Skip to main content

Conclusion Chinese Ibsenism in the Politics of Global Literary Reception

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Chinese Ibsenism
  • 251 Accesses

Abstract

“In the West, it is almost impossible to find a dramatist of stature and under the age of forty who would profess to be an Ibsenite technically, but it is equally difficult to find anyone under forty who has not been influenced by Ibsen thematically.” This is an observation made by the British theatre critic Michael Billington in 1978. Thirty years later, in 2008, Toril Moi published her book Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism, in which she has placed Ibsen at the centre of influence over Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, and James Joyce. Although Ibsen’s dramatic techniques and stage conventions have faded in the face of newer innovations, he is revered as the father of modern drama. In the theatre, Ibsen is still a most performed playwright of the twenty-first century and an all-time favourite for experimentation with new styles of performance and new interpretations of gender, femininity, self construction and deception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Michael Billington, “The Ghosts in the Machine,” Guardian (overseas edition), 2 April 1978, 20.

  2. 2.

    Martin Esslin, “Ibsen and Modern Drama,” in Ibsen and the Theatre, ed. Errol Durbach (New York: New York University Press, 1980), 71.

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    J. L. Styan, Modern Drama in Theory and Practice, I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 20.

  5. 5.

    In fact, the split did not occur so neatly dividing the reception of Ibsen in Europe and America into two geographical areas, or opposing camps. In both the United States and West Germany, there were socialists advocating a politicized interpretation of Ibsen, whereas in Soviet Russia there were also non-Marxist Ibsen critics. The dichotomy of Europe-America and Russia is used only for the sake of convenience in discussion.

  6. 6.

    P. F. D. Tennant, Ibsen’s Dramatic Technique (Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes, 1948), 15–16.

  7. 7.

    Hans Robeert Jauss, Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics. Translated by Michael Shaw (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982a).

  8. 8.

    Toshihiko Sato, “Ibsen and Emancipation of Women in Japan,” Orient/West 9, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1964): 73–74.

  9. 9.

    Ulrich Weisstein, Comparative Literature and Literary Theory: Survey and Introduction, trans. William Riggan (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), 34.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tam, Kk. (2019). Conclusion Chinese Ibsenism in the Politics of Global Literary Reception. In: Chinese Ibsenism. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6303-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics