Reviewed by:

• Joseph Conrad Among the Anarchists: Nineteenth-Century Terrorism and The Secret Agent by David Mulry
• Michael John Disanto (bio)

Writing a review of Joseph Conrad Among the Anarchists is somewhat difficult. The aim of the study is worthwhile: thinking about the facts regarding the 1894 Greenwich bombing and how the event was reported, and knowing something of the contemporary fascination for and construction of “dynamite novels”—sensational stories about revolutionary activities and anarchist conspiracies—can help twenty-first century readers understand the historical moment and the categories, genres, and stereotypes which Conrad is playing with and remaking in the narrative of The Secret Agent. Studying Conrad’s process of writing the novel and understanding the substance, extent, and methods of revision can lead to a deeper insight into his practice as an artist. The book contains some passages of commentary on The Secret Agent worth reading and contemplating. And yet, when considered as a whole, the book is [End Page 83] unsatisfactory in the unevenness of the chapters and the very poor quality of the copy editing.

The study proceeds by first establishing cultural and historical contexts, and then turns to the origins and revisions of The Secret Agent. After chapter 1, which is the introduction, chapter 2 is spent in an extended argument with Norman Sherry in which Mulry objects to his predecessor’s “assumption that Conrad’s writing process drew heavily on experience, and failing that, on Conrad steeping himself in the details of the event he is writing about” (15). A key objection Mulry makes is that Sherry’s “suggestion, depending on its application, involves a potentially reductive argument, which at the least asks the reader to become a sort of historical sleuth to get much of anything out of the reading” (15). In Mulry’s view, Sherry places too much emphasis on source materials and, deliberately or not, diminishes “Conrad’s psychological veracity, his creativity, and his imaginative autonomy” (33). He concludes, “There is little evidence that Conrad” sought sources, “and certainly not to the extent that Sherry claims in his treatment of source material” (34). Whether or not the chapter-long argument is well-considered is somewhat doubtful. As Mulry acknowledges more than once (e.g., page 62), what Conrad read and how far his knowledge extended are not currently knowable with certainty. And yet Mulry pursues his historical sleuthing and produces possible sources. If Sherry “underestimates the complexities, indeed the sheer span, of Conrad sympathies” (21), he is not alone: every reader of Conrad runs the same danger, including Mulry. Examples of this include Mulry’s questionable judgments: Vladimir is “the villain” of The Secret Agent (18) and Winnie is “the most anarchistic of characters” who, “from a certain perspective,” commits “the true act of terror and protest in the novel” (25). According to Mulry, Winnie “embraces nihilism fully” by killing her husband (26). These simplifications are no more reductive than any that might be found in Sherry or others. The relative thinness of the bibliography, which indicates a familiarity with and (over-)reliance on a somewhat narrow range of Conrad scholarship—e.g. Epstein (1992), Mallios (2005), Moser (1930), Nadjer (1983), Sherry (1971–3), Watt (1980), Watts (1969)—suggests that Mulry has not read and considered a sizable number of articles on The Secret Agent and books on Conrad that might have relevance for his investigation. Surely some of the recent scholarship on Conrad’s Polishness might be at least as useful as Morf ’s early observations. A sound knowledge of previous criticism, with a better balance between past and present scholarship, is a reasonable expectation for a new monograph.

The third to fifth chapters investigate popular accounts of the Greenwich bombing, the relationship between The Secret Agent and the dynamite novel, [End Page 84] and Conrad’s depiction of anarchists. The most valuable are the third chapter, which recounts contemporary reports of the Greenwich bombing and provides some insight into the historical moment, and the fourth chapter, which presents an overview of the genre of the dynamite novel...

审核人：

• 无政府主义者中的约瑟夫·康拉德：19世纪的恐怖主义和戴维·穆里（David Mulry）的秘密特工
• 迈克尔·约翰·迪桑托（Michael John Disanto）

在无政府主义者中间写约瑟夫·康拉德的评论有些困难。该研究的目的是值得的：思考有关1894年格林威治爆炸事件的事实以及如何报道该事件，并了解当代对“炸药小说”的迷恋和建构-关于革命活动和无政府主义阴谋的轰动性故事-可以帮助二十一世纪的读者了解康拉德在“特务”的叙述中所扮演和重塑的历史时刻以及类别，体裁和成见。。研究康拉德的小说创作过程并理解其实质，范围和修改方法，可以使他对作为艺术家的实践有更深入的了解。这本书包含一些有关“特工”的评论，值得阅读和思考。然而，从整体上看，由于章节的不均匀性以及副本编辑的质量很差，[End Page 83]这本书并不令人满意。

该研究首先建立文化和历史背景，然后转向《秘密特工》的起源和修订。。在第1章（引言）之后，第2章与Norman Sherry进行了广泛的辩论，其中Mulry反对其前任的观点“假设Conrad的写作过程主要依赖经验，而失败了，因为Conrad陷入了细节问题。他正在写的事件”（15）。Mulry提出的一个主要反对意见是，Sherry的“建议，取决于其应用，涉及一种潜在的还原性论点，至少要求读者成为一种历史侦探，以从阅读物中获得很多东西”（15）。在穆里（Murry）看来，雪利酒（Sherry）过于强调原始资料，并且有意或无意地削弱了“康拉德（Conrad）的心理准确性，创造力和想象力的自主权”（33）。他总结说：“几乎没有证据表明康拉德”在寻找消息来源，“而且当然不会达到Sherry在处理原始资料时所声称的程度”（34）。关于这一章的论点是否得到了深思熟虑，这值得怀疑。由于穆里不止一次地承认（例如，第62页），所以康拉德阅读的内容和所学知识的延伸程度目前尚不确定。然而，穆里（Mulry）继续他的历史探索，并产生了可能的来源。如果雪莉“低估了康拉德同情的复杂性，甚至是纯粹的范围”（21），他并不孤单：康拉德的每个读者都面临着同样的危险，包括穆里。这方面的例子包括穆里（Mulry）的可疑判断：弗拉基米尔（Vladimir）是“恶棍” （例如，第62页），康拉德阅读的内容以及所学知识的延伸程度目前尚不确定。然而，穆里（Mulry）继续他的历史探索，并产生了可能的来源。如果雪莉“低估了康拉德同情的复杂性，甚至是纯粹的跨度”（21），他并不孤单：康拉德的每个读者都面临着同样的危险，包括穆里。这方面的例子包括穆里（Mulry）的可疑判断：弗拉基米尔（Vladimir）是“恶棍” （例如，第62页），康拉德阅读的内容以及所学知识的延伸程度目前尚不确定。然而，穆里（Mulry）继续他的历史探索，并产生了可能的来源。如果雪莉“低估了康拉德同情的复杂性，甚至是纯粹的范围”（21），他并不孤单：康拉德的每个读者都面临着同样的危险，包括穆里。这方面的例子包括穆里（Mulry）的可疑判断：弗拉基米尔（Vladimir）是“恶棍”秘密特工（18）和温妮（Winnie）是“最无政府的人物”，“从某种角度看”犯下“小说中真正的恐怖和抗议行为”（25）。根据穆里（Mulry）的说法，温妮（Winnie）通过杀死丈夫来“充分拥抱虚无主义”（26）。这些简化并不比雪利酒或其他雪利酒中的任何简化。参考书目相对较薄，这表明他们对康拉德奖学金的范围较为狭窄，并且较为熟悉（例如，Epstein（1992），Malios（2005），Moser（1930），Nadjer（1983），Sherry（ 1971–3年），瓦特（1980），瓦特（1969）–暗示穆里尚未阅读并考虑过《秘密特工》上的大量文章。以及有关康拉德（Conrad）的书籍可能与他的调查有关。当然，最近关于康拉德的波兰语的一些奖学金至少可以和莫夫的早期观察一样有用。对以前的批评有充分的了解，在过去和现在的奖学金之间有更好的平衡，是对新专着的合理期望。

第三至第五章调查了格林威治爆炸案的通俗报道，“特工”与炸药小说之间的关系，[第84页]和康拉德对无政府主义者的描述。最有价值的是第三章，讲述了格林威治轰炸的当代报道，并提供了对历史时刻的一些见识；第四章，概述了炸药小说的类型...