Roger Rosenblatt

Roger Rosenblatt’s book Black Fiction, in attempting to apply literary rather than sociopolitical criteria to its subject, successfully alters the approach taken by most previous studies. As Rosenblatt notes, criticism of Black writing has often served as a pretext for expounding on Black history. Addison Gayle’s recent work, for example, judges the value of Black fiction by overtly political standards, rating each work according to the notions of Black identity which it propounds.

RR的书《黑小说》成功地改变了之前的研究方法，尝试了把文学而非社会政治的标准应用到他的课题中。正如R指出，对于黑人文学作品的评论常被当作为

一种借口，用来阐述黑人历史。比如，AG最近的作品，明显地使用了政治标准来评价《黑小说》的价值，根据其提出的黑人身份的想法，来给各个作品打分。

罗杰·罗森布莱特的著作《黑人小说》，试图运用文学的而不是社会政治的标准来研究黑人小说，这成功地改变了大多数早先研究的方法。如罗森布莱特所注意到的，黑人著作的评论经常被充当为一种阐述黑人历史的借口。例如，阿狄森·盖尔的最新著作，就用了公开的政治标准来判定黑人小说的价值，按照作品中所提出的黑人个体的各观念对每个作品进行评价。

Although fiction assuredly springs from political circumstances, its authors react to those circumstances in ways other than ideological, and talking about novels and stories primarily as instruments of ideology circumvents much of the fictional enterprise. Rosenblatt’s literary analysis discloses affinities and connections among works of Black fiction which solely political studies have overlooked or ignored.

虽然小说必然来源于政治环境，但作者不是通过意识形态的方式来对政治环境进行回应的，并没有把小说或故事主要当成是意识工具来回避小说的本质。（翻错了）R的文学分析揭开了《黑小说》作品间的密切关系和联系，这点被政治研究所忽略了。

虽然小说确实是源于政治环境，但作者反映这些环境的方法是非意识形态的，如把小

说和故事的讨论作为意识形态的工具，则会忽视了许多小说的成就。罗森·布莱特对黑人文学的分析揭示了黑人小说著作间的密切关系和联系，而纯粹政治研究中忽视了这些联系。

Writing acceptable criticism of Black fiction, however, presupposes giving satisfactory answers to a number of questions. First of all, is there a sufficient reason, other than the facial identity of the authors, to group together works

by Black authors? Second, how does Black fiction make itself distinct from other modern fiction with which it is largely contemporaneous? Rosenblatt shows that Black fiction constitutes a distinct body of writing that has an

identifiable, coherent literary tradition. Looking at novels written by Black over the last eighty years, he discovers recurring concerns and designs independent of chronology. These structures are thematic, and they spring, not surprisingly, from the central fact that the Black characters in these novels exist in a predominantly white culture, whether they try to conform to that culture or rebel against it.

然而，写关于《黑小说》能被接受的评论是基于这样的假定，即能为以下问题找到令人满意的答案。首先，是不是有足够的理由，而非根据作者的表面（黑人）身份，来把黑人作家的作品归为一类？第二，《黑小说》如何使其与其他现代、同时代的作品区分开来？R展示了《黑小说》形成了独特的行文手法，这种行文手法具有能被确认、连贯的文学传统。回顾过去80年黑人写的小说，R发现了独立于年代的循环想法和构思。这些结构是有主题的，它们不出意外地来自于主要的事实，即黑人小说的人物存在于主流的白人文化中，不管他们努力顺应抑或是反抗。

然而写出为人所接受的黑人小说评论的前提是要对许多问题做出令人满意的回答。首先，除了这些作家的种族身份外，是否有充分的理由可将黑人作家的作品归于一类?其次，黑人小说如何将自己和其他现代小说分开?它们大半属于同一时代的作品。罗森布莱特的研究阐明了黑人小说已构成了一个与众不同的作品群体，它们具有可识别的、连贯的文学传统。着眼于最近八十年黑人创作的小说，罗森布莱特揭示了小说中与时代无关而反复出现的侧重点和布局。这些结构与主题相关，并不让人感到惊奇的是，它们源于这样一个中心事实，即小说中的黑人生存在一个白人文化支配的环境中，不管他们试图迎合这一文化还是反叛这一文化。

Black Fiction does leave some aesthetic questions open. Rosenblatt’s thematic analysis permits considerable objectivity; he even explicitly states that it is not his intention to judge the merit of the various works — yet his reluctance seems misplaced, especially since an attempt to appraise might have led to interesting results. For instance, some of the novels appear to be structurally diffuse. Is this a defect, or are the authors working out of, or trying to forge, a different kind of aesthetic? In addition, the style of some Black novels, like Jean Toomer’s Cane, verges on expressionism or surrealism; does this technique provide a counterpoint to the prevalent theme that portrays the fate against which Black heroes are pitted, a theme usually conveyed by more naturalistic modes of expression?

《黑小说》的确有些美学问题。R的主题分析允许足够的客观性。他甚至公开说道他的本意并不是评价不同作品的优点，但他的这个否认似乎被曲解了，特别是评价的尝试引入到有趣的结果。比如，一些小说貌似结构松散。这是个缺点，