國立高雄大學圖資館 |

登入

回首頁

The Ethical Self in Mary Shelley's Major Novels.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Ethical Self in Mary Shelley's Major Novels.
作者:	Liang, Huiling.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020
面頁冊數:	274 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-06, Section: A.
附註:	Advisor: Lamb, Julian Mark Cho Lim.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-06A.
標題:	British & Irish literature.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28960509
ISBN:	9798496562829

The Ethical Self in Mary Shelley's Major Novels.
Liang, Huiling.

The Ethical Self in Mary Shelley's Major Novels. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 274 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-06, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong), 2020.

In Shelley scholarship, there has been controversy as to whether Shelley is radical or conservative, feminist or ambivalent towards feminine self-assertion. There has also been disagreement over the extent to which she is critical of key Romantic ideas, especially that of transcendence. This thesis argues that Shelley is neither conventional nor contrarian. It contends that Shelley celebrates a notion of what I call the ethical self: an individual self that is able to maintain an ongoing exchange between opposite yet interrelated aspects of human life, such as freedom and duty, passion and reason, transcendence and domesticity, romance and reality, romance and history. The notion "exchange" is characterised by a kind of tempered or moderate dialecticism, which is concerned with mediating or balancing contrary, yet complimentary aspects of human life through the qualification of one aspect by its contrary. Chapter One focuses on Frankenstein. It argues that Shelley upholds the radical perspective of political monstrosity that attributes human monstrosity to the lack of freedom in society. It also contends that unqualified individual freedom or unqualified moral duty can lead to monstrosity. Moreover, it looks into the role passion plays in the formation of morality, and the disastrous effects of excessive passions. Finally, it explores both the egotistical and humanitarian aspects of Wordsworthian transcendence, P. B. Shelley's notion of transcendence, and Shelley's notion of what I call interconnected transcendence. Chapter Two is about Valperga. It suggests that Euthanasia places morality and humanity above historical circumstances and one's political identity. It also examines Euthanasia's notion of spiritual freedom, and how her freedom is qualified by a sense of duty towards her city-state, and more importantly, towards humanity. Additionally, this chapter explores the ongoing mediation between reason and passion, reason and imagination. Lastly, it probes how Shelley critiques the transcendence the Byronic hero seeks through individual heroism, as well as the Byronic vision of love that transcends morality or humanity. Chapter Three concerns Lodore. It argues that Shelley is critical of the aristocratic code of honour and the practice of dueling. It also contends that Byronic individualism is contradictory and theatrical in the sense that he needs the world to reject the world. This chapter also demonstrates Cornelia's transformation, suggesting that her new feeling of freedom is accompanied by a genuine sense of duty towards her daughter. Furthermore, it explores Fanny's self-affirming dialecticism between independence and duty, and Ethel's, between romance and reality. Chapter Four studies Falkner. It contends that the Byronic Falkner regards life as a self-directing drama in which he plays the role of a rebellious and remorseful hero. Moreover, Falkner's individualistic reading is unqualified by empathetic imagination, whilst Gerard's empathetic reading of Hamlet is unqualified by an awareness of the differences between him and Hamlet. Lastly, this chapter argues that Elizabeth's fidelity is based on her ethical self. This thesis concludes that the notion of the ethical self allows us to see how Shelley qualified and critiqued the ideas she was influenced by, and, in so doing, made them her own.

ISBN: 9798496562829Subjects--Topical Terms:

826995
British & Irish literature.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Shelley, Mary

The Ethical Self in Mary Shelley's Major Novels.
LDR:04386nmm a2200337 4500 001 616511
005 20220513114357.5
008 220920s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798496562829
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28960509
035 $a AAI28960509
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Liang, Huiling. $3 915896
245 1 4 $a The Ethical Self in Mary Shelley's Major Novels.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 274 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-06, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Lamb, Julian Mark Cho Lim.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong), 2020.
520 $a In Shelley scholarship, there has been controversy as to whether Shelley is radical or conservative, feminist or ambivalent towards feminine self-assertion. There has also been disagreement over the extent to which she is critical of key Romantic ideas, especially that of transcendence. This thesis argues that Shelley is neither conventional nor contrarian. It contends that Shelley celebrates a notion of what I call the ethical self: an individual self that is able to maintain an ongoing exchange between opposite yet interrelated aspects of human life, such as freedom and duty, passion and reason, transcendence and domesticity, romance and reality, romance and history. The notion "exchange" is characterised by a kind of tempered or moderate dialecticism, which is concerned with mediating or balancing contrary, yet complimentary aspects of human life through the qualification of one aspect by its contrary. Chapter One focuses on Frankenstein. It argues that Shelley upholds the radical perspective of political monstrosity that attributes human monstrosity to the lack of freedom in society. It also contends that unqualified individual freedom or unqualified moral duty can lead to monstrosity. Moreover, it looks into the role passion plays in the formation of morality, and the disastrous effects of excessive passions. Finally, it explores both the egotistical and humanitarian aspects of Wordsworthian transcendence, P. B. Shelley's notion of transcendence, and Shelley's notion of what I call interconnected transcendence. Chapter Two is about Valperga. It suggests that Euthanasia places morality and humanity above historical circumstances and one's political identity. It also examines Euthanasia's notion of spiritual freedom, and how her freedom is qualified by a sense of duty towards her city-state, and more importantly, towards humanity. Additionally, this chapter explores the ongoing mediation between reason and passion, reason and imagination. Lastly, it probes how Shelley critiques the transcendence the Byronic hero seeks through individual heroism, as well as the Byronic vision of love that transcends morality or humanity. Chapter Three concerns Lodore. It argues that Shelley is critical of the aristocratic code of honour and the practice of dueling. It also contends that Byronic individualism is contradictory and theatrical in the sense that he needs the world to reject the world. This chapter also demonstrates Cornelia's transformation, suggesting that her new feeling of freedom is accompanied by a genuine sense of duty towards her daughter. Furthermore, it explores Fanny's self-affirming dialecticism between independence and duty, and Ethel's, between romance and reality. Chapter Four studies Falkner. It contends that the Byronic Falkner regards life as a self-directing drama in which he plays the role of a rebellious and remorseful hero. Moreover, Falkner's individualistic reading is unqualified by empathetic imagination, whilst Gerard's empathetic reading of Hamlet is unqualified by an awareness of the differences between him and Hamlet. Lastly, this chapter argues that Elizabeth's fidelity is based on her ethical self. This thesis concludes that the notion of the ethical self allows us to see how Shelley qualified and critiqued the ideas she was influenced by, and, in so doing, made them her own.
590 $a School code: 1307.
650 4 $a British & Irish literature. $3 826995
653 $a Shelley, Mary
653 $a Frankenstein
653 $a Valperga
653 $a Lodore
653 $a Falkner
690 $a 0593
710 2 $a The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong). $3 492807
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-06A.
790 $a 1307
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2020
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28960509