view toward Bolger’s agency within them. Without this information, though, Bolger’s narrative feels anchored by his work in The Wizard of Oz, around which much of the book’s explication revolves. In fairness, More than a Scarecrow takes on an understandably difficult task; it tries to honor the legacy of a known yet underappreciated performer, even as it tries to complicate that legacy. Van Leuven scores some notable successes on this count, especially by emphasizing the degree to which Bolger’s wife, Gwen, dictated the finer points of her husband’s career. Many of the comedian’s signature looks, gags, and roles only manifested because Gwen had the foresight—and creative ability—to discern their suitability within the broad arc of Bolger’s career (174). By decentralizing the concept of “creation,” the book models an exciting challenge to the stable notions of authorship still at work in much dance, theater, and performance studies scholarship. What’s more, such a project would pose a substantial confrontation to the historical erasures Van Leuven evokes in her justifications for the book. Overall, though, More than a Scarecrow remains committed to a “great-man” vision of performance history—a commitment which, ironically, diminishes the life of an eminent entertainer.

中文翻译：

---

Emine Fişek 的《审美公民：二十世纪巴黎的移民和戏剧》。2017. 伊利诺伊州埃文斯顿：西北大学出版社。240 页。 34.95 美元纸。99.95 美元精装。国际标准书号：9780810135673。

对博尔格在他们内部的代理权的看法。然而，如果没有这些信息，博尔格的叙述就会被他在《绿野仙踪》中的作品所锚定，这本书的大部分解释都围绕着它展开。公平地说，不仅仅是稻草人承担了一项可以理解的艰巨任务；它试图尊重一位知名但被低估的表演者的遗产，即使它试图使这一遗产复杂化。范鲁汶在这方面取得了一些显着的成功，特别是通过强调博尔格的妻子格温对她丈夫职业生涯中更好的点的支配程度。这位喜剧演员的许多标志性外貌、恶作剧和角色之所以表现出来，是因为格温具有远见卓识和创造性能力，能够在博尔格的广阔职业生涯中辨别出他们的适合性 (174)。通过分散“创造”的概念，”这本书模拟了一个令人兴奋的挑战，对许多舞蹈、戏剧和表演研究奖学金中仍然有效的作者身份的稳定概念提出了挑战。更重要的是，这样的项目将与范鲁文在她为这本书辩护时所唤起的历史抹杀形成实质性对抗。不过，总的来说，《不仅仅是稻草人》仍然致力于对表演历史的“伟人”愿景——具有讽刺意味的是，这种承诺减少了一位杰出艺人的生活。