ABSTRACT

Histoire de la violence, Édouard Louis’s second novel, remains a subject of controversy. An account of the author’s 2012 rape and its aftermath, its 2016 publication came mere days prior to the arrest of a suspect. Critics were swift to condemn Louis’s claim that his novel contains not one line of fiction, supposedly biasing due process. Some went as far as to call Histoire de la violence a novel in name only. This article argues that at stake are divergent understandings of literary genre. To this end, it positions Louis’s novel against two generic categories, that of the reflexive novel and the gay novel, elaborated from the works of Bourdieu and Foucault respectively. As a reflexive novel, Histoire de la violence’s engagement with narrative voicing and sociological intertext trigger a re-evaluation of the relationship between an author and his eponymous protagonist. As a gay novel, it demonstrates a pragmatic concern for the representation and erasure of sexual practice, structured by Édouard’s sexual and class shame. Foucault’s thoughts on parrêsia and sexuality underpin this account, which in turn troubles standard readings of his opinions on gay literature, and more broadly, scholarly dispositions to genre in the contemporary French context.

摘要

爱德华·路易斯的第二部小说《暴力史》仍然是一个有争议的话题。关于作者 2012 年强奸及其后果的描述，其 2016 年的出版物是在嫌疑人被捕前几天发布的。评论家们迅速谴责路易斯声称他的小说没有一条小说线的说法，据称这是有偏见的正当程序。有些人甚至称《暴力史》是一本名副其实的小说。本文认为，对文学体裁的不同理解处于危险之中。为此，它将路易斯的小说与分别从布迪厄和福柯的作品阐述的反身小说和同性恋小说这两个通用类别进行对比。作为一部反身小说，《暴力史》他对叙事声音和社会学互文的参与引发了对作者与其同名主角之间关系的重新评估。作为一部同性恋小说，它表现出对性行为的表现和消除的务实关注，由爱德华的性和阶级耻辱构成。福柯关于parrêsia和性的思想支撑了这一说法，这反过来又影响了他对同性恋文学观点的标准解读，以及更广泛地说，影响了当代法国语境中对体裁的学术倾向。