臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在論文中，我主張維克多‧法蘭克斯坦是位活在維多莉亞時期 這極為重視婚姻及家庭生活並恐同社會下的一名同性戀者，而這異 性戀價值觀為準的社會使維克多承受過大的壓力，並使他創造出另 一個自我─怪物，進而犯下所有小說中的謀殺案，當然也包括最後 他因過度絕望而自殺。
於論述過程，首先藉由小說和電影改編來檢視怪物的形象和型 體。如此一來，也證明怪物本真實存在的觀點。接下來透過小說本 身對於維克多和怪物形體許多模糊不清的敘述，以及小說和電影呈 現維克多和怪物語言使用的重疊性進一步證實法蘭克斯坦和怪物實 為單一個體。
於結論中，我闡述小說中謀殺案的動機是出於維克多長期壓抑 其同性戀的結果，於此，我主張在維多莉亞時期，維克多‧法蘭克 斯坦為一名單一異性戀價值觀的受害者，同時也是犯下所有謀殺案 的兇手。

The thesis provides a queer reading of Mary Shelley’s well known novel Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by scrutinizing the text and the comparison among the film adaptations, including Frankenstein (1910), Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), The Frankenstein Theory (2013), I, Frankenstein (2014), and the latest film adaptation Victor Frankenstein (2015).
In the thesis, I argue that Victor Frankenstein is a homosexual living in the Victorian era when the homophobic society vastly values domestic life and marriage. The heteronormative society distresses Victor so much that he creates the monster as his alter ego and commits all the murders, including killing himself due to desperation in the end.
To make such claim, I examine the monster representation and physiognomy first to present how the novel and film adaptations construct the image of the monster. In so doing, I also prove the common belief on the monster’s physical existence. Then I move forward to examine some ambiguous passages describing Victor and the monster both in the novel and film adaptations. Not only the physiognomy but also does the overlapping language use of Victor and the monster enable us to conclude that Victor and the monster is in fact the same unity. Finally, I explain the murder cases based upon Victor’s homosexuality which has been repressed to a certain extent until he could not bear it anymore and commits the crime. Victor Frankenstein, as I contend, is both a victim and murderer in the Victorian era.

Table of Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………1
Chapter I: Physiognomy ………………………………………………………………………31
Chapter II: Double and Uni ………………………………………………………………..50
Chapter III: (The) Murdering Victor ………………………………………………74
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………….104
Works Cited …………………………………………………………………………………………….119

Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.
Bride of Frankenstein. Dir. James Whale. Perf. Boris Karloff, and Elsa
Lanchester. Universal Pictures, 1935. Film.
Bugg, John. “’Master of their language’: Education and Exile in Mary
Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Huntington Library Quarterly 68.4 (2005):
655-666. JSTOR. Web. 10 Aug. 2015.
Edward, R.. Life before birth: Reflections on the embryo debate. London:
Hutchinson, 1989. Print.
Fantastic Four. Dir. Josh Trank. 20th Century Fox, 2015. Film.
Feder, Helena. “’A blot upon the earth’: Nature’s ‘Negative’ and the
Production of Monstrosity in Frankenstein.” Journal of Ecocriticism
2.1 (2010): 55-66. EBSCO.
Frankenstein. Dir. J. Searle Dawley. Edison Manufacturing Company, 1910.
Film.
Garrad, Greg. Ecocriticism. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.
Haggerty, George E.. “’Dung, Guts and Blood’: Sodomy, Abjection and
Gothic Fiction in the Early Nineteenth Century.” Gothic Studies 8.2
(2006): 35-51. EBSCO.
Heffernan, James A. W.. “Looking at the Monster: Frankenstein and Film.”
Critical Inquiry 24.1 (1997): 133-158. JSTOR. Web. 03 Aug. 2015.
I, Frankenstein. Dir. Stuart Beattie. Lionsgate, 2014. Film.
Juengel, Scott J.. “Face, Figure, Physiognomics: Mary Shelley’s
Frankenstein and the Moving Image.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction 33.3
(2000): 353-376. EBSCO.
London Bette. “Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the Spectacle of
Masculinity.” PMLA 108.2 (1993): 253-267. JSTOR. Web. 03 Aug.
2015.
Malchow, H. L.. “Frankenstein’s Monster and Images of Race in
Nineteenth-Century Britain.” Past & Present 139 (1993): 90-130.
JSTOR. Web. 10 Aug. 2015.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. TriStar Picturs, 1994.
Film.
Mulkay, Michael. “Frankenstein and the Debate over Embryo Research.”
Science, Technology, & Human Values 21.2 (1996): 157-176. JSTOR.
Web. 03 Aug. 2015.
O’Flinn, Paul. “Production and Reproduction: The Case of Frankenstein.”
The Horror Reader. Ed. Ken Gelder. London: Routledge, 2000. Print.
Petshe, Jackson. “An Already Alienated Animality: Frankenstein as a
Gothic Narrative of Carnivorism.” Gothic Studies 16.1 (2014): 98-110.
EBSCO.
Phillips, Bill. “Frankenstein and Mary Shelley’s ‘Wet Ungenial Summer.’”
Atlantics 28.2 (2006): 59-68. EBSCO.
Picart, Caroline Joan S.. “Visualizing the Monstrous in Frankenstein Films.”
Pacific Coast Philology 35.1 (2000): 17-34. JSTOR. Web. 03 Aug.
2015.
Poovey, Mary. “My Hideous Progency: Mary Shelley and the Feminization
of Romanticism.” PMLA 95.3 (1980): 332-347. JSTOR. Web. 10 Aug.
2015.
Rose, Ellen Cronan. “Custody Battles: Reproducing Knowledge about
Frankenstein.” New Literary History 26.4 (1995): 809-832. JSTOR.
Web. 03 Aug. 2015.
Schmid, Thomas H.. “Addiction and Isolation in Frankenstein: A Case of
Terminal Uniqueness.” Gothic Studies 11.2 (2009): 19-29. EBSCO.
Web. 03 Aug. 2015.
Schor, Esther. “Frankenstein and film.” The Cambridge Companion to Mary
Shelley. Ed. Schor. Cambridge UP, 2003. 63-83. Print.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male
Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia UP, 1985. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. New York: Modern
Library, 1999. Print.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
New York: Vintage Books, 1991. Print.
The Frankenstein Theory. Dir. Andrew Weiner. Image Entertainment, 2013.
Film.
The Imitation Game. Dir. Morten Tyldum. Perf. Benedict Cumberbatch,
Keira Knightley, and Matthew Goode. Studio Canal, 2014. Film.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Dir. Stephen Norrington. 20th
Century Fox, 2013. Film.
Victor Frankenstein. Dir. Paul McGuigan. 20th Century Fox, 2015. Film.
Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972. Print.
Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. London: Penguin Group, 2012.
Print.
Young, Elizabeth. “Here Comes the Bride: Wedding Gender and Race in
Bride of Frankenstein.” Feminist Studies 17.3 (1991): 403-437. JSTOR.
Web. 03 Aug. 2015.