does acknowledge the role of gender transgression in conceptions and performances of queer, but by foregrounding homosexuality, she recapitulates a key shortfall in later twentieth-century queer theory of eclipsing transgender subjectivity, while using nonnormative gender expression as an enabling notion. The problem with Farfan’s conception of queer arises to a certain extent from her analytical method of reading historical commentary and other primary source material through contemporary theory. Late twentieth-century conceptions of queerness inherit the midcentury separation of gender and sexuality that late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century nonnormative identities predate. The pitfall of centralizing “sexual preference” to the exclusion of other axes in the conception of queer extends to Farfan’s treatment of racial and cultural difference, something she also begins to repair in her discussion of Nijinsky. Talking about the reliance of Afternoon of a Faun upon Orientalism, Farfan tempts the reader into thinking she will address how these ideas underpinned late nineteenthand early twentieth-century notions of queerness. Furthermore, discussing how Russia, where Nijinsky’s ballet came from, was represented as quasi-Oriental and how Nijinsky’s features and sexuality caused commentators to view him as an example of Oriental debauchery, Farfan connects the emergence of alternate sexual identities to colonial ideology and complicates prevailing understandings of Orientalism. Yet, she neglects to make the same connections in her discussion of the Decadent movement, and thus, cultural or ethnic differences seem only to arise with Nijinsky’s dance. This was simply not the case, which Farfan could have easily established by contextualizing Wilde’s play and Fuller’s dance in relation to “Salomania,” a late nineteenthcentury European and American fascination with Salomé that was rife with Orientalism. Had the book addressed the centrality of colonial ideology to the whole notion of debauchery, queerness, and cultural change in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Farfan could be forgiven for choosing all white (and all but one Anglophone) examples for her argument. With substantial critical discussion of Orientalism’s role, for example, Farfan could have deconstructed the whiteness of the queer modernist performance that she holds up, but as it is, she appears to believe that the interface of cultures and races precipitated by colonialism had scant influence upon, or role within, queer and modernism performance. In this sense Farfan reconstructs a canon that she might otherwise be attempting to critique. Notwithstanding the problems in the limits of Farfan’s subjects of analysis as well as in her methodology, by drawing connections between a handful of queer modernist performances and contemporary queer theory, the author imagines an important historical space. Artists from the late nineteenth century onward are envisaged as critiquing or “queering” dominant cultural values and practices. Furthermore, Farfan chronicles social circles and cultural movements dedicated to such critique, establishing that while the works often occupied contentious positions in dominant culture, the ideas staged were integral to a broader development of modernist conceptions of gender and sexuality, both marginal and central.

中文翻译：

---

La Querelle des Pantomimes: Danse,culture, et société dans l'Europe des Lumières by Arianna Fabbricatore。2017. 雷恩：雷恩大学出版社。471 页，黑白插图、索引、附录。24.00 欧元。ISBN：978-2-7535-5206-7。

确实承认性别越界在酷儿的概念和表演中的作用，但通过将同性恋放在首位，她概括了 20 世纪后期酷儿理论中的一个关键缺陷，即在使用非规范性的性别表达作为支持概念的同时，超越了跨性别主体性。Farfan 酷儿概念的问题在一定程度上源于她通过当代理论阅读历史评论和其他主要来源材料的分析方法。20 世纪晚期的酷儿概念继承了 19 世纪晚期和 20 世纪早期非规范性身份出现之前的性别和性欲分离的世纪中叶。在酷儿概念中将“性偏好”集中到排除其他轴心的陷阱延伸到法凡对种族和文化差异的处理，她在对尼金斯基的讨论中也开始修复这一点。谈到《牧神的下午》对东方主义的依赖时，法尔范引诱读者思考她将阐述这些想法如何支撑十九世纪末二十世纪初的酷儿观念。此外，在讨论尼金斯基芭蕾的发源地俄罗斯如何被描绘为准东方人，以及尼金斯基的特征和性取向如何导致评论员将他视为东方放荡的例子时，法尔范将替代性身份的出现与殖民意识形态联系起来，并使盛行的意识形态复杂化。对东方主义的理解。然而，她在讨论颓废运动时忽略了同样的联系，因此，文化或种族差异似乎只出现在尼金斯基的舞蹈中。事实并非如此，Farfan 可以通过将王尔德的戏剧和富勒的舞蹈与“萨洛曼尼亚”相关联的背景来轻松确立这一点，这是 19 世纪后期欧洲和美国对充满东方主义的莎乐美的迷恋。如果这本书将殖民意识形态在 19 世纪晚期和 20 世纪早期的整个概念中的放荡、酷儿和文化变迁的中心地位，法尔凡选择所有白人（除了一个讲英语的人）的例子作为她的论点是可以原谅的。例如，通过对东方主义作用的大量批判性讨论，法凡本可以解构她所坚持的酷儿现代主义表演的白度，但事实上，她似乎相信殖民主义所沉淀的文化和种族的界面对酷儿和现代主义表演几乎没有影响，或在其中发挥作用。在这个意义上，法凡重建了一个她可能会试图批评的经典。尽管法尔范的分析主题及其方法论存在问题，但通过将少数现代酷儿表演与当代酷儿理论联系起来，作者想象了一个重要的历史空间。19 世纪晚期以后的艺术家被认为是批判或“酷儿”的主流文化价值观和实践。此外，