瑪麗．雪梨及其創作:再探<<科學怪人>>之文學地位

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：4

、訪客IP：3.16.207.145

姓名

沈文(Wen Shen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

英美語文學系

論文名稱

瑪麗．雪梨及其創作:再探<<科學怪人>>之文學地位
(Mary Shelley and Her Progeny: Retrieving the Literary Status of Frankenstein)

相關論文

★ 霍桑小說中的罪與同情	★ 弦外之音：惠特曼詩中的超越觀
★ 梭羅理想與現實之探討	★ 愛默生對自然與社會之超越觀
★ 博愛世界的願景:雪萊作品中理想與現實的探討	★ Trust and Trustworthiness in Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge
★ 奧斯卡王爾德作品中的自由美學	★ 野蠻的吶喊：惠特曼作品中的自然、博愛及普世
★ ?白鯨記?中浪漫主義與喀爾文教義之調和	★ 《簡愛》中的傳統與革新之研究
★ Tragic View of Life in Thomas Hardy′s Three Novels	★ 柯勒律治詩作研究：愛的概念體現
★ 擺盪於理想與現實之間: 羅伯特‧布朗寧詩選之研究	★ 建造空中樓閣:《湖濱散記》中梭羅的改革理念探討
★ Isabel Archer as a “Fortune-Hunter” in The Portrait of a Lady	★ A Study of Nature and God in Coleridge′s Poetry

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本篇論文旨在重新定位瑪麗．雪梨在文壇中地位。瑪麗．雪梨年僅十八歲即開始著手並完成<<科學怪人>>這部廣為人知的科幻小說。如此年輕且具有才華，瑪麗．雪梨應於當時享有盛名；然其年紀與性別使當時的批評家對於她及其著作皆給予負面評價，批評<<科學怪人>>不過是一本抄襲前人著作及想法的小說。為反駁該項指控，本篇論文詳細探討威廉．高德溫之小說Caleb Williams與盧梭所提出之自然人(natural man)論述對<<科學怪人>>之影響，目的在於審視三人作品之異同，更進一步闡述瑪麗．雪梨如何超越前人影響，完成這部膾炙人口的著作。
本論文第二章探討高德溫與瑪麗．雪梨之關聯性。對照Caleb Williams與<<科學怪人>>，二部作品確實有諸多相似處，但是後者在敘述技巧及思想內涵方面的成就，頗有青出於藍而勝於藍的態勢，如旁白觀點、探索之的主題及旁白的可信度等。第三章則討論盧梭「自然人」（natural man）的看法，及其如何影響<<科學怪人>>中的角色刻畫，並從二部作品間之相似及相異點闡明瑪麗．雪梨如何超越盧梭之影響。
第四章以T.S. Eliot所撰之觀點，探討瑪麗．雪梨對文學的貢獻。按Eliot的理論，瑪麗．雪梨的才華在於融合前人想法於自己的創作中，並超越了前人之影響，為未來的文壇發展開拓出多樣的可能性。

摘要(英)

This thesis aims to reinvigorate Mary Shelley’s position as a writer in the literary arena. At eighteen Mary Shelley produced her masterpiece Frankenstein. Accomplishing such a feat at so early an age she should be recognized as a distinguished writer; however, because of her sex and age she was relentlessly attacked by critics. Instead of seeing the merits of her adapting the works of fellow writers into her work, critics criticized Frankenstein as merely a creative rewrite of others’ works. To rebuke these criticisms, this thesis closely examines the influence of William Godwin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau over Frankenstein and then compares the differences between their works and Frankenstein as a means to demonstrate Mary Shelley’s prowess as a writer.
The second chapter of the thesis investigates the connection between William Godwin and Mary Shelley. By comparing the narrative techniques, themes and reliability of the narrators in Frankenstein and Caleb Williams, the chapter demonstrates how Mary Shelley has surpassed her parental heritage by skillfully implementing her ideas on top of her father’s influence. Then the third chapter inspects Mary Shelley’s adaptation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion of the natural man and natural education in Frankenstein. By tracing the differences between the two authors’ conception of natural education, the chapter reveals how Mary Shelley manages to reconstruct her version of the natural man in her novel and at the same time to criticize Rousseau both personally and philosophically. The final chapter reiterates the accomplishments of Mary Shelley by referring to T. S. Eliot’s idea of the interrelatedness of all texts as expressed in his “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” According to Eliot’s theory, Mary Shelley’s literary talent lies in her capability to relate her work to earlier works in the tradition while at the same time opening up new possibilities for future literary creation and criticism.

關鍵字(中)

★ 瑪麗．雪梨
★ <
★ <
★ 科學怪人>
★ >

關鍵字(英)

★ Mary Shelley
★ Frankenstein

論文目次

Chapter One Introduction ................................................................................... 1
Chapter Two Transcending Parental Heritage: A Comparison between Frankenstein and Caleb Williams ................................................ 13
Chapter Three Surpassing the Rousseauean Influence: Mary Shelley’s Reconstruction of the Natural Man ............................................ 41
Chapter Four Conclusion ................................................................................. 66

參考文獻

Works Cited
Abott, Porter H. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. 67-104.
[Anonymous]. ”The Anniversary.” Knight’s Quarterly Magazine 3 (1984): 197.
Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstriosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1987. 36.
Bennett, Betty T. "Finding Mary Shelley in Her Letters" Romantic Revisions. Ed. Robert Brinkley and Keith Hanley. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.
Blumberg, Jane. Mary Shelley's Early Novels: "This Child of Imagination and Misery." Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1993. 21- 48.
Clair, William St. The Godwins and the Shelleys: The Biography of a Family. London: Faber & Faber, 1989. 366.
Clemit, Pamela. "From The Fields of Fancy to Matilda." Mary Shelley in Her Times. Ed. Betty T. Bennett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2003. 140.
---. The Godwinian Novel: The Rational Fictions of Godwin, Brockden Brown, Mary Shelley. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1993.
Corker, John. “[Review of] Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus.” Quarterly Review 18 (1981): 379-85.
Dent, N. J. H. Rousseau. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1988. 15.
---. The Blackwell Philosopher Dictionaries. A Rousseau Dictionary. Cambridge: Blackwell. 1992.
Eliot. T. S. “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent Leitch. New York: Norton, 2001. 1092-98.
Fisch, Audrey A., Anne K. Mellor, and Esther H. Schorr, eds. The Other Mary Shelley: Beyond "Frankenstein". New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
Godwin, William. An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. 1793. Ed. K. Codell Carter. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1971.
--- Caleb Williams. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview, 2000.
Grylls, Glynn R. Mary Shelley: A Biography. London: Oxford UP, 1938.
Harwood, Berthold Schoene, ed. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: A Reader’s Guide to Essential Criticism. Cambridge: Icon Books, 2000.
Israel, Jonathan I. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity. Oxford UP, 2002. 171.
Levine, George and U. C. Knoepflmacher, eds. The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley's novel. Berkeley: U of California P, 1979.
Masters, Roger D. The Political Philosophy of Rousseau. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1976. 17.
Mellor, Anne K. Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. London: Routledge, 1990. 220-30.
Moers, Ellen, “Female Gothic” in Literary Women. Garden City, NY.: Doubleday, 1976. 94.
O’Rourke, James. “Nothing More Unnatural: Mary Shelley’s Revision of Rousseau.” Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1989. 543-69. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from JSTOR.
Polkinghorne, Donald E. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State U of New York P, 1988.
Poovey, Mary. “My Hideous Progeny: Mary Shelley and the Feminization of Romanticism.” PMLA 95 (1980): 332-47. [Reprinted in Bloom 1987, 81-106.]
Robinson, Cedric J. The Terms of Order: Political Science and the Myth of Leadership. SUNY Press. 1980. 171.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile or On Education. Ed. Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1979.
Schor, Esther, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.
Schug, Charles. “The Romantic Form of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1977.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. Ed. Susan J. Wolfson. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007.
Smith, Johanna M. "A Critical History of Frankenstein." Frankenstein: Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.
Starobinski, Jean. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Transparency and Obstruction. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1988. 157.
Sunstein, Emily W. Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1991.
Tracy, Ann B. The Gothic Novel 1790-1830 Plot Summaries and Index to Motifs. Kentucky: UP of Kentucky, 1981.14.

指導教授

郭章瑞(Chang-jui Kuo)

審核日期

2010-7-28

推文