本論文探討詹姆士˙鮑德溫的小說《喬凡尼的房間》中之「酷異空間」及其呈現。文中援引茱蒂斯˙哈伯斯坦之「酷異時間及酷異空間」理論深入探究小說裡某些特定空間，並且以酷兒化的方式重新閱讀，以便提供另一了解小說中主角—大衛，以及使其困擾的性、兩難的抉擇，和對人生產生之矛盾心態的切入點。過往之學術探討泰半專注於將大衛解釋為雙性戀角色，認為他無法安定下來並且經營一段長穩的關係，甚至將其猶豫不決以及最終喬凡尼之死與荷拉的離去歸咎於大衛雙性戀的性取向。然而本論文將藉由探討大衛與其出入之空間的關係，試著開啟另一種了解大衛以及小說中悲劇結局的可能。這些空間之所以被閱讀為酷異空間並非只因其中某些空間為酷兒們聚集的場所，它們其實還具有非正常之特質。當大衛置身卅切換於這些不同空間時，他對於被同化成酷兒一份子的潛在恐懼被空間裡呈現的非正常性激起，然而當抽離這些酷異空間時，大衛旋即又想起身為異性戀該負起的人生責任及義務，並且再次厭惡異性戀那一成不變且幾近靜止的生活。藉由將這些空間閱讀為酷異空間，本論文期望能夠將這些空間的呈現以及它們潛在且對大衛造成的形塑力量作為了解大衛這個角色的另一種可能性，而非只是將之視為一種性向的代表。同時，本文也希望能夠補充過去學術文獻中未被探討的部份，更期望能夠吸引並開展未來更多的討論。 This thesis discusses “queer spaces” presented in James Baldwin’s novel Giovanni’s Room (1956). Following Judith Halberstam’s concept of “queer time and queer space,” this thesis explores and exemplifies particular spaces within the novel and queerly re-reads them so as to achieve an alternative in understanding the protagonist, David, his troubled sexuality, dilemma and ambivalence toward his decisions in life. As most of the previous scholarly attention focuses on defining David as a bisexual character who couldn’t get settled down and involved in a long-term relationship, and even attributes his indecisiveness and the eventual tragedy of Giovanni’s death and Hella’s departure to his bisexuality, this thesis will try to shed a new light on the understanding of David and the tragic ending through his relationship with the spaces he gets involved in and other related spaces. These spaces will be read as queer spaces not only because some of them serve as places of queer constellations, but because they feature non-normative characteristics. When David situates himself in queer spaces, his innate fear of being assimilated to queerness is aroused as a result of the non-normativity that permeates those spaces, and once he gets out of these queer spaces, he would soon be reminded of his heterosexual obligations and again loathe the static life mode of heterosexuality. Through reading these spaces as queer spaces, it is hoped that their representations and potential shaping power on David can serve as an alternative in understanding David as a character instead of as a representation of sexual identity only, and at the same time complement what has been missing from the previous scholarly attention, and open up possible future discussions.
