메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국근대영미소설학회 근대영미소설 근대영미소설 제21권 제3호
발행연도
2014.1
수록면
195 - 215 (21page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Most psychoanalytic criticism of Dracula by Dracula has been exclusively fixated on examining Dracula the vampire as a sexual metaphor. Dracula, however, can be most adequately explained in terms of trauma whose nature is expounded in connection with Lacanian tuchè, “encounter with the Real”. The main characteristic of trauma is “incomprehensibility” because it resists integration into consciousness, full knowledge, and representation. Trauma, in this respect, is “one of the faces of the real” which goes “beyond the symbolic order”, and thus remains unnamable. Dracula whose memory cannot be consciously recovered by his victims, resisting its containment within human discourse (Lacanian “Symbolic order”) belongs to Lacanian “Real”. That is, Dracula is a figure of trauma which urges us to waken into Lacanian Real by making us repeatedly confront it. Dracula, however, cannot be encountered because he always “ex-ists” as an absent presence, as suggested by the absence of the proof of his existence. In short, the encounter with Dracula is always missed, just as the encounter with Lacanian Real is inevitably missed/ unrepresentable.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (23)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0