Characteristics of Gothic Literature Essay Example for Free

Characteristics of Gothic Literature Essay The Gothic In 1798 an anonymous author published a commentary that revealed exactly how some writers received the Gothic during this time: â€Å" Take—An old castle, half of it ruinous A long gallery, with a great many doors, some secret ones. Three murdered bodies, quite fresh. As many skeletons, in chests and presses. An old woman hanging by the neck; with her throat cut. Assassins and desperadoes, quant. suff. Noises, whispers, and groans, threescore at least. † (1-7) After reading many of the selections in the anthology, I found this poem on a Gothic’s â€Å"recipe† to be quite true (602). However, in the case of this anonymous writer, he considers all of these characteristics to be negative. I, on the other hand, find it very intriguing that this type of novel developed in a time ruled by writers whose main focus was politics and poetry. Many influential writers including Coleridge and Wordsworth criticized the characteristics, morality, purpose, and significance of these novels; however, I believe many of the features they disliked actually broadened the scope of literature. The Gothic novel was often attacked for being too formulaic. Although the specifics of the plot changed from novel to novel, the characteristics were often similar, which is something that is pointed out repeatedly by the Gothic’s critics. The similarities encountered in the characteristics of these novels include the setting, mystery, and characters to name a few. The setting of this type of novel is usually in a castle of sorts, or in some other mysterious place that produces suspense and terror within the reader. Although these settings were often alike, they â€Å"exist to convey the atmosphere† and are used â€Å"for ends that are fundamentally psychological† (Hume 286). This characteristic is one that set up the entire feeling of the novel, one of suspense, horror, and mystery. The setting of various novels was not uniform because it was the easy or obvious choice like many critics believed, but because it created a certain atmosphere that was needed for the plot. If the story had been set on a sunny beach, the atmosphere would have been much different and the reader would not get the same affect. Like the settings, the mysteries that develop within Gothic novels are usually somewhat similar. From what I have come across, many include a murder or deep, dark secret that is unraveled by an ordinary person. While this may support Wordsworth’s claim that these novels are â€Å"sickly and stupid German tragedies† because of their straightforward plot, I find them to be quite interesting (266). These mysteries create suspense, and were the first â€Å"page-turners† that were ever written. Readers no longer had to decipher long and complicated meanings from pieces such as the â€Å"Lucy Gray† poems; instead, they could sit back, relax, and enjoy these novels that created an escape into a mysterious world. Another piece of the â€Å"formula† that was important to the genre were the characters that were used throughout the novels. The characters were often simple people who were thrown into a situation that required extraordinary actions. While the simplicity of the characters was often criticized by writers who considered themselves to be â€Å"high culture,† these characters had the ability to â€Å"involve the reader in special circumstances† (Hume 286). Unlike the pieces that came before them, the Gothic novel had the capacity to draw the reader in, and put them in the shoes of the main character. For me, it was very hard to feel for the personas in earlier poems that we came across. I think the main reason for this is that the characters tended to be somewhat generic, but interesting. They allowed for anyone to understand the character and immerse themselves within the character’s thoughts. They also allowed for people to sink in to a particular character and feel the terror that they were feeling. Another aspect of the Gothic that was often called into question was the morality of the characters and authors. There are many instances in which these novels incorporated grotesque scenes that included rape and murder among many other things. In The Monk by Matthew Lewis the main character, Ambrosia, is a virtuous and ethical man who seduced by the demon Matilda. In one scene â€Å"his desires were raised to that frantic height by which brutes are agitated†¦ and [he] hastily proceeded to tear off those garments which impeded the gratification of his lust† (598). Ambrosia is obviously an immoral character, and he is criticized for not being so. To me, it seems like critics were getting to the point where they were trying to find anything and everything to criticize about the Gothic novel. While this genre may involve some unseemly characters, they are needed in order to create an interesting plot. Having some sort of villain is necessary in any type of writing that has a mystery or murder involved. Without villains, we cannot have heroes, and both are very important aspects of literature. Coleridge, for example, not only attacked The Monk as a novel but also attacked Lewis as a person for having the ability to create such an immoral character. He believed that â€Å"the merit of a novelist is in proportion†¦ to the pleasurable effect which he produces (604). I highly disagree with this statement because I believe controversy affects change, and change is needed in order to forward society. Novelists and poets were no longer writing poems that had the sole purpose of making a person feel good or empowered; instead, they were writing for entertainment. Also, many of the writers before The Monk addressed political issues that were not considered pleasurable, but controversial and hard to confront. Coleridge’s statement seems to contradict everything that literature stands for. Authors and the literature they create are unpleasant at times, and that is not wrong—it is merely a necessity for the forward movement of society and evolution of literature. Another important issue to address when it comes to these novels is their specific purpose. It seems that every literary movement in history had some sort of motive or driving force behind them. For the Gothic, this driving force or purpose seems to be to induce terror while entertaining. Before this movement, we never really encountered works of literature that were straightforward, suspenseful, and enjoyable all at the same time. In an essay by Aikin and Aikin, they claimed that people would â€Å"rather chuse to suffer the smart pang of a violent emotion than the uneasy craving of an unsatisfied desire† (584). By this, they mean that terror is pleasurable, and that is exactly what these novels delivered to their readers. It was not an emotion that was regularly produced when readers came into contact with the typical works of this time. For a piece of literature to induce such error was something novel and interesting that affected many of their readers. Because terror is an emotion that is hard to come by, these novels were, like I said, an escape for readers. Terror is not something that a person wants to encounter in their real life, but is something they can enjoy and acquire through reading these novels. Their purpose was not to confuse the reader with complicated meanings full of allusions. Instead, these terrifying novels have the ability to â€Å"render the poorest and most insipid narrative interesting when once we get fairly into it† (584). Although many of the authors of Gothic novels may not have been the best composers compared to standards during this time, they were still able to draw in a huge audience because they gave the people what they wanted. I would not consider the narratives â€Å"insipid,† but compared to the works that came before them, they were much simpler and used language that was not considered to be as articulate. This simplicity that is encountered when reading a piece of Gothic work, though criticized, says much about how society was changing during this time. These novels significantly altered the way in which literature was composed and whom it was available to. Instead of being read by the elite few, it was accessible to pretty much anyone who could read. During this time, the percent of literate people was rising rapidly, especially in the middle class. These books appealed to these people, and sold millions upon millions of copies because of this. I think that much of the distaste that so-called â€Å"high culture† writers had for these novels is because of their success. They were extremely popular, more so than the most popular of the poets during this time. For example, Wordsworth was said to be a commercialized version of â€Å"real† poetry because it was easier to understand than many other pieces out during this time. However, he never even came close to selling as many copies of Lyrical Ballads as the Gothic writers did with their own works. For Wordsworth to criticize a genre that feeds off of the readers’ ability to comprehend seems to be extremely hypocritical of him. Also, I think that when something appeals to the masses, it is a good thing. Change cannot occur unless everyone is on the same page, and that is what the Gothic provided to the people. Finally, I would like to confront just how significant this movement is to the literature we have today. This was the first time we encounter a genre that is similar to the types of genres we see today. The Gothic genre was criticized because the novels were too alike—but that is exactly what a genre is, according to today’s standards. One could argue that the novels that are published today are not of the same caliber as novels published 50, 100, or 200 years ago. And maybe that is true, but is it necessarily bad? In my opinion, having novels that are more accessible to more people makes for a better, more unified society. Having works of literature that are too complicated, wordy, or abstract leads to more ambiguity, and eventually creates a divide among social classes. I am not saying that all written works should be easy to understand, but I do think that the Gothic novel was the first in a wave of works of literature that helped society grow more literate. Finally, scholars and everyday people were able to read and talk about the same kinds of things. Although scholars who thought they were better writers were constantly criticizing it, they could not appeal to the masses. Gothic literature had the ability to do this, and you can still see its influence in novels on shelves today. It has a definite place in literary history, and should not be overlooked. It may not have had the deepest plots or the most complicated characters, but the genre had an impact during the 18th century, and continues to have an impact today.