Edit lead

A
D
Y
V
S
N
E
M
X
Z
Z
U
T
L
U
D
E
R
V
U
F
O
F
M
R
J
U
D
I
G
I
T
A
L
É
o
N
U
M
E
G
V
C
L
E
Z
Q
W
Z
-
H
U
M
A
N
I
T
I
E
S
E
S
E
Y
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
e
s
8
9
0
)
K
B
F
T
e
x
t
u
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
Z
Q
Z
Q
S
D
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
%
A
D
Y
V
S
N
E
M
X
Z
Z
U
P
X
T
J
U
Q
P
X
T
J
U
Q
J
V
Q
N
G
G
M
H
O
F
P
B
T
L
S
C
A
N
A
D
A
B
M
J
S
C
M
M
D
S
V
U
M
-
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
X
Z
K
Y
B
Z
N
M
B
X
V
E
C
H
A
I
R
P
X
T
J
U
Q
P
X
T
J
U
Q
X
Z
E
J
B
S
B
N
B
Y
R
J
L
D
P

Upcoming events

/en

Add an article

Mary Shelley’s fictions : from Frankenstein to Falkner, éd. Michael E. Sinatra, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press ; New York, 2000, 250 p.

John Perry Barlow, « Déclaration d’indépendance du cyberespace », in Libres enfants du savoir numérique, Editions de l’Éclat, 2000, p. 47‑54.

Michael E. Sinatra, « « I will live beyond this life » : Shelley and his Reviewers », The Keats-Shelley Review, vol. 13 / 1, 1999, p. 88‑104.

Throughout his life, Percy Shelley remained constantly under attacks from reviewers. The criticisms were directed at the content of his works, his (supposed) imitative style, or his personal life. [...]

Christian Vandendorpe, Du papyrus à l’hypertexte: essai sur les mutations du texte et de la lecture, Paris, La Découverte, 1999, 271 p.

S'inscrivant au croisement de travaux de plus en plus nombreux consacrés à l'histoire de la lecture, ce livre conduit une réflexion sur les transformations de nos rapports avec l'écrit et avec la lecture introduites par les nouveaux médias, sur la place et l'avenir de l'écrit dans notre civilisation.

Michael E. Sinatra, « Science, gender and otherness in Shelley’s Frankenstein and Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation », European Romantic Review, vol. 9 / 2, mars 1998, p. 253‑270.

Questions of gender and genre in Frankenstein remain complex issues for contemporary critics, in the novel itself as well as in its cinematographic adaptations, from John Whale's classic 1931 version to Kenneth Branagh's 1994 "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Though science seems to be the unifying principle behind the main story of the novel and the films, I will argue that Shelley incorporates science and sexual orientation within her novel in a way that differs significantly from the films, and especially from Branagh's version.

Jean-Marc Larrue, « Le théâtre au Québec entre 1930 et 1950 : les années charnières », L’Annuaire théâtral, 1998, p. 19‑37.

Le premier quart duXXe siècle aura été l'ère des grandes premières au Québec comme ailleurs, au Québec plus qu'ailleurs. Car si la scène québécoise d'alors n'est pas restée étrangère et insensible aux innovations techniques, à la révolution de la mise en scène, au renouveau du répertoire ou à la redéfinition du jeu théâtral qui caractérisent la modernité, elle a aussi été marquée à l'échelle locale par le développement fulgurant du théâtre professionnel francophone. [...]

Michael E. Sinatra, « The Matrix : The Way of the Future? Replacing Neuromancer within the Postmodern Condition », in Allan Barry Weiss, (éd.). Perspectives on the Canadian Fantastic: Proceedings of the 1997 Academic Conference on Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy, éd. Allan Barry Weiss, Toronto, ACCSFF, 1998, p. 111‑119.

Michael E. Sinatra, « Shelley’s Editing Process in the Preface to Epipsychidion », The Keats-Shelley Review, vol. 11 / 1, 1997, p. 167‑181.

Prefaces are often disregarded by readers who, more often than not, start without taking time to peruse them first. Sir Walter Scott knew this perfectly well, and he wrote about it, very wittily, in 'A PostScript Which Should Have Been a Preface', the last chapter of his novel Waverley written in 1814: 'most novel readers, as my own conscience reminds me, are apt to be guilty of the sin of omission respecting the same matter of prefaces' . Scott refers to novel readers but poetry readers are also 'guilty of the sin of omission', maybe even more so in so far as they may wish, understandably enough, to read only poetry and not a prose introduction. Many critics include prefaces in their analysis, but most of the time only as a means of interpreting the work they precede. Thus critics limit the role of prefaces simply to introductory materials and exclude any other potential interpretation. It is sometimes forgotten that the very presence or absence of a preface is already pregnant with meaning. [...]

Log in