当前位置: X-MOL 学术James Joyce Quarterly › 论文详情
Gastro-Modernism: Food, Literature, and Culture ed. by Derek Gladwin (review)
James Joyce Quarterly Pub Date : 2021-06-10
Jessica Martell

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

  • Gastro-Modernism: Food, Literature, and Culture ed. by Derek Gladwin
  • Jessica Martell (bio)
GASTRO-MODERNISM: FOOD, LITERATURE, AND CULTURE, edited by Derek Gladwin. Clemson, South Carolina: Clemson University Press, 2019. xiv + 273 pp. $120.00 cloth, ebook.

Gastro-Modernism: Food, Literature, and Culture joins a recent burst of book-length studies of food and modernist literature—so recent that several companions and edited collections have come out in a relative pile-up within the last three years and are not yet in dialogue with one another.1 The eagerness of scholarly presses to expand these offerings, editor Derek Gladwin writes, "[affirms] an increasing demand for contemporary researchers, students, and educated readers of modernism and food studies" (9), a coherent subfield that underscores the centrality of food to any account of modernist cultures and the arts.

As Gastro-Modernism attests, the momentum shows no sign of slowing. These chapters are varied and intriguing, providing global coverage in line with the geographical expansions of modernist studies more broadly. Like my co-editors and I did in Modernism and Food Studies, Gladwin's volume arranges its chapters into thematic sections like "Decadence and Absence" and "Taste and Disgust" (69-132, 134-79). Such an approach balances coverage with accessibility, since each chapter presents a self-contained argument without demanding a longer [End Page 386] reader commitment, and the whole assemblage provides through-lines for readers who seek a more substantive engagement.

Also like our collection, Gladwin groups canonical modernists (James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, T. S. Eliot) with lesser-known figures (like Midori Osaki and Marguerite Duras), another choice with important benefits. Revisiting the high-modernist canon using food as a lens invites new discoveries and reinvigorates modernism for new scholars. It also subtly expands that canon. Readers who come for Joyce or Ernest Hemingway may stay to read Alys Moody's analysis of feminist starving artists in Mina Loy's work,2 or Kelly Sullivan's summoning of Elizabeth David in the context of late modernism.3 Joyce scholars may find new territory when considering his oeuvre alongside the jazz-age sensations of Louis Armstrong's dietary life-writing and Noël Coward's dramatically staged cocktails, in essays by Vivian Halloran and Gregory Mackie, respectively. Peter Childs's essay on food separation and Clint Burnham's account of food in Canada's Indian Residential Schools will interest anyone in the Joyce community who works on food refusal and anticolonial resistance.

But Gastro-Modernism has a central oversight worth addressing, and that is the unresolved tension between its embrace of the genealogy of gastronomic writing, and the chapters I have just previewed, which seem like attempts to broaden that tradition. One challenge of interdisciplinary work, and any work that brings subfields together, is translating each to the other succinctly and yet without short-changing complex conversations. This book arranges an "unlikely fusion of gastronomy and modernism" (10) in order to highlight its focus on aesthetics, a choice that defines its unique contribution and has since been taken up by others.4 In selecting gastronomy as its particular approach to food studies, however, the editor should have done due diligence to contextualize that choice for the reader who is not familiar with the subject. In short, gastronomy has its own baggage that food studies does not. Although the two communities increasingly share concerns, their relationship is an active, sometimes contentious negotiation—they are not "interchangeab[le]," nor do they constitute a continuous "tradition" (10, 11).5 Gastronomy has tended to focus on consumption over production and is still most legible (and Googleable) as "the art and science of delicate eating."6 Gladwin's introduction provides this genealogy but only "briefly acknowledge[s]" gastronomy's unpleasant associations with enlightenment values, colonial conquest, and elitist distinction (10-11). It is misleading to imply that gastronomy has been redeemed from that problematic past in food-studies communities (11).

Gastronomy as a term remains power-laden, a Eurocentric tradition [End Page 387] that echoes in every "great man theory of food," from cultural biographies to episodes of Chef's Table.7 There is much more work to do to rectify its historic exclusion of women and...


胃现代主义:食物、文学和文化编辑。德里克·格拉德温 (Derek Gladwin) (评论)



  • 胃现代主义:食物、文学和文化编辑。通过德里克格拉德温
  • 杰西卡·马泰尔(生物)
胃现代主义:食物、文学和文化,德里克·格拉德温编辑。南卡罗来纳州克莱姆森:克莱姆森大学出版社,2019 年。xiv + 273 页。布 120.00 美元,电子书。

胃现代主义:食物、文学和文化加入了最近爆发的关于食物和现代主义文学的书籍长度的研究——如此之近,以至于在过去三年里,一些同伴和编辑的收藏相对堆积起来,并且没有却在彼此对话中。1学术出版社急于扩大这些产品,编辑德里克格拉德温写道,“[肯定] 对现代主义和食品研究的当代研究人员、学生和受过教育的读者的需求不断增长”(9),这是一个连贯的子领域,强调了任何现代主义文化和艺术的食物。

正如胃现代主义所证明的那样,这种势头没有放缓的迹象。这些章节多种多样且引人入胜,提供了与更广泛的现代主义研究的地理扩展相一致的全球覆盖范围。就像我和我在现代主义和食品研究中所做的共同编辑一样,格拉德温的卷将其章节安排为主题部分,如“颓废与缺席”和“品味与厌恶”(69-132、134-79)。这种方法平衡了覆盖范围和可访问性,因为每一章都提出了一个独立的论点,而不需要更长的[End Page 386]读者承诺,并且整个组合为寻求更实质性参与的读者提供了直通车。

同样与我们的收藏一样,格拉德温将经典的现代主义者(詹姆斯·乔伊斯、弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫、TS 艾略特)与鲜为人知的人物(如 Midori Osaki 和 Marguerite Duras)组合在一起,这是另一个具有重要优势的选择。以食物为镜头重新审视高度现代主义的经典,会带来新的发现,并为新学者重振现代主义。它还巧妙地扩展了该规范。为乔伊斯或欧内斯特·海明威而来的读者可能会留下来阅读 Alys Moody 对 Mina Loy 作品中女权主义饥饿艺术家的分析,2或 Kelly Sullivan 在晚期现代主义的背景下召唤伊丽莎白·大卫。3乔伊斯学者在考虑他的作品时可能会发现新的领域除了路易斯·阿姆斯特朗的饮食生活写作和诺埃尔·考沃德戏剧化的鸡尾酒的爵士时代感,分别在 Vivian Halloran 和 Gregory Mackie 的文章中。Peter Childs 关于食物分离的文章和 Clint Burnham 对加拿大印第安寄宿学校食物的描述将引起 Joyce 社区中从事拒绝食物和反殖民抵抗工作的任何人的兴趣。

但是Gastro-Modernism有一个值得解决的核心疏忽,那就是它对美食写作谱系的接受与我刚刚预览的章节之间未解决的紧张关系,这似乎是试图扩大这一传统。跨学科工作的一个挑战,以及任何将子领域结合在一起的工作,都是简洁地相互翻译,但没有短促的复杂对话。这本书安排了“美食与现代主义不太可能的融合”(10),以突出其对美学的关注,这一选择定义了其独特的贡献,并已被其他人采用。4然而,在选择美食学作为其特定的食品研究方法时,编辑应该尽职尽责地为不熟悉该主题的读者提供该选择的背景。简而言之,美食学有自己的包袱,而食品研究则没有。尽管这两个社区的关注点越来越多,但他们的关系是一种积极的、有时是有争议的谈判——它们不是“可互换的”,也不是一种持续的“传统”(10, 11)。5美食学倾向于关注消费而不是生产,并且仍然是最清晰的(和可谷歌的)“精致饮食的艺术和科学”。6格拉德温的介绍提供了这个谱系,但只是“简要地承认[s]”美食与启蒙价值观、殖民征服和精英区别的令人不快的联系 (10-11)。暗示美食已经从食品研究社区中那个有问题的过去中拯救出来是一种误导(11)。

美食作为一个术语仍然充满力量,这是一种以欧洲为中心的传统[End Page 387],它在每一个“伟人的食物理论”中都得到了回应,从文化传记到厨师餐桌的剧集。7要纠正历史上对女性的排斥,还有很多工作要做……