O in the second International Flann O’Brien Conference organized in 2013 in Rome, the volume edited by Ruben Borg, Paul Fagan, and John McCourt, and dedicated to the memory of one of the most active promoters of the globalization of Flann O’Brien studies, Werner Huber, reflects the archival and historical turn that has taken place in the rapidly diversifying discipline. One small but telling sign of this is the fact that the mercurial author is now consistently referred to as Brian O’Nolan—the civilian name that he never used in any of his fiction, plays, or journalism; the writer who goes under the changed name looks very different from his portrait as a young postmodernist. Against the critical construction of O’Brien as something of a cultural accident who wrote “books [that] did not come from the world, [but] . . . became the world; in the beginning was the word, but there was often nothing except the word and its hollow echoes,” these essays speak about a writer in, and of, his time, and moreover, a popular writer of socially performative work, responding in ambiguous ways to the cultural-political realities of post-Independence Ireland and displaying many of the symptoms of the Irish cultural field in the 1940s and 1950s.1 The volume opens with Carol Taaffe’s polemical essay that bids us to take the long-standing thesis that O’Brien had all his life been a coterie taste, with “a grain of salo,”2 presenting the case for a successoriented professional writer whose career veered “from post-Joycean experimentalism to television comedy, advertising, and the exploitation of a literary brand” and whose activity as a columnist reflects the “populist” values of post-Independence Ireland, a peculiar blend of progressive democratic ethos and conservative anti-intellectualism (33). Not for him the disdain for the philistine who had presumably never given “a fart in [his] corduroys for any form of art whatsoever”3: the particular corduroys O’Brien was at daggers with were worn by the Dublin artistic and intellectual class, not the “Plain People of Ireland.”4 Taaffe claims that critics favored his early novels to the “throwaway work” (24) to which he dedicated most of his creative energies for over twenty-six years and overlooked the fact that his magazine articles present in concentrated form the most disruptive “flannobrienesque” narrative strategies, including collaborative authorship. Maebh Long’s sobering look at O’Brien’s exploitation of the stage Irish stereotype comes to similar conclusions: “[It is a] sustained performance of the post-independence search for national identity” (34). The works walk the tightrope between undercutting and adopting the old-new stereotypes—eternal revenants, which turn James Joyce Quarterly 55.3-4 2018

中文翻译：

---

Flann O'Brien: 权力问题编辑。作者：鲁本·博格、保罗·费根和约翰·麦考特

O 在 2013 年在罗马举办的第二届国际弗兰奥布莱恩会议上，该卷由鲁本博格、保罗费根和约翰麦考特编辑，并致力于纪念弗兰奥布莱恩全球化最积极的推动者之一Werner Huber 的研究反映了在迅速多样化的学科中发生的档案和历史转变。一个小而明显的迹象是，这位善变的作者现在一直被称为布赖恩·奥诺兰（Brian O'Nolan）——他从未在他的任何小说、戏剧或新闻报道中使用过这个平民名字；改名的作家与他作为年轻后现代主义者的肖像截然不同。反对将 O'Brien 视为一种文化事故的批判性建构，他写了“[那些] 并非来自世界，[但是] 的书。. . 变成了世界；以及对文学品牌的利用”，其作为专栏作家的活动反映了爱尔兰独立后的“民粹主义”价值观，这是进步民主精神和保守反智主义的特殊融合（33）。不是因为他蔑视那个大概从未“对任何形式的艺术在[他的]灯芯绒中放屁”3的庸人：O'Brien 所使用的特殊灯芯绒被都柏林的艺术和知识阶层所穿， 4 Taaffe 声称评论家更喜欢他的早期小说，而不是“一次性作品”（24），他将大部分创作精力投入了 26 多年，却忽视了他的杂志文章以集中的形式呈现最具破坏性的“法兰西式”叙事策略，包括合作作者。Maebh Long 对 O'Brien 对舞台爱尔兰刻板印象的发人深省的观察得出了类似的结论：“[这是]独立后寻求民族认同的持续表现”（34）。这些作品在削弱和采用新旧刻板印象之间走钢丝——永恒的亡魂，这让詹姆斯·乔伊斯季刊 55.3-4 2018