“更糟糕的怪物”:重新思考玛丽·雪莱的《弗兰肯斯坦》对科马克·麦卡锡的《上帝之子》的影响

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE
Russell M. Hillier
{"title":"“更糟糕的怪物”:重新思考玛丽·雪莱的《弗兰肯斯坦》对科马克·麦卡锡的《上帝之子》的影响","authors":"Russell M. Hillier","doi":"10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a 2008 essay, Ashley Craig Lancaster has demonstrated the principal parallels and divergences between Mary Shelley’s Gothic masterpiece Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (using the 1818 edition) and Cormac McCarthy’s Southern Gothic novel Child of God (1973) in their complementary representations of Shelley’s Monster and McCarthy’s voyeur, necrophile, and murderer Lester Ballard.1 Lancaster proposes that “McCarthy combines the tradition of British Gothicism with the realism of American Gothicism to create an updated version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” (132). According to Lancaster, Shelley and McCarthy’s anti-heroes are rejected by human community, denied companionship, and subjected to a “system of social othering” (133). Ultimately, “Lester becom[es] exactly what the townspeople have always thought of him as, a dangerously degenerate man” (142). Lancaster’s persuasive thesis accords with other interpretations of Child of God which maintain that “the novel seems designed ... to build sympathy for Ballard” (Lang 93; see Ellis 69–112). Notwithstanding, Lancaster overlooks several episodes that not only show the direct influence of Shelley’s work upon McCarthy’s third Appalachian novel, but also indicate McCarthy’s ambitious purpose to draw the reader into imaginative sympathy for Ballard’s plight as Shelley did for her Monster. Two passages McCarthy adapts from Shelley’s Frankenstein intimate Ballard’s moral imagination and his latent capacity for goodness and reformation. In the first passage, Shelley’s Monster delivers an extensive history of his early life to his creator Victor Frankenstein in which he recounts how he placed all his hopes upon being welcomed and socially accepted by a family of cottagers. On beholding the Monster, however, the cottagers are horrified, https://doi.org/10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641","PeriodicalId":42643,"journal":{"name":"EXPLICATOR","volume":"79 1","pages":"104 - 110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Monsters Worse to Come”: A Reconsideration of the Influence of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Upon Cormac McCarthy’s Child of God\",\"authors\":\"Russell M. Hillier\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a 2008 essay, Ashley Craig Lancaster has demonstrated the principal parallels and divergences between Mary Shelley’s Gothic masterpiece Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (using the 1818 edition) and Cormac McCarthy’s Southern Gothic novel Child of God (1973) in their complementary representations of Shelley’s Monster and McCarthy’s voyeur, necrophile, and murderer Lester Ballard.1 Lancaster proposes that “McCarthy combines the tradition of British Gothicism with the realism of American Gothicism to create an updated version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” (132). According to Lancaster, Shelley and McCarthy’s anti-heroes are rejected by human community, denied companionship, and subjected to a “system of social othering” (133). Ultimately, “Lester becom[es] exactly what the townspeople have always thought of him as, a dangerously degenerate man” (142). Lancaster’s persuasive thesis accords with other interpretations of Child of God which maintain that “the novel seems designed ... to build sympathy for Ballard” (Lang 93; see Ellis 69–112). Notwithstanding, Lancaster overlooks several episodes that not only show the direct influence of Shelley’s work upon McCarthy’s third Appalachian novel, but also indicate McCarthy’s ambitious purpose to draw the reader into imaginative sympathy for Ballard’s plight as Shelley did for her Monster. Two passages McCarthy adapts from Shelley’s Frankenstein intimate Ballard’s moral imagination and his latent capacity for goodness and reformation. In the first passage, Shelley’s Monster delivers an extensive history of his early life to his creator Victor Frankenstein in which he recounts how he placed all his hopes upon being welcomed and socially accepted by a family of cottagers. On beholding the Monster, however, the cottagers are horrified, https://doi.org/10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641\",\"PeriodicalId\":42643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EXPLICATOR\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"104 - 110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EXPLICATOR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EXPLICATOR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2008年的一篇文章中,阿什利·克雷格·兰开斯特展示了玛丽·雪莱的哥特式杰作《弗兰肯斯坦》和《科学怪人》之间的主要相似之处和分歧;或者,《现代普罗米修斯》(使用1818年版)和科马克·麦卡锡的南方哥特式小说《上帝之子》(1973年),它们对雪莱的《怪物》和麦卡锡的偷窥狂、恋尸癖和杀人犯莱斯特·巴拉德的互补表现。1兰开斯特提出“麦卡锡将英国哥特式的传统与美国哥特式的现实主义结合起来,创造了玛丽·雪莱的《弗兰肯斯坦》的更新版本”(132)。根据兰开斯特的观点,雪莱和麦卡锡笔下的反英雄被人类社会所排斥,被剥夺了友谊,并受制于“社会他者体系”(133)。最终,“莱斯特变成了镇上的人一直认为的那样,一个危险堕落的人”(142)。兰开斯特令人信服的论点与其他对《上帝之子》的解释一致,这些解释认为“这部小说似乎是被设计……建立对巴拉德的同情”(Lang 93;参见Ellis 69-112)。尽管如此,兰开斯特忽略了几个情节,这些情节不仅显示了雪莱的作品对麦卡锡第三部阿巴拉契亚小说的直接影响,而且表明了麦卡锡雄心勃勃的目的,即像雪莱对《怪物》那样,吸引读者对巴拉德的困境产生想象上的同情。麦卡锡改编自雪莱的《弗兰肯斯坦》的两段文字,揭示了巴拉德的道德想象以及他善良和改革的潜在能力。在第一段中,雪莱的《怪物》向他的创造者维克多·弗兰肯斯坦讲述了他早年的生活,他讲述了他是如何把所有的希望都寄托在被一个村民家庭欢迎和接受上的。然而,一看到怪物,村民们都吓坏了https://doi.org/10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Monsters Worse to Come”: A Reconsideration of the Influence of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Upon Cormac McCarthy’s Child of God
In a 2008 essay, Ashley Craig Lancaster has demonstrated the principal parallels and divergences between Mary Shelley’s Gothic masterpiece Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (using the 1818 edition) and Cormac McCarthy’s Southern Gothic novel Child of God (1973) in their complementary representations of Shelley’s Monster and McCarthy’s voyeur, necrophile, and murderer Lester Ballard.1 Lancaster proposes that “McCarthy combines the tradition of British Gothicism with the realism of American Gothicism to create an updated version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” (132). According to Lancaster, Shelley and McCarthy’s anti-heroes are rejected by human community, denied companionship, and subjected to a “system of social othering” (133). Ultimately, “Lester becom[es] exactly what the townspeople have always thought of him as, a dangerously degenerate man” (142). Lancaster’s persuasive thesis accords with other interpretations of Child of God which maintain that “the novel seems designed ... to build sympathy for Ballard” (Lang 93; see Ellis 69–112). Notwithstanding, Lancaster overlooks several episodes that not only show the direct influence of Shelley’s work upon McCarthy’s third Appalachian novel, but also indicate McCarthy’s ambitious purpose to draw the reader into imaginative sympathy for Ballard’s plight as Shelley did for her Monster. Two passages McCarthy adapts from Shelley’s Frankenstein intimate Ballard’s moral imagination and his latent capacity for goodness and reformation. In the first passage, Shelley’s Monster delivers an extensive history of his early life to his creator Victor Frankenstein in which he recounts how he placed all his hopes upon being welcomed and socially accepted by a family of cottagers. On beholding the Monster, however, the cottagers are horrified, https://doi.org/10.1080/00144940.2021.1951641
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EXPLICATOR
EXPLICATOR LITERATURE-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Concentrating on works that are frequently anthologized and studied in college classrooms, The Explicator, with its yearly index of titles, is a must for college and university libraries and teachers of literature. Text-based criticism thrives in The Explicator. One of few in its class, the journal publishes concise notes on passages of prose and poetry. Each issue contains between 25 and 30 notes on works of literature, ranging from ancient Greek and Roman times to our own, from throughout the world. Students rely on The Explicator for insight into works they are studying.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信