Yeniden yazımlarla yeniden yazılanlar: Frankensteın'da yeniden yazılan metin, yazar ve çevirmen imgeleri üzerine feminist bir inceleme
The rewritten in rewritings: A feminist analysis on the rewritten images of the text, author and translator in Frankenstein
- Tez No: 951581
- Danışmanlar: PROF. DR. AYŞE FİTNAT ECE ÜSTÜN
- Tez Türü: Doktora
- Konular: Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat, Mütercim-Tercümanlık, İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı, Comparative Literature, Translation and Interpretation, English Language and Literature
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
- Yıl: 2025
- Dil: Türkçe
- Üniversite: İstanbul Üniversitesi
- Enstitü: Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Çeviribilim Ana Bilim Dalı
- Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
- Sayfa Sayısı: 280
Özet
Bu çalışma, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley'nin insanlık, yaratılış, etik, bilim ve doğanın tehlikeleri gibi zamansız ve evrensel temaları ele almasıyla geçmişten günümüze çok sayıda başka esere de ilham kaynağı olan Frankenstein (1818) adlı romanının farklı dönemlerde neden ve nasıl yeniden yazıldığını ve bu yeniden yazım serüveninde eserle birlikte yazarın edebiyat ve kültür dünyasındaki imgesinin de nasıl farklılaşıp dönüştüğünü incelemektedir. Araştırmada, romanın 1818 versiyonu özgün eser, 1831 versiyonu yazarın kendi yeniden yazımı olarak ele alınmış; Jeanette Winterson'ın Frankissstein (2019) adlı romanı eserin aynı dilde başka bir yazar tarafından gerçekleştirilen yeniden yazımı olarak değerlendirilmiş; Serpil Çağlayan'ın İletişim Yayınları'ndan ve Gülsüm Canlı'nın Ötüken Neşriyat'tan çıkan çevirileri ise eserin başka bir dil ve kültürde yeniden yazımları olarak incelenmiştir. Çalışma, André Lefevere'in yeniden yazım kavramı (1992) çerçevesinde, çeviri ve diğer yeniden yazımların yalnızca metinleri aktaran araçlar değil, aynı zamanda yazar ve eser imgelerini şekillendiren güçlü müdahaleler olduğunu savunmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın başlıca amaçlarından biri, hem yeniden yazımların“uygunlaştırma”ve“imge inşa etme”olarak adlandırılabilecek yönlerine dikkat çekmek hem de bu imge inşasının özellikle bir kadın yazar örneğinde onun toplumsal imgesini her yeniden yazımla nasıl yeni bir imgeye dönüştürdüğünü göstermektir. Feminist eleştirel söylem çözümlemesi ve yakın okuma yöntemleriyle gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmada, özellikle toplumsal cinsiyet meselelerinin yeniden yazım süreçlerindeki rolü ele alınmıştır. Yapılan inceleme sonucunda, yeniden yazımların“uygunlaştırıcı yeniden yazım”olarak kavramsallaştırılabilecek manipülatif yönüne dikkat çekilmiş, bu sürecin yalnızca metinler üzerinden değil, yanmetinler aracılığıyla da şekillendiği ortaya konmuştur. Frankenstein'ın farklı yeniden yazımlarının, hem metni hem de Mary W. Shelley'nin yazar imgesini dönüştürdüğü saptanmıştır. Söz konusu bulgular, yeniden yazımların, edebi ve kültürel imge inşa etme süreçlerinde rol oynadığını kanıtlamıştır.
Özet (Çeviri)
This study explores the processes of rewriting Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein, a novel that has undergone continuous reinterpretations and rewritings for over two centuries. By analyzing how Frankenstein has been reshaped by both Mary Shelley herself and subsequent (re)writers, the research investigates the intentions and purposes guiding these rewritings and examines how they contribute to constructing an image of Mary Shelley as a woman author within literary and cultural spheres. Central to this inquiry is the role of gender in the rewriting process. As André Lefevere (1992: 5) asserts, the images of authors, texts, and historical periods are shaped by those who rewrite them. These images, despite coexisting with historical realities, often reach wider audiences than the original contexts themselves. In this framework, translations and other forms of rewriting are not mere vehicles for textual transmission but powerful interventions that transform the reception of both texts and their authors. Thus, this study seeks to understand how a work as culturally iconic as Frankenstein has been reshaped over time and how these rewritings have influenced the perception of its“marginalized”female author. Adopting feminist critical discourse analysis, the study employs comparative analysis and close reading methodologies to examine the implicit meanings and ideological underpinnings in Frankenstein and its various rewritings. The first section provides an extensive literature review on the concept of rewriting, distinguishing between intertextual approaches and those that view rewriting as a form of manipulation. By situating Frankenstein within these theoretical frameworks, the study lays the groundwork for understanding its multiple rewritings. The second section focuses on Mary Shelley's own rewriting of her novel. Thirteen years after its initial publication, she revised Frankenstein for its 1831 edition, introducing significant changes. In the preface to this edition, Shelley seemingly disavows these modifications, prompting an investigation into their underlying motivations. A comparative analysis of the 1818 and 1831 versions of Frankenstein reveals key differences in representations of family structures, gender roles, and philosophical perspectives on free will and determinism. The 1831 edition idealizes the family unit, reinforces traditional gender roles, and shifts from an emphasis on free will to a more deterministic worldview. While these changes might suggest that Shelley had adopted a more conservative outlook over the years, a feminist examination of her biography suggests an alternative interpretation. Having grown up without maternal affection and later experiencing profound personal losses—losing her children and husband—Shelley's idealization of the family in the 1831 edition may reflect a literary expression of her longing for love and stability. The study posits that her rewriting of Frankenstein reconstructs the family as an idealized institution, filling the emotional void left by her lived experiences. Additionally, the 1831 edition's stricter delineation of gender roles aligns with the dominant social norms of the time, yet this very rigidity amplifies the tragic fates of the characters, subtly critiquing patriarchal structures. By demonstrating that characters suffer as they conform to societal expectations, Shelley may have reinforced a covert feminist critique through her narrative choices. Moreover, the novel's transition from a free will-driven philosophy in 1818 to a more deterministic outlook in 1831 reflects Shelley's evolving perspective as a woman who had endured repeated losses and perhaps questioned the extent of individual agency in shaping one's destiny. Another critical aspect of Shelley's rewriting is her redefinition of her authorial identity. When composing the preface for the 1831 edition, she was no longer the eighteen-year-old who had shocked the literary world with Frankenstein. Now a seasoned writer with multiple publications, she sought to distance herself from the societal scandals—associated with atheism, extramarital relationships, and suicides—that had shaped her public persona. Referring to her novel as her“hideous progeny,”Shelley draws a parallel between herself and Victor Frankenstein, suggesting a complex relationship with her own creation. The study argues that, through this rewriting, Shelley not only reshaped her most famous work but also strategically reconstructed her own literary image to align with the expectations of a society that had scrutinized her as a female writer. The third section examines Frankissstein: A Love Story (2019) by Jeanette Winterson, a contemporary rewriting of Frankenstein that reimagines both the novel and its author. Winterson, known for her feminist and queer reworkings of patriarchal myths, blends fiction and reality, questioning the very nature of storytelling. The novel is analyzed in two dimensions: the rewriting of historical reality and the rewriting of literary fiction. Winterson's rewriting of historical reality is evident in her dual representation of Mary Shelley through two characters: Mary Shelley in the 19th-century narrative and Ry Shelley, a transgender doctor in the modern storyline. The historical Mary Shelley is portrayed as a feminist figure who challenges gender inequalities, while Ry Shelley's experiences underscore contemporary struggles against patriarchal structures. By constructing these parallel narratives, Winterson transforms Mary Shelley's image into that of an explicitly feminist author. In terms of literary rewriting, Winterson modernizes Frankenstein by exploring contemporary themes such as artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and ethical dilemmas surrounding technological advancements. The novel directly engages with Frankenstein through textual allusions, reinforcing its intertextual nature. Victor Frankenstein's character is rewritten in two forms: as Victor Stein, a transhumanist scientist seeking digital immortality, and as Victor Frankenstein in the novel's“Bedlam”sections, where he is institutionalized. The latter narrative presents an alternative ending for Frankenstein, imagining Victor confronting his own creator, Mary Shelley, thus blurring the boundaries between fiction and reality. Winterson's postscript further challenges the concept of objective reality, reinforcing her metafictional approach. Ultimately, Frankissstein reinterprets Frankenstein for the digital age, maintaining its philosophical concerns while expanding its discourse to encompass modern debates on technology and identity. Through this rewriting, Winterson reconstructs Mary Shelley as a feminist thinker engaging with issues of gender and power. In the fourth section, this study ultimately examines the Turkish translation trajectory of Frankenstein, with a particular focus on the translations by Serpil Çağlayan and Gülsüm Canlı. The discussion encompasses the role of translation as a form of rewriting, the creative agency of translators, and the multiple roles they assume in the process. Special attention is given to feminist translation approaches and how they intersect with the rewriting of Frankenstein in Turkish. By extending the scope beyond the translated texts themselves, the study also scrutinizes the paratexts accompanying these translations. The analysis reveals that while Serpil Çağlayan's translation, published by İletişim Yayınları, makes the translator's presence visible by featuring her name on the cover, it also includes prefaces and afterwords by male authors, subtly diminishing Mary Shelley's authorial authority. Additionally, the biographical notes accompanying the translation focus on Shelley's personal life rather than her literary achievements, contributing to a reductive image of the author. In contrast, the translation by Gülsüm Canlı, published by Ötüken Neşriyat, does not display the translator's name on the cover but includes a preface written by the translator herself, positioning Shelley as a respectable and accomplished author. Furthermore, the biographical notes in this edition emphasize Shelley's literary prowess rather than personal details. The textual analysis of these translations also demonstrates that multiple agents, including editors and publishers, intervene in the rewriting process. Specific types of interventions are identified, including footnotes, interpretative modifications, and ideological adaptations. Notably, İletişim Yayınları edition contains an extensive use of footnotes, largely provided by the editor, that highlight intertextual connections and contextual information. Meanwhile, the Ötüken Neşriyat translation exhibits ideological interventions aligning with the publisher's nationalist and conservative stance, likely intended to align with the target readership's cultural and religious sensibilities. From a feminist translation perspective, the study evaluates the strategies employed in these translations. The paratexts in the İletişim Yayınları edition, while extensive, are rendered problematic by the preface author's dismissive tone toward Shelley, undermining the feminist potential of the translation. However, the intertextual footnotes contribute to reinforcing Shelley's intellectual credibility. Conversely, in the Ötüken Neşriyat edition, the preface written by the translator herself not only makes her visible but also affirms Shelley's literary authority, positioning her as a figure of respect rather than mere curiosity. This study ultimately argues that these two translations of Frankenstein construct divergent images of Mary Shelley, shaped by the ideological and editorial choices embedded in the rewriting process. In summary, this study demonstrates that the rewriting of Frankenstein has not only influenced the novel's evolving interpretations but has also played a crucial role in shaping Mary Shelley's literary image. From Shelley's own revisions to contemporary feminist retellings and translations, each rewriting contributes to a dynamic, ever-shifting portrait of the author and her work. By examining these processes through feminist critical discourse analysis, this study highlights the intersection of gender, authorship, and literary transmission, offering a deeper understanding of how Frankenstein and its creator have been continuously reconstructed over time.
Benzer Tezler
- Osmanlı Devleti'nin yeniden yapılanma sürecinde önemli bir devlet adamı Mehmed Sadık Rıfat paşa
One of the important politician is Mehmed Sadik Rifat pasha in renovation process of ottoman empire
DİLEK TÜRKDEMİR
- Erkek köşe yazarlarının kadına yönelik şiddet anlatımı
The expression of the violence against the women by male columnists
HAKAN ADA
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2015
Gazetecilikİstanbul Arel ÜniversitesiMedya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Ana Bilim Dalı
YRD. DOÇ. DR. ÖZGE ULUĞ YURTTAŞ
- Althusser ve yazının Althusserci mecazları
Althusser and Althusserian text metaphors
ENİS EMRE MEMİŞOĞLU
Doktora
Türkçe
2020
SosyolojiMimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar ÜniversitesiSosyoloji Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. ALİ AKAY
- Sosyal medya kullanımının mutlu olma durumuna etkisi üzerine nitel bir araştırma
A qualitative research on the effect of using social media on happiness status
SEDEF PELİN
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2017
GazetecilikMarmara ÜniversitesiGazetecilik Ana Bilim Dalı
PROF. DR. CEM SEFA SÜTÇÜ
- Tarih araştırmalarına kaynak olarak 28 Şubat sürecinin Cumhuriyet Gazetesi'ndeki yansımaları (1995 – 1999)
Reflections of the 28 February process on the Cumhuriyet Newspaper as a source for historical research (1995 – 1999)
HAKAN ERSARI