Thesis (Ph.D.)–Université de Cocody-Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire), Université de Limoges (France), Though Arthur Rimbaud’s “modernity” can hardly be seriously questioned, the contours and stakes of that aesthetic posture continue to raise questions: is there . Antoine Bloyé de Paul Nizan: analyse socio-critique /​ Luciano Verona, Marisa Ferrarini. Author. Verona, Luciano. Other Authors. Ferrarini, Marisa. Edition.

Author: Akizilkree Fenrizil
Country: Trinidad & Tobago
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 6 February 2008
Pages: 96
PDF File Size: 11.81 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.67 Mb
ISBN: 304-8-97686-591-4
Downloads: 47151
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vomuro

Annie Brisset brings a new perspective to the study of two important decades in Quebec theatre, from soviocritiqueduring which both it and the society of which it is an integral part were undergoing radical changes.

This represents all the plays translated into French and published in Quebec during these two decades. Brisset offers explanations based on both practical and symbolic considerations for this negligible number, and for the even more meagre number of translations of English-Canadian plays.

These translations either originated in Quebec and were unpublished or else were published in France. Most of the approximately plays produced during this period in Quebec but translated and published in France were American.

La sociocritique d’Edmond Cros

Brisset suggests that these seem to have been included in theatre programs for their entertainment value or for commercial reasons. She therefore does not analyse them further, except to suggest that the spirit of contemporary American tragedy stirred chords of sympathetic recognition in Quebec theatre audiences. Brisset includes these foreign translations along sociocritiqke translations done in Quebec in her statistics.

They show that even the combined total of translations from other languages produced in Quebec did not eclipse local Quebec production, despite allegations sustained to the contrary by Quebec playwrights and literary critics. During the period studied by Brisset, the sociocritqiue insignificant number of original Quebec plays was performed in the major theatres.

Bibliographie de la revue Discours social ()

The reasons for the commercial success of foreign translations would have been relevant considerations in Brisset’s study, since such success might have provided a more nuanced understanding in the study of the ways in which Quebec theatre socilcritique listened to the voices of the Other.

Translations included in the programs of smaller, experimental or touring companies, or companies which did not exist throughout the entire two decades from to were not included in the study.

Brisset raises questions about the choice of foreign works for translation in Quebec and, particularly, about the changes, displacements, and structural fragmentation which original texts underwent in the process of translation.

Many of these changes were so ahalyse that Brisset frequently speaks of “appropriation,” “imitation,” “adaptation,” and “parody,” rather than unproblematised “translation. Brisset’s study focuses on Alteritythe collective quest for identity, and the status in Quebec theatre of languages, texts, people, and cultural artefacts which are perceived from a nationalist perspective to be different or foreign.


She reminds sociocrihique readers that the adoption of the Official Languages Act in in Canada produced an explosion of translation activity, most of which was administrative and commercial documents originating in anglophone Canada.

This helps to explain the resistance encountered in Quebec by notions of translation. Nationalism was the dominant ideology. The Other is irrevocably different, just as I am. The voice of the Other silences my voice. I must therefore silence the voice of the Other” The study of translated plays suggests that there were determining forces at play serving to remove traces of alterity and difference.

As a result, the traditional goal of the translator to be as faithful as possible to the original text was set aside; little attention was drawn to original authors, languages, and historical periods; paratextual elements such as cover design suggested that translators, including the famous Michel Tremblay, were in fact the authors of translated pieces; translation itself socuocritique a subject for dramatic texts.

Brisset devotes considerable time to close textual study of certain texts and translations. The work is well done. Brisset sees as an objective of such translations the elevation of a vernacular language to a national, literary and cultural language.

However, Brisset’s book is not primarily about theatre. It is instead about translation. Brisset’s stated purpose in this book is, specifically, to study “the conditions of operation for the translative function in a given society at a given time.

Fantôme universitaire et fantasme créateur: le roman québécois et le démon théorique.

She chose a body of dramatic literature for this case study: Brisset demonstrates through careful analysis that the selection of literary texts to be translated and the discursive choices made by translators are determined in large part by the norms, values and dominant ideologies in the receiving society as established by literary institutions. This is particularly the case in theatre, an essentially social cultural form. Brisset perceives close sociocrigique among socio-political events in Quebec, the languages of politics and literature, and translation in and for the theatre.

Her study led her to a fascinating recognition of the mutations which the genre of analhse itself underwent during the period in response to discursive imperatives of Quebec society, its theatre, and its literature.

She arrives at the sociocrotique conclusion that: Brisset has used polysystem theory for her study of sociocritiqje in contemporary Quebec theatre. According to this theory, translations can be appropriately understood only in the rich and complex context of multiple systems in both source and target societies: It is these frequently concealed systems which dictate the relations of subjects to nature, others, themselves, and cultural representation systems.


It is also these complex systems which make culture and communication possible through the production of postulates shared by all members of a given collectivity in a given place at a given time. Brisset’s use of translation in contemporary Quebec theatre as a case study to demonstrate the validity of this theory is thorough and convincing. Less convincing and less thorough, however, is her study of Quebec theatre as theatre from to The reader who happens to use this book in order to obtain analhse overview of Quebec theatre for the period can receive only distorted information.

Artgame et Game Art –

The absence of mention of theatre programs in small, experimental, or touring companies has already been noted. There is no mention of important playwrights of the period who were not involved in sociocritiwue initiatives, not even of sciocritique, such as Marco Micone, who wrote francophone theatre although their first language is not French. Nor is there any mention of important new initiatives such as feminist theatre. Critics of theatre and dramatic literature were consulted only to support the thesis of a literary institution strongly backing the social discourse of nationalism and the quest for identity.

Anzlyse were not consulted for a richer appreciation of the theatrical and literary qualities of the works discussed. This leads too often in the book to generalisations about theatrical quality while Brisset is paying attention only to aspects of the translative function and not acknowledging other rich qualities of the work.

Brisset’s failure to distinguish at any point between the written language of the dramatic text, whether original or in translation, and the multiplicity of verbal and non-verbal languages of performance, leads to an impoverishment of her appreciation of these texts as theatre and encourages her to make generalisations about the “cognitive impact on the consciousness of the spectator” which has probably not been empirically observed or verified.

She usually fails throughout the book, however, to acknowledge the rich aesthetic experimentation which took place from to in Quebec theatre. As a result, she creates the unfortunate impression of a parochial, prejudice-ridden theatre and society, which, while demonstrated through her analysis of the translative function, is not a fair or adequate reflection of the larger and more complex phenomenon of Quebec theatre.