Frankenstein As A Case of Rewriting
Merve Sevtap Süren, Arsun Uras“Rewriting” has been associated with different concepts such as “intertextuality”, “hypertextuality” and “adaptation” in various fields of study whereas in Translation Studies it has mostly been viewed within the context of “interlingual translation”. The purpose of this article is to explore the concept and different dimensions of “rewriting” within the scope of Translation Studies. For this purpose, the novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by English author Mary Shelley has been selected as the corpus because it presents five different forms of rewriting in itself. After referring to these different examples of rewriting, the rewritten 1831 version of Frankenstein, which was first published in 1818, will be analyzed as an “ideological” rewriting, in light of the views of André Lefevere on the concept. The hints of this ideological rewriting will be traced in the author’s biography, and then 1818 and 1831 versions of the text will be studied comparatively. Making use of this textual and discursive data and providing thematic commentaries, our descriptive study will attempt to reveal the personal and social ideology behind the rewriting. As a result of this descriptive study, the rewritten 1831 version of Frankenstein will be reckoned as Mary Shelley’s rewriting of her own authorial image. In the examples where the texts are rewritten by their own authors, these rewritings might be utilized as “image construction tools” and/or “ideologization processes”, thus we conclude that they should be viewed as “the rewritings of the authorial images”.
Bir Yeniden Yazım Örneği Olarak Frankenstein
Merve Sevtap Süren, Arsun UrasYeniden yazım farklı alanlarda “metinlerarasılık” (intertextuality), “metinselaşkınlık” (hypertextuality), “uyarlama” (adaptation) gibi kavramlarla ilişkilendirilerek ele alındığı kadar, çeviribilim alanında da incelenen ve daha çok “dillerarası çeviri” (interlingual translation) bağlamında değerlendirilen bir kavramdır. Yeniden yazımı tüm bu farklı boyutlarıyla çeviribilim alanında irdelemeyi amaçlayan bu çalışmada beş farklı yeniden yazım örneği sunması bakımından bütünce olarak İngiliz yazar Mary Shelley’nin Frankenstein ya da Modern Prometheus eserinden yararlanılmıştır. Bu bütüncenin sağladığı farklı yeniden yazım biçimlerine değinildikten sonra, ilk kez 1818’de basılan Frankenstein’ın kendi yazarı tarafından yeniden yazılmış 1831 versiyonu André Lefevere’in “yeniden yazım” üzerine yaptığı çalışmalar ışığında “ideolojik” bir yeniden yazım olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu ideolojik yeniden yazımın izleri önce yazarın biyografisinde sürülmüş, daha sonra Frankenstein’ın 1818 ve 1831 metinleri karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Bütüncedeki metinsel ve söylemsel verilerden yola çıkarak tematik açıklamalarla yeniden yazımın ardındaki bireysel ve toplumsal ideolojiyi betimleyen bir çözümleme gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu incelemenin sonucunda Frankenstein’ın 1831’deki yeniden yazımı, Mary Shelley’nin “yazar imgesinin yeniden yazımı” olarak ele alınmıştır. Bir metnin aynı yazar tarafından yeniden yazıldığı örneklerde bir imge kurgulama aracı ya da bir ideolojileştirme işlemi olarak görülebilecek yeniden yazımlar “yazarın imgesinin yeniden yazımı” olarak değerlendirilmiştir.
“Rewriting” has been associated with different concepts such as “intertextuality”, “hypertextuality” and “adaptation” in various fields of study, whereas in Translation Studies it has mostly been viewed within the context of “interlingual translation”. The purpose of this article is to explore the concept and different dimensions of “rewriting” within the scope of Translation Studies.
For this purpose, the novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by English author Mary Shelley has been selected as the corpus because it presents five different examples of rewriting in itself. First of all, in light of the notions that there is no such thing as “the original” and all texts are derived from previously written texts, the 1818 version of Frankenstein will be viewed as “writing as rewriting” because the author is believed to have rewritten the Prometheus myth, Milton’s Paradise Lost and Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in the 1818 Frankenstein. Secondly, Shelley rewrote the 1818 text in 1831, which will be viewed as “editing as rewriting” in this study. Although she claimed that she had “changed no part of the story” and only “mended the language,” “leaving the core and substance untouched” in the introduction she penned for the 1831 edition, there are substantial differences between these two texts that go beyond the language. Thirdly, Frankenstein was rewritten by Peter Ackroyd in his 2008 book The Casebook of Victor Frankenstein, in which he not only used the plot and the characters of Frankenstein but also included Mary Shelley and her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley in the fictional world of the novel. This dimension of rewriting will be viewed as “hypertextuality as rewriting”. Fourthly, Frankenstein has been translated into many languages since its first publication in 1818. There are almost thirty Turkish versions of Frankenstein, which means there are also that many texts to be studied from the point of “translation as rewriting”. And lastly, Shelley’s Frankenstein has been adapted to various movies, plays, comics and video games, each of which can be studied as an example of rewriting since we view “adaptation as rewriting”.
After referring to these different dimensions of rewriting, the rewritten 1831 version of Frankenstein, which was first published in 1818, will be analyzed as an “ideological” rewriting. To this end, we will be adopting the views of André Lefevere, who claimed that any text produced on the basis of another has the intention of adapting that first text to a certain ideology or to a certain poetics, and usually to both. The hints of this ideological rewriting will be traced in the author’s biography, since Shelley can be considered to have wavered between the open-minded and liberating views of her parents and husband, and the conservative values of the society. Thus it would not be incorrect to assume that this dilemma was reflected on her writing as well. Following this biographical commentary, the 1818 and 1831 versions of Frankenstein will be studied comparatively. Making use of this textual and discursive data and providing thematic commentaries, our descriptive study will attempt to reveal the personal and social ideology behind the rewriting. As a result of this descriptive study, the rewritten 1831 version of Frankenstein will be reckoned as Mary Shelley’s rewriting of her own authorial image. In the examples where the texts are rewritten by their own authors, these rewritings might be utilized as “image construction tools” and/or “ideologization processes”, thus we conclude that they should be viewed as “the rewritings of the authorial images”.
