Thoughts on the women in Gothic Literature…

Gothic Landscape

Gothic Literature is a genre that is distinct in form and format.  One can tell quite quickly if a novel is Gothic oriented by the surroundings that are often described in the opening of the novel.When researching Gothic novels, I happened upon a list of criterion of Gothic literature. Some of the items listed were “setting is in a castle”, “hight, even unwrought emotion” etc. With further research, I was surprised to find Jane Austen on the list, at times controversially. Jane Austen has never appeared incredibly gothic to me, not like works such as Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights, or Mysteries of Udolpho.  To me the characters and settings in these novels are much more Gothic than any of Austen’s settings/characters. But, my goal is to focus on very specific elements of these graphic novels, to be precise the portrayal of women in these novels, and how the author uses them within the story. As I said, Gothic novels tend to reveal themselves quite early on. I say tend because I never realized that Austen’s Northanger Abbey was considered a Gothic novel as this was not a novel that “tended” to reveal itself. Wuthering Heights, Frankenstein, and Mysteries of Udolpho quickly display Gothic elements such as castles, and darkness, and a stillness offered from the narrator. There are three females, one from each novel, that I would like to pay specific attention to. Elizabeth (Frankenstein), Catherine (Wuthering Heights), and Emily (Mysteries of Udolpho). Although each individual is significant and necessary to the novel, their roles vary, and the meaning of their roles differ greatly. They vary from completely Gothic, to not really Gothic at all. I will begin with Frankenstein simply because, it is my favorite Gothic novel. 

*A full list of criterion can be found at http://www.virtualsalt.com/gothic.htm

A Gothic Image- A fairly good representative of the listed criteria

 Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the epitome of Gothic literature to me. Not only is it my favourite novel, but it also encompasses everything that Gothic literature represents. The scenery, the plot, and the tone of the novel all center around the gothic idea. The novel is dark, not only physically, but mentally as well. Within this novel of monsters, and creators is a female who counteracts everything gothic. Elizabeth is presented as happy, carefree and a free spirit. Her attitude upholds that family and maintains positivity when there is little to be had. Her character, to me, seemed like a complete contradiction of the dark, turbulent form. Upon thinking about this, I began to wonder if that was not her true role in the novel. I remember watching the movie Frankenstein for another class and I recalled the opening of the movie which was a quote from an introduction that Mary Shelley wrote. In this introduction she writes,  ”I busied myself to think of a story-a story to rival those which had excited us to this task. One which would speak to the mysterious fears of our nature and awaken thrilling horror–one to make the reader dread to look round, to curdle the blood, and quicken the beatings of the heart. If I did not accomplish these things, my ghost story would be unworthy of its name.” Shelley’s goal was clearly to shock and disturb, and yet surely she knew that there would be a fine line between a food horror story, and a novel that would be too much for the reader. Despite the fact that Elizabeth’s role is obviously important, I thought that perhaps Shelley had another purpose for her role. Perhaps the real importance of Elizabeth was to create a sort of relief for the reader. Perhaps Shelley felt that had the novel not contained a break which was provided through Elizabeth, that the success of the novel as a horror would have been jeopardized by complete terror. I say this because the character of Elizabeth in Frankenstein strays from the role of women that is typically witnessed in Gothic Literature.

Shelley Quote can be found at http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/extraordinary_exiles/index/The_creation_of_the_Lake_Geneva_monster.html?cid=12808

 

Wuthering Heights

As a contrast to how Elizabeth is used in Frankenstein, I must now focus on women who truly portray Gothic. These two females embody Gothic. These women are Catherine and Emily. Wuthering Heights is the classic Gothic tale, with darkness eminent.  The character of Catherine herself is surrounded by suffering and agony. Her character expresses and feels pain throughout the entire novel, and in the end her life is nothing more than tragic. Her character, as a female is responsible for causing the turmoil and grief to all of those around her in the novel. Bronte depends on Catherine in an entirely different way than Shelly depended on Elizabeth. Where Elizabeth provided a tranquility and stability, Catherine creates a basis for a story. Everything about Catherine is sad, and dark. In both life and death, Catherine is the source of all the negativity that surrounds Heathcliff. In this light, the view of the female is not a positive image. If one were to base their idea of women in Gothic on this one novel, they would assume that females were evil and almost bewitched or possessed. If females were judged solely on this in Gothic Literature, they would not be a favoured character because of the havoc that Catherine caused not only in her own life, but in the life of Heathcliff and consequently the life of multiple others. I keep saying if this were the novel that one would base their assumptions on, than the female would not be regarded as a serene, gentile person as Elizabeth was, as the more common portrayal of women in Gothic literature tends to resemble the character and role of Catherine in Wuthering Heights. 

Ann Radcliffe is famous for her Gothic novels. Therefore, the fact that she has numerous females in her stories make’s her all the more appealing to a certain genre. In “Mysteries of Udolpho”, we see women as victims early on. Emily and her Aunt become victims to the man, which the Aunt has married. He treats them badly and controls their every move. He displays complete ownership as he tells not only his new wife, but his new niece what they should do, and how they should do it. Also in the beginning, we see the appearance of some of the listed criteria. We have a dark, villainous man, dark surroundings, and raw emotions. The role of the female in this Gothic novel once again appeared different to me than previously mentioned novels. In Frankenstein, I found the female to be a sort of outlet for the author, a break. In Wuthering Heights, the female supplied the darkness within the novel. In Radcliffe’s novel, the female is the subject of all things dark- in my opinion. Unlike Catherine, Emily is not the source of darkness, but rather is placed on the darkness and forced to work her way out. Not only has Emily experienced the untimely death of her Father and Aunt, but she also had to face the fact that she was being held hostage. Emily is in a dark place, not only physically, but more importantly emotionally, and in my opinion this is what Radcliffe really wanted to draw attention to in this novel. I found that this novel was an excellent contrast to the other novels because it displays yet another use of the female within Gothic Lit. So often, women are typecast as needy, or as a “damsel in distress” just waiting for her hero to show up, so I found the different uses of the female within these three novels to be quite interesting and inventive. Emily’s character was the victim in this novel. She was placed in the situation unwillingly, but yet, she did not stand by and wait for a male to save her. In fact, when offered a proposal, she rejected it, because she felt she needed better than him, and she knew that she was capable of surviving without him. Emily may have appeared to be the damsel in distress, but the actions demonstrated overall in the book signalled to me that she was not in fact looking to be saved by found her saviour within herself. 

My overall consensus from the research that I did is that the portrayal of women in Gothic highly depends on how the author wishes their female to be seen. For Shelley, this meant that she could use her female to add the calamity and serenity when necessary in the book. Elizabeth was also used to draw sympathy from the reader in the same way that Bronte used Catherine in Wuthering Heights. However, the character of Catherine was much more diverse and complex as her character controlled and set the tone for the novel, and gave the novel the sense of disdain and sadness. It provided Heathcliff with the darkness that controls the entire tone of the novel. Finally, Radcliffe’s Mysteries of Udolpho demonstrated a woman who was thrown into circumstance, and became a victim of things that had happened to her, not things that she made happen. All three of these novels demonstrate a great differences within the use of female within the Gothic novel. In each novel, the criteria of what is Gothic remains the same, and exists within all of the novels, however the concept that differs within all is the portrayal of the woman and how the authors found use. Another interesting fact when considering these novels, is that they were all written by women. With this thought in mind I wonder, was each female character a representation of the female that the corresponding author desired to be? 

Some Gothic Humour

Oops! Better late than never…. (Anti-Pamela)

Well, I definitely though that I had already done this post until I did a quick review of my posts. Oh well, better late than never. So, Anti- Pamela and my thoughts. My thoughts were few. The idea of parody is easily and quickly understood not only by the story, but also from the layout of the story. Actually, when I originally opened the book, I thought I had accidentally picked up Pamela. I find that Haywood is slightly more upfront with her mockery than Fielding because of this as well as because of her title. Although Fielding’s is obviously a parody of the original novel, Haywood is much more direct with her intentions and her thoughts.

Anti-Pamela contained more humour for me personally than Pamela. Pamela did not contain the same humour that this novel does, because Pamela was more ridiculous than funny. I was personally annoyed a lot while reading Pamela, but this was not the case with Haywood’s novel. Since my annoyance had existed in Pamela, it made the humour better for me in this case. It is my belief that Haywood played on this expectation when creating “Anti-Pamela”, and this permitted a successful parody.

Although Syrena’s character shared extremely similar characteristics to Pamela, she was a far more enjoyable character. Pamela’s character drove me nuts by time, as she was full of woes and concerns, and yet she was sweet and loyal. Syrena’s character had this image, but it stopped at an image. I enjoyed how Haywood manipulated her and turned her into the person that I had wanted Pamela to be all along. It was great entertainment.

One other thing that I realized while reading this work, was that it brought out similar emotions that I experienced while reading Fantomina. I found myself quite humoured in Fantomina as I had in Anti-Pamela. The same sort of irony, and parody mixture was used in both novels, and apparently I quite enjoy this, because at several points I found myself snickering. Hmm, what does this say about my sense of humour?

Eliza Haywood

Shamela

Truth be told, not many comments come to mind when thinking about this novel. I found it repetitious in the sense that it was making a mockery of another novel, and I guess that it made it somewhat of a bore for me. The storylines were so similar that really, there was not a lot of diversity between the novel and that which it parodies. The only thing that gave it a little something, was the fact that it was a parody, and the odd little mockery of Pamela provided some amusement.  I read somewhere that this novel was written mere months after Pamela. After reading this, a “lightbulb moment” occurred. He obviously wrote this quickly if it had only been months, which explains why he was able to parody all of the details in Pamela. The details would have been fresh in his memory, and most of the mockeries would likely have been first reactions to the novel.I think books should be a form of entertainment, and this novel provided very little of that for me personally, so I did not find it a success in that department, but on the subject of parody, it was fairly successful.

Pamela, oh Pamela.

At the very beginning of this novel, there was a suspicion of Lady B’s son. Something just didn’t match up with him, and maybe it’s past experience with other novels, but it just did not seem like he had Pamela’s “best interest” at heart, and it quickly came to surface that he in fact had interest in her, but it was not for her well being. Lady B’s son, was portrayed originally has such a jerk. He was the guy that treats his hired help terribly and expects them to be gracious in return. Early in the book, I did not have fond feelings for this man. However, as the novel progressed, so did my feelings. 

For me this novel had a lot of “ups and downs”. Originally, I thinking Pamela was completely lacking intelligence. After having been attacked twice by the Squire, why would she not leave when she had the opportunity too. She claims it is because she has done such a wonderful job on this waistband, but why continue to stay and do a favour for him when he has treated her with no respect whatsoever. I suppose it has to do with the times, and what was expected of a female in her situation, and of her class. What shocked me even more was that she still liked this man, even after he had been so malicious towards her. I found it completely frustrating, and kept saying to myself really? You really still like him? However, in the end I was able to reflect and find respect for her, for staying strong and respecting herself. I hated the Squire originally for treating Pamela as he did, but then I liked him in the way for the way he respected and truly loved Pamela. Finally Mrs. Jewkes put me on a rollercoaster or like and dislike, but her character was one that I could never come to fully appreciate. Mrs. Jewkes, miserable, contrary, trouble- making Mrs. Jewkes. What a woman. She is completely against Pamela, and personally I was shocked that a female, was urging such things upon another female. Does she have no sympathy at all? And why would she want to inflict such pain and discomfort upon another woman. She is a woman who I wanted to slap. Repeatedly. 

Overall this novel was full of emotions, and was able to peak my interest in several parts, because of the anger I felt at different times towards different characters. However, I credit this to the author and his ability to create this emotions at different points. It was an interesting read, to say the very least. Interesting may actually be a huge understatement.

Thoughts on Fantomina

My automatic response to the novel was humour. Compared to other novels I have read in this time era, Fantomina was quite “risque”.  My second response was, how dumb can a man be not to know that he was sleeping with the same woman over and over. Yes, there may have not been electricity or significant light sourse, but come on, how many women can he pass off as having the same marking on her arm. Really Beauplasir? You couldn’t tell?

My favorite aspect of the novel was that finally, a woman has the upper hand. At long last, after many stories of submissive women, and controlling, overbearing men, a woman steps up and says “Hey, I can out-smart you!”  What a great moment in my mind.  Haywood, was the first author (which I have encountered to date), that has set forth with this kind of intention. I am sure that in its time, Fantomina story “ruffled a lot of feathers”, but that is what is so captivating about the novel. While reading, I found myself repeating in my head that these actions were not in a time where women tricking men would have been regarded as clever. It would have been looked down upon greatly and the female in question and I can imagine Haywood felt many of these looks after the story was published. Regardless, she has made many a woman in the 21st century proud. If only she could have known how people in these times would look at her novel differently, although, judging by her story, I think she may have had an idea!

Thoughts at the end of Robinson…

One thing that immediately popped out at me was that Crusoe was very refelctive on the fact that his father had not wanted him to leave home to explore. He had these thoughts even before he was deserted, and then once he is deserted he looks back on it as smart advice and something he wished he had listened to. I found that Defoe introduced an inner conflict within Crusoe quite early and this conflict remained prominent to the end.

Another thing that stuck out to me was how calm Crusoe remained during the story. If I had been stranded on a beach with only myself to depend on, I’d be a bit more upset than what he demonstrated. I was also suprised to learn that he was dependant on God. At the beginning of the novel, Defoe does not suggest that Crusoe is the type that would depend on God, but I suppose that desperate times call for desperate measures.

I personally wonder what and if there is symbolism behind the lists. The narrator is constantly listing things to the reader, weather it be provisions that Crusoe has secured, or listing the reasons why it is a good/ bad thing that he is in the current situation. I am sure there is a reason, but I cannot pin point it. This was my greatest question in the novel. Was it just a ploy to keep his sanity, and to keep himself grounded?

Finally, I was captivated by the way Crusoe approached his situation. His goal was to recreate the world in which he lived in. He had two homes, he farmed, he made a home on the island. He created an environment around him which povided comfort and stability. This stood out to me because of how civilized he made the island. If someone picked up the book and opened it half way through, and had no previous knowledge of the plot of Robinson Crusoe, I doubt their first thought would be shipwrecked, just by the lifestyle he was living on the island. This was quite interesting to me.

Beginning thoughts of Robinson Crusoe

     So, upon beginning to read this novel, I turn to a good friend (who has already experienced the grueling demands of an English degree), and ask if he had read the novel Robinson Crusoe. He of course replied with a heavy-hearted “yes”- followed by a long sigh. I then dared to ask, “does it get any better?”. He looked at me with that look of despair, searching for a way in which he could tell me it ends wonderfully and that the plot takes an exciting twist, however he could not. He simply looked at me and with brutal honesty, and replied “NO”. My motivation level has now plummeted, and the lesson has been learned to never to ask a question in which you fear you already know the answer. Despite this, I am determined to enjoy the novel, and prove him wrong. After all, I loved the movie “Castaway”, in which the beloved Tom Hanks befriends a volleyball and extracts his own tooth with a figure skate. In saying this I realize that I loved the movie, but can’t imagine sitting down and reading the script,  how boring would that be! A single character (with the exception of the volleyball) one location, one large, “run-on scene”…..hmm… I’m discouraging myself again. The movie was great, so the novel from which the movie was parodied can only get better right? Right?  I’m off to prove myself right.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!