The essays in this book demonstrate the importance of translation and European writing in the development of the Gothic novel. Cross-cultural exchanges occurred with the translation of novels by English writers into French. The book first situates works by British writers and American writers within a European context and legacy. Next, it offers readings of less-known works by Gothic authors. The book introduces the reader to a range of neglected, albeit influential, European Gothic texts which originated in Russian, Spanish, French and German. It argues that the level of ideological manipulation, which occurred as texts were translated, mistranslated, appropriated, misappropriated, altered and adapted from one language to another, was so considerable and so systematic that generic mutations were occasioned. The book suggests that Matthew Lewis's The Monk offers a few models of femininity, all deriving from and intended to disrupt, previous literary representations. It focuses on the automatic and the systematic in Charles Maturin's work in relation to Denis Diderot's contemporary philosophical conceptualizations of consciousness and identity. Gothic treacheries are dealt with through Samuel Coleridge's analysis of misappropriation of Friedrich Schiller's Die Rauber. The book also discusses the representations of ritual violence, as sanctioned by the Catholic Church, in English and Spanish pictorial and literary texts between 1796 and 1834. It talks about the Arabesque narrative technique of embedding tales within tales to create a maze in which even the storyteller becomes lost, reflecting the Eastern notion that the created is more important than the creator.
There is a long non-realist tradition in Nordic literature and film that goes back to the Romantic period. This tradition frequently employs typical Gothic tropes, it seeks to evoke feelings of terror and horror, and it negotiates, as Gothic is understood to do, the complex tension between the human subject and Enlightenment modernity. Due to a striking reluctance by generations of Nordic literary critics and scholarship to recognise a Gothic tradition in the region, it was not until the late 1980s that the existence of Gothic fiction in the
Gothic writing might seem somewhat anomalous. However,
in this chapter I shall argue that Djuna Barnes’s most famous
work, Nightwood, which was written in Europe and published in
1936, engages with Frenchliterature in a number of ways in order to
develop its own transatlantic Gothic agenda. I shall therefore try to
retrieve Djuna Barnes’s Nightwood as a Gothic text and, in
so doing, trace its
Maria Holmgren Troy, Johan Höglund, Yvonne Leffler and Sofia Wijkmark
To understand the emergence and proliferation of Nordic Gothic, this shifting geographical, political and linguistic context must be taken into consideration. The many and shifting political connections between the nations, and especially Denmark's strong ties to Germany, meant that European literature was often read in either German or French in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The language situation within Scandinavia also facilitated dissemination of Nordic literature between the Nordic nations. Gothic in Swedish was easily accessible in parts of
movie Rymdinvasion i Lappland (1959, Terror in the Midnight Sun ), space invaders and a gigantic King-Kong-like monster haunt the icy wastes of northern Sweden. John Carpenter's classic Gothic body-horror movie The Thing (1982), and its 2011 ‘prequel’ using the same title, take place in the Arctic, in neighbouring American and Norwegian research stations. Similarly, Nicholas Feuz's French novel Horrora Borealis (2018) also imagines the very far north of Scandinavia as a site of horror.
The Frankenstein Complex: when the text is more than a text
Dennis R. Cutchins and Dennis R. Perry
past, have addressed important issues and cultural and historical themes such as sexual politics (Picart), race (Young), and literary politics (Baldick). But mythic and topical approaches, as helpful as they have been to Frankenstein studies, usually limit possible meanings by defining carefully circumscribed parameters of text (typically having a clear relationship to Shelley’s novel), genre (primarily literature to film), and criticism (often cultural criticism’s focus on race, gender, and class). But these approaches may not be comprehensive enough to account for
’ (12). Library and bookshop shelves are increasingly filled with graphic adaptations of classics of world literature. Yet, in spite of this long history, adaptations have typically been looked down on, often considered as ‘lesser’ or ‘poorer’ versions of the original. Like Frankenstein’s Creature, ‘adaptation is creativity’s stepchild, always vying for validation, never catching up to its originating source’ (Bryant 47). When adaptation studies first emerged in the 1950s, it was haunted by fidelity criticism that took the source text as an absolute and indisputable
's hard to find anything different said about the animal at first; indeed, in the oldest surviving great story we still have, The Epic of Gilgamesh , lies what must be the first mention of a wolf in all literature, and, as we might expect, it is not favourable. Tablet VI of the epic refers to Gilgamesh rejecting the Goddess Ishtar's advances, reminding her that she once turned a shepherd into a wolf, thus threatening the very flocks he should have been protected.
From the outside, the threat of the wolf is so
performance of which is certainly one of the finest specimens of pantomime acting we remember ever to have witnessed’ (‘Theatre’). In 1826, Cooke also played Frankenstein’s Creature in Le Monstre et le Magicien , a French adaptation by Jean-Toussaint Merle and Antony Béraud staged in Paris.
While the effect that Presumption had on later versions of the story may seem a major loss to some literary scholars, nineteenth-century theatregoers were quite happy with most of the changes that Peake introduced into Frankenstein ’s popular history. 10 As
to be given a complex character that has had deep and long cultural resonances and implications for how wolves have been responded to and treated. I have touched on the notion of an inner ferocity. To that were added the elements of duplicity and treachery and a related evil nature. Out of the wolf humans created the Big Bad Wolf of folklore, legend, story and literature; a humanly created wolf from which wild wolves have not, until recently, and only in some contexts, been able to escape.
Here I will touch on