equally concerned with the writer’s engagement with performance as it is her experience of, and struggles with, the act of writing. This slim text projects a distinctive, lyrical voice and at times reads rather like a personal address. Kartsaki’s style aids in capturing some of the intensity of the live, incessantly repeating performances she describes; her hypnotic account of layered repetition within Steve Reich’s music and de Keersmaeker’s choreographic practice, for example, underlines the sense of urgency inherent in their respective oeuvres. There is a sense of intimacy conveyed by Kartsaki’s writing, as if she is speaking directly to the reader about her individual experience of each of these works. This is a feature she acknowledges in the book’s introduction, explaining that, while using a framework that seems to be comprised of the voices of male writers, it is her voice that provides the analytical reading here. That is, Kartsaki’s analysis emerges not just from academic analysis but comes her physical and emotional response to the works cited. Kartsaki writes from a dual perspective of performer and scholar, weaving these distinct voices together as she cycles through her selected case studies. The result of this antilinear, almost oneiric discussion is somewhat uneven, however. Kartsaki’s writing is more convincing in discussion of Beckett’s deeply performative work than in her references to Bacon’s paintings, for example. On a structural level, the text is occasionally rather difficult to follow, shifting from one work to the next in a stream of consciousness style. The same approach applies to her treatment of theoretical voices; she shifts from one to the next without much coherent framing for the reader or rigorous engagement with the sources cited. Repetition in Performance requests that its reader engage with the text itself much in the way it proposes we engage with the performative event. Kartsaki asks us to pause and to take our time with her text, providing us with a flowing, recursive framework of reference points in order to reflect upon her reading of repetition. Hers is a text that will, most likely, benefit from repeated reading and reconsideration. This structure does create moments of frustration, however, especially when key works materialize and then vanish from the narrative without Kartsaki delving into further analysis of their content. It is a text that is haunted by the spectral figures of theater makers, choreographers, and writers, but their voices are only faintly heard. This is a curious reflection of Kartsaki’s observation, as she builds toward her conclusion that “repetition haunts me” (127). This sense of haunting, like the patterns of repetition she invokes throughout the text, left me desiring a deeper engagement with the works cited and a clearer sense of where pathways of artistic influence might be detected. This perhaps goes against the grain of Kartsaki’s intention; her central thesis that performance can be reimagined and reframed through the lens of repetition applies as much to her own experience of writing as to the case studies she cites. Indeed, Repetition in Performance makes for a fairly convincing argument that performance and writing are interlinked experiences; the act of writing is enlivened, and the act of performing is temporarily immobilized. Understanding the text through this framework transforms the experience of a second reading, something that, I feel, may have been the author’s intention from the beginning.

中文翻译：

---

这就是我们现在跳舞的方式！Pallabi Chakravorty 在宝莱坞时代的表演和真人秀。2018. 英国牛津：牛津大学出版社。214 页，27 个半色调。50.00 美元精装本。ISBN：9780199477760。

同样关注作家对表演的参与，因为这是她对写作行为的体验和挣扎。这段纤细的文字散发出独特而抒情的声音，有时读起来更像是个人地址。Kartsaki 的风格有助于捕捉现场的一些强度，她描述的不断重复的表演；例如，她对 Steve Reich 音乐和 de Keersmaeker 编舞实践中分层重复的催眠式描述强调了他们各自作品中固有的紧迫感。Kartsaki 的写作传达出一种亲切感，仿佛她是在直接向读者讲述她对这些作品的个人体验。这是她在这本书的介绍中承认的一个特征，解释说，虽然使用的框架似乎由男性作家的声音组成，但在这里提供分析阅读的是她的声音。也就是说，Kartsaki 的分析不仅来自学术分析，还来自她对引用作品的身体和情感反应。Kartsaki 从表演者和学者的双重角度写作，在她循环选择的案例研究中将这些不同的声音编织在一起。然而，这种反线性的、几乎是梦幻般的讨论的结果有些不平衡。例如，在讨论贝克特的深度表演作品时，卡特萨基的写作比她对培根画作的引用更有说服力。在结构层面上，文本有时相当难以理解，以意识流的方式从一个作品转移到下一个作品。同样的方法适用于她对理论声音的处理；她从一个转移到另一个，没有为读者提供太多连贯的框架，也没有严格参与引用的来源。表演中的重复要求它的读者以它建议我们参与表演事件的方式来参与文本本身。Kartsaki 要求我们暂停并花时间阅读她的文本，为我们提供一个流动的、递归的参考点框架，以便反思她对重复的阅读。她的文本很可能会从反复阅读和重新考虑中受益。然而，这种结构确实会产生挫败感，尤其是当关键作品成为现实然后从叙事中消失而 Kartsaki 没有深入研究其内容时。这是一部被戏剧制作人、编舞家和作家的幽灵般的人物所困扰的文本，但他们的声音却只是隐隐约约地被听到。这是 Kartsaki 观察的一个奇怪的反映，因为她逐渐得出“重复困扰着我”的结论（127）。这种令人难以忘怀的感觉，就像她在整篇文章中引用的重复模式一样，让我渴望更深入地参与所引用的作品，并更清楚地了解艺术影响的途径在哪里可以被发现。这可能与 Kartsaki 的意图背道而驰。她的中心论点是，表演可以通过重复的镜头重新构想和重构，这既适用于她自己的写作经验，也适用于她引用的案例研究。确实，表演中的重复提供了一个相当有说服力的论点，即表演和写作是相互关联的体验；写作的行为活跃起来，而表演的行为暂时静止。通过这个框架理解文本会改变第二次阅读的体验，我觉得这可能是作者从一开始的意图。