Reviewed by:

• Serial Encounters: “Ulysses” and “The Little Review,” by Clare Hutton
• Thomas O’Grady (bio)

For seasoned readers of Joyce, the title of Clare Hutton’s study of the serialized publication of Ulysses in the American literary magazine The Little Review should resonate in at least three ways. She describes the most conspicuous one succinctly in her introduction, where she sketches how the installments of the novel, appearing from March of 1918 through the September-December issue of 1920, would have been experienced by readers of The Little Review and also of The Egoist, which published several of the installments in England:

Those readers—who were largely American and usually regular subscribers—encountered Ulysses not as an iconic and finished masterpiece, but as a gradually evolving serial, which gradually provoked controversy. For those readers Ulysses was a work to be continued, to be experienced in a range of serial encounters; a work to be sampled, crucially, alongside writings by other significant authors of the modern era, such as Pound, T. S. Eliot, Yeats, and Dorothy Richardson. They read Joyce not as a lone and isolated pioneer, but as one writer among several who were trying to develop a modern idiom and consciousness for literature during and immediately following the First World War.

(8)

But Hutton’s undertaking also speaks to the experience of many latter-day readers of Ulysses—specifically to those devotees, academic or otherwise, who subscribe to “the principle of reflexive reference” that Joseph Frank asserts regarding Ulysses: “Joyce cannot be read—he can only be re-read.”¹ According to Frank’s principle, our re-readings of Ulysses are intrinsically serial. And then for the (re-)reader of Ulysses, Hutton’s study adds an extra-textual (if not quite hyper-textual) layer—a palimpsestic effect involving a heightened awareness of how the specific edition being read arrived at its particular state. While Hutton nods several times at Hans Walter Gabler’s “Corrected Text,”² her principal focus in Serial Encounters is on the genetic relationship between the Shakespeare and Company edition published in 1922 and the fourteen episodes first published in The Little Review.

Interestingly, Hutton gives only a glance or two toward The Most Dangerous Book, Kevin Birmingham’s best-selling account of the legal wrangling surrounding the publication of Ulysses in The Little Review and beyond.³ The reason for this quickly becomes obvious: whereas Birmingham’s strategy is primarily narrative, Hutton’s is decidedly analytical and interpretive. Her telling of the story of Joyce’s dealings, [End Page 197] direct or indirect, with editors Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap, as well as with other players in the saga—go-between Ezra Pound, lawyer and benefactor John Quinn, and even New York City printer Dushan Popovich—always involves the literary implications of those dealings. Hutton’s treatment of her subject is thus densely packed with quotations and their variants, presented mostly nacheinander but sometimes nebeneinander, with additions marked in a semibold font to help illuminate Joyce’s process of revision and ongoing composition. Ambitiously conceived, this project coheres impressively thanks to Hutton’s clear, and clearly spelled out, organization: chapters 1 and 2 are “contextual and historicist,” chapters 3 and 4 “textual, genetic, and interpretive” (7).

The “context” is obviously The Little Review itself in its complex cultural moment. Building in part on the scholarly work by Mark Gaipa, Sean Latham, and Robert E. Scholes in The Little Review “Ulysses,”⁴ Hutton yet takes a step back to warn literary historians “not to over-determine the significance of a journal, given that it is multi-authored, contingent, expedient, and ultimately social, both in origin and intention” (44). Indeed, one of her interests is on the “social” aspect reflected in readerly responses to Joyce’s unfolding narrative. She summarizes the contributions to the “Reader Critic” column in the following:

Readers did not generally comment on specific instalments, engage with the cultural elements of the text, or understand or consider the significance of the introduction of Bloom, and made no attempt to decode the overall evolving...

审核人：

• 连续剧：克莱尔·赫顿（Clare Hutton）的《尤利西斯》和《小评论》
• 托马斯·奥格雷迪（生物）

˚F或乔伊斯的调味读者的序列化出版的克莱尔·赫顿的研究报告的标题尤利西斯在美国文学杂志小评论应至少在三个方面产生共鸣。她在引言中扼要地描述了最引人注目的一部小说，其中她勾勒了《小评论》和《利己主义者》的读者在1918年3月至1920年9月至12月出版的小说中所经历的各部分。，在英国出版了几期：

这些读者（主要是美国读者，通常是常规订阅者）遇到的《尤利西斯》不是标志性的杰作，而是逐渐演变的系列，逐渐引起争议。对于那些读者来说，尤利西斯是一项需要继续的工作，需要在一系列连环遭遇中体会到；至关重要的是，该作品将与其他现代作家（例如庞德，TS艾略特，叶芝和多萝西·理查森）的著作一起被采样。他们认为乔伊斯不是一个孤独而孤立的先驱，而是在几位试图在第一次世界大战期间及之后发展现代习语和文学意识的作家中。

（8）

但是赫顿的工作也谈到了许多后来的《尤利西斯》读者的经历，特别是那些信奉约瑟夫·弗兰克关于尤利西斯的“反思性引用原则”的学者，无论是学术界人士还是其他学者：只能重新读取。” ¹根据弗兰克原理，我们对《尤利西斯》的重新阅读本质上是连续的。然后，对于《尤利西斯》的（重新）阅读器，赫顿的研究增加了一个超文本的（如果不是非常超文本的）层–一种镇静作用，涉及到对所阅读的特定版本如何到达其特定状态的意识增强。赫顿（Hutton）在汉斯·沃尔特·盖布尔（Hans Walter Gabler）的“改正文本”中点头时，²她在“连续遭遇”中的主要重点是1922年出版的莎士比亚与公司版以及首次发表在“小评论”（The Little Review）上的14集之间的遗传关系。

有趣的是，赫顿只看了一眼或两眼就看了《最危险的书》，这是凯文·伯明翰（Kevin Birmingham）关于《尤里西斯》（The Ulysses）在《小评论》及以后出版中的法律纠纷的最畅销书。³这样做的原因很快就很明显了：伯明翰的策略主要是叙述性的，而赫顿的策略显然是分析性和解释性的。她讲述了乔伊斯的交往故事，[完第197页]与编辑玛格丽特·安德森（Margaret Anderson）和简·海普（Jane Heap）以及传奇中的其他角色（包括埃兹拉·庞德，律师和恩人约翰·奎因，甚至纽约印刷商杜尚·波波维奇）进行直接或间接的交流，都涉及到这些文学作品的含义往来。赫顿的治疗她的主题是如此密集与报价及其变种，大多呈现nacheinander但有时nebeneinander，注明在SemiBold字体修订和正在进行的成分有助于阐明乔伊斯的过程中添加。雄心勃勃的构想，由于赫顿的组织清晰明确，组织结构令人印象深刻：第1章和第2章是“上下文和历史主义者”，第3章和第4章是“文本，遗传和解释性”（7）。

在复杂的文化时刻，“背景”显然是《小评论》本身。⁴赫顿在一定程度上借鉴了马克·盖帕（Mark Gaipa），肖恩·拉瑟姆（Sean Latham）和罗伯特·斯科尔斯（Robert E. Scholes）在《小评论》《尤利西斯》中的学术工作，但又退后一步警告文学史学家“不要过分确定期刊的重要性，鉴于它在来源和意图上都是多作者的，或有的，权宜之计并且最终是社会的”（44）。确实，她的兴趣之一在于“社会”方面，这反映在读者对乔伊斯所展现的叙事的回应中。她在以下总结了对“读者批评家”一栏的贡献：

读者通常不会对特定的批注发表评论，也不会参与文本的文化元素，也不会理解或考虑引入Bloom的重要性，也没有尝试对整体演变进行解码。