Showing 4 results for Javidshad
Mahdi Javidshad,
Volume 11, Issue 42 (Summer 2018)
Abstract
One of the scientific faults that we occasionally face is the act of translating a published article into another language and publishing it in another journal as a new article. This may be done through some changes to title, key terms, structure, and content, leading finally to scientific faults in the second research. In the nineteenth number of the academic journal Critical Language & Literary Studies at Shahid Beheshti University, an article titled “Ideology and Interpellation of Black Americans’ Community in Amiri Baraka’s ‘In Memory of Radio’: An Althusserian Reading” (fall and winter 2017-2018, pages 187-208) by Seyyed Shahabedin Sadati and Alireza Jafari has been published which is very similar to an English article titled “The influence of ideological state apparatuses in identity formation: Althusserian reading of Amiri Baraka’s ‘In Memory of Radio’” published in International Journal of English and Literature (December 2013, pages 480-485). The author of the English article, Seyyed Shahabedin Sadati, is one of the authors of the Persian article who, by adding a co-author, making changes to the title and key terms, and incorporating additional materials, has tried to produce a new article, committing plagiarism along the way.
Mahdi Javidshad, Bahee Hadaegh,
Volume 11, Issue 43 (Fall 2018)
Abstract
In a controversial decision, Louis Althusser classifies literature as the apparatuses through which the dominant ideology is disseminated. Yet, is it possible to place the works that explicitly expose State Apparatuses in such classification? Bozorg Alavi’s “Gileh Mard” uncovers power exertion of the dominant system on a character who has ignored and challenged class coalition. The powerful presence of Repressive State Apparatus, and to some extent Ideological Apparatuses, indicate the writer’s awareness of the functions of apparatuses in changing individuals into the system’s desired subject, and this portrayal is probably an indication of his inclination to dissect such power functions for his readers. This claim is supported by the fact that Alavi was self-consciously leftist in politics and realism in depicting social disorders was one of his writing styles. The question that arises is whether Alavi’s “Gileh Mard” is a literary product that shakes the pillars of ideology, or the short story itself becomes finally an Ideological State Apparatus, serving the dominant system? While the present research provides an Althusserian answer to this question through referring to Lenin and Philosophy and “A Letter on Art”, it explores the shortcomings of the Althusserian approach through the “aesthetic of reception”.
Mahdi Javidshad, Alireza Nikouei,
Volume 12, Issue 46 (Summer 2019)
Abstract
Nowadays, one of the most fundamental and controversial theoretical discussions in literary criticism is to evade meta-theory in literary practices. The prominent thinkers in this area, known as neo-pragmatists, include Terry Eagleton, Stanley Fish, Steven Knapp, and Walter Benn Michaels who emphasize that the course of theory and criticism has now been diverted from its original aim of advancing social justice in the early eighteenth century and has now become a fetish that solidifies and reproduces the hierarchical society. In 1980s, we witnessed the acme of theoretical discussions and practices in literary studies; yet, in this decade, anti-theory and anti-theoretical discussions come to their acme, knowing Knapp and Michaels’ ideas as one of their key manifestos. Knapp and Michaels believe that theoretical discussions have been the result of the separation of such inseparable terms as meaning-intention, language-speech acts, and theory-practice, leading to “theoretical enterprise.” These two critics argue that since authorial discussions are “empirical” issues, theoretical responses to them do not solve the problem; rather, they are merely a “theoretical temptation.” In this article, following a concise survey of thinkers in the realm of theory and related concepts, in particular anti-theory, meta-theory, and post-theory, we have attempted to explore the two’s ideas, review reactions to them and the errors in their argument, and finally investigate what message Knapp and Michaels’ article can have for our country’s literary society.
Volume 28, Issue 3 (7-2021)
Abstract
The present research explores the reasons why contemporary theoreticians of adaptation studies spurn “fidelity criticism.” With an increase in the production of adaptation with the advent of the cinema, there appeared a critical approach known as “fidelity criticism” in which the extent of the fidelity of the adapter to the adapted was investigated. Since this approach considers the adapted as a touchstone to evaluate the adapter and since it implicitly acknowledges the superiority of the former over the latter, postmodern critics, who frequently advocate alternative views and readings, struggle to release the adapter from being overshadowed by the adapted in order to let them express their unique message in the modern era. By referring to contemporary theories, the present research explores the whyness of the necessity for avoiding “fidelity criticism” as a touchstone for the evaluation of adaptation. To this end, the question of adaptation is expounded in the light of canon, logocentrism, and minor literature in order to study the likelihood of the ideological working of “fidelity criticism” as an apparatus in the hands of power. While the fact that “fidelity criticism” cannot be an appropriate criterion for the evaluation of adaptation has been frequently pointed out, the howness of its contribution to power discourse is an issue that has not been investigated in a coherent research, an attempt that can lead to a better understanding of the whyness of the rejection of “fidelity criticism.”
