No description available.

Den här uppsatsen jämför Mary Shelleys Frankenstein: eller den moderna Prometeus med Kenneth Branaghs film Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein från 1994. Uppsatsens syfte är att se hur vissa av förändringarna från text till film kan spåras till tidigare Frankensteinadaptioner, specifikt Frankenstein och Bride of Frankenstein (1931 respektive 1935) av James Whale, och The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) av Terence Fisher. Undersökningen visar att vissa förändringar som gjorts i tidigare filmer på grund av filmernas samtid och omgivning har blivit en del av den allmänna bilden av Frankensteinberättelsen, och på så vis lever kvar även i senare filmatiseringar. Slutsatsen dras att Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein inte bara är en adaption av Mary Shelleys text, utan kan även ses som en adaption av tidigare filmskapares verk. / This essay compares Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus with Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 film Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The purpose of the essay is to examine how some of the changes from text to film can be traced to earlier Frankenstein adaptations, specifically Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein (1931 and 1935, respectively) by James Whale, and The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) by Terence Fisher. The research shows that certain changes made in earlier films due to the films’ time and place in history have become part of the general image of the Frankenstein story, and thus survive even in later film adaptations. The conclusion is drawn that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not only an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s text, but can also be seen as an adaptation of previous filmmakers’ works.

My thesis researched memory and perception through an examination of surfaces. Acting as skin, boundary, veil, or terrain, the surfaces I created revealed imprints and residues that offered information used to clarify distorted perceptions. I attempted to locate evidence in parts of my body, and in physical matter, that contained a record of history. The work was often site specific, with the wall playing an intrinsic role in the construction of these pieces, made of paper, thread, and wax. Their surfaces referenced landscapes of the earth and of the body, a mental terrain shaped over time by the paths of repetitive thoughts and the steady advance of emotional forces. In the end, the surfaces asked more questions than they could answer, and it was this mystery within the surfaces that I would devote myself to. The work embraced ambiguity, shadows, and what was hidden beneath the surface.

This essay is a feminist analysis of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) that shows how Shelley criticizes society through presenting feminist viewpoints. I argue that Shelley critiques traditional gender roles by punishing characters subscribing to them. Most of the characters conform to traditional gender stereotypes. The male characters are ambitious and self-centered while the female characters are self-sacrificing and docile. The main protagonist Victor Frankenstein represents patriarchal belief and is incapable of any feminine attributes which leads to the demise of everyone he cares for, and himself. The male-only narration emphasizes how insignificant the male characters deem women to be, as they are rarely heard of and most of the time ignored. In the novel, nature is represented as active and feminine, and it punishes or rewards characters in accordance with their actions.

This essay – Discourse and Dissonance – deals with Mary Shelley’s gothic novel Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus (1818). The focal point is the construction of “Them and Us”, as defined by scholars such as Stuart Hall, viewed in terms of the following categories: race, gender and family, class, and sexuality. Rather than applying an outside perspective, e.g. a feminist or Marxist one, to the text, I use Cultural Criticism as described by Arthur Asa Berger in order to deconstruct and reconstruct the discourse, as explained by Michel Foucault, within Shelley’s work. In doing so, I view the hermeneutics of suspicion as the starting point due to its recognition of every text’s hidden truth. Stephen Greenblatt’s term dissonance is useful for the study’s aim of finding the differences and similarities in the voices of the novel’s characters. Intersectionality functions as the tool with which I intertwine the above categories in my analysis.     In conclusion Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus does not convey a message of conformity. Its class-, race- and gender-bound discourse is reproduced in the text, but simultaneously challenged. The dissonant voices of the novel show the discourse from different perspectives and make it obvious that there are cracks on the surface of the discourse, which Shelley deepens by putting it into writing – whether she was aware of it or not.

The aim of this diploma thesis is the comparison of the interpretations of the two novels of English Romanticism: William Godwin?s Caleb Williams (1794) and Mary Shelley?s Frankenstein (1818). It will concentrate on the influence of the tradition of Gothic novels, especially on the motifs of secret, pursuit, crime and self-devision. It will also concentrate on the atmosphere of fear and suspense.

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley and the characters within, tell a prominent story of the posthuman condition in a society where humanist thought is the only conception of subjectivity. The use of not only posthuman studies, but more specifically studies including subjectivity was needed, in order to analyse the relationship between the humanist and the posthuman subjects. Theories of posthuman subjectivity and subjectivity by Rosi Braidotti and Michel Foucault were used in order to examine the posthuman condition of “Frankenstein’s monster” and the role of humanist vs. posthuman subjectivity between Victor Frankenstein and the monster. The tension between Victor and the monster was analysed in order to investigate the monster’s struggle at acquiring subjectivity in a posthuman state, which revealed why it is impossible for the humanist and posthuman subject to peacefully coexist.

This dissertation examines the role of sibling kinship in shaping the poetry, drama, and fiction of English Romanticism (1789-1832). While critics have long associated Romanticism with a myth of solitary authorship and an archetype of isolated genius, I demonstrate that Romantic authors imagined subjectivity in the plural, curating a vision of identity-formation that is collective, shared, multiple, and relational. Embodied in the portrayal of sibling relationships, this inter-subjective paradigm delivers new frameworks for understanding the Romantic self as situated within networks of others—networks of those who are not quite the same yet not quite different; those who are both familiar and yet unknown. My study is the first to present a sustained consideration of the way Romantic writers invoked literary siblinghood as a model for the collaborative and collective nature of selfhood, and I propose that this focus on lateral sibling kinship offers alternatives to the conventional reproductive lenses through which the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth-century family has been previously understood. Drawing from recent work in feminist and queer theory, psychology and psychoanalysis, and sociocultural histories of kinship, this dissertation contributes new readings of canonical texts by Percy Bysshe Shelley, Joanna Baillie, William Wordsworth, Jane Austen, and Mary Shelley. Chapter One considers two stage dramas by P. B. Shelley and Baillie as rewritings of Sophocles’s Antigone. In both plays, sisters use their fraternal-sororal relations to redefine familial systems of reproduction via horizontal means of transmission rather than through vertical lines of biological inheritance. In Chapter Two, I extend this discussion of sibling networks to Wordsworth’s Lyrical Ballads, where, I suggest, we find trans-subjective inter-relations that define the poet’s vision well beyond autobiographical references to his sister Dorothy. Austen’s novels serve as the focus of Chapter Three, which argues that the self-contained “I” of the Bildungsroman genre, as Austen incorporates it, in fact depends upon intimate epistemological exchanges between sororal characters who undergo a mutually influential process of development. Chapter Four concludes with a discussion of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. I suggest that the author critiques her central male protagonist for his failures to recognize how the reciprocity of male-female sibling sympathies underlies homosocial bonds. Taken together, these readings advance a version of Romantic subjectivity based upon lateral integration rather than egotistical solipsism. / 2027-02-28T00:00:00Z

Feminist literary critics have long focused on the female gender role in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. This essay turns instead to the role of fatherhood in Frankenstein. This has been achieved by applying Judith Butler’s feminist theory, the Theory of Performativity, and by examining the different examples of fatherhood in the novel, performing a comparative study whilst applying a historical context. The main point of focus has been to compare the effects, of the existing types of fatherhood in the novel, on family and society, using the Theory of Performativity. This has resulted in the understanding that Frankenstein gives much consideration to the constituents of fatherhood which may represent the most immediate threat to the family as a building block, to the happiness of children, and the improvement of society.

No description available.