Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Writing Spaces, Writing Differences: Michael Ondaatje's Novels
|Abstract:||在翁達傑（Michael Ondaatje）的小說中，「空間」可說是反複出現的主題；但甚少有評論者分析其空間面向。本論文將以空間觀點詮釋翁達傑的四部作品：《行過斯洛特》（Coming through Slaughter）、《以獅為皮》（In the Skin of a Lion）、《英倫情人》（The English Patient）與《菩薩凝視的島嶼》（Anil’s Ghost）。縱貫全文的主要論題為：就事件的發生而言，空間本身並非是個給定的靜態結構或背景；空間是各種「他者」生活世界軌跡的相互交疊，顯現為無數的差異與複雜性。
緒論〈翁達傑的小說：邁向空間化的閱讀〉論及「空間化」的重要性。之前評論者傾向透過後設歷史主義（metafictional historicism）解讀翁達傑的作品，認為歷史主義顛覆地重構遭排除的他者敘事。然而我們應視「空間」為動態與差異化的過程，體認他者的敘事必然牽涉到地理空間，敘事無法化約為歷史。重新審視空間乃差異與異質的體現，筆者援引列伏斐爾（Henri Lefebvre）、傅柯（Michel Foucault）與德勒茲（Gilles Deleuze）的空間理論來探討抵抗的空間。第二章〈反再現的空間：《行過斯洛特》〉以列伏斐爾的觀點說明他者空間抗拒再現。本章開頭的題旨為：即便是後現代式的主體亦需佔據空間位置以展現話語行動。基於主體性根植於空間的論點，本文進一步探討小說主角所佔據的主體空間是否能被再現。筆者將以列伏斐爾的「概念空間」（conceived space）、「生活空間」（lived space）與「節奏分析」（rhythmanalysis）回答此提問。第三章〈《以獅為皮》：書寫異質烏托邦〉分析翁達傑如何重寫多倫多城移民的空間經驗，以及他們如何挪用城市空間以作為抵抗策略。《以獅為皮》呈現這樣的矛盾：權力滲透至各空間角落，卻無可避免地遭遇主體的抵抗。傅柯的「異質烏托邦」（heterotopia）概念有助於我們理解此矛盾：宰制與反抗、秩序與失序實為共存關係。第四章〈解構中心∕邊緣：《英倫情人》中的德勒茲式繪圖學〉首先批判中心∕邊緣的空間典範：對照於充滿霸權與壓迫的中心，邊陲常被浪漫化為抵抗的場域；然而此空間觀奠基於二元對立邏輯。為突顯空間是更複雜的交疊過程，筆者以德勒茲與瓜達理的「平滑空間」（smooth space）及「條紋空間」（striated space）來重新思考空間的動態關係：空間是力量（force）匯聚的場域（field），這些力量時而相互角力，產生矛盾；時而構連，機動接合（assemblaged）；時而組織疆域（territorialized），又忽而解疆域化（deterritorialized）。第五章〈逃逸家園─移動中的空間歸屬感：《菩薩凝視的島嶼》〉指出作者翁達傑未將邊緣（如斯里蘭卡）置於優位，以返（反）寫（write back）帝國；相反地，他挑戰反殖民（anti-colonial）論述中常見的思維：邊陲，亦即被殖民的母國，代表應許「培力」（empowerment）的所在，俾使被殖民的主體尋回國族認同。對此，筆者將論述家園的概念如何受區位政治（politics of location）所建構，並探討此概念如何在跨國移動的情境下面臨解構。|
Space is a recurring motif throughout Michael Ondaatje’s novels, yet it gains little attention in critics’ interpretation. My dissertation will develop a “spatial” perspective to approach Michael Ondaatje’s fiction: Coming through Slaughter, In the Skin of a Lion, The English Patient, and Anil’s Ghost. In reading Ondaatje, the principle thesis is: spaces are manifested as difference and multiplicity, and emerge as trajectories of co-existing Others, rather than as given structures or static backdrops against which events unfold. In Chapter One, “Towards a Spatialization of Ondaatje’s Fiction,” I justify the “spatialization” of Ondaatje’s novels, because critics have tended to interpret them from the perspective of metafictional historicism. Historicism as such is often positively viewed as a subversive re-working of the excluded life-stories of the Other. However, I argue that spatiality should also be understood as dynamic and differentiated as history, since Others’ life-stories inevitably involve “geography” that can never be subsumed under historical narratives. To reassert space as an embodiment of difference and heterogeneity, I draw upon the spatial theories from Henri Lefebvre, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, all of whom are concerned about spaces of resistance. In Chapter Two, “Space beyond Representation: Coming through Slaughter,” I will argue from the Lefebvrian perspective that the space of Other resists being reduced to representation. I begin with the argument: even a postmodern subject needs to occupy a position so as to make his/her enunciation, and such positioning requires that he/she appropriate certain spaces as sites for speech acts. Given that subjectivity is space-oriented, I further deal with the question whether the space in which the otherized protagonist, Buddy Bolden, positions himself is “representable” or not. I address this problem by using Lefebvre’s notion of conceived space and lived space, as well as rhythmanalysis. In Chapter Three, “In the Skin of a Lion: A Heterotopic Writing of Space,” I analyze how Ondaatje re-writes the immigrants’ spatial experiences and their resistant strategy of re-appropriating the urban space of Toronto. In the Skin of a Lion conveys a paradoxical idea that power relations penetrate every space but are inevitably counterattacked by those repressed subjects who develop their strategies of spatial resistance. To illustrate this idea, I find Foucault’s notion of “heterotopia” useful for us to understand the coexistence of dominance and resistance, of order and disorder in a certain space. In Chapter Four, “Beyond the Centre-Margin Divide: The Deleuzian Cartography in The English Patient,” I will firstly critique the centre-versus-margin paradigm in which the margin is usually romanticized as the site of resistance, while the centre stands for the locus of hegemony and oppression—a spatial thinking that is grounded on a dualist logic. To re-imagine space as a more complex process of interweaving, I will use Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of “smooth space” and “striated space” to rethink spaces in more dynamic relativity: spaces are fields where forces converge, forces that are contested, contradicted, conjugated, assemblaged, territorialized, deterritorialized and so on. In Chapter Five, “Escaping Home: Experiencing Spaces through Mobility in Anil’s Ghost,” I will argue that Ondaatje does not prioritize the margin (i.e. Sri Lanka) so as to write back to the Empire, because the novel breaks with the anti-colonial assumption that the margin, or the colonized homeland, is the site of promise where the colonial subject’s national identity can be empowered. I will address how the concept of home has been constructed by the politics of location, and how it is deconstructed in the context of transnational mobility.
|Appears in Collections:||學位論文|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.