Happy Halloween! I hope you have a good day, stay safe and eat lots and lots of candy.
I'm so glad I got this one done, and I'm glad it's my "Halloween Post". There are a few more stories I have to go through, but really this is the best.
So...Trick or Treat!:
by Ann Radcliff
Published: 1790 Link: https://librivox.org/mysteries-of-udolpho-by-ann-radcliffe/ Listening Time: 32 hours (It's actually a set of four books) Quote: “A well-informed mind is the best security against the contagion of folly and vice. The vacant mind is ever on the watch for relief, and ready to plunge into error, to escape from the languor of idleness. Store it with ideas, teach it the pleasure of thinking; and the temptations of the world without, will be counteracted by the gratifications derived from the world within.” Theme: discipline
Of the first-wave gothic stories, this one is my favorite. I can see why Catherine Moreland (and Jane Austen) thought so highly of it. For someone like me, who prefers short stories to long ones, it took a bit of adjustment but it was actually really absorbing. There are these beautiful descriptions of various landscapes and travels. It was also really suspenseful: there's a couple of really great mysteries going on. Some of them center around what's happening in the Castle Udolpho and some of them have to do with the St Albert family history. But my very favorite part was the characters. When I read the last Harry Potter book, I was really impressed with how Mrs Rowling wrote Harry. Throughout his childhood, Harry has these role models who he looks up to, and kind of idolizes: Hagrid, Sirius, Dumbledore and Lupin. As the story progresses, and in the last book particularly, Harry has to develop his own fortitude and become his own individual. I remember reading The Deathly Hallows right after it came out and being so proud of Harry standing up to Lupin when he was wrong. Hermione couldn't do that, Ron wouldn't have done that. Harry is not just a man, he is THE Man. That's pretty much how I felt about Emily's coming of age in these books. She's just a kid at the start and she goes through a lot of terrifying stuff. But instead of making her a damsel in distress character, she becomes her own person. She becomes THE Woman. Emily St Albert-
(This is how I see her as a kid, also my face for Arwen as an elfling.)
A part of what makes Emily such a resilient character is the way she was raised. Both of Emily's parents were born to wealthy but semi-dysfunctional families and decided they didn't want that for their own lives. They're kind of like the hippie-homeschooler family of the 1600's. So Emily is raised as a naturalist. Then, while she is still young, the family suffers a tragedy. Her two brothers die and her Mom and Dad get sick. Although they recover, her parent's comes to the realization that they won't always be there to protect their daughter. And because of the way they've chosen to live their lives, their respective families can't be fully relied on to provide that support and protection. If they die, Emily will be on her own and she'll have to deal on her own. The term disciplining sometimes has a negative connotation today; people associate it with things like a parent/child power struggle or abuse, but for Emily it means that she was given responsibilities and expectations at an early age. In society, particularly back then, girls were given different expectations than boys. Girls could be temperamental or flamboyant and it wasn't as big a deal to control their behavior because they're not going to be the ones to own property or make their own living, and they're typically going to have a father or husband to protect them from consequences of this behavior. Emily's parents know this isn't going to be the case for her: she's already their primary heir and they both have poor health so she's given less lenience in her behavior. She learns what's acceptable, and what's not acceptable, how to compromise but most importantly she learns about her inherent worth, something that no one, no matter what they say or how they treat her, can ever take away.
Valancourt Duvarney-
When Emily and Mr St Albert meet Valancourt, they strike up a friendship really easily. Mr St Albert sees Valancourt as a vision of what he was like at a younger age. He's generous, sincere, and a genuinely good-hearted person, but also naive and inexperienced...As Mr St Albert likes to think, "This young man has never been at Paris."
When he falls in love with Emily, he thinks he can fix all of her problems for her. I find it surprising that a lot of readers think she should have just married him instead of going into her Aunt's custody until she came of age. That would have been a disaster for both of them. He's so clearly ill-prepared to be a husband at the start. Emily needed to grow up and become her own woman, and Valancourt had to go to Paris.
Singor Montoni-
This is Emily's uncle by marriage. He can put on a charming and affectionate face but he's really a thug and he's dangerous. Emily going toe-to-toe with him was one of my favorite parts of the story, this was when I realized she'd grown up into the woman. She figures out that there are times to be a Griffindor, and there are times where it's better to be a Ravenclaw. Note: I really liked the librivox recording, but there are a few readers who have pretty thick accents. This didn't become a problem until the very end when there's this really, really really BIG reveal (what's behind that curtain...huh?!?!) and I couldn't figure out what the word was so I had to listen to that little segment several times... Then I laughed.
I'd really love to own a print copy of this series. Not a paperback, but hardcover and preferably in the full four volumes. That would be awesome!
Quote: "Would you feign penitence, and again act an Hypocrite's part?"
Theme: Virtue, hypocrisy
(I think it's super cool I got to buy volume three of this book on ebay.
I could have gotten all three, but they were real expensive.
But still... #chills!!)
In Northanger Abbey, there's this one part where Catherine Moreland dances with this guy at a party and she wants really bad to like this guy because he's her best friend's brother and her brother's best friend.
So she tries to break the ice:
(Catherine's a total book worm)
Catherine is a bit disappointed with her partners response: "I never read novels; I have something else to do. Novels are all so full of nonsense and stuff [...] except The Monk; I read that t'other day; but as for all the others, they are the stupidest things in creation."
To people in Ms Austen's day, this response tells a lot about the type of person Catherine's partner, Mr Thorpe, is. Pretty much everyone back then (with the exception of Clergymen's daughters, apparently) was familiar with "The Monk" by it's reputation. It was infamous for it's lurid and edgy content.
I like to think it would be sort of like if I went to a church dance today and the guy I was dancing with says:
"Books are dumb...but I did enjoy Fifty Shades of Gray,"
(...and he's saying it in earnest.)
It's probably a reflection on how desensitized modern society is by this type of violence and perversion because I found that, content wise, this book is not too different from the types of things we would watch on TV today.
The first 38 minutes of this librivox recording is basically the narrator apologizing for how mediocre the story is going to be. By the time I got to the end of that, I was prepared for a mindless read. I thought, "OK, this book is going to be laughably ridiculous. I'll have fun...bring it!"
It wasn't like that at all. I mean, Mr Lewis isn't the worlds best author or anything but he psychologically gets his characters. He's making a point and I can't discount it because in some ways I feel that it's still relevant today.
___________
The story follows several different sub-plots, but there are two central characters who tie them together: Ambrosio (the monk) and Agnes (a novitiate nun). These two people only talk to each other, like, once in the whole story, but their interaction is basically the crux of the story: the central feature that ties all the various sub-plots together.
I also think that the two characters follow parallel paths (they were both destined for a life of service from a young age, and they are both not quite suited for it personality-wise as they'd like to be) so it's interesting for me to compare their character arcs.
Ultimately though, neither of them is the hero of this story.
Ambrosio
I called him Antonio through the whole story because the big plot twist on, like, the very last page was SOOOOOOOOOO obvious from chapter 1.
I think that this is intentional. Ambrosio's character arc is kind of like Oedipus': the thrill isn't from suspense as much as it is from anticipation.
A while back (before I read this book) I got to watch a comic-con panel with these authors talking about writing devices and character development: things like The Heroes Journey, Heroes and antiheroes. And I got to ask them a question about villains, and I got an answer that I think applies to what's happening in this story to Ambrosio:
(I am paraphrasing here, they didn't use these terms exactly)
'Becoming a hero is about becoming a better man, becoming a villain is about becoming the man you already are underneath.'
Mr Lewis actually says something to this effect in the book: All throughout his life everyone thought Ambrosio was being selfless and devout, but he was really just competitive: he wanted to be a better monk than anyone else. These traits are not bad in themselves, they would actually serve him really well if he were in the military, but in the life of a man who's compelled to be restrained, and who's life is devoted to service and piety...they've been warped into something truly malignant and ultimately monstrous.
Agnes
Agnes is far from perfect however, however, when she does something wrong she actually makes an effort to try to make it right. Unlike Ambrosio, she was raised in a normal family, so she knows there are other paths of life that she could follow. She has a healthy outlet for behavior that would otherwise be destructive. Ambrosio doesn't see his life that way.
Unfortunately for Agnes, though, she's a woman and because she wasn't raised as part of the establishment like Ambrosio was, the punishment for her misconduct is extreme.
Ambrisio's actions (until the very end) are pretty much ignored by everyone, even after people start to become suspicious of him, because he's in a position of authority and no one wants to challenge him. As far as the establishment is concerned, Agnes is a nobody and they seem to think nobody would notice if she disappeared off the face of the earth.
Fortunately that's not true. Agnes does have people who love her and who'll go at great lengths to get her back. However it will take even more than the valiant efforts of our heroes to overthrow the corruption that's festering in the abbey.
(Fortunately the Inquisiton is here to save the day!)
Conclusion
I can't recommend this story for everyone, but for me it was haunting not because of the supernatural elements, but because I feel that psychologically it was so on point.
Being raised away from corrupting influences (or sheltered) does not ensure that you'll grow up to be a good person. Ambrosio would like to be able to blame his corruption on the demons but even Rosario was only using what was inside him already, and that was quite enough to work with.
In the Bible, Jesus talks about how the stuff you consume isn't the what pollutes your heart; it's what comes out of your heart that determines who you are. I get that this can be a difficult concept to practice, and to teach. It's easy to tell people what they should and shouldn't do: Don't watch R rated movies, don't watch porn, don't swear, don't dance too close to your partner, don't kiss passionately...
It's A LOT harder to teach people what tobe.
We can't see what's in another person's heart; we can only see (and judge them) by their actions. You'd think protecting people from exposure to evil (particularly at young and impressionable ages) gives them opportunity to develop their psyches free of a corrupting influence. But in reality it's not that simple. A lot of the time this type sheltering and focus on behavior control becomes a maladaptive practice in and of itself:
Instead of "creating a clean heart", people go into the world unprepared to face temptation.
Instead of beingvirtuous, they're just better actors than everyone else.
Note:
a. I can't believe how many people bought the whole Rosario thing. There's been like, three or four people who say things like "But I really thought she luvvved him...she cried that one time." PUH-LEASE! Her tactics were the most obvious thing in the story>>>even more obvious than Ambrosio's 'Secret identity'. The only reason Antonio/Ambrosio fell for it is because he has no idea how actual human women actually talk. He spend 27 years in a monastery...since he was three years old!
b.There is a lot that's dark and disturbing in this story, but the most horrific of the material didn't have to do with violent or explicit acts, or even the demons out to get you (cuz the demons can only use what you already have in your heart).
The most disturbing part of the story is towards the end where there is this really unnerving conversation between Ambrosio and a young kid. You really see he's truly become a predator and starts subtly testing his intended victims' sexual knowledge so he can see in what ways he can take advantage of her. It was horrible, because those are the same tactics sexual predators use today. It was really difficult to get through that part.
And now it's time for the stories that actually prompted me to do my 2015 Gothic Reading Challenge.
It actually all started when I read Jane Austen's stories: one of the first she wrote (last to be published) is called Northanger Abbey. In it, Ms Austen references and affectionately parodies a lot of gothic tropes from books that she grew up reading.
It occurred to me that Ms Austen's idea of a "gothic novel" and my idea of it could be, like, really different! She lived so long ago; she didn't know Frankenstein or Dracula, or any of the works of Edgar Allen Poe because they all came after her day.
What did her "Gothic" look like? I wanted to find out!
My initial goal was to read all of Jane Austen's "Horrid Novels": the gothic books that she references in Northanger Abbey. I haven't completed them yet, and I suppose my Gothic Reading Challenge won't be complete until I do (Just like my Jane Austen Reading Adventures weren't complete until I read all of her juvenilia...)
This week (and possibly into the next, I'm a little behind), I'll be exploring stories from that era: the "first wave gothic" novels. These are the old school! Unpolluted with their subsequent mixing with other genres. Some of them are a bit hard to get through because of the language, if your not used to it. But some of them are really, really epic and should be read by more people! (spoiler alert...The Mysteries of Udolpho is AWE-SOME!)
Quote: "I began to think [...] that the vengeance of heaven was asleep." Theme: Ambition This story definitely uses a different kind of gothic aesthetic because it takes place in the oriental world. Different cultural practices and different beliefs about human nature and the afterlife in that region of the world were seen as really exotic in Mr Beckford's time. I think he did a really good job capturing all of that. I'm pretty sure he used 1001 Arabian Nights as a big inspiration in storytelling though... It's about an Arabian Caliph (regional king) named Vathek and his destructive quest for power. He's ascended to his throne at an early age and now he's pretty much at the height of his power. Everyone fears and adores him, and he has no shame in indulging himself in anything he wants. Vathek has a very close relationship with his mother, Carathis, who acts as his mage. She is a necromancer, and she's devoted her life to helping her son gain more power and influence.
"Let me be devoured in flames, provided he will sit on the throne of Solomon."
So this guy, who can basically boss anyone around he wants and get whatever he wants, meets this mysterious merchant sells him knives with demonic inscriptions on them that nobody can translate. He becomes obsessed with knowing what these mystical knives say and after some run-around, he finds they hold the key to him gaining world domination...knowledge derived from Eblis (the devil) himself.
For some reason, Vathek and mom think it's a cool idea to follow through with this course of action and they basically spend the rest of the story doing horrible thing after horrible thing in pursuit of his goal. [I see no way this could go wrong!] It basically ends as you might expect for being as story about a guy who's trying to make a deal with the devil. And he's such a horrible person, you really don't feel sorry for him.
Djinn
Middle-eastern people weren't really into ghosts, they didn't really believe in them. So supernatural phenomena like hauntings and premonitions etc were often attributed to another order of beings. These beings are living people like you and I, but their bodies have different physical properties; which means they have almost superhuman abilities. These people are called Djinn, or genies. I really like genies. When you learn more about them, they're fascinating. There's A LOT more to them then wishes, and magic lamps, and flying carpets and all the icons western culture is familiar with. And this story actually presents Djinn in a pretty accurate way: A Djinn can be good or evil. In this story, there's an evil "genius" called Giaour, who's basically the architect of Vathek's destruction. There are also genies who are good or benevolent: one who is protective of human children (he saves them from a horrible horrible fate), and another (called 'The Shepherd') is aligned with Mohammed and the angels. He even tries to act as an advocate for Vathek; he tries to get him to turn back from his horrible path and repent. Some djinn are bound to elements like the earth, or to fire. Sometimes they are invisible, and other times they manifest themselves as humanoids and don't really look different from ordinary people. I really like that, even though Vathek's actions are his own, he's being played by forces he can't understand the whole time. He thinks he's got power, he thinks he has the right to seek more. But he's really just fodder for all of these other primordial entities to play with. A little humility would have done him a world of good.
Link:https://librivox.org/library-of-the-worlds-best-mystery-and-detective-stories-volume-3-by-various/ (Tracks 12 and 13) Listening Time: 88 minutes Quote: “There is no error more absurd, and yet more rooted in the heart of man, than the belief that his sufferings will promote his spiritual safety.” Theme: Grace This edition is an edited version of the whole story. Apparently the narrative of the original version of the story is a bit rambling. In this version, the narrative of is nested: like a story with in a story. (If you've ever tried to read the original 1001 Arabian Nights, you have an idea of what it's like). I could see how this form of storytelling can get out of hand and be confusing. But I'd still like to read the original...eventually. The story told primarily through two people: John Melmoth, the student, and the diary of a traveler named Stanton.
The Melmoth Family:
John Melmoth, the student, goes home to take care of his ailing, miserly uncle. On his uncle's deathbed, he tells him about their family's secret: they have an ancestor-also named John Melmoth, who is immortal and still wanders the earth. (So there are like, three Melmoths so far...read carefully, this can get confusing!) Uncle Melmoth leads John Melmoth, the student, to a manuscript by Stanton, a guy who spent a long time hunting/being hunted by Melmoth The Wanderer. This is where the fun begins:
Stanton's Manuscript:
Stanton's manuscript gets pretty intense. The Wanderer first appears as a mysterious bystander at some tragic 'accidents'. And slowly it's pieced together that he's making some really sinister stuff happen. Stanton follows this guy, and he watches some terrible things happen over and over again...but he's unable to catch him as the culprit. Watching it all, and being powerless to stop it, literally drives Stanton insane and his family members have him institutionalized. By the time he gets to this point, Stanton is completely miserable. And, in the midst of this really horrible insane asylum; with rat feces, crazy people clawing and screaming and icky stuff like that...John Melmoth, the wanderer, appears before him again. And we get to learn his motive: Everything he did was basically designed for Stanton as a demonstration of his power. His aim is to coerce Stanton to accept a deal: to assume Melmoth the wanderer's soul-pact with the devil. The pact gives Melmoth not only immortality, but also immense power over the lives of morals. (As we've seen demonstrated through Stanton's travels). Pretty much the only power he doesn't have his the ability to violate the freewill of others: He can't make people do something they choose not to do. I don't know if it's the realization of exactly how evil The Wanderer is (that he would actually make such a pact), or the fact that Melmoth wouldprefer the life of someone who's literally locked in a straight-jacket in a 1700's-era mental institution to his own life (where he's got all these superhuman abilities and all of this power), but Stanton's not touching that pact with a ten-foot pole.
My impression:
Maybe it's because his Stanton's discriptions of misery and woe are so intense, but by the time I got to this point I was like: "WHELL THAT'S JUST GRrREAT! He's still crazy and still locked in this horrible mental institution place...but he's not damned, so I guess that's good..." But actually it got better! Because everything horrible that was going on in his life: all the misery that he thought was permanent...and as hopeless as he thought his situation was...it was all actually temporary. Eventually he got out of that situation and back to his normal life as a happy guy. He never got to track down The Wanderer again, but he did find the surviving members of Melmoth's family and gave them the story of what had happened to their ancestor. It's actually really uplifting. All problems are temporary (unless of course you're Melmoth, and your soul is on loan from the devil...)
Melmoth Reconciled
At the end of the story, there's a reference to a sequel called "Melmoth Reclaimed". I wasn't paying proper attention, so I didn't realize that Melmoth Reconciled is not an authorized sequel. It's by another author. So as I was listening to it, it started out all serious and then it started getting more and more hokey...like satire. I don't think it was a completely horrible story; it was actually really funny. And it definitely made a memorable statement about how corrupt human nature really is. ("People sell their souls on the stock market every day" type thing) But I was reading it as a legit sequel, and that's not what it was. It got me thinking, though, what would it take for Melmoth to really be "Reconciled"? Well within Christian theology, he'd really need to address the Savior. He keeps going around trying to terrorize and coerce humans to save him...wouldn't it be interesting if he actually got apologetic about it? Like, he wants to make it right, but he know he can't...so he (completely humbled and and meek) appeals and submits to the will of God, and he finds that the price has already been paid, he just had to repent and reclaim it? Yes it's really sappy and whatever, but I don't care. Melmoth is not going to get saved by accident. Finding someone who's sucker enough to assume his soul-pack isn't going to absolve him of the horrible stuff he's done (It just means he's ruined yet another person's life!). There's only one way to set this right, he probably already knows what it is. It's just a matter of whether or not someone like him is willing to do it.
My first reading of this story was this year (2015), but I read it as a romance...not as part of my gothic reading challenge. It was only after I'd listened to an essay by Mr Lovecraft (Supernatural Horror in Literature) that I even recognized the gothic and paranormal elements in this story. Mr Lovecraft cites this book as an example of how the gothic genre evolved into contemporary weird lit. I'm going to go over some of the points he brings up that convinced me that this is indeed a work of gothic fiction. Eerie Setting: The narrator of the story is a guy who moves to the English Countryside. This isn't the kind of country with manicured hedgerows and acres and acres of developed farmland. This is a moor: an isolated, under developed area where nothing grows really well, except peat and heather. It's cold, and windy and the narrator seeks refuge in the manor house of a guy named Heathcliff. He's surprised to find that his future neighbors are not very pleasant or hospitable. They take him in and he shares dinner with them, but while he is all proper and polite, they behave with contempt and disdain (towards him, and towards each other). Apparitions/Supernatural Phenomena: At some point, the narrator finds himself in the attic of the manor (The Manor is called Wuthering Heights). He's going through old papers, including the diary of a young girl namedCatherine Earnshaw, then he sees an apparition of a young girl like the one that he was just reading about. When he describes what he saw to the master of the house, Heathcliff is shocked. We're lead to assume he (Heathcliff) hasn't seen any apparition; but he'd really, really like to. At this point in reading, I didn't take the whole ghost sighting seriously. The narrator had been going through very personal papers of this girl: a girl named Cathy (just like the living girl in the house). And in this really creepy atmosphere...he probably imagined the girl he'd been reading about. And when Heathcliff hears about the apparition, I kind of just assumed he kind of went crazy. Because it turns out that he and the girl who wrote in that diary were very very close. Losing her has taken a terrible emotional toll on him and he wants her back, even if it's just her ghost. "Be with me always. Take any form, drive me mad...only do not leave me in this abyss!" [O.O] When I first read it, I was just like: "OOOOh-Kay this guy's bonkers..." Mr Lovecraft has a different idea; the apparition is real. It's the ghost of Catherine Earnshaw (Cathy Jr's mother), and she's haunting the house at Wuthering Heights because her soul mate (Heathcliff) is still alive and living there. Looking back, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, it kind of makes sense actually, with the whole emphasis on how deep and abiding Heathcliff and Catherine's connection is. Referring to their relationship as a transcendent supernatural bond, and not merely a metaphorical one, makes the message of the story a lot more powerful. Catherine and Heathcliff aren't just two people who have common life experiences and similar temperaments (although they do have that as well...); they're linked on a primordial or spiritual level as well. Love as a spiritual connection:
As the narrator (and we) learn more and more about the lives of Catherine and Heathcliff, one thing that sticks out is that even though they have this connection they didn't always treasure each other the way they should have.
At one point, Catherine talks to her friend and servant about how she doesn't understand romantic love. She likes her boyfriend (The Not-Heathcliff) because treats her nice and buys her things. Outside of what he can do for her, she doesn't care about him.
Her feelings on Heathcliff are a completely different matter: "He's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same [...] If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger: I should not seem a part of it [...] Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always on my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being." (^^Dang! Those are some really intense #feelings you've got there!)
And those feelings remain consistent throughout her whole life, even after she figures out that it's not going to work out with Heathcliff for various social and economic reasons. I think it's interesting that despite her strong feelings, she's OK with the two of them staying 'just friends'. You get the feeling that even if they had gotten married, they would have probably still had problems. They have a really hard time connecting with their other family members (this particularly problematic when they each have children of their own). If they actually got married, they'd probably be the type of couple who's fighting and arguing all of the time. Because it's not just a reflection of how they feel about each other, but how they feel about their own person (whether that person exists as a single or a dual entity). The message I got from this part of story is that having a soulmate is a powerful thing, but it doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with your personal happiness, especially if you don't have a great relationship with yourself in the first place! "Sinners would be miserable [even] in heaven." Heathcliff's Identity:
As a literary figure, Heathcliff is kind of like Othello in Shakespeare. As questionable a moral figure as he is, he's really important because he's one of the few notable, romantic figures in Victorian/Romantic literature who is not white.
Also, a lot of the difficulties he faces in life (feeling like an outsider, suffering abuse, facing discrimination and overcoming it) are all consistent with the struggles a person would face as an ethnic minority during that time.
However, Mr Lovecraft takes it a step further and conceptualizes Heathcliff as a changeling. Maybe not a literal changeling, but as a symbolic one in the story. (Apparently there's a part in the book that refers to him that way, but I don't remember it.)
(Note: If you're not aware, a changeling is a baby fae or demon who's been switched with a baby human. That's why Heathcliff was supposedly abandoned as a young child: His parents discovered he wasn't the child they wanted...so they left him out to die.)
I think that's kind of dumb. If Heathcliff is basically a baby Satan, than the only reason he's causing havoc in everyone's lives is because it's what he was born to do. It diminishes the struggles he's had to go through.
The idea of Heathcliff as a paranormal entity does communicate one point that I like: that Heathcliff is not a victim in his own life...Kind of a Don't underestimate him. He's a force to be reckoned with. type of thing.
And I think Heathcliff would like to see himself in that way, too. He certainly showed all those punks back home, he ain't worthless! Adaptions:
I'm currently looking for one to watch. I really don't like that most of the time they cast a white actor as Heathcliff.
There is one version (2011) that uses a mixed race actor:
Quote:"There are combinations of very simple natural objects that have the power of thus affecting us..."
Theme: Aristocracy, chronic illness
I still think this ties with "Smith of Wootton Major" for my favorite short story.
When I first read it, I was like: "Wow! I don't even know what all these words mean, but they're really, really pretty!"
I like how this story really makes you pay attention. You read (or this year, I listened) to the beginning of a sentence and by the words you think you have an idea of where its heading, but by the end you're in a completely different place. It's my favorite type of writing: it seems flamboyant at first, but as you read it, it becomes very intentional.
The plot has a kind of mystery to it, one that I think is really satisfying even though Mr Poe never explicitly divulges the whole truth. The descriptions also create a really compelling atmosphere throughout.
The House:
It's been said that The Usher House gets so much description and takes up such a large presence in the story, that it's more of a character than the human characters are. I don't know if I agree with that completely, mostly because I'm really fascinated by Roderick and Madeline and what their story might be, but there is certainly more to the house than it existing simply as a memorable attraction.
On the outside, it looks like a total wreck. After describing the whole exterior of the house and the grounds the narrator kinda goes: 'but hey, it's still standing up so that's good!'
On the inside, it's really gloomy. But the narrator can't explain why he finds it so. There are no skulls, or ravens, or cobwebs. No skeletons or sarcophagi...
It's just a house! And it's full of the things you'd expect to find in a house: tables and chairs and maybe a desk, and definitely a few bookshelves. Books and musical instruments (The Ushers are artists). All the stuff wealthy people would have in their houses, but not anything out of the ordinary to the eyes of our narrator.
(He hasn't found the crypt yet ;)
The narrator comes to the conclusion that the gloomy aura must emanate from how all these objects are arranged.
But his friend, Roderick Usher, has another idea: He believes the house is a living, sentient entity that's shaped the destiny of his family for centuries.
At this point, the narrator starts to think his friend neuroses are being exacerbated and exploited by the family doctor. (who he thinks looks like a shady dude)
The Family:
When the "peasantry" (basically all the normal people who live nearby) refer to "The House of Usher" they're talking about both the house and the family that lives there. In the public eye, the house and the family are synonymous institutions. He house has been there forever, and the family has lived there forever.
I think it's interesting that Roderick, despite his belief about the vaguely malevolent nature of the house, has no plans or desire to leave it. He's a part of the establishment, and the establishment is such a part of him that he'd lose a big part of his identity of he moved. I also think it's also likely because he's economically and socially tied to the house, and its/his role in the community there, it's just not practical for him to uproot. Especially when he and his sister are battling this hereditary illness.
Maybe it's because I read it from a modern perspective; where it's a normal thing for families to move around, separate, and grow...but the idea that the house and the family are pretty much extensions of each other is really fascinating:
If the house is a visual representation or extension of the family (or visa versa), then we have two options available to explain what happens to Madeline and Roderick (and the House) at the end of the story.
# 1 is that "The House of Usher" is old and beat up, riddled with disease...they could definitely use some TLC, but there's nothing particularly ominous about them or what's happening to them. They're gloomy and neurotic because they're lonely; they don't have cousins or aunts or uncles or a big extended family to rely on because their ancestors' brothers and sisters all died before they could create nuclear families of their own.
(As far as the Usher line of decent goes...)
#2 is that "The House of Usher" is indeed a malignant entity; or that the house (structure) and the house and the family feed off of each other in some way.
I used to favor the second explanation (and I still kind of do, because it plays into my whole Lizard People theory)...but then I played the "Dark Tales: Edgar Allan Poe" version of the game and it was really silly. I feel bad for it, because all the others in the series that I've played are so good. And the graphics were of such good quality...and the voice actors were awesome...but it was... just... like, it was really dumb:
(They really capitalized on the "vacant eye-like windows" though)
Since then, I've been re-evaluating the first scenario:
For a long time, it was hard for me to accept Roderick's affection for his sister as 100 percent genuine, given his actions later in the story.
But last night at work I was kind of thinking about it. Wait a minute, this is Mr Allan Poe we're talking about! Chronic illness was a big feature of his personal and family life. Dealing with debilitating physical and emotional pain was something he was probably really familiar with. On some days you might feel OK, and you can function, and then the next day you feel so bad you can't get out of bed. Is it too big a stretch to believe he could relate to the idea of someone who values and cherishes their loved one very much, but is still looking forward (anticipating) their death? Probably not.
(I should note here: I work in a hospital. I get that this is not the type of thing that happens all the time, but to me...when I've just been talking to people who are old or who have suffered with chronic diseases for a long time and then they get a cancer diagnosis...and it's kind of a relief to them. It's a weird dynamic, but it does happen.)
I'm also gonna assume that Roderick was smart enough to pick up on the pattern to his family tree: I can imagine him going on ancestry.com and going "Hmm...Great-Grandpa had a brother, but he died of consumption. And Dad had a sister...and she died with her firstborn. And I have a sister...O wait..."
So maybe Madeline's death has been something he's been preparing for his whole life. And now she's getting sick again, and he thinks it's the last time. In fact, he's pretty much convinced himself that it is her time to let her go.
(Spoilers below: proceed with caution)
Unfortunately for both of them, she's not dead yet!
AND (not surprisingly) she's none too happy with being buried alive...
What's puzzling to me is that it's pretty clear Roderick realizes his mistake pretty early, or at least suspects it. Why didn't he do anything about it?
One possible answer is that he really wants her to be dead, he's been grieving her loss for a really long time and now he thinks he's ready to move on. So when he hears the raping, tapping and scratching (remember his senses are extremely acute) coming from the family crypt (Yeah, they have one IN THEIR HOUSE!! Perfectly normal apparently...)
Yup...he's in denial.
These are my faces for Roderick:
And Madeline:
(Only they're both really sickly and emaciated...)
Didn't this guy get the memo?! Dracula does not behave like vampires are 'sposta act!
(Last time I checked...vampires do not wear straw-bonnets. That just does not fit with the image at all!)
This was really confusing to me at first.
I think popular culture has set up certain expectations for what a vampire (and a vampire story) should be, and Dracula (both the character and the book) is not concerned with conforming to that ideal.
Strictly speaking, the story isn't even about the vampire character. The only times we delve into his identity or motive is through Johnathan, Renfield, or Mina. And although this does paint a compelling portrait, it's not the image of him that's become well known.
Primarily though, the story is concerned with the lives of seven people: Johnathan, Lucy, Mina, Jack, Arthur, Abraham, and Quincy. Their stories start out really mundane (Except for Johnathan's...which starts out super-exciting and then he takes a secondary role in the story). It's about them dealing with life and trying to be the best people they can be. I don't think I fully appreciated these characters or the journey they go through the first time I read it.
Characters:
“All men are mad in some way or another, and inasmuch as you deal discreetly with your madmen, so deal with God's madmen too, the rest of the world.”
I've decided most of the characters should be played by the Studio C gang (except for Mina, Quincy, and Van Helsing).
Johnathan Harker-
“Despair has its own calms.”
(When I first read the original Dracula story as a teen, my reaction was "What? This isn't about Dracula! This is about some wimpy man-child and his friends!" This guy is the aforementioned "man-child". Although I've really come to love him now...)
Of all the characters, Johnathan's probably the one who's most like me, and (at the start of the story) he's getting to do a lot of the stuff that I'd love to do:
He's traveling for business, and enjoying it; seeing a beautiful new part of the world and experiencing the culture there:
Meeting new people (Transylvanians are...different...but really nice!)
Trying new foods (Paprika is like the most delicious thing ever...I'm thirsty...)
he's also dreaming ('I wonder if Mina and I will ever get to travel here, together?')
All things I'd love to do while traveling...
So for me, it's like he's basically living the best vacation ever....aaannd then just happens to end up in a living nightmare.
If you only read four chapters of "Dracula" make it the first four. They're so intense and exciting...and (SPOILER ALERT) he doesn't die (END SPOILER)
I used to think it was dumb that he never tells anybody "Hey, guys. Dracula's coming to my hometown, he's a killer we should probably try to do something about that guy..."
But now I think that's just how most people respond: they avoid things, sometimes for years and years, because they're afraid to deal with them.
Lucy Westerna-
"I suppose that we women are such cowards that we think a man will save us from fears, and we marry him."-Lucy Westerna
I used to really dislike this character. I think part of my dislike stems from the fact that her chapters are really boring at the start, and they come immediately after Johnathan's rollercoaster of danger and suspense.
Compared to that, Lucy's "but-who-will-I-marry?" drama is...well...a bit boring.
I also find her personality a little annoying. (The thing that got me though her first few POV chapters,..when she's at her most annoying...is the fact that they're being read by a male narrator who's doing this delightful impersonation of a "British teenage girl"-voice. And it's pretty far-reking hilarious!)
I don't think there is anything wrong with being good looking, or playing the field in dating, or knowing what you want in a man (especially now that I'm acclimated to the "Jane Austen School of Courtship" line of thinking..."You work that field, Lucy!").
Even being a bit self-deprecating and "dumb blond" isn't horrible as far as personality traits go. I think it's because she is presented as everyone's romantic, feminine ideal. And I'm a heterosexual woman so I'm like, "Um...guys? She's not that cool..." Maybe that's jealousy on my part; she does get to chose between three really great guys (A doctor, an aristocrat, and a cowboy) all of them completely respect her as a person and never try to pressure her into doing something she doesn't want to do. (Lucy is one lucky woman...) It's an interesting, and sad, subtext to the story that a lot of the personal traits that make her alluring and desirable to the "good men" (her openness, her "spunk", and her amity) so make her an ideal victim to "predatory men".
This next part probably shouldn't bug me, but it does: The fact that people only make a stand against Dracula after the lovely Lucy is victimized (NOT when an impoverished mother, child, prostitute, or mental health inmate is victimized).
She's becomes, like, the poster child for the anti-vampirism movement:
"Don't suck, not even once."
(In more ways than one)
Wilhelmina "Mina" Murray-Harker
“The world seems full of good men--even if there are monsters in it.”
I really love that, at the beginning of the story, you think of her as Jonathan's sweetheart...but by the end the book, the situation is reversed. Mina has taken center-stage in the story: she's the primary hero and Jonathan is her husband.
She's a pretty assertive and take-charge type of person, and I think it's unfortunate that most adaptions take that away from her.
(It's a little long, but I think it's really sweet!)
That's the kind of love that deserves celebrating!
Abraham Van Helsing-
"It is a strange world, a sad world, a world full of miseries, and woes, and troubles; and yet when King Laugh come, he make them all dance to the tune he play."
Van Helsing is the oldest of the group. You'd think he'd be the responsible adult but he's actually kind of a weirdo.
As a character I admire him because he defies stereotypes. A lot of depictions paint him as superstitious, eccentric, or as a hardcore crucifix-wielding vampire hunter. And his backstory is really tragic.
But he doesn't let any of that define him. He's seen a lot in life, and he's learned a lot. Even though he does feel sad sometimes, he always focuses on the positive and if there is any humor at all to be found in a situation he WILL exploit it (even if it's not exactly appropriate...).
(He's a weirdo, but like a really smooth weirdo.)
He's also (I think) the most 'pure of heart' of all the characters. Unlike most of them, he's not avenging anything, he just genuinely wants to do good and help people and he considers it a call to duty when he knows he can help.
Dr John "Jack" Seward-
"Is it possible that love is all subjective, or all objective?"
He's introduced as your friendly, neighborhood Insane Asylum Doctor. He's probably my favorite POV character because most of the time he acts as the straight-man and the "voice of reason" to everybody else's crazy.
He's also the most cynical:
"I felt all the dogged argumentativeness of my nature awake within me as I answered him:
(Dr Seward) :"I am satisfied that Lucy's body is not in that coffin; but that only proves one thing."
(Van Helsing) :"And what is that, friend John?"
(Dr Seward) : "That...it is not there..."'
(^^Classic...classic Dr Seward!)
I have two favorite moments with this Dr Seward:
1) When he's with Van Helsing, leading up to the big vampire reveal. For some reason I imagine Van Helsing ringing Jack about the neck and pulling his ears and smacking his head to make him pay proper attention!
2) Is when he meets Mina Harker for the first time. The only know of each other thought mutual friends but they instantly make a connection and end up exchanging diaries. "We need have no secrets among us; working together with absolute trust, we can surely be stronger than if some of us were in the dark." (It's such a lovely bromance!)
Renfield The Lunatic-
Dr Seward: "The man is an underdeveloped homicidal maniac."
Ancient fangirl saying: "He may be a minor character in the story, but he's a major character in my heart"...
I love this guy!
For one thing, without him, we really wouldn't know what Dracula's endgame is. We get a glimpse of Dracula's plans and motives thought Renfield's seemingly insane actions:
"What he desires is to absorb as many lives as he can, and he as laid himself out to achieve it in a cumulative way."
(^^That's why Dracula is making more vampire fledglings! This vampire invasion could be of apocalyptic proportions if someone doesn't do something fast!)
I also think he's got most compelling character arc. When I first read "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, my favorite character was Gollum, and Renfield is that kind of a character in this story:
In The Lord of The Rings, Gollum shows us what it means to be master of The One Ring (It really means being a slave).
In Dracula, Renfield shows us what it means to be a vampire: It's not empowering, it's not sexy, it's not desirable.
It's repulsive. Unlike Gollum though, he's able to realize this and make a stand against it before the end.
***
I'd really like to know if Renfield is his first name or last name. In that 1931 movie, Dracula calls him Mr Renfield but they changed the story so he takes a lot of Jonathan's role in that movie, so I'm not sure. :(
Quincy Morris-
Van Helsing: "If america can go on breeding men like that, she will be a power indeed."
Quincy is kind of my dashing hero ideal...
He's a cowboy. He's chivalrous, but not overbearing. He consistently finds positive outlets for his angst.
He gets rejected romantically, and then arranges a bachelor party for the guy Lucy accepted because he doesn't want any hurt feelings between the friends.
I. Like. This. Guy!
(I'm really glad Lucy didn't choose him, because he's mine!)
***
Someone speculated that, because he's the only character besides Van Helsing who seems to be familiar with vampires, that maybe he's hunted them before. I like that idea! I think that would be a cool spin off: An american vampire hunter...(I wonder if he's met Henry Sturges? ;))
Arthur Holmwood (aka. "Lord Godalming.")
Most of the time, I see him as this:
But other times, when something serious is happening, he's suddenly transformed into this:
Dr Seward: "Arthur , who, poor fellow, was speaking of his part in the operation where his blood had been transfused to his Lucy's veins [...] he felt since then as if they two had been really married, and that she was his wife in the sight of God. None of us said anything about the other two operations [blood transfusions], and none of us ever shall."
(^^ I can't explain how funny I find this. It's sad, and also hilarious...As Van Helsing would say: King Laugh, he come)
Aside from Lucy, he's probably the most tragic of the main characters. Not only does he lose his fiance, but his dad also dies in the middle of the story. Van Helsing kind of takes him in as a son-figure, because he looks so much like a child of his own that he lost.
(It's very sad)
_______________
Charity
The main characters consistently seek to cultivate positive relationships with each other, even in the midst of conflict. They have goodwill towards each other and are generous. It stands in contrast to my conception of vamprism and all that the vampire Dracula has come to represent. I've decided to refer to this 'opposite of vamprism' (displayed by the main characters) as charity.
(I'm referring to the biblical conception of charity: which is the love that God plants in your heart for everything He created. If you cultivate it, it grows and grows until you can't contain it anymore and you have to share it with the people around you! Charity makes you want to be a better person, it entices you to be generous, compassionate, and full of goodwill. It motivates you to do and create beautiful things...Have you ever felt that way before? It's a beautiful feeling!)
If vamprism is about taking something that someone else has, charity is about giving of self. A vampire will entice you or seduce you; but s/he only wants you if you have something to offer. The whole focus of Van Helsing's team (as an individuals and as a group) is to offer all they can to others.
This attitude is not just directed towards the people you like; ultimately it's for your enemies, too. And surprisingly enough, this story makes a point to demonstrate that.
______________
Count Dracula-
"I have been so long master that I would be master still-or at least that none other should be master of me."
(^^I don't even know if this is entirely true.
And I hesitate to give Dracula too much sympathy cuz he's still a bad really bad guy
But at the end of the book we're invited to explore his background,
to try and explain why he became the person that he is.)
Towards the end of the story Dracula makes Mina a living vampire and creates a mind link. The mind link seems to work kind of like Legilimency in the Harry Potter books (or, probably a better example would be the mind link that Voldemort and Harry Potter share).
Eventually, the team figures out how to exploit the link to track Dracula's location. However, being inside Dracula's mind and memories also gives Mina (and eventually the rest of the team) a very different perspective on their villain:
"It [killing dracula] is not a work of hate. The poor soul who has wrought all this misery is the saddest case of all."
(^^This is quite a change! It makes me very curious...what exactly did she see in his mind?
She never tells us explicitly, but she does give us a few hints:
We know that she has access to Dracula's past memories; so she saw him when he was a human being. She realizes he had a horrible, horrible life and did unspeakable things (including, possibly, having to kill his own wife and daughters to save them from being raped by an invading army).
She also has a greater understanding of Dracula's psychology. They refer to The Count as having a "Child mind".
This doesn't mean he's childlike or innocent, it means his mind lacks plasticity. He can only see the world in one way, and he can only respond to problems in the same way he's dealt with them in the past. Symbolically, he's already "dead" because he cannot change.
It also seems to give her an idea of how horrible the curse of undead vamprism is, because she makes her husband promise that he will destroy her body if she dies under the curse (so she won't come back as an undead vampire).
By the time they get to the final confrontation with the master vampire, you really feel that it is no longer and act of vengeance or hate. It's about justice: for Dracula's victims, and also for the human soul of the monster.
****
I have to address these fan theories next because they've been stuck in my mind and I've been giving them waaayyy more thought than they deserve:
1) "Was Jonathan Harker seduced by Dracula?"
People...on the internet...be saying things about the "implied" relationship between these two. My reaction was "WHAT? I don't remember that from the book!" So I listened to the first four chapters again. The most suggestive thing I found there is this quote:
"I think strange things which I dare not confess to my own soul."
I know it's very juvenile, but I was chuckling at that quote for, like, 12 hours at work one time.
Really, there isn't any evidence to support that a seduction took place. I think it's something Dracula could have done if he wanted to. I mean, his bite isn't always fatal, and being bitten doesn't necessarily mean you'll die right away or turn into a vampire.
Jonathan is really level with Mina about the whole experience (even if he isn't completely level with everyone else, but Jonathan does have these PTSD-like blackouts. (Who wouldn't if they'd gone through the terror he went through as Dracula's guest?) There are also times he admits that he can't process some of the things that happened to him; so he represses what he's thinking or feeling. Lucy (another of Dracula's victims) seems suffers from amnesia on multiple occasions. So I suppose that the possibility cannot be excluded.
However, the other fan theory...
2) "Was Dracula in love with Jonathan Harker?"
Just needs to die...
Dracula was put into a position where he had to protect and defend Jonathan, not because he liked Jonathan but because Johnathan is Dracula's lawyer and real-estate agent. He needs him so that he can get the house at Carfax Abbey in England.
So if you're looking for a homosexual icon here...just...please don't. It's not about sexuality or sexual orientation, it's about abuse and using sex to hurt people. So yes Dracula would seduce a man, he would torment and victimize a man just like he would a woman.
And yes, men can be victims of sexual violence and feel powerless just as much as women can.
But this story is NOT about glamorizing sexual violence.
You know why we sexualize Dracula? Because he targeted women, and for some reason we find that attractive...
But you know who else he targeted?
Babies.
Yeah, he's atrocious
Adaptions:
I watched the 1931 version-the best things about it was the actor for Dracula.
It's sad because I see the budding of some very negative stereotypes in the other characters.
This was the best scene in the movie:
(It's soooo creepy!)
I also read at transcript of the play "Dracula" by Liz Lochead.
The best part about it is they gave Renfield a starring role, I really enjoyed his part of the story.
