Whereas Edwardian male-authored Wildeana tends to represent the Wildean character as a solipsistic bachelor, whose tarnished reputation could affect only his bachelor friends, Mary Elizabeth Braddon’s The Rose of Life (1905) and Julia Frankau’s The Sphinx’s Lawyer (1906) place the Wildean character within the family unit. This allows them to examine the consequences the character’s legal prosecution and stigmatisation could have on his wife. Braddon’s and Frankau’s novels shift the focus from homoeroticism and homosexuality to the catalysing role male influence plays in the development of innate queerness. At the same time, they critically engage with the contemporary belief that female influence might “cure” queerness. Braddon and Frankau avoid demonising and/or oversimplifying the Wildean character’s feelings and note that queerness and the family are by no means oppositional or antithetical units. To achieve this effect, they invariably sacrifice women’s happiness, which allows us to read their novels as more anti-feminist than anti-queer.

中文翻译：

---

爱德华时代维尔迪纳的全新影响：玛丽·伊丽莎白·布拉登 (Mary Elizabeth Braddon) 的《生命的玫瑰》(1905) 和朱莉娅·弗兰考 (Julia Frankau) 的《狮身人面像的律师》(1906) 中的古怪

爱德华时代的男性作者维尔德娜倾向于将维尔德的性格描绘成一个唯我论的单身汉，其名誉受损只会影响他的单身朋友，而玛丽·伊丽莎白·布拉登的《生命的玫瑰》（1905）和朱莉娅·弗兰考的《狮身人面像的律师》（1906）则将维尔德的角色置于在家庭单位内。这使他们能够检查角色的法律起诉和污名可能对他的妻子造成的后果。布拉登和弗兰考的小说将焦点从同性恋和同性恋转移到男性影响在天生酷儿发展中所起的催化作用。与此同时，他们批判性地接受了当代女性影响可能“治愈”酷儿的信念。Braddon 和 Frankau 避免妖魔化和/或过度简化 Wildean 角色的感受，并指出酷儿和家庭绝不是对立或对立的单位。为了达到这种效果，他们总是牺牲女性的幸福，这让我们可以将他们的小说读得更反女权而不是反酷儿。