The Impact of Shelley's Frankenstein of Saadawi's Frankenstein

Hala Salih Mohammed Nur, Saif Latif M. Alssafy

Abstract


In spite of the long period of time that has elapsed since monster first appeared in English and Arabic literature, monsters still have both remarkable and effective roles in their literary texts. The roles of monster that have been created over the centuries by their writers are an indicative of the fears and the needs of societies for these monsters, thus they are modified and developed to reflect social anxieties. The aspects of onomastic meanings redo the roles of the monster in Frankenstein in Baghdad; they show entirely the exact roles and characteristics of the monster to the readers. The monster’s names that are given by other characters in the novel can be used as devices to indicate the variety of literary purposes: to emphasize a certain aspect of society which Saadawi is writing on, or even the more traditional method of naming with the express intent of identifying a certain trait or expectation of the monster’s personality. Saadawi names his monster several names in order to convey specific purposes. Each name has separately purpose, and simultaneously, all names have a common goal they have to achieve. The monster in Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) by Mary Shelley (English novelist, short story writer, dramatist, essayist, biographer, and travel writer) has mainly affecting on the monster in Frankenstein in Baghdad (2013) (Arabic Fiction) by Ahmed Saadawi (Iraqi novelist, poet and screenwriter).

Keywords


Frankenstein; monster; Arabic literature; Mary Shelly

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al-Mustafa Najjar, “Iraqi Author Ahmad Saadawi: ‘The Novel Implicitly Questions This Concept of Salvation’,” 26 March, 2014, Arabic Literature (in English), 4 Feb. 2015 .

Allen, G. Intertextuality: The New Critical Idiom. Taylor and Francis Group, 2000.

Allport, Gordon Willard. Pattern and Growth in Personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

Ashley, Leonard R.N. “Mudpies Which Endure: Onomastics as a Tool of Literary Criticism”. Literary Onomastics Studies, Vol. 6, no. 1, 1987. pp. 262-292, doi

Bakhtin, M. M, Problem of Dostoevsky's poetics. University of Minnesota Press,1999.

Dion, Kenneth L. “Names, Identity, and Self.” Names, vol. 31, no. 4, 2 Dec. 2013, pp. 245–257., doi.org/10.1179/nam.1983.31.4.245.

Hallo, William W. The World’s Oldest Literature: Studies in Sumerian Belles-Lettres. Leiden and Boston, 2010.

Helleland, Botolv, et al., eds. “Names and Identities.” Oslo Studies in Language, vol. 4, no. 2, 2012, pp. 271–284., http://www.journals.uio.no/osla.

Grimaud, Michel. “Onomastics and the Study of Literature.” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature, vol. 38, 1989, pp. 16–35.

Leitch, V. B. Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction. Hutchinson, 1983.

Manini, Luca. “Meaningful Literary Names.” The Translator, vol. 2, no. 2, 21 Feb. 2014, pp. 161–178., doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1996.10798972.

Miola, Robert S. “Seven Types of Intertextuality.” Shakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality, Manchester University Press, 2004, pp. 13–25.

Nesselroth, P. W. “Naming names in telling tales” In Fiction Updated: Theories of Fictionality Narratology and Poetics. ed. C Mihailescu & Hamameh. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1996, pp. 133-143.

Plett, Heinrich F. "Intertextualities." In Intertextuality. Ed. Heinrich F. Plett. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. 3-29.

Tilak, Raghukul. Aristotle’s Poetics. 27th ed., Rama Brother, 2009.

Wilsmore, S. J. “The Role of Titles in Identifying Literary Works.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 45, no. 4, 1987, pp. 403–408. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/431331.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 English Language Institute Journal