• Thomas Hardy
• Indy Clark (bio)

Nilüfer Özgür’s Hardy Deconstructing Hardy: A Derridean Reading of Thomas Hardy’s Poetry (New York: Routledge, 2018) is a dedicated Derridean reading of thirty-four Hardy poems. Throughout, Özgür aims to explore the crisis of representation thrown up by Aristotelian mimesis and the sort of logocentric thinking that Derrida spent his career undoing. Özgür reads Hardy as a Modernist or, at the very least, “a transitional poet with a modern, questioning mind and a language that constructs and deconstructs mimetic reality” (p. 1). Hardy’s poetry represents a certain Modernist sense of anxiety, and the problematized language manifests in the “instabilities and convulsions” of his work. Derrida’s free play of signifiers, the idea that there is no centre of truth, that the centre is always already somewhere else, lies at the heart of this reading. Ultimately, Hardy’s poetry lends itself to Deconstructionist analysis “as it lays bare this problematic relation between language and truth, sign and referent. In all poems by Hardy, absolute truth is unavailable” (p. 1). The book is organized into four sections that, for Özgür, represent the key concepts that expose this relationship between language and truth: Hardy’s agnosticism, his concept of the self, his language and concept of structure, and his concept of time and temporality. In the first, Hardy’s agnosticism is read as a challenge to logocentrism and the metaphysics of presence. The discussion includes a look at such poems as “The Subalterns,” “A Sign-Seeker,” “In the Study,” and “Hap.” [End Page 342]

The second of the chapters, “Self in Hardy—Unified and Fragmented,” argues that the poems present neither an empirical, Cartesian self, nor a post-Freudian fragmented self but, instead, offer something of a “double self” through “double voice and double vision” and sometimes even “multiple selves” (p. 48). Turning once again to “The Subalterns,” Özgür argues for a “distanced self”—a self, after J. Hillis Miller, that is “neither wholly disintegrated nor wholly integrated” (p. 50). With each stanza, the speaker becomes “more passive and less reliable” through various means, including the use of dialogized speech, reported speech, and unusual punctuation. Similarly, in “Christmas in the Elgin Room,” “plural voices and perspectives challenge the unified and integrated sense of the self” (p. 50). The speakers are gods, or the representations of gods, but the dialogized language works to portray them as anthropomorphized. There are, however, no human voices, an absence that erases “the identity of the conventional unified poetic persona” (p. 51).

After a reading of “Moments of Vision” framed by J. Hillis Miller’s concept of the “unmappable self,” “The Voice” is considered in light of Derrida’s “Différance,” defined here, using Derrida’s Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs (1973), as the “possibility of conceptuality,” “the condition for the possibility for any discourse” and, indeed, “the origin or production of differences and the differences between differences, the play [jeu] of differences” (p. 53). As the speaker of “The Voice” remakes the Emma figure into what she was, what the speaker wants her to be, Emma becomes both “a presence and a non-presence in time and beyond time” (p. 54), a representation, perhaps, of “the Heideggerean notion of Being’s continual flickering between absence and presence” (p. 55). Özgür concludes that Hardy’s “concept of the self is self-disbelieving, questioning, at times frustrated” but “it is not a lost self, but a self that attempts to learn to contain the pain of the present and deal with the loss of the past” (p. 106).

Elsewhere, Özgür considers Hardy’s language of negation and the use of irony as destabilizing elements in poems including “The Ruined Maid,” “In the Room of the Bride-Elect,” and “The Vampirine Fair.” Hardy’s use of female speakers in these poems, Özgür suggests, produces “a semantic and linguistic rupture.” “The Woman,” she argues, “is one element by which Hardy proves to transgress the dual oppositions of social constructs” (p. 111). In Hardy’s poetry, “irony ceases to represent a binary opposition. It should be conceived of, instead...

• 托马斯·哈迪
• 印迪·克拉克（生物）

NilüferÖzgür的哈代解构哈迪：托马斯·哈迪诗歌的德里德里安式解读（纽约：Routledge，2018年）是德里德里（Derridean）专门阅读的三十四本哈代诗的读物。贯穿整个过程，Özgür的目标是探索亚里士多德模仿论引发的代言危机，以及德里达在事业上度过的那种标志性思维。厄茨古尔将哈代读为现代主义者，或者至少是“一个过渡的诗人，具有现代的，质疑的心态和一种建构和解构模拟现实的语言”（第1页）。哈代的诗歌代表了某种现代主义的焦虑感，而受到质疑的语言则表现在他作品的“动荡与抽搐”中。德里达（Derida）的指称者自由发挥，没有真理中心的想法，中心总是已经在其他地方的想法，是这一解读的核心。最终，哈代的诗歌很适合解构主义分析，“因为它揭示了语言与真理，符号与所指之间的这种有问题的关系。在哈代的所有诗歌中，都没有绝对的真理”（第1页）。该书分为四个部分，对于Özgür而言，代表了揭示语言与真理之间关系的关键概念：哈代的不可知论，他的自我概念，他的语言和结构概念以及时间和时间性概念。首先，哈迪的不可知论被理解为对徽标中心主义和在场形而上学的挑战。讨论包括对诸如“ The Subalterns”，“ Sign-Seeker”，“ In the Study”和“ Hap”之类的诗歌的考察。该书分为四个部分，对于Özgür而言，代表了揭示语言与真理之间关系的关键概念：哈代的不可知论，他的自我概念，他的语言和结构概念以及时间和时间性概念。首先，哈迪的不可知论被认为是对徽标中心主义和在场形而上学的挑战。讨论包括对诸如“ The Subalterns”，“ Sign-Seeker”，“ In the Study”和“ Hap”之类的诗歌的考察。该书分为四个部分，对于Özgür而言，代表了揭示语言与真理之间关系的关键概念：哈代的不可知论，他的自我概念，他的语言和结构概念以及时间和时间性概念。首先，哈迪的不可知论被理解为对徽标中心主义和在场形而上学的挑战。讨论包括对诸如“ The Subalterns”，“ Sign-Seeker”，“ In the Study”和“ Hap”之类的诗歌的考察。[结束页342]

第二章“哈代的自我-统一而破碎”，认为这些诗歌既没有表现出经验的笛卡尔式自我，也没有呈现出后弗洛伊德式的破碎自我，而是通过“双重”提供了“双重自我”。声音和双重视力”，有时甚至是“多重自我”（第48页）。Özgür再次转向“ The Subalterns”，主张建立“远距离的自我”，即在J. Hillis Miller之后的自我，即“既不完全瓦解也不完全瓦解”（第50页）。对于每个节，说话者会通过各种方式“变得更被动，更不可靠”，包括使用对话式语音，报告的语音和不寻常的标点符号。同样，在“埃尔金房间的圣诞节”中，“多种声音和观点挑战着自我的统一和整合感”（第50页）。说话者是神，或神的代表，但是对话语言可以将它们描述为拟人化。然而，没有人的声音，这种缺失消除了“传统的统一诗意人物形象的身份”（第51页）。

在阅读了由希尔斯·米勒（J. Hillis Miller）的“无法映射的自我”概念构筑的“视觉时刻”之后，根据德里达的“差异”定义了“声音”，此处使用了德里达的《言语，现象》和其他胡塞尔的论文符号理论（1973年），作为“概念性的可能性”，“任何话语可能性的条件”，以及实际上，“差异的起源或产生以及差异之间的差异，差异的作用”（p。 53）。当“声音”的演讲者将艾玛的身材重新塑造成她自己的样子，演讲者希望她成为的人物时，艾玛成为“时间和超越时间的存在与不存在”（第54页），这是一种代表。 ，也许是“海德格尔关于存在在不存在和存在之间不断闪烁的概念”（第55页）。Özgür得出结论，哈代的“自我概念是自我怀疑，质疑，有时会感到沮丧”，但“它不是迷失的自我，而是试图学会控制当下的痛苦并应对失去的自我的自我。过去”（第106页）。

在其他地方，Özgür的考虑否定的哈代的语言和使用讽刺的是在诗歌，包括“被破坏的小龙女，”不稳定因素“在房间里的新娘当选的，”和“Vampirine博览会”。厄茨古尔建议，哈代在这些诗歌中使用女性说话者会产生“语义和语言断裂”。她认为，“女人是哈代证明超越社会建构双重对立的一个要素”（第111页）。在哈代的诗歌中，“讽刺不再代表二元对立。应该构想它，而不是...