. 27-28, 34. Another critic, Pearl Bell, describes the novel as“overwrought subversion of reality by polemically inspired fantasy.”See“Coover’s Revisionist Fantasy,”Commentary, 9 October 1977. 67-69.
1 Widely regarded as DeLillo’s masterpiece, the appealing of this encyclopedic narrative shows no signs of wane. In 2006, Underworld was named one of the three best novels of the last twenty-five years by The New York Times Book Review.
2 DeLillo received the Jerusalem Prize at the Jerusalem International Book Fair. Since established in 1963, the Jerusalem Prize has been awarded every two years, honoring a writer whose body of work expresses the theme human freedom, society, politics, and government. The previous recipients of the award include Bertrand Russell, Simone de Beauvoir, Jorge Luis Borges, Eugene Ionesco, V. S. Naipaul, Milan Kundera, to name just the most prominent.
1 See New York Times Book Review, May 21, 2006: 16-19.
2 The Irish Literature Magazine. 9 Feb. 2010.
3 Don DeLillo,“American Blood: A Journey through the Labyrinth of Dallas and JFK,”Rolling Stone 8 December 1983: 21-28, 74.
1 See, for instance, John Sparrow, After the Assassination: A Positive Appraisal of the Warren Report (New York: Chilmark Press, 1967); Gerald Ford, A Presidential Legacy and the Warren Commission (New York: The Flatsigned Press, 2007).
1 See Kevin Connolly,“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePiero (Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005): 25-39. 30.
2 See George F. Will, Washington Post, Sept. 22, 1988. A25.
1 Douglas Fowler, Understanding E. L. Doctorow (Columbia, South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 1992): 1.
1 Larry McCaffery,“A Spirit of Transgression.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983): 31-47; 37.
2 Richard Trenne,“Politics and the Mode of Fiction.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983): 48.
1 Toni Morrison, What Moves at the Margin: Selected Nonfiction. Ed. Carolyn C. Denard (Jacson, Miss. Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2008): 64.
2 E. L. Doctorow,“False Documents.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983): 26.
1 Douglas Fowler, Understanding E. L. Doctorow (Columbia, South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 1992): 32.
1《公众的怒火》,潘小松译,南京:译林出版社,1997年。《魔杖》(The Magic Poker),李自修,钱青等译,北京:作家出版社,1998年。《打女佣的屁股》(Spanking the Maid),谭加东译,长沙:湖南美术出版社,1998年。
1《白噪音》,朱叶译,南京:译林出版社,2002年;《天秤星座》,韩忠华译,南京:译林出版社,1997年;《名字》,李公昭译,南京:译林出版社,2002年。
2朱叶:“美国后现代社会的‘死亡之书’--评唐·德里罗的小说《白噪音》”,《当代外国文学》4(2002):159-163。范小玫:德里罗:“‘复印’美国当代生活的后现代派作家”,《外国文学》4(2003):3-7.朱新福:“《白噪音》中的生态意识”,《外国文学研究》5(2005): 109-114.张杰、孔燕:“后现代社会的诗性特征:生活的符号化--《白噪音》文本的对话式解读”,《外国文学研究》5(2006)年: 40-44.方成:“后现代小说中自然主义的传承与塑型:唐·德里罗的《白色噪音》”,《当代外国文学》4(2003)年: 93-99。王予霞:“恐怖主义诗学的文化内涵--从德里罗等人的小说谈起”,《译林》2(2007)年: 184-188。王予霞:“美国当代文学中的政治情愫--从德里罗等人的小说谈起”,《文艺理论与批评》3(2006):79-84。罗一轻:“德里罗《白色噪音》的集体无意识解读”,《湖北经济学院学报》(人文社会科学版)8(2008): 128-129。
1 Thomas LeClair,“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. DePietro, Thomas (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 5.
1 Thomas LeClair,“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 5.
2 Adam Begley,“The Art of Fiction CXXXV: Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 107.
3 David Remnick,“Exile on Main Street: Don DeLillo’s Undisclosed Underworld.”New Yorker, 15 September 1997: 47.
Don DeLillo,"In the Ruins of the Future:Reflections on Terror and Loss in the Shadow of September ."Harper's,December 2001: 30.
1John N. Duvall, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Don DeLillo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
1 DeCurtis, Anthony.“An Outsider in This Society: An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 56.
1 Don DeLillo, Libra (New York: Viking, 1988): 15.
2 Linda Hutcheon, A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction (New York: Routledge, 1988): ix.
3 Don DeLillo, Libra (New York: Viking, 1988): Author’s Note.
4 Ann Arensberg,“Seven Seconds.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 46.
Anderson, Richard. Robert Coover. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1981.
Arensberg, Ann.“Seven Seconds.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005. 40-46.
Aristotle. The Politics. Trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago and London: The U of Chicago P, 1984.
Barth, John.“The Literature of Exhaustion.”Atlantic Monthly August 1967: 29-34. ---.“The Literature of Replenishment.”The Friday Book: Essays on Other Nonfiction.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.
Barthe, Roland.“The Discourse of History.”The Rustle of Language. trans. Richard Howard. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1989.
Baudrillard, Jean.“The Precession of Simulacra.”Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor, M.I.: U of Michigan P, 1994.
Beckett, Samuel. Proust and Three Dialogues with Georges Duthuit. London: John Calder, 1965.
Bell, Daniel. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Blotner, Joseph. The Political Novel. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1979.
Boyers, Robert.“The Avant-Garde.”The Columbia History of the American Novel. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. 726-751.
Brinkey, Joel and Stephen Engleberg, eds. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair. Abr. ed. New York: Times Books, 1988.
Cartledge, Paul. Introduction. Companion to Historiography. Ed. Michael Bentley. New York and London: Routledge, 1997.
Chen, Junsong.“Dwelling in the Ambiguity of History: An Interview with E. L. Doctorow”Foreign Literature (4) 2009: 86-91.
---.“Keeping Fiction Alive: An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Foreign Literature Studies (1) 2010: 1-11.
Clayton, John.“Radical Jewish Humanism: The Vision of E. L. Doctorow.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner. Princeton: Review Press,1983. 109-119.
Colby, Anne, et al. Educating for Democracy: Preparing Undergraduates for Responsible Political Engagement. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
Collingwood, R. G. The Idea of History: With Lectures 1926-1928. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994.
Connolly, Kevin.“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005. 25-39.
Connor, Steven, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Cooper, Stephen.“Cutting Both Ways: E. L. Doctorow’s Critique of the Left.”South Atlantic Review, Vol. 58, No. 2 May (1993): 111-125.
Coover, Robert. The Public Burning. New York: The Viking Press, 1977.
Croce, Benedetto. History as the Story of Liberty. Trans. Sylvia Sprigge. Liberty Fund, 2000.
Davis, Robert Murray.“When Was Postmodernism?”World Literature Today 75. 2 (Spring, 2001): 295-298.
DeCurtis, Anthony.“An Outsider in This Society: An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro. Jackson: The U of Mississippi P, 2005. 52-74.
DeLillo, Don. Libra. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1988.
---.“The Fictional Man.”Novel History: Historians and Novelists Confront America’s Past (and Each Other). Ed. Mark C. Carnes. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.
Derrida, Jacque. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.
Doctorow, E. L. The Book of Daniel. 1971. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2007.
---.“False Documents.”Jack London, Hemingway, and the Constitution: Selected Essays 1977-1992. New York: Random House, 1993.
Duvall, John N.“Introduction: The Power of History and the persistence of Mystery.”The Cambridge Companion to Don DeLillo. Ed. John N. Duvall. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008.
---, ed. Productive Postmodernism: Consuming Histories and Cultural Studies. Albany:State U of New York P, 2002.
---, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Don DeLillo. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
---. After Theory. London: Penguin Books, 2003.
---.“Capitalism, Modernism, and Postmodernism.”Jean-Francois Lyotard: Critical
Evaluations in Cultural Theory. Eds. Victor E. Taylor, Gregg Lambert. Vol. 2. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. 127-141.
Emery, Fred. Watergate: The Corruption of American Politics and the Fall of Richard Nixon. New York: Touchstone, 1995.
Engler, Bernd und Kurt Müller, eds. Preface. Historiographic Metafiction in Modern American and Canadian Literature. Paderborn: Ferdinard Sch?ningh, 1994.
Evenson, Brian. Understanding Robert Coover. Columbia, South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 2003.
Federman, Raymond. Critifiction: Postmodern Essays. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
---.“Self-Reflexive Fiction.”Columbia Literary History of the United States. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1988. 1142-1157.
Ford, Gerald. President John F. Kennedy: Assassination Report of the Warren Commission. Nashville, TN: The FlatSigned Press, 2004.
Friedl, Herwig and Dieter Schulz.“A Multiplicity of Witnesses: E. L. Doctorow at Heidelberg.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christopher D. Morris. Jackson: U of Mississippi P, 1998. 112-128.
Gado, Frank.“Robert Coover.”First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing with Glennway Wescott, John Dos Passos, Robert Penn Warren, John Updike, John Barth, Robert Coover. Schenectoady, New York: Union College Press, 1973. 142-159.
Gass, William. Fiction and the Figures of Life. New York: Knopf, 1970.
---. Introduction. The Public Burning. By. Robert Coover. New York: Grove Press, 1998.
Habermas, Jürgen.“Modernity versus Postmodernity.”New German Critique No. 22 (Winter, 1981): 3-14.
---.“Modernity: An Unfinished Project.”Habermas and the Unfinished Habermas and theUnfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on the Philosophical Discourses of Modernity. Eds. Maurizio Passerin d’Entreves and Seyla Benhabib. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997. 38-55.
Harter, Carol, and James R. Thompson. E. L. Doctorow. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990.
Hassan, Ihab.“Toward a Concept of Postmodernism.”The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1987. 84-96.
Hirst, Derek and Richard Strier, eds. Writing and Political Engagement in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.
Hite, Molly.“Postmodern Fiction.”The Columbia History of the American Novel. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. 697-725.
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe.“A Return to History? The New Historicism and Its Agenda.”New German Critique, No. 55 (Winter, 1992), pp. 87-104.
Holland, Max.“Kennedy, John. F.: Assassination of.”Reader’s Guide to American History. Ed. Peter J. Parish. Chicago: Pitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997.
Hume, Kathryn. American Dream, American Nightmare: Fiction since 1960. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2000.
Hutcheon, Linda. Narcissistic Narrative: The Metafictional Paradox. London and New York: Routledge, 1985.
---. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. London and New York: Routledge, 1988.
---. The Politics of Postmodernism. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Huyssen, Andreas. After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1986.
Iggers, Georg G. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge. Hanover and London: Wesleyan UP, 1997.
Isserman, Maurice. If I Had a Hammer…: The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left. New York: Basic Books, 1987.
Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.
---. The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern 1983-1998. London and NewYork: Verso, 1998.
---. The Political Unconscious. 1981. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Joyce, James. Ulysses. 1922. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1998.
Lentricchia, Frank.“Libra as Postmodern Critique.”Introducing Don DeLillo. Ed. Frank Lentricchia. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. 193-215.
Levine, Paul.“The Conspiracy of History: E. L. Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner. Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983. 182-195.
---.“The Writer as Independent Witness.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christoppher D. Morris. Jackson, Miss.: University Press of Mississippi, 1999. 41-52.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1966.
Lifton, David S. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980.
Lodge, David. The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy and the Typology of Modern Literature. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1977.
---. Working with Structuralism: Essays and Reviews on Nineteenth-and Twentieth-Century Literature. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
Louis A. Montrose.“Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture.”The New Historicism. Ed. H. Aram Veeser. New York: Routledge, 1989. 15-36.
Lukács, Georg. The Historical Novel. Trans. Hannah and Stanley Mitchell. Lincoln, Neb.: U of Nebraska P, 1983.
---.“The Ideology of Modernism.”The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. David Richter. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2007. 1218-1232.
Lyotard, Jean-Fran?ois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984.
Malpas, Simon. The Postmodern. London and New York: Rutledge, 2005.
Marshall, Brenda K. Teaching the Postmodern: Fiction and Theory. New York and London: Routledge, 1992.
Martin, Richard. Clio Bemused: The Uses of History in Contemporary American Fiction. SubStance, Vol. 9, No. 2, Issue 27: Current Trends in American Fiction (1980), pp.13- 24.
Mason, Bobbie Ann. In Country. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
Mazurek, Raymond A.“Metafiction, the Historical Novel, and Coover’s The Public Burning.”Critique 23, 3, 1982. 29-42.
McCaffery, Larry. The Metafictional Muse: The Works of Robert Coover, Donald Barthelme, and William H. Gass. Pittsburgh. Pa.: U of Pittsburgh P, 1982.
---.“Interview, 1979.”Robert Coover: A Study of the Short Fiction. Ed. Thomas E. Kennedy. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992.
McHale, Brian. Postmodernist Fiction. 1987. London and New York: Routledge, 1989.
McMillian, John and Paul Buhle, ed. The New Left Revisited. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2003.
Millard, Kenneth. Contemporary American Fiction: An Introduction to American Fiction Since 1970. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.
Molesworth, Charles.“Culture, Power and Society.”The Columbia Literary History of the United States. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1988. 1023-1044.
Montrose, Louis A..“Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture.”The New Historicism. Ed. H. Aram Veeser. New York: Routledge, 1989. 15-36.
Morrison, Toni. What Moves at the Margin: Selected Nonfiction. Jackson, Miss.: UP of Mississippi, 2008.
Neitzsche, Friedrich.“On the Use and Abuse of History for Life.”Untimely Meditations. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale. Ed. Daniel Breazeale. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. 57-124.
Norris, Pippa. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge UP, 2000.
Radosh, Ronald and Joyce Milton. The Rosenberg File. 2nd ed. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1997.
Reitz, Bernhard.“The Reconstruction of the Fifties in E. L. Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel and Robert Coover’s The Public Burning.”Historiographic Metafiction in Modern American and Canadian Literature. Eds. Bernd Engler and Kurt Muller. Paderborn: Ferdinand Sch?ningh, 1994.
Ruland, Richard and Malcolm Bradbury. From Puritanism to Postmodernism: A History ofAmerican Literature. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.
Rushdie, Salman. Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991. New York: Penguin, 1991.
Sartre, Jean-Paul.“What Is Writing?”“What Is Literature?”and Other Essays. Trans. Bernard Frechtman et al. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1988.
Sayre, Henry M.“The Avant-Garde and Experimental Writing.”The Columbia Literary History of the United States. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1988. 1178-1199.
Steiner, Wendy.“Postmodern Fictions, 1970-1990.”Cambridge History of American Literature: Prose Writing: 1940-1990. Ed. Sacvan Bercovitch. Vol. 7. Cambridge UP, 1999.
Stendhal. The Charterhouse of Parma. Trans. Margaret Mauldon. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.
Tao, Jie, trans. Ragtime. By E. L. Doctorow. Beijing: Foreign Literature Press, 1986. [道克拉托罗:《雷格泰姆音乐》,陶洁译。北京:外国文学出版社,1986年。]
Trenner, Richard.“Politics and the Mode of Fiction.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christopher D. Morris. Jackson, Miss.: UP of Mississippi, 1999.
Veeser, H. Aram, ed. The New Historicism. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard UP, 1995.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse Five. New York: A Dial Press Trade Paperback Book, 2005.
Waldron, Lamar and Thom Hartmann. Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2008.
Wang, Shouren. A New Literary History of the United States Since 1945.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002. [王守仁:《新编美国文学史》第四卷。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002年。]
Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London and New York: Methuen, 1984.
Weiner, Tim. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Doubleday, 2007.
Whalen-Bridge, John. Political Fiction and the American Self. Urbana and Chicago: U ofIllinois P, 1998.
White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination of Nineteenth Century Europe. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1973.
---. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
Whitney, David C. and Robin Vaughn Whitney. The American Presidents. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Book & Music Clubs, Inc., 1989.
Wilcox, Leonard.“Don DeLillo’s Libra: History as Text, History as Trauma.”Rethinking History, Vol. 9, No. 2 / 3, June / September 2005. 337-353.
Wilde, Oscar. The Critic as Artist. New York: Mondial, 1997.
Wilde, Alan. Middle Grounds: Studies in Contemporary American Fiction. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1988.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Wolfe, Tom. The New Journalism. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
Wolff, Geoffrey.“An American Epic.”New Times 9 (19 Aug. 1977): 49-57.
Woods, Tim. Beginning Postmodernism. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1999.
Yang, Renjing. On American Postmodernist Fiction. Qingdao: Qingdao Press, 2004.
[杨仁敬:《美国后现代派小说论》。青岛:青岛出版社,2004年。]
Yu, Xiaodan.“Robert Coover: A Literary Voice.”Foreign Literature 2 (1996): 16-18.
[于晓丹:“罗伯特·库弗:一种文学的声音”,《外国文学》2 (1996): 16-18。]
1 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001): 23.
1 Adam J. Sorkin, ed, Politics and the Muse: Studies in the Politics of Recent American Literature (Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1989).
2 See Michael North, The Political Aesthetic of Yeats, Eliot and Pound (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991).
3 See Derek Hirst and Richard Strier, eds, Writing and Political Engagement in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999).
4 See Jack L. Siler, Poetic Language and Political Engagement in the Poetry of Keats (New York: Routledge, 2008).
1 Kenneth Millard, Contemporary American Fiction: An Introduction to American Fiction Since 1970 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000).
2 Kathryn Hume, American Dream, American Nightmare: Fiction since 1960 (Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2000).
2 See The New York Times Book Review, May 21, 2006: 16-19.
1 Sangjun Jeong, Representing the Rosenberg Case: Coover, Doctorow and the Consequence of Postmodernism (Seoul, Korea: Seoul National University, 1994). This book grows out of Sangjun Jeong’s 1991 dissertation of the same title at the University of Hawaii.
2 Virginia Carmichael, Framing History: The Rosenberg Story and the Cold War (Minneapolis and London: U of Minnesota P, 1993). This book is based on Carmichael’s 1991 dissertation entitled“The Rosenberg Story(ies): A Literary History”at Rice University.
3 David Endicott,“Spectacular Fictions: The Cold War and the Making of Historical Knowledge.”Diss. Ball State University, 1998.
2 See John Barth, Lost in the Funhouse: Fiction for print, tape, live voice (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1968).
1 See Herwig Friedl and Dieter Schulz,“A Multiplicity of Witnesses: E. L. Doctorow at Heidelberg.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christopher D. Morris (Jackson: U of Mississippi P, 1998): 121.
1 Among others, in the fields of historical studies and philosophy, there are similar pronouncements. Prominent works on the topic include: Francis Fukuyama. The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992); Paul S. Miklowitz, Metaphysics to Metafictions: Hegel, Nietzsche, and the End of Philosophy (Albany, N.Y.: State U of New York P, 1998).
2 John Barth,“The Literature of Exhaustion.”Atlantic Monthly August 1967: 29-34. This essay has been widely read and discussed, but Mr. Barth considered most of the interpretations of his essay misunderstanding. Partly due to this dissatisfaction, he published another equally famous essay titled“The Literature of Replenishment”in the same journal in 1980. Towards the end of the essay, he offers a clarification that emphasizes“The Literature of Exhaustion”was not the effective exhaustion of language or of literature, but of“the aesthetic of high modernism.”Both essays now appear in his volume of collected writings The Friday Book: Essays and Other Nonfiction (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1984).
3 Ronald Sukenick, The Death of the Novel and Other Stories (New York: The Dial Press, Inc., 1969).
1 See John Clayton,“Radical Jewish Humanism: The Vision of E. L. Doctorow.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton: Review Press, 1983): 109-119.
1 See the back cover of trade paperback edition. E. L. Doctorow, The Book of Daniel (New York: Random House, 2007).
2 Among all the people who offer support to the Rosenbergs or ask President Eisenhower for clemency are Jean-Paul Sartre, the President of France Vincent Auriol, Vatican Pope Pius XII, atomic scientists Harold Urey and Albert Einstein, to name just the most important.
3 See David and Riesman and Nathan Glazer,“The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes,”Partisan Review, 22, No. 1 (Winter, 1955): 64.
1 See J. Edgar Hoover,“The Crime of the Century: The Case of the A-Bomb Spies,”Reader’s Digest, May 1951. 149-168.
See Junsong Chen,"Dwelling in the Ambiguity History:An Interview with E.L.Doctorow."Foreign Literature 4(2009): 86-91.
1 According to David Lodge, postmodern fiction suggests that the world resists interpretation through such techniques as contradiction, permutation, discontinuity, randomness, excess, and short circuit. See David Lodge, The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy and the Typology of Modern Literature (Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1977): 239-245.
1 For more detailed evaluation of the Old Left, see Maurice Isserman, If I Had a Hammer…: The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left (New York: Basic Books, 1987).
1 A Political Fable (1980), Whatever Happened to Gloomy Gus of the Chicago Bears (1987), Charlie in the House of Rue (1980), Spanking the Maid (1981), Briar Rose (1996), Ghost Town (1998), Stepmother (2004).
2 Pricksongs & Descants (1969), In Bed One Night and Other Brief Encounters (1983), A Night at the Movies or, You Must Remember This (1987), A Child Again (2005).
1 See Paul Gray,“Uncle Sam Takes on the Phantom,”Time, Vol. 110, Issues 1-9, 1977: 484.
1 Originally Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were scheduled to be executed at 11:00 P. M. on Friday, June 19. But the Rosenbergs are Jew, and the time set for the execution will run against the Jewish Sabbath. From the sundown on Friday until the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night is the time of rest and worship for Jews. Considering it is unacceptable to burn the condemned in the time of their religious worship, the judge reschedule the execution to be carried out at 8: 00 P. M. on Friday, June 19, minutes before sundown.
2 In 1953, the U. S. Federal Bureau of Prisons did not operate an electric chair, so the Rosenbergs were transferred to the New York State-run Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossing, N. Y. for execution.
1 Norman Podhoretz, for example, called The Public Burning a“cowardly lie”in his review of the novel. See“Uncle Sam and the Phantom,”Saturday Review, 17 September 1977. 27-28, 34. Another critic, Pearl Bell, describes the novel as“overwrought subversion of reality by polemically inspired fantasy.”See“Coover’s Revisionist Fantasy,”Commentary, 9 October 1977. 67-69.
1 Widely regarded as DeLillo’s masterpiece, the appealing of this encyclopedic narrative shows no signs of wane. In 2006, Underworld was named one of the three best novels of the last twenty-five years by The New York Times Book Review.
2 DeLillo received the Jerusalem Prize at the Jerusalem International Book Fair. Since established in 1963, the Jerusalem Prize has been awarded every two years, honoring a writer whose body of work expresses the theme human freedom, society, politics, and government. The previous recipients of the award include Bertrand Russell, Simone de Beauvoir, Jorge Luis Borges, Eugene Ionesco, V. S. Naipaul, Milan Kundera, to name just the most prominent.
1 See New York Times Book Review, May 21, 2006: 16-19.
2 The Irish Literature Magazine. 9 Feb. 2010
3 Don DeLillo,“American Blood: A Journey through the Labyrinth of Dallas and JFK,”Rolling Stone 8 December 1983: 21-28, 74.
1 See, for instance, John Sparrow, After the Assassination: A Positive Appraisal of the Warren Report (New York: Chilmark Press, 1967); Gerald Ford, A Presidential Legacy and the Warren Commission (New York: The Flatsigned Press, 2007).
1 See Kevin Connolly,“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePiero (Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005): 25-39. 30.
2 See George F. Will, Washington Post, Sept. 22, 1988. A25.
1 Douglas Fowler, Understanding E. L. Doctorow (Columbia, South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 1992): 1.
1 Larry McCaffery,“A Spirit of Transgression.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983): 31-47; 37.
2 Richard Trenne,“Politics and the Mode of Fiction.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983): 48.
1 Toni Morrison, What Moves at the Margin: Selected Nonfiction. Ed. Carolyn C. Denard (Jacson, Miss. Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2008): 64.
2 E. L. Doctorow,“False Documents.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner (Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983): 26.
1 Douglas Fowler, Understanding E. L. Doctorow (Columbia, South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 1992): 32.
1《公众的怒火》,潘小松译,南京:译林出版社,1997年。《魔杖》(The Magic Poker),李自修,钱青等译,北京:作家出版社,1998年。《打女佣的屁股》(Spanking the Maid),谭加东译,长沙:湖南美术出版社,1998年。
1《白噪音》,朱叶译,南京:译林出版社,2002年;《天秤星座》,韩忠华译,南京:译林出版社,1997年;《名字》,李公昭译,南京:译林出版社,2002年。
2朱叶:“美国后现代社会的‘死亡之书’--评唐·德里罗的小说《白噪音》”,《当代外国文学》4(2002):159-163。范小玫:德里罗:“‘复印’美国当代生活的后现代派作家”,《外国文学》4(2003):3-7.朱新福:“《白噪音》中的生态意识”,《外国文学研究》5(2005): 109-114.张杰、孔燕:“后现代社会的诗性特征:生活的符号化--《白噪音》文本的对话式解读”,《外国文学研究》5(2006)年: 40-44.方成:“后现代小说中自然主义的传承与塑型:唐·德里罗的《白色噪音》”,《当代外国文学》4(2003)年: 93-99。王予霞:“恐怖主义诗学的文化内涵--从德里罗等人的小说谈起”,《译林》2(2007)年: 184-188。王予霞:“美国当代文学中的政治情愫--从德里罗等人的小说谈起”,《文艺理论与批评》3(2006):79-84。罗一轻:“德里罗《白色噪音》的集体无意识解读”,《湖北经济学院学报》(人文社会科学版)8(2008): 128-129。
1 Thomas LeClair,“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. DePietro, Thomas (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 5.
1 Thomas LeClair,“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 5.
2 Adam Begley,“The Art of Fiction CXXXV: Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 107.
3 David Remnick,“Exile on Main Street: Don DeLillo’s Undisclosed Underworld.”New Yorker, 15 September 1997: 47.
Don DeLillo,"In the Ruins of the Future:Reflections on Terror and Loss in the Shadow of September ."Harper's,December 2001: 30.
1John N. Duvall, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Don DeLillo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
1 DeCurtis, Anthony.“An Outsider in This Society: An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 56.
1 Don DeLillo, Libra (New York: Viking, 1988): 15.
2 Linda Hutcheon, A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction (New York: Routledge, 1988): ix.
3 Don DeLillo, Libra (New York: Viking, 1988): Author’s Note.
4 Ann Arensberg,“Seven Seconds.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005): 46.
Anderson, Richard. Robert Coover. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1981.
Arensberg, Ann.“Seven Seconds.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005. 40-46.
Aristotle. The Politics. Trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago and London: The U of Chicago P, 1984.
Barth, John.“The Literature of Exhaustion.”Atlantic Monthly August 1967: 29-34. ---.“The Literature of Replenishment.”The Friday Book: Essays on Other Nonfiction.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.
Barthe, Roland.“The Discourse of History.”The Rustle of Language. trans. Richard Howard. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1989.
Baudrillard, Jean.“The Precession of Simulacra.”Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor, M.I.: U of Michigan P, 1994.
Beckett, Samuel. Proust and Three Dialogues with Georges Duthuit. London: John Calder, 1965.
Bell, Daniel. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Blotner, Joseph. The Political Novel. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1979.
Boyers, Robert.“The Avant-Garde.”The Columbia History of the American Novel. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. 726-751.
Brinkey, Joel and Stephen Engleberg, eds. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair. Abr. ed. New York: Times Books, 1988.
Cartledge, Paul. Introduction. Companion to Historiography. Ed. Michael Bentley. New York and London: Routledge, 1997.
Chen, Junsong.“Dwelling in the Ambiguity of History: An Interview with E. L. Doctorow”Foreign Literature (4) 2009: 86-91.
---.“Keeping Fiction Alive: An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Foreign Literature Studies (1) 2010: 1-11.
Clayton, John.“Radical Jewish Humanism: The Vision of E. L. Doctorow.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner. Princeton: Review Press,1983. 109-119.
Colby, Anne, et al. Educating for Democracy: Preparing Undergraduates for Responsible Political Engagement. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
Collingwood, R. G. The Idea of History: With Lectures 1926-1928. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994.
Connolly, Kevin.“An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005. 25-39.
Connor, Steven, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Cooper, Stephen.“Cutting Both Ways: E. L. Doctorow’s Critique of the Left.”South Atlantic Review, Vol. 58, No. 2 May (1993): 111-125.
Coover, Robert. The Public Burning. New York: The Viking Press, 1977.
Croce, Benedetto. History as the Story of Liberty. Trans. Sylvia Sprigge. Liberty Fund, 2000.
Davis, Robert Murray.“When Was Postmodernism?”World Literature Today 75. 2 (Spring, 2001): 295-298.
DeCurtis, Anthony.“An Outsider in This Society: An Interview with Don DeLillo.”Conversations with Don DeLillo. Ed. Thomas DePietro. Jackson: The U of Mississippi P, 2005. 52-74.
DeLillo, Don. Libra. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1988.
---.“The Fictional Man.”Novel History: Historians and Novelists Confront America’s Past (and Each Other). Ed. Mark C. Carnes. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.
Derrida, Jacque. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.
Doctorow, E. L. The Book of Daniel. 1971. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2007.
---.“False Documents.”Jack London, Hemingway, and the Constitution: Selected Essays 1977-1992. New York: Random House, 1993.
Duvall, John N.“Introduction: The Power of History and the persistence of Mystery.”The Cambridge Companion to Don DeLillo. Ed. John N. Duvall. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008.
---, ed. Productive Postmodernism: Consuming Histories and Cultural Studies. Albany:State U of New York P, 2002.
---, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Don DeLillo. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
---. After Theory. London: Penguin Books, 2003.
---.“Capitalism, Modernism, and Postmodernism.”Jean-Francois Lyotard: Critical
Evaluations in Cultural Theory. Eds. Victor E. Taylor, Gregg Lambert. Vol. 2. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. 127-141.
Emery, Fred. Watergate: The Corruption of American Politics and the Fall of Richard Nixon. New York: Touchstone, 1995.
Engler, Bernd und Kurt Müller, eds. Preface. Historiographic Metafiction in Modern American and Canadian Literature. Paderborn: Ferdinard Sch?ningh, 1994.
Evenson, Brian. Understanding Robert Coover. Columbia, South Carolina: U of South Carolina P, 2003.
Federman, Raymond. Critifiction: Postmodern Essays. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
---.“Self-Reflexive Fiction.”Columbia Literary History of the United States. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1988. 1142-1157.
Ford, Gerald. President John F. Kennedy: Assassination Report of the Warren Commission. Nashville, TN: The FlatSigned Press, 2004.
Friedl, Herwig and Dieter Schulz.“A Multiplicity of Witnesses: E. L. Doctorow at Heidelberg.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christopher D. Morris. Jackson: U of Mississippi P, 1998. 112-128.
Gado, Frank.“Robert Coover.”First Person: Conversations on Writers and Writing with Glennway Wescott, John Dos Passos, Robert Penn Warren, John Updike, John Barth, Robert Coover. Schenectoady, New York: Union College Press, 1973. 142-159.
Gass, William. Fiction and the Figures of Life. New York: Knopf, 1970.
---. Introduction. The Public Burning. By. Robert Coover. New York: Grove Press, 1998.
Habermas, Jürgen.“Modernity versus Postmodernity.”New German Critique No. 22 (Winter, 1981): 3-14.
---.“Modernity: An Unfinished Project.”Habermas and the Unfinished Habermas and theUnfinished Project of Modernity: Critical Essays on the Philosophical Discourses of Modernity. Eds. Maurizio Passerin d’Entreves and Seyla Benhabib. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997. 38-55.
Harter, Carol, and James R. Thompson. E. L. Doctorow. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990.
Hassan, Ihab.“Toward a Concept of Postmodernism.”The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1987. 84-96.
Hirst, Derek and Richard Strier, eds. Writing and Political Engagement in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.
Hite, Molly.“Postmodern Fiction.”The Columbia History of the American Novel. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. 697-725.
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe.“A Return to History? The New Historicism and Its Agenda.”New German Critique, No. 55 (Winter, 1992), pp. 87-104.
Holland, Max.“Kennedy, John. F.: Assassination of.”Reader’s Guide to American History. Ed. Peter J. Parish. Chicago: Pitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997.
Hume, Kathryn. American Dream, American Nightmare: Fiction since 1960. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2000.
Hutcheon, Linda. Narcissistic Narrative: The Metafictional Paradox. London and New York: Routledge, 1985.
---. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. London and New York: Routledge, 1988.
---. The Politics of Postmodernism. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Huyssen, Andreas. After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1986.
Iggers, Georg G. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge. Hanover and London: Wesleyan UP, 1997.
Isserman, Maurice. If I Had a Hammer…: The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left. New York: Basic Books, 1987.
Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.
---. The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern 1983-1998. London and NewYork: Verso, 1998.
---. The Political Unconscious. 1981. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Joyce, James. Ulysses. 1922. Oxford and New York: Oxford UP, 1998.
Lentricchia, Frank.“Libra as Postmodern Critique.”Introducing Don DeLillo. Ed. Frank Lentricchia. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. 193-215.
Levine, Paul.“The Conspiracy of History: E. L. Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel.”E. L. Doctorow: Essays and Conversations. Ed. Richard Trenner. Princeton, New Jersey: Ontario Review Press, 1983. 182-195.
---.“The Writer as Independent Witness.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christoppher D. Morris. Jackson, Miss.: University Press of Mississippi, 1999. 41-52.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1966.
Lifton, David S. Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1980.
Lodge, David. The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy and the Typology of Modern Literature. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1977.
---. Working with Structuralism: Essays and Reviews on Nineteenth-and Twentieth-Century Literature. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
Louis A. Montrose.“Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture.”The New Historicism. Ed. H. Aram Veeser. New York: Routledge, 1989. 15-36.
Lukács, Georg. The Historical Novel. Trans. Hannah and Stanley Mitchell. Lincoln, Neb.: U of Nebraska P, 1983.
---.“The Ideology of Modernism.”The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. David Richter. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2007. 1218-1232.
Lyotard, Jean-Fran?ois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984.
Malpas, Simon. The Postmodern. London and New York: Rutledge, 2005.
Marshall, Brenda K. Teaching the Postmodern: Fiction and Theory. New York and London: Routledge, 1992.
Martin, Richard. Clio Bemused: The Uses of History in Contemporary American Fiction. SubStance, Vol. 9, No. 2, Issue 27: Current Trends in American Fiction (1980), pp.13- 24.
Mason, Bobbie Ann. In Country. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
Mazurek, Raymond A.“Metafiction, the Historical Novel, and Coover’s The Public Burning.”Critique 23, 3, 1982. 29-42.
McCaffery, Larry. The Metafictional Muse: The Works of Robert Coover, Donald Barthelme, and William H. Gass. Pittsburgh. Pa.: U of Pittsburgh P, 1982.
---.“Interview, 1979.”Robert Coover: A Study of the Short Fiction. Ed. Thomas E. Kennedy. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992.
McHale, Brian. Postmodernist Fiction. 1987. London and New York: Routledge, 1989.
McMillian, John and Paul Buhle, ed. The New Left Revisited. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2003.
Millard, Kenneth. Contemporary American Fiction: An Introduction to American Fiction Since 1970. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.
Molesworth, Charles.“Culture, Power and Society.”The Columbia Literary History of the United States. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1988. 1023-1044.
Montrose, Louis A..“Professing the Renaissance: The Poetics and Politics of Culture.”The New Historicism. Ed. H. Aram Veeser. New York: Routledge, 1989. 15-36.
Morrison, Toni. What Moves at the Margin: Selected Nonfiction. Jackson, Miss.: UP of Mississippi, 2008.
Neitzsche, Friedrich.“On the Use and Abuse of History for Life.”Untimely Meditations. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale. Ed. Daniel Breazeale. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. 57-124.
Norris, Pippa. A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge UP, 2000.
Radosh, Ronald and Joyce Milton. The Rosenberg File. 2nd ed. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1997.
Reitz, Bernhard.“The Reconstruction of the Fifties in E. L. Doctorow’s The Book of Daniel and Robert Coover’s The Public Burning.”Historiographic Metafiction in Modern American and Canadian Literature. Eds. Bernd Engler and Kurt Muller. Paderborn: Ferdinand Sch?ningh, 1994.
Ruland, Richard and Malcolm Bradbury. From Puritanism to Postmodernism: A History ofAmerican Literature. New York: Penguin Books, 1991.
Rushdie, Salman. Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991. New York: Penguin, 1991.
Sartre, Jean-Paul.“What Is Writing?”“What Is Literature?”and Other Essays. Trans. Bernard Frechtman et al. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1988.
Sayre, Henry M.“The Avant-Garde and Experimental Writing.”The Columbia Literary History of the United States. Ed. Emory Elliott. New York: Columbia UP, 1988. 1178-1199.
Steiner, Wendy.“Postmodern Fictions, 1970-1990.”Cambridge History of American Literature: Prose Writing: 1940-1990. Ed. Sacvan Bercovitch. Vol. 7. Cambridge UP, 1999.
Stendhal. The Charterhouse of Parma. Trans. Margaret Mauldon. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999.
Tao, Jie, trans. Ragtime. By E. L. Doctorow. Beijing: Foreign Literature Press, 1986. [道克拉托罗:《雷格泰姆音乐》,陶洁译。北京:外国文学出版社,1986年。]
Trenner, Richard.“Politics and the Mode of Fiction.”Conversations with E. L. Doctorow. Ed. Christopher D. Morris. Jackson, Miss.: UP of Mississippi, 1999.
Veeser, H. Aram, ed. The New Historicism. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard UP, 1995.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse Five. New York: A Dial Press Trade Paperback Book, 2005.
Waldron, Lamar and Thom Hartmann. Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2008.
Wang, Shouren. A New Literary History of the United States Since 1945.
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002. [王守仁:《新编美国文学史》第四卷。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002年。]
Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London and New York: Methuen, 1984.
Weiner, Tim. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Doubleday, 2007.
Whalen-Bridge, John. Political Fiction and the American Self. Urbana and Chicago: U ofIllinois P, 1998.
White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination of Nineteenth Century Europe. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1973.
---. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
Whitney, David C. and Robin Vaughn Whitney. The American Presidents. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Book & Music Clubs, Inc., 1989.
Wilcox, Leonard.“Don DeLillo’s Libra: History as Text, History as Trauma.”Rethinking History, Vol. 9, No. 2 / 3, June / September 2005. 337-353.
Wilde, Oscar. The Critic as Artist. New York: Mondial, 1997.
Wilde, Alan. Middle Grounds: Studies in Contemporary American Fiction. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1988.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
Wolfe, Tom. The New Journalism. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
Wolff, Geoffrey.“An American Epic.”New Times 9 (19 Aug. 1977): 49-57.
Woods, Tim. Beginning Postmodernism. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1999.
Yang, Renjing. On American Postmodernist Fiction. Qingdao: Qingdao Press, 2004.
[杨仁敬:《美国后现代派小说论》。青岛:青岛出版社,2004年。]
Yu, Xiaodan.“Robert Coover: A Literary Voice.”Foreign Literature 2 (1996): 16-18.
[于晓丹:“罗伯特·库弗:一种文学的声音”,《外国文学》2 (1996): 16-18。]