(100.26.179.251) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/14 08:05
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:徐溥徽
研究生(外文):Pu-hui Hsu
論文名稱:約翰‧傅敖斯《大法師》中作者、讀者、人物和文本之間的對話關係
論文名稱(外文):Dialogic Relations Among the Author, the Reader,the Characters and the Text in John Fowles's The Magus
指導教授:倪碧華倪碧華引用關係王雪美
指導教授(外文):Pi-hua NiHsueh-mei Wang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2003
畢業學年度:91
語文別:英文
論文頁數:92
中文關鍵詞:讀者反應理論閱讀行為中的游移觀點和一致性構築文本的召喚結構隱在的讀者有限制的自由多音小說神的遊戲機運
外文關鍵詞:reader-response theroy“wandering viewpoint”and“synthetizing activity”in the act of reading“response-inviting structure” of the textthe implied readerlimited freedompolyphonic novelgodgamehazard
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:254
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:20
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
許多批評家視約翰‧傅敖斯的《大法師》為「成長小說」,用許多不同的理論包括神密主義、女性主義、心理學、形式主義、以及讀者反應理論廣泛討論。可惜,沒有人對《大法師》中作者、讀者、角色和文本四者間的關係做過仔細的研究。文獻中鮮少探討這四者間的互動以及他們在閱讀和寫作活動中運用自由的情形,也沒分析這四者可運用自由到何種程度。為了處理這些議題,本篇論文以沃夫崗‧依哲的讀者反應理論和約翰‧傅敖斯「有限度的自由」的理念為架構,對《大法師》中作者的「引誘策略」和讀者對此策略的反應做深入探討。
作者、讀者、角色和文本間的對話關係,共有三層結構。第一種是傅敖斯和讀者之間的關係。在這層關係中,傅敖斯不以真正寫小說的作家身份出現,而以「替代作者」(surrogate author)的角色現身;他把小說中主角康其斯(Conchis)和厄夫(Urfe)當作「替代作者」和「替代讀者」(surrogate reader)來代替作者和讀者,主要目的不僅要藉此傳達自己的想法,也希望讀者能瞭解康其斯對厄夫施展的「引誘策略」,並對傅敖斯的替代策略產生共鳴。而讀者在傅敖斯的策略引誘下,領悟了傅敖斯的暗示,觀察並體驗了「替代讀者」的經歷,有能力評斷書中角色的行為,而更進一步闡述《大法師》一書的涵義。第二種結構,也是本論文的重點,是指康其斯和厄夫之間「替代作者」和「替代讀者」的關係。康其斯採用了一些策略如「故事中的故事」、「戲中戲」、和「匿遁」,為了要引誘厄夫加入「神的遊戲」(godgame)。厄夫被陷害加入「神的遊戲」,他一方面感到被騙和挫折,一方面卻領悟到他從前的錯誤而決心要改變成一個懂得「愛」而不是只要「性」的人。第三層結構是傅敖斯和所有書中角色之間的關係。康其斯、愛麗森、茱莉、珺等角色一起提供厄夫模稜兩可、可能真也可能假的情報,引誘厄夫陷入層層謊言的迷惑中,為了使他能瞭解「真相」。當他們這麼做時,一方面吸引厄夫加入「神的遊戲」,一方面當他們互相猜測謊言的真偽時,每個人的說詞正好提供了一種《大法師》的解讀,這種行為就好像是傅敖斯的「替代讀者」一般。所以傅敖斯是「替代作者」,而所有角色都是「替代讀者」。
在依哲的三個論點支持下:「隱在的讀者」、「游移觀點」、「一致性構築」,上述三種互動關係證明了作者、讀者、角色和文本在閱讀過程中皆扮演主動的角色。他們都有表達自己的方式。矛盾的是,他們的聲音互相競爭和影響,因此他們的自由是受到限制的。所以,作者、讀者、角色和文本四者,在享受限制性自由的同時,卻是閱讀和創作《大法師》不可或缺的要角。

Regarded as a Bildungsroman, John Fowes's The Magus has been widely analyzed by different approaches including myth criticism, feminist criticism, psychological criticism, formalist criticism, and reader-response criticism. However, none of these researches does detailed analysis of the relation among the author, the reader, the characters and the text. They neither examine how the four parts communicate with one another and how they exercise their freedom in the processes of reading and writing, nor do they discuss the extent of the freedom the four roles are allowed to exercise. In order to cope with these undealt issues, this thesis focuses on the author’s “politics of seduction” and the reader’s response to it, and supplements the notion of "limited freedom" of the author, the reader, the characters and the text, in the framework of Iser’s reader-response theory and John Fowles’s idea of “limited freedom.”
There are three levels to investigate the dialogic relations among the author, the reader, the characters and the text. The first level is between Fowles and the reader, in which Fowles plays a role as a surrogate author who uses Conchis and Urfe as the “surrogate author” and the “surrogate reader” for the reader in an attempt not only to transmit his discourse but also hopes that the reader realizes the “politics of seduction” used by Conchis on Urfe and makes his response to Fowles’s strategy. Taking the hints from Fowles, watching and experiencing the adventures of the characters, the reader judges the characters’ behaviors and makes interpretation of the text. The second level, also the main part of this thesis, is between Conchis the surrogate author and Urfe the surrogate reader. Conchis employs such techniques of stories within stories, masques and the open-ending to attract Urfe to take part in the “godgame.” Being trapped into the godgame, while Urfe feels cheated and frustrated, he realizes his mistakes and decides to change to a person who can tell love from sex. The third level is between Fowles as the surrogate author and all the characters as the surrogate readers. Conchis, Alison, Julie, June and so on with another kind of politics of seduction offer either true or misleading information to Urfe in order to seduce him to be confused about “lie upon lie” and to see the “truth.” When they do so, they not only attract Urfe to take part in the godgame but also play the role as the surrogate reader when they figure out the implications each other and present one perspective of The Magus. In other words, all the characters are Fowles’s surrogate readers.
With the support of Iser’s theory of “implied reader,” “wandering viewpoint,” and “synthetizing activity,” the three kinds of interplay mentioned above illustrate that the author, the reader, the characters and the text all play active roles in the reading process. They have their own ways to express their discourses and ideas. Paradoxically, their voices influence and contend with one another, and their freedom is thus limited. In consequence, the author, the reader, the characters and the text, sharing limited freedom, are indispensable roles in reading and writing The Magus.

Table of Contents
Chapter One Introduction……………………………………………1
Chapter Two “Theaters Without an Audience”……………………21
I. The Implied Reader and the Meaning
Production………………………………………25
II. Wandering Viewpoint and Synthetizing
Activity…………………………………………28
III. The Interplay Between the Reader and
the Author………………………………………31
IV. The“Implied Reader”in The Magus…………32
V. John Fowles’s Idea of“Limited
Freedom”………………………………………39
VI. Paradoxical Limited Freedom in The
Magus……………………………………………43
Chapter Three Politics of Seduction………………………………47
I. The Surrogate Author’s Politics of
Seduction…………………………………………48
II.The Surrogate Reader’s Response…………65
III. All the Characters are the“Surrogate
Readers”of Fowles……………………………75
Chapter Four Conclusion……………………………………………78
I. The Design of the Godgame……………………79
II. Reading The Magus as an Act of Writing a
Polyphonic Novel…………………………82
Selected Bibliography…………………………………………………86

Selected Bibliography
Acheson, James. “The Magus.” Modern Novelists: John
Fowles. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. 19-32.
Aubrey, James R. John Fowles: A Reference Companion. New York
and London: Greenwood, 1991.
Barnum, Carol M. “The Magus: The Pattern of the Hero’s
Quest.” The Fiction of John Fowles: A Myth for Our
Time. Greenwood: Penkevill, 1988. 9-37.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and
Trans. Caryl Emerson. Intro. Wayne C. Booth. Minneapolis
and London: Minnesota UP, 1984.
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Images-Music-
Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang,
1977. 142-8.
Begiebing, Robert J. “John Fowles: The Magician as
Teacher.” Toward a New Synthesis: John Fowles, John
Gardner, Norman Mailer. Ann Arbor and London: UMI, 1989.
17-50.
Berets, Ralph. “The Magus: A Study in the Creation of a
Personal Myth.” Twentieth Century Literature 19 (1973):
89-98.
Binns, Ronald. “A New Version of The Magus.” Critical
Essays on John Fowles. Ed. Ellen Pifer. Boston: Hall,
1986. 100-5.
Billy, Ted. “Homo Solitarius: Isolation and Estrangement in
The Magus.” Research Studies 48 (1980): 129-41.
Boccia, Michael. “‘Visions and Revision’: John Fowles’s
New Version of The Magus.” Journal of Modern Literature
8 (1980-81): 235-46.
Borges, Jorge Luis. Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other
Writings. Ed. Donald A. Yates and James E. Irby. New
York: New Directions, 1964.
Bouille, Lucien Le. “John Fowles: Looking for Guidelines.”
Journal of Modern Literature 8 (1980-81): 203-10.
Campbell, James. “An Interview with John Fowles.”
Contemporary Literature 17 (1976): 455-69.
Conradi, Peter. “The Magus.” John Fowles. London and New
York: Methuen, 1982. 42-57.
Cooper, Pamela. “The Magus.” The Fictions of John Fowles:
Power, Creativity, Femininity. Fwd. Linda Hutcheon.
Ottawa and Paris: Ottawa UP, 1991. 51-102.
Dallenbach, Lucien. The Mirror in the Text. Trans.
Jeremy Whiteley and Emma Hughes. Oxford: Polity, 1989.
Eddins, Dwight. “John Fowles: Existence as Authorship.”
Critical Essays on John Fowles. Ed. Ellen Pifer. Boston:
G. K., 1986. 38-54.
Fawkner, H. W. The Timescapes of John Fowles. Fwd. John
Fowles. London and Toronto: Associated UP, 1984.
Fleishman, Avrom. “The Magus of the Wizard of the West.”
Critical Essays on John Fowles. Ed. Ellen Pifer. Boston:
Hall, 1986. 77-92.
Foster, Thomas C. “The Magus.” Understanding John Fowles.
Columbia: South Carolina UP, 1994. 38-66.
Fowles, John. Aristos. London: Picador, 1993.
---. “Behind The Magus.” Twentieth Century Literature 42.1
(1996): 58-68.
---. The Magus: A Revised Version. New York: Laurel, 1985.
---. “Why I Rewrote The Magus.” Critical Essays on John
Fowles. Ed. Ellen Pifer. Boston: Hall, 1986. 93-
99.
Freund, Elizabeth. The Return of the Reader: Reader-Response
Criticism. London and New York: Methuen, 1987.
Hassan, Ihab. The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory
and Culture. Ohio: Ohio State UP, 1987.
Halpern, Daniel. “A Sort of Exile in Lyme Regis.” London
Magazine March (1971): 34-46.
Hill, Roy Mack. “Power and Hazard: John Fowles’s Theory of
Play.” Journal of Modern Literature 3 (1980-81): 211-
18.
Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in
Culture. London: Routledge, 1949.
Huffaker, Robert. “The Magus.” John Fowles. Boston:
Twayne, 1980. 44-72.
Hutcheon, Linda. Narcissistic Narrative: The Metafictional
Paradox. London and New York: Routledge, 1980.
---. The Politics of Postmodernism. London and New York:
Routledge, 1989.
Holmes, Frederick M. “Art, Truth, and John Fowles’s The
Magus.” Modern Fiction Studies 3 (1985): 45-56.
---. “The Novelist as Magus: John Fowles and the Function of
Narrative.” Dalhousie Review 68 (1988): 288-301.
Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction.
London and New York: Methuen, 1984.
Hsieh, Corina Feng-yu. “Time and Narrative in John Fowles’s
The Magus.” M.A. Thesis. Fu Jen Catholic University,
1993.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic
Response. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980.
---. The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary
Anthropology. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP,
1993.
---. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose
Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore and London:
Johns Hopkins UP, 1974.
---. “Interview with Te-hsin Shan.” Chung-Wai Literary
Monthly. 20.9 (1992): 153-70.
---. “The Play of the Text.” Language of the Unsayable: The
Play of Negativity in Literature and Literary Theory. Ed.
Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser. New York: Columbia UP,
1989. 325-39.
---. Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary
Anthropology. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP,
1993.
Kane, Richard C. “Greek Gothic: The Magus.” Iris Murdoch,
Muriel Spark, and John Fowles: Didactic Demons in Modern
Fiction. London and Toronto: Associated UP, 1988. 120-49.
Kerry, McSweeney. “John Fowles’s Variations.” Four
Contemporary Novelists: Angus Wilson, Brian Moore, John
Fowles V.S. Naipaul. London: McGill-Queen's UP, 1983.
101-50.
Lee, Li-feng. “The Aporia of Nicholas Urfe: Individuality,
Sexuality and Textuality in John Fowles’s The Magus.”
M.A. Thesis. National Chengchi University, 1996.
Lindroth, James R. “The Architecture of Revision: Fowles and
the Agora.” Modern Fiction Studies 31.1 (1985): 57-69.
Lorenz, Paul H. “Heraclitus Against the Barbarians: John
Fowles’s The Magus.” Twentieth Century Literature 42.1
(1996): 69-87.
Loveday, Simon. “The Magus.” The Romances of John Fowles.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. 29-47.
Ma, Chien-chun. “The Godgame: Myth and Metaphor in John
Fowles’s The Magus.” Soochow Journal of Foreign
Language and Literature 11 (1996): 137-62.
McDaniel, Ellen. “The Magus: Fowles’s Tarot Quest.”
Critical Essays on John Fowles. Ed. Ellen Pifer. Boston:
Hall, 1986. 106-17.
---. “Games and Godgames in The Magus and The French
Lieutenant’s Woman.” Modern Fiction Studies 31.1
(1985): 31-42.
McHale, Brian. Postmodernist Fiction. New York and London:
Methuen, 1987.
Mepham, John. “Narratives of Postmodernism.” Postmodernism
and Contemporary Fiction. Ed. Edmund J. Smyth. London:
Batsford, 1991. 138-55.
Merivale, Patricia. “Learning the Hard Way: Gothic Pedagogy
in the Modern Romantic Quest.” Comparative Literature
36.2 (1984): 146-61.
Nadeau, Robert L. “Fowles and Physics: A Study of The Magus A
Revised Version.” Journal of Modern Literature 8 (1980-
81): 261-74.
Neary, John. “Self and the Other in Two Bildungsromane: The
Centaur and The Magus.” Something and Nothingness: The
Fiction of John Updike & John Fowles. Carbondale and
Edwardsville: South Illinois UP, 1992. 103-43.
Onega, Susana. “The Magus.” Form and Meaning in the Novels
of John Fowles. Ann Arbor and London: UMI, 1989. 35-68.
---. “Self, World, and Art in the Fiction of John Fowles.
Twentieth Century Literature 42.1 (1996): 29-56.
Robinson, Robert. “Giving the Reader a Choice─A Conversation
with John Fowles.” Listener 31 October (1974): 584.
Rosenau, Pauline Marie. “Abandoning the Author, Transforming
the Text, and Re-Orienting the Reader.” Post-modernism
and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and
Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1992. 25-41.
Rubenstein, Roberta, “Myth, Mystery, And Irony: John Fowles’s
The Magus.” Contemporary Literature 16 (1975): 328-39.
Runyon, Randolph. “Fowles’s Enigma Variations.” Fowles /
Irving / Barthes: Canonical Variations on an Apocryphal
Theme. Miami: Ohio UP, 1981. 3-36.
Salami, Mahmoud. “Introduction: The Literary Theory of
Narrative and John Fowles’s Fiction.” John Fowles’s
Fiction and the Poetics of Postmodernism. London and
Toronto: Associated UP, 1992. 13-45.
---. “The Magus: The Godgame and the Politics of
Seduction.” John Fowles’s Fiction and the Poetics of
Postmodernism. London and Toronto: Associated UP, 1992.
73-104.
Singh, Raman K. “An Encounter with John Fowles.” Journal of
Modern Literature 8 (1980-81): 181-202.
Sun, Ya-hsuan. “Pirandellian Narrative Structures and
Metatheater in John Fowles’s The Magus.” M.A. Thesis.
National Taiwan Normal University, 2000.
Tarbox, Katherine. “The Magus.” The Art of John Fowles.
Athens and London: Georgia UP, 1988. 11-38.
Tompkins, Jane P., ed. Reader-Response Criticism: From
Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Baltimore and London:
Johns Hopkins UP, 1980.
Wade, Cory. “‘Mystery Enough at Noon’: John Fowles’s
Revision of The Magus.” The Southern Review 15 (1979):
716-23.
Wainwright, J. A. “The Illusion of ‘Things as they are’:
The Magus versus The Magus A Revised Version.” Dalhousie
Review 63 (1983): 107-19.
Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-
Conscious Fiction. London and New York: Routledge, 1984.
---. Practising Postmodernism, Reading Modernism. New York:
Arnold, 1992.
Wight, Douglas A., and Kenneth B. Grant. “Theatrical
Deception: Shakespearean Allusion in John Fowles’s The
Magus: A Revised Version.” University of Dayton Review
18.3 (1987): 85-93.
Wolfe, Peter. John Fowles, Magus and Moralist. 2nd and rev.
ed. London: Associated UP, 1979.
Woodcock, Bruce. “Masculinity on Trial: The Magus.” Male
Mythologies: John Fowles and Masculinity. Brighton:
Harvester; Totowa: Barens & Noble Books, 1984. 45-80.
Yang, Che-ming. “Mapping a Poetics of Postmodernism:
Metafiction and Parody.” Ph.D. Diss. National Taiwan
Normal University, 1998.
Yu, David Ming-cheng. “Reading as an Interpretative Approach:
A Comparative Study of Wolfgang Iser’s Reading Theory and
Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology.” Journal of
Humanities, Providence University 3 July (1996): 141-55.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔