Abstract：In its unique mechanism of production, transmission and reception, online literature features openness and interactivity, replacing closeness with openness and elites with the masses. Online literature reshapes the given literariness as is manifested in contemporary literary discourses. However, the loss of autonomy, the supremacy of entertainment and the digitization of values often lead to the dual loss of “literariness” and “publicness” in dislocation and paradox. With an emphasis on the role of literary imagination and cognitive emotion in public life and critical literary dialogue, Martha Nussbaum’s theoretical formulation of “poetic justice” resumes literary-ethical exploration and reactivates the publicness of literature. Arguably, it is relevant to the promotion of online literature as a literary public discourse in practice. The unique interactive reception of online literature provides a possible means and carrier for “poetic justice”. Meanwhile, the practical and ethical values explored by “poetic justice” enable online literature to transcend its virtual cyberspace. Such transcendence makes possible the moral reflection of literary readers in equal communication with texts, authors and other readers, effectively facilitating their participation in real public life. In short, the empirical phenomenon of online literature and the theory of “poetic justice” are interrelated and reciprocal. While the interactive reading experience of online literature puts into practice the public discourse proposed in “poetic justice”, “poetic justice” functions as a heuristic and normative guideline in unleashing the potential publicness of online literature.
[1] Martha Nussbaum.Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature[M].New York:Oxford University Press, 1992. [2] Richard Posner.Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,2001.230. [3] (美)玛莎·C.纳斯鲍姆.善的脆弱性:古希腊悲剧与哲学中的运气与伦理[M].徐向东,陆萌译.南京:译林出版社,2018. [4] (美)玛莎·努斯鲍姆.诗性正义:文学想象与公共生活[M].丁晓东译.北京:北京大学出版社,2010. [5] Ulf Schulenberg.Romanticism and Pragmatism: Richard Rorty and the Idea of A Poeticized Culture[M].London: Palgrave Macmillan,2015.139. [6] Geoffrey.G.Harpham.The Hunger of Martha Nussbaum[J].Representations,2002,77(1):52-81. [7] Gerald Graff.Professing Literature: An Institutional History[M].Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1987.251. [8] (美)爱德华·W.萨义德.人文主义与民主批评[M].朱生坚译.上海:上海三联书店,2013.17. [9] Martha Nussbaum.Humanities and Human Development[J].The Journal of Aesthetic Education,2002,(3):171. [10] 刘阳. 诗性正义的理论矛盾与应用限度:与玛莎·努斯鲍姆教授商榷[J].探索与争鸣,2016,(12):64. [11] 欧阳友权. 论网络文学的平民化叙事[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2004,10(2):234. [12] 田泥,杨飏.网络文学离公共领域有多远——关于网络文学的“新民间”论反思[J].探索与争鸣,2018,(6):104-108+144. [13] 欧阳友权. 网络文学亟待建立自己的评价体系和标准[J].社会科学辑刊,2022,(2):161-166. [14] 王玉玊. “故事社会”与后现代的散布——从网络文艺的新叙事形态说起[J].外国文学动态研究,2021,295(1):80. [15] (德)尤根斯·哈贝马斯.公共领域的结构转型[M].曹卫东等译.上海:学林出版社,1999. [16] 田晓丽. 互联网时代的类社会互动:中国网络文学的社会学分析[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2016, 31(1):180. [17] Martha C.Nussbaum.Poet as Judges:Judicial Rhetoric and the Literary Imagination[J].The University of Chicago Law Review,1995,62(4):1477-1519. [18] 黎杨全. 网络文学的经典化是个伪命题[J].文艺争鸣, 2021,327(10):77. [19] 邵燕君. 面对网络文学:学院派的态度和方法[J].南方文坛,2011,145(6).
2023, Vol. 40 
粤公网安备44030502007936号