相關文獻
- What is the Gothic Novel﹖--A Critical Appraisal
- The Gothic Narrative Syntax
- The Semantic Structure of Gothic Fiction:Transgressive Desire vs. Self-renunciation
- The Spatial Structure of Gothic Fiction: Claustral and Geometrical
- 魏晉志異小說與史學的關係
- Margaret Atwood's The Penelopiad: A Gothic Tale Told from the Past
- 女性讀寫/讀寫女性--女性志異小說與《科學怪人》
- 論晉六朝的志異小說
題 名 | The Semantic Structure of Gothic Fiction:Transgressive Desire vs. Self-renunciation=志異小說的語意結構:踰越的欲望vs.自我棄絕 |
---|---|
作 者 | 陳國榮; |
書刊名 | 國立中正大學學報 |
卷 期 | 8:1(人文分冊) 民86.12 |
頁 次 | 頁381-419 |
分類號 | 823.32 |
關鍵詞 | 志異小說; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 在為志異小說(Gothic fiction)下定義時,多數的批評家皆滿足於將其主題特 徵加以分類而忽視這些特徵所構成之結構。當他們指定一個要素時,他們也賦予這個要素在 志異小說中一個特定的功能與特殊的意義。明顯地,許多主題要素以整個文類的角度加以審 視時卻不能成立。譬如說,傳統上此文類之招牌 -- 古堡,必須改為僧院、修道院、巨邸、 甚至於東方宮殿以容納更多的志異小說。 本文採用托鐸洛夫( Todorov ) 討論怪誕文類( the fantastic )的理論方法把志異小說中的主題建構成一語意架構。這種方法試圖「描述 那已為批評家和讀者之詮釋所孕育的空洞架構」和「表述一種輪廓而非指定一種意義。」因 此,我們可以避免犯下常見的武斷分類之錯誤。這種武斷的分類常「賦予作品中的要素不變 的意義,而忽略它所應融入的整體結構」。在檢視十八世紀後期與十九世紀初期志異小說最 繁盛的時期時,我們可以發現兩種不同而且相對的主題系統把這些小說明顯地介隔開。換言 之,志異小說通常由下列兩種不相容的主題系統之一所操控:踰越的慾望或自我棄絕。每個 主題系統也涵蓋一系列與其相對主題系統的特質。在大多數的例子中,如果前者支配一本志 異小說,那些順從忍受的角色會成為無情、黑暗和邪惡的力量之受害者而且無法得到完全的 改善或補償。如果後者支配,踰越社會或自然規範的角色會被徹底的毀滅。在志異小說的世 界中, 這兩種主題系統的妥協是極其罕見。 本文所用之小說為 -- 路易斯的<修道士> (The Monk),馬特林的<流浪者梅莫斯> (Melmoth the Wanderer), 雪莉的<科學怪人> (Frankenstein) 和芮德克里夫的<憂多坲的秘密> (The Mysteries of Udolpho)。其中兩 本小說為女性作家所寫,兩本為男性作家所寫;兩本出自十八世紀,另兩本出自十九世紀。 |
英文摘要 | In defining Gothic fiction, most critics are content with classifing its thematic elements and pay little attention to the themes as a structural aspect. In specifying an element they seem to grant a definitive function and thus a particular meaning to it within the Gothic genre. Evidently, many thematic elements, when put to test in the larger context of genre, prove untenable. For instance, a castle, the supposed staple of Gothic fiction, may have to be changed to a monastery, an abbey, a mansion, or even an oriental palace to accommodate more Gothic novels. I intend to adopt the theoretical approach Todorov uses in defining the fantastic genre to treat the themes in the Gothic novel as a semantic structure. This approach aims at "the description of that hollow structure impregnated by the interpretations of critics and readers" and tries to "describe a configuration rather than to name a meaning." Consequentially, we can avoid the common mistake of arbitrary classifications, in which "we find the notion of an invariable meaning for each element of the work, independent of the structure in which it will be integrated." In reviewing the major Gothic novels in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a period when this novelistic subgenre flourished, we can see a clear demarcation of two separate and opposite thematic systems among these novels. In other words, Gothic fiction usually shows a predominance by either one of the two incompatible thematic networks or complexes: transgressive desire and self-renunciation. Each thematic complex also entails a list of possibly endless oppositional qualities against the other. In most cases, if the former dominates the course of a Gothic novel, those who practice resignation become downright victims of relentless, dark, and evil forces, and there is no total amelioration or redemption for those who suffer. If the latter dominates, those who transgress social or natural norms will be utterly destroyed. The novels I use to testify these theoretical hypotheses are M. G. Lewis's The Monk, Charles Maturin's Melmoth the Wanderer, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Mrs. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho. |