메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국현대영미드라마학회 현대영미드라마 현대영미드라마 제19권 제3호
발행연도
2006.12
수록면
251 - 280 (30page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This paper examines both Brian Friel's historical discussion about making history and his own process of making history in Making History to see how his historical drama enacts issues addressed by Linda Hutcheon - topics such as the blurring of history and fiction and the questioning of metanarratives. While Friel acknowledges that history is always a fiction, he is also committed to the project of recording historical facts in another tune. Friel's self-conscious use of such double historical activities enables him to make us question the grand narrative, as shown in Lombard's nationalist accounts of the life of Hugh O'Neill. Unlike Lombard, Friel makes the history of Hugh O'Neill as that of a divided figure, who sustains a delicate balance between supporting his fellow chieftains and a semblance of loyalty to the English Queen.
It is ironical that while Friel sees himself as a postmodernist who deconstructs Lombard's nationalistic version of O'Neill, he also accepts Lombard's view that history is a narrative made by a historian-maker. Friel shares with Lombard many historical ideas, but the O'Neill biography Friel is writing in this play is similar to the biography O'Neill himself wants to be written, that is, the story of a contradictory man torn between the cultural values of Englishness and Irishness. Just as Friel's O'Neill finds himself divided between the local hostilities of Anglo-Irish relations and the wider prospects of European politics, so Friel posits himself in a carefully balanced dialectic between Lombard's theory and O'Neill's wish (to depict himself as a contradictory man).
Friel's use of meta-historical dramatic technique enables him to exhibit a postmodern skepticism of historical narratives. But the play cannot simply be assimilated into the canon of postmodernism. Friel's love of life and instinctivedesire to understand one's inner mind, as represented in his depiction of O'Neill as a divided self, seem to weaken his unrelenting postmodern analysis, a radical demystification of history as a fiction.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 역사에 관한 토론
Ⅲ. 영국과 아일랜드 사이에서
Ⅳ. 프리엘의 역사관과 역사극 사이에서
Ⅴ. 결론
인용 문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-842-016499402