Supernatural Fiction Readers discussion

This will be the thread for discussing our (voluntary) common read for October 2021, The Castle of Otranto by British author Horace Walpole (1717-1797), the work which is recognized as literary history's first "Gothic" novel. Post all your comments, thoughts, reaction, questions, background information, etc. here! Our read/discussion will officially run through Halloween; but as always, this thread will stay open indefinitely for those who might wish to comment later.

So far I'm intrigued by the paradoxical legend that "the castle and lordship of Otranto 'should pass from the present family, whenever the real owner should be grown too large to inhabit it.'” I'm interested in the way the legend supposedly spurs the odious father to force his son into marriage at the age of fifteen.

Many of us are used to thinking of The Castle of Otranto as "the first Gothic novel." But Walpole already subtitled the book A Gothic Story when it was first published, so the term "Gothic" was in use before there were "Gothic novels" as we think of them. The background of the term is interesting, at least to me (and perhaps instructive as well).

Walpole's novel is an early literary expression of the Romantic school of thought; but the era in which it was written, 1688-1789, was the age of Neoclassicism. As its name implies, the Neoclassical ("New Classical") school of thought saw itself as the revival of the glories of classical antiquity, the civilizations of Greece and Rome. To their minds, the Middle Ages represented a horrible hiatus in human progress, a conquest of civilization by scruffy Germanic barbarians, which mankind was now beginning to recover from. (Modern historians distinguish the Dark Ages in the early medieval era from the later, much more cultured High Middle Ages; but to the Neoclassicists it was all the same thing --everything from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance was the Dark Ages.) The Goths were one of the major Germanic tribes that overthrew the Roman Empire; so among early 18th-century intellectuals, "Gothic" (a.k.a. "barbaric") had become a synonym for "medieval."

Walpole could call this book "Gothic" because it's set in the Middle Ages. But the Romantic movement as a whole took some of its inspiration from the Middle Ages, a well as often using the period for a fictional setting. They saw the medieval centuries in a positive rather than negative light, and as embodying facets of human experience that the arid rationalism of the classical age had ignored. So Neoclassicist critics came to use "Gothic" as a broad term for Romantic fiction even if it wasn't set in the Middle Ages. To their minds, it was a pejorative term; but nowadays, it's gotten so that it no longer is (maybe because many people no longer know the historical background!).

That’s very interesting. It may actually lower my estimation of the book though as a big part of its merit for me was that it had some new innovation.

Kit wrote: "That’s very interesting. It may actually lower my estimation of the book though as a big part of its merit for me was that it had some new innovation."

It does innovate in a major way: it IS the first "Gothic novel" in our sense of the word, and I think the first novel in English literature that was set in the Middle Ages. The use of the word "Gothic" to mean "medieval" is the only thing that preceded the novel.

Can anyone say suffocating patriarchy?

Right off the bat, the first sentence: "Manfred, Prince of Otranto, had one son and one daughter: the latter, a most beautiful virgin, aged eighteen, was called Matilda." I have to say I'm not a fan of the phrase "beautiful virgin." Of course, I know I'm not of Walpole's time, but even so, it rankles me that he does not endow his women (I'm about half-way in now) with any real agency save that related to honoring the menfolk, however odious...except, of course, in the preservation of said virginity.

I wonder how women of the time felt about this portrayal.

Werner: ok, well my rating can remain the same then.

Deb: I thought the the women/girls were all written as one sided damsels in distress with implausibly no mind of their own just woodenly and incredibly hewing to her male authority figure’s authority.

Manfred, generally speaking, certainly could serve as a poster boy for "oppressive patriarchy." He's always habitually treated his wife and daughter with "causeless rigor" that even Isabella noted, and indeed "never showed any symptoms of affection" to Matilda; it's obvious that he played favorites with his offspring, and preferred Conrad, just because the latter was his (male) heir. Of course, his "bright" (NOT!) idea of (view spoiler)[divorcing his wife and forcibly marrying Isabella (hide spoiler)] is rampant sexism on steroids.

However, though I'm not a lot further than halfway through the book myself, I'd have to disagree about agency for women in the author's treatment, at least as far as Isabella is concerned. Rather than passively going along with Manfred's idea, she firmly rejects it, and exercises agency to oppose and thwart it in the only way she can, by (view spoiler)[escaping from his clutches and fleeing the castle (hide spoiler)]. In so doing, she shows herself to have a mind of her own, and to be willing to act decisively when it's warranted.

I wasn't bothered by the "beautiful virgin" phrase myself; I saw the reference to virginity as just the author's way of telling us she'd never been married yet (and that's information that doesn't go without saying, in that time and place --it wouldn't be at all unusual for a girl of 18, or even a much younger teen, to be married!). One might see a sexist agenda in that she's described primarily in relation to her looks --but then, the first thing we're told about Conrad, after his age, is that he's "homely."

Re Manfred I found him to be a very one sided character, cartoonish even. Until the end, which considering his form throughout the rest of the book until then, seemed incongruent.

Re Isabella- ok I guess she asserted herself there. It goes without saying this fails the Bechdel test with flying colours but that is the nature of this story so nothing to remark there.

Kit wrote: "Werner: ok, well my rating can remain the same then.

Deb: I thought the the women/girls were all written as one sided damsels in distress with implausibly no mind of their own just woodenly and in..."

I'm cooling off a bit now (a little bit). Yes, I agree with you that the women all fall into line as far as obeying husbands and fathers in maddening ways. I do see some redeeming features in the women though--mostly in how they love and care for each other. Hippolyta, Matilda, and Isabella work selflessly to help and comfort each other. Isabella, especially, takes an action meant to protect her intended mother-in-law.

Deb: it’s all of a piece with their one sided characterisation as pure innocent angelic (etc whatever else stereotype of damsels/ “beautiful virgins” there are) womenfolk isn’t it though?

Werner wrote: "Manfred, generally speaking, certainly could serve as a poster boy for "oppressive patriarchy." He's always habitually treated his wife and daughter with "causeless rigor" that even Isabella noted,..."

True, Werner, Conrad's appearance is described, but we aren't told Conrad's level of sexual experience, and he's never been married either. On reflection, I do agree with you that Isabella takes action--the part that feels heroic to me is when she makes a plan that would shield her mother-in-law. But I think part of the impetus for her action is to protect the proper male order.

Kit wrote: "Deb: it’s all of a piece with their one sided characterisation as pure innocent angelic (etc whatever else stereotype of damsels/ “beautiful virgins” there are) womenfolk isn’t it though?"

Yep, there is that. Except for Bianca, who's a bit clueless and classless (literally). At least Diego and Jaquez, the other servants, are equally silly. So, stereotypes of gender and class.

I do agree that although Isabella shows some agency it is in service to the overarching theme of being a virtuous maiden etc. So some agency but…

Deb wrote: "True, Werner, Conrad's appearance is described, but we aren't told Conrad's level of sexual experience, and he's never been married either."

Yes --but we know that fact because, in the very next sentence, we're told about his engagement and impending nuptials. That method of conveying information about Matilda's marital status isn't available, since she's not the object of any upcoming wedding.

Isabella expresses her reasons for opposing Manfred's idea at the time he broaches it, tersely but nonetheless clearly enough. As she sees it, he's violating the duty and obligations he owes to her as his daughter-in-law, to Conrad as his son, and to Hippolita as his wife, and therefore what he wants to do is "impious." She views it in this way from the vantage point of a very defined view of the world, which she would have had as a person (male or female) of the medieval era, and which would have been largely shared in by Walpole and by the readers in his 18th-century milieu.

Most people in pre-industrial Western society definitely did see social relations as subject to a prescribed order of things. Though that order incorporated sexist and elitist ideas, its most important feature was that it located individual persons in an interlocking system of binding duties and obligations. You owed certain things to others, both those "above" you whom you had to obey and those "below" you and dependent on you, who therefore had binding claims on you. And these moral debts to others were seen as imposed and backed up by God. So when Manfred proposes to violate them, what Isabella feels is genuine moral and religious outrage. She can feel this, and Walpole can depict her as doing so, because they actually view human behavior in moral, rather than purely utilitarian, terms.

It's very difficult for most modern readers to enter into books written with this mindset, because the dominant mindset of our world is totally different. Generally, 21st-century people see society, not as any kind of interlocking network, but as an agglomeration of self-directed individuals "looking out for Number One!" who may or may not cooperate at times insofar as it serves their own wants. And they're generally bemused or even disgusted if they encounter an obviously different sort of social consciousness. That also colors modern responses to the 18th and 19th centuries tendency to view character in moral terms, with favorable depictions of characters (of both genders) who exhibit purity of heart and mind, selflessness, caring service to others, loyalty, honesty, moral and physical courage. The most natural 21st century view is that anybody (and especially women) who exhibit these kinds of traits are dumb chumps who are just going to get taken to the cleaners.

Personally, I can enter into the book a bit more easily than many modern readers might, because my own way of looking at the world is fundamentally closer to Walpole's than it is to the modern Zeitgeist (even though I agree that the medieval and 18th century order was badly in need of serious reforms in the area of gender and class equality, democracy, etc.) I share the idea that humans have reciprocal duties and obligations to each other, and that human behavior is best understood in moral terms. So I can respect Isabella's stance, and appreciate both her character and that of some of the male characters who exhibit similar traits, in opposition to Manfred.

Interestingly, if one views the book through the lens of modern "values," one can make a good case that Manfred is the real hero here (much as some modern critics see Satan as the hero of Paradise Lost). He's a strong, self-assured, autonomous individual who knows exactly what he wants and has the guts to go after it (no matter who he hurts). True, he's profoundly sexist --but then, an awful lot of strong, self-assured, autonomous 21st-century males are just as profoundly sexist and proud of it.

Werner: re Manfred - NOT A SPOILER BUT IF YOU WANT TO READ IT COMPLETELY FREE OF OTHER’S PERCEPTIONS STOP HERE - just wait until the end. Totally incongruous, with his totally out for himself whether bad or good alphaness shown up until then, departed from!?

I get the whole different time and culture etc but that doesn’t give Walpole a pass for this book in my opinion. The characters were wooden and lacking complexity. They were cutouts. Human nature remains the same from historical times to now(evolution works too slowly to have changed it in that short space). Whatever the culture of the time people manoeuvre within the roles available to them. Just look at Shakespeare’s work - that was written nearly two centuries before this book and his female characters are complex and convincing.

Just in case anyone was worried, the only spoilery stuff I have written (and barely at that - I just didn’t like the ending) is in the above post, in the first paragraph.
Didn’t mean to scare anyone into averting their eyes after seeing the CAPS above!

Nah, Kit, don't worry about your comment being "spoilery!" When a novel's been around for over 250 years and is considered a classic, it's pretty hard not to know a lot about the plot already, even if you haven't read the whole thing. :-) And I've always thought that in reading a book, the journey is more important than the destination.

Yes, I agree with you that human nature hasn't changed any since 1764, or since the days of the Crusades. Sadly, rampant selfishness, hypocrisy, oppressive social structures, and some males who want to be little tin gods have always been with us, and still are. :-( IMO, your perception that Walpole's characterizations are pretty much wooden cut-outs is also spot-on. I'm not done reading the book, but I've noticed the same thing all along, and it's a weakness of Walpole's writing.

OK, I've decided to jump in for this one. I have a dead tree copy of Castle of Otranto as part of the collection Four Gothic Novels: The Castle of Otranto; Vathek; The Monk; Frankenstein. For those who care, Castle is on both the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die and the Guardian 1000 lists.

Reading the Wikipedia page I learned that not only was Castle of Otranto the first Gothic novel, but it is also the first supernatural English novel. I found that interesting, and particularly fitting for this group.

I'll probably read this one slowly, just a few pages per day, since my reading schedule is pretty full, so I might lag behind the group's comments. I'm starting with the Introductions to the First and Second Editions today.

I've now read everything in the book except the author's Preface to the second edition. (From experience, I opted to read the Introduction and even the Prefaces last, because I've learned that where classic novels are concerned, those often contain spoilers.)

Don't worry about being behind, RJ; it's still very early in the month, so it's quite likely that other readers still have yet to start! The text of the novel itself is short (about 110 pages), so it's a quick read.

"It's very difficult for most modern readers to enter into books written with this mindset, because the dominant mindset of our world is totally different. Generally, 21st-century people see society, not as any kind of interlocking network, but as an agglomeration of self-directed individuals "looking out for Number One!" who may or may not cooperate at times insofar as it serves their own wants. And they're generally bemused or even disgusted if they encounter an obviously different sort of social consciousness."

Oh, Werner, I hope our modern society is not as bleak as this! Truly, in recent years this all-for-me mindset has become more vocal. "If you're a celebrity, you can grab women wherever" comes to mind. And yet every day I see selfless, caring men. This morning's news show, for instance, highlighted a man who has dedicated himself to serving the interests of Native women who are subject to kidnapping and violence--the anti-Manfred man. And, of course, there are conniving, violent women--but not, I hope, the majority. Eek!

I have no real qualms with Isabella's actions. She has every right to safeguard her mind and body and abide by her values. She demonstrates clear thinking in the face of danger, out-thinking Manfred and protecting Hippolita in the process. I guess I didn't like Walpole's interpretation that she would then immediately think of her father and want to do whatever he desires rather than think of what she wants. Hippolita I do see as weak. She knows Conrad is not right for marriage, but it doesn't appear she tries very hard to prevent it; she merely "did sometimes venture to represent the danger." Not a strong effort. I see a little chink in Matilda's perfect character, though, when she briefly entertains the thought that Isabelle is less than virtuous. I wonder if that little slip will figure in to her future.

One other thing to consider regarding the writing of cut-out characters that Kit mentions. This book uses the device of a "found" manuscript. Just as Hawthorne had to represent the sensibilities of an earlier age in the "found" manuscript of The Scarlet Letter, maybe Walpole is using characters as two-dimensional stand-ins for morality or immorality in a way that he imagines an early Medieval author might. Just a thought.

Here's a laugh. The author writes in the preface: "The beauty of the diction, and the zeal of the author (moderated, however, by singular judgment) concur to make me think that the date of the composition was little antecedent to that of the impression." Methinks Walpole was a natural self-promoter though less than modest. Ha!

Deb, good thoughts! (Totally agree about Walpole's talent for self-promotion. :-) )

Deb wrote: "Oh, Werner, I hope our modern society is not as bleak as this!"

Well, the key word in my comment about how modern people look at the world is "generally" (not, thankfully, "universally"!). The "all-for-me" mindset characterizes most of the "1%" who run things and their acolytes, and trickles down to many folks in the toiling masses. But there are still a lot of ordinary people who have a moral perspective and care about others (which is why we aren't living in a full-blown dystopia yet, and why a recovery of a healthy sense of community is still a possibility).

Yay! I'm all for the recovery of a healthy sense of community!

I finished both introductions (no spoilers by the way, Werner - that's also something I look out for, although I've found that it's usually third party forwards/introductions that spoil rather than those by the author - and as long as I am dragging out this parenthetical aside, why don't they take those spoilery intros and make them Afterwords instead? OK, rant over) and started on the actual text last night, after watching the Dodgers walk off in their Wild Card victory over the Cardinals! Ahem, sorry about that. Having trouble staying on task today. So far, the story is moving along better than the Introductions did - those were a little wordy and I was bracing myself, hoping that the whole book wouldn't be like that. The prince's son Conrad is dead, in an odd fashion...

RJ wrote: "...why don't they take those spoilery intros and make them Afterwords instead?"

My sentiments exactly, RJ!

I just finished chapter 2. (My version did not have a forward, so I didn't have to deal with that!) What a fascinating discussion so far! I, too< wanted to slap these women, but am making allowances for the day it was written and supposed to have been written. I wonder if perhaps Walpole wrote them that way in part to inspire women readers to be pure and virtuous? In the first chapter, I found Manfred to be remarkably fickle, and by the end of the second, completely mad. I hope he get's his in the end, but from what you've said, maybe not. Werner, I appreciate your background information. All things I didn't know. I agree, also, with the comments about today's society. I also throw in my vote for "the recovery of a healthy sense of community" we so desperately need.

Loads of constructive thoughts to chew on. From purposeful cutouts to serve a purpose to providing inspirational models for womanhood of the day! Oh brother! We are really racking our brains as to what was going on in Walpole’s head! And haha at Walpole’s modesty!
Re the thinking about community instead of #1 at the exclusion of it - that sounds great yes. I think the myth of the rugged individual/self made man has no literal serious credibility anymore. I guess a key thing is to check if something really is in everyone’s best interest. Calls to mind political parties that often have names like [insert country name] First, The People’s Party or it might have the word democracatic or socialist in its title when it turns out they are excluding whole swathes of the population in their philosophy and policies… Anyway I think Walpole’s flow was affirming the ol’ patriarchy there!
I am glad I read it though. It’s been on my to read list for ages and now I’ve done it! I’m glad there is this discussion too as I really was scratching my head at the encomiums and was wondering about my doubts.

I'm still plugging away at Chapter 1. Manfred is now offering himself to Isabella. I laughed out loud a few times at these pages - the writing invokes shades of Jack Vance for me; maybe Vance was influenced a bit by Walpole?

Kit wrote: "Anyway I think Walpole’s flow was affirming the ol’ patriarchy there! " HAHAHAHAHA! Good one!

Chapter 3: That Manfred is a two-faced, lying, hypocrite scuzz bucket! Ha ha. I didn't like him! Chapter 5 brought home that until the VERY recent past, women were no more than chattel, used to benefit the men who "owned" them. Sadly, we still see this in some cultures. And poor Hippolita! Such saints, her and Matilda both. I didn't like Manfred any better in the last chapter. Here's the maid telling how freaked out she is by what she saw, and instead of going to look, he argues with her. Still hoping he'll get his from the giant knight!

I finished the book on Wednesday, and finally posted my three-star review (the rating means that I liked it!) last night. It's spoiler-free, so if anyone's interested, here's the link: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .

Very useful review, Werner, especially for me as my copy was introductionless.
I gave it the same score as you but it was less enjoyable for me. My review is less erudite too. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Kit, thanks for your kind words, and for the link to your witty review, which I've just officially "liked." (I like it unofficially, too! :-) )

Personally, I found Manfred's character arc more plausible than many readers did. (view spoiler)[The sudden realization that you've just brutally murdered your own daughter (and last surviving offspring) would have to be a very severe moral and psychological shock to most people, even self-centered ones. It would be to virtually any modern parent, even as culturally steeped in moral relativism as most are. To a medieval man, culturally conditioned to believe that moral absolutes are real and backed up by divine authority --even if he personally doesn't want to live by them-- it would be more so; and the climactic revelation of Alfonso's ghost (which superstitious medieval folk wouldn't dismiss as a really vivid hallucination, the way most moderns would) would be even more so. (And Walpole drops foreshadowing hints, in places in the text, that Manfred does have qualms of conscience at times.) So the possibility of moral turnaround is real; other novelists, such as Dickens, at times recognize the same possibility. (The difference between Walpole and Dickens, in that respect, is that the latter's characters are vital enough that we can really feel the plausibility of the change in them; but Walpole's villain is so wooden that all of his emotions, good and bad, feel to us like they're tacked on.) (hide spoiler)]

Werner wrote: "I finished the book on Wednesday, and finally posted my three-star review (the rating means that I liked it!) last night. It's spoiler-free, so if anyone's interested, here's the link: https://www...." I enjoyed your review! "some doorstop-sized 18th and 19th-century tomes, " made me laugh! Plus I learned some things! Kit, I hadn't thought about the size of the birds!! I am glad I read it, but I surely do wish Manfred had gotten his at the end! Ah well.

Rags & Bones: New Twists on Timeless Tales Just as an aside, as an extra to our common read, I read a story from this collection, Sirocco, which was inspired by our book. Which might have been why I expected our book to be a bit scarier.

I've read three chapters so far and there's never a dull moment-lots and lots of drama!
I'm still trying to picture that giant helmet!

I've just finished the book. Poor Matilda!

I finished Chapter 1 - on to Chapter 2...

I found a free ebook on Google Books. I’m making a start tonight.

SPOILER ALERT. AVERT LOOKING AT THIS POST IF YOU WANT TO AVOID ENDING SPOILERS LERS.

Werner: I reread the ending and on second thoughts ok yes Manfred’s arc works fine. It was written unconvincingly I think though. While I could see him caving and stammering on witnessing divine powers effectively threatening him into doing the right thing, his turn on a dime quite collected grovelling speech didn’t ring true to me. He could have been beset by fear and repentant yes, but it just wasn’t written well. Just of a piece for Walpole maybe.

Btw was the way Manfred refers to himself in the third person the regular way people spoke in the days it purports to be in?

The only other thing I can say about the ending is I wouldn’t want to be Isabella. Theo either but really really not Isabella.

Btw I checked the gothic fiction wiki entry and Hippolita is designated “Older, foolish woman”.

Really? I can see how that could fit her, judging by some of her actions.

Kit wrote: "It was written unconvincingly I think though.... it just wasn’t written well. Just of a piece for Walpole maybe."

Yes, Walpole's stilted dialogue is unconvincing here, and in some other places as well. (Where he uses third-person in this speech, though, Manfred is actually referring to his grandfather, Ricardo.)

Some people have commented above on the provenance of the giant feathers in Alfonso's helmet. Since the helmet started out as normal-sized (it apparently came from Alfonso's statue in the church --p. 19, in the edition I read), we can infer that the feathers were originally normal-sized, too, and came from normal birds; so gigantic rocs probably weren't involved. :-) The question is, WHY should Alfonso's ghost, and its accouterments like the helmet and sword, grow to gigantic size? (That's not a feature of any actual ghostly folklore that I've ever encountered.) Walpole never answers that. The idea is certainly original; but it wouldn't earn as high marks for "willing suspension of disbelief!"

Another oddity, later in that chapter, is the painted image of Ricardo sighing and stepping out of the portrait onto the floor (which may be where J. K. Rowling got the idea for the behavior of some of the portraits at Hogwarts!) Walpole never explains that phenomenon either, and fails to really develop it.

While we're on that subject, the kind of painted portrait hanging on the wall that's being envisioned here wouldn't have existed in the 12th or 13th centuries. That kind of portraiture didn't actually develop until the Renaissance. Also, medieval women --even upper-class women-- didn't affect fainting fits the way some 18th-century socialites did (medieval life was too rugged for that garbage!). In those cases, Walpole is unconsciously projecting the characteristics of his present into the past.

One thing that has made me chuckle is the use of the term "blockheads" by Manfred in his interactions with his domestic servants. I have always associated that term with the Peanuts comic strip (Charlie Brown) and I don't remember ever seeing it used anywhere else.

Werner, you have a gimlet eye. I’m really glad I read this while you did and there’s this discussion to clarify things.

Re the third person, I refer to eg pp114,115 of my copy - during Manfred’s speaking parts he actually refers to himself by name ie “Manfred”. He also says I within the same tract. Unclear and clunky. I thought it was strange.

Re growing helmet - ok right that would eliminate giant birds. It’s pictures like below with scary giant black feathers that brought this thought into my head.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/...

I have corrected my review to reflect there wouldn’t have been giant birds. Also that Manfred’s arc was unconvincing instead of confounding.

Kit wrote: "Werner, you have a gimlet eye. I’m really glad I read this while you did and there’s this discussion to clarify things. Me, too! Werner, you add a lot of knowledge and discernment in all your comments.

Kit, that picture is great! Although those plumes look like ostrich plumes, so maybe that giant bird would have been lovely. Not that ostriches are all that good looking...at least they have lovely plumes!

Kit: Blockheads! That's a good one and I missed it completely!

Georgann: I hadn’t thought of ostriches. They are big birds, yes. I remember visiting an ostrich farm my dad’s friend had. He told us about the special materials required to pen them up etc as they were so big and powerful!
I always mix up emus and ostriches.

Kit wrote: "Werner, you have a gimlet eye. I’m really glad I read this while you did and there’s this discussion to clarify things.

Re the third person, I refer to eg pp114,115 of my copy - during Manfred’s s..."

Thanks, Kit! Okay, now I understand what you meant about third-person speech, though it escaped my notice when I was reading the book (and the page numbers in the edition I checked out only go to 110). I haven't read self-reference in the third person very often in either medieval or 18th-century literature; of course, I haven't read much of either, but I don't think it was common. As I recall, there's one instance in Hamlet; so perhaps this is another case of Walpole being influenced by Shakespeare. On the other hand, that way of speaking makes Manfred sound overly pompous, so maybe that was Walpole's intention. :-)

RJ - Slayer of Trolls wrote: "I finished both introductions (no spoilers by the way, Werner - that's also something I look out for, although I've found that it's usually third party forwards/introductions that spoil rather than..."

Agreed! And let's get rid of the spoilers on back covers, too!