|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
posted April 10, 2016 11:28 PM |
|
|
Gothic Fiction.
I was debating this a few days ago, and decided to see if others had an opinion too.
The question is simple, I just want to ask what you believe Gothic fiction is. Does it have to be pure unadulterated vampires, werewolves, demons, and all manner of icky things; or can it have more nuance in its dark atmosphere? Nuance, that would allow less blunt supernatural happenings or even explainable ones?
First off, I would like to point out that, as I am sure we are all aware, Gothic is a genre and; therefore, has many defining qualities. Its name, “Gothic”, comes from the architecture of the places in which it mostly takes place. Other themes include, virgin maidens/helpless innocents, both weak and/or evil clergy, melancholic/eerie atmosphere, etc.(larger list here). Supernatural beings and events are, of course, parts of the genre, but a Gothic work does not need necessarily need them to be Gothic.
I would argue there is a sort of dichotomy in Gothic literature such as what you would find in fantasy. There is what I will call “high” Gothic. Stories like Frankenstein and Dracula would fit into this category. This group contains the most obvious deviations from reality. A wholehearted embrace of the unreal, allowing our greatest horrors to come to life. Supernatural happenings, such as ghosts, are portrayed in an overt light, and are unexplainable by normal means. Its use of unreal monsters is one of the main creators of the book's tone; however, most certainly not the only one. Atmosphere, wicked character action, etc. is very important to the tone of these works as well.
Then there is what I would call “low” Gothic. Stories such as The Mysteries of Udolpho would fit in here. The tone is caused by the atmosphere and character actions alone, without monsters, supernatural events, and so forth. Now “supernatural” events do happen; however, they do not have to actually be supernatural. Instead, being explained by some event which might be worse than if the event actually were the ghost of some dead relative. These works usually rely more heavily on atmosphere, character action, and such; however, they use them in a clearly similar way to there “high” Gothic brethren.
Now the aforementioned categories I consider extremes on two ends of a line. On one end high amounts of supernatural, unreal baddies and happenings, and on the other none. Gothic works can fall anywhere in between, for example, The Monk makes very little use of supernatural forces for most of the book. It does use them, and they influence the plot; however, they have virtually no real time in the readers view especially compared to others like Dracula. Not using supernatural forces, I would say, does not make a work not Gothic but Gothic in a different way.
So to finish, I would that saying a work is not Gothic because it does not have unnatural beings is like saying a fantasy book is not fantasy because it does not feature a kingdom, or a science fiction book is not science fiction because it does not have light speed technology. Honestly, I find it a bit narrow minded and over looking the dimensional aspects of literature.
So, anyone else?
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 11, 2016 12:40 AM |
|
|
You can say mythical/fantastic creatures is not a must in Gothic fiction. Although, it is what first comes to mind when thinking of mainstream examples of the genre, at least the Gothic Horror sub-genre. You can also arguably assume a dark atmosphere, with metaphorical elements of "the unknown" is hinting at some form of spiritualism. I wouldn't exactly call that strictly super-natural, not in a direct sense but that's not my main objection regarding our original disagreement about Jane Eyre anyway. A piece of literature, especially a novel rather than a short story, can easily contain elements from many genres. However, if you must categorize it, yo go by the most dominant elements. That's why I gave the example of mislabeling Star Wars as a comedy because of C3PO. It's not that there are no comical elements in Star Wars, it's just that they are not dominant enough to define it as a comedy.
The way Jane Eyre addresses/handles its characters, motives, atmosphere, time/place is not dominantly built upon the conventions of Gothic fiction. Yes, there is a psychological darkness to it and it's not through Realism the novel portrays its characters nor naturalism, observing social phenomenon within a cool, unemotional distance. But that kind of dark psychology is not significantly Gothic, is it? Similar kind of dark psychology and unexplainable phenomenon also exists in, say, Karamazov Brothers. Little example among many, Zosima the Elder dies, his body instantly and horribly starts to stink, and it's not something that simply symbolizes his corruption or anything, because he was not corrupt. But would you label Dostoyevsky as Gothic fiction? The most you can say is some parts of his novel remind you of Gothic fiction and maybe he was inspired by it to a degree.
When you broaden the Gothic genre to cover everything spiritually dark, like a wide blanket, then you must consider all the early examples of "the psychological novel" Gothic. It kind of turns into another name for it. However, I think what determines the uniqueness of Gothic fiction is the atmosphere, how the dark, pessimistic spirit of the ambiance surpasses social reality. (Popular example, Gotham is clearly Gothic New York.) That's not the case when it comes to Jane Eyre, on the contrary, there is a very social-political side to it. And not allegorically political in a macro sense like in Frankenstein but something much more closer to mainstream classical 19th century novel.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 11, 2016 03:17 AM |
|
|
"A piece of literature, especially a novel rather than a short story, can easily contain elements from many genres."
And that says it all...Labels do not really work anywhere today.
I find it funny/strange that youngsters might dye their hair black and then go all-out Johnny Cash and then consider themselves Gothic, when Gothic Cathedrals meant bringing much more light into Cathedrals for the first time and too, think incredible vertical heights in stone. If anything, Gothic should more related to enlightenment than depravity. But Gothic, like everything else today, has to dance with the devil...to be cool.
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 11:57 AM |
|
|
artu said:
However, I think what determines the uniqueness of Gothic fiction is the atmosphere, how the dark, pessimistic spirit of the ambiance surpasses social reality. (Popular example, Gotham is clearly Gothic New York.)
I would argue most Gothic works on the lower end of the supernatural focuses on the darker side of social reality not surpasses it(The Mysteries of Udolpho for instance contains nothing more than what you may expect from societies nastier half). I suppose it is up to personal preference and interpretation though.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 01:06 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:07, 12 Apr 2016.
|
I haven't read that one, Wiki says "The Mysteries of Udolpho follows the fortunes of Emily St. Aubert, who suffers, among other misadventures, the death of her father, supernatural terrors in a gloomy castle and the machinations of an Italian brigand." It sounds like typical Gothic fiction.
To be more precise, Gothic fiction can emphasize the darker side of social reality, but it will do that through a characteristic symbolism using its own conventions. It won't do it like Balzac or Dickens.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 04:25 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 16:42, 12 Apr 2016.
|
You are in huge mistake, Gryphs. Actually more then one mistake. I have a doctorate in Gothics, so I'm sure I can tell you that. There is no "low" and "high" in Gothic. There are two basic "schools" in Gothic:
- Terror - this is the first school. Its origin you may find in the first Gothic works - most notably and considered first of all - The Castle of Otranto (1762) Then you have Clara Reeve, Ann Radcliffe, Jacques Cazotte, etc. This school rely on the dark atmosphere. A terror that never climax. Or almost never. This school is also known as "Gothic Romance".
- Horror - the second school. The first ever Gothic Horror novel is the Monk by Matthew Gregory Lewis. The second one - Frankenstein. You also have Melmoth the Wanderer by Maturin here and many others. Here the terror evolve to horror. Thats why we call this school "Gothic Horror".
As Varma tell us: The difference between Terror and Horror is the difference between awful apprehension and sickening realization: between the smell of death and stumbling against a corpse.
So this is the main differences between those two branches on the Gothic genre.
The time line of Gothic is 1762 to 1820. The last great Gothic work was written by Charles Maturin - Melmoth the Wanderer.
Later, Gothic was resurrected. This is the so called "Neo Gothic", also known as Victorian Gothic. Dracula, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde , The Turn of the Screw and etc. are all here. This was the second huge wave of the Gothic genre. There was Gothic after 1820 and before this resurrection but it wasn't the same popular literature as before. During the Victorian era Gothic returns and it rely much more on the Horror school. There are many notable exceptions ofc (like The Picture of Dorian Gray). One of the last Gothic works in this period was The Phantom of the Opera.
After that there is also New Gothic. Gothic was resurrected one more during the 1950s. We have Daphne du Maurier here. Anne Rice and etc. in this third wave.
The first Gothic author, who relied a lot on supernatural was Matthew Gregory Lewis. Yes, we have supernatural before him, but its never that important for the plot, and in many cases its rational. FE, Radcliffe always feel some need to explain everything supernatural in her novels. She tells you why all this was illusion and not really... supernatural. Lewis first changed that, and Marry Selley followed him. Actually, it was The Monk that inspired her to write Frankenstein in 1818 and also the shorter fiction: Matilda (1820).
____________
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 09:10 PM |
|
|
Well, I was basing my divisions on how much actual supernatural content they contained, similar to high and low fantasies; but I will take your word on it.
artu said:
To be more precise, Gothic fiction can emphasize the darker side of social reality, but it will do that through a characteristic symbolism using its own conventions. It won't do it like Balzac or Dickens.
True enough.
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 09:39 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 21:40, 12 Apr 2016.
|
Gryphs said:
artu said:
To be more precise, Gothic fiction can emphasize the darker side of social reality, but it will do that through a characteristic symbolism using its own conventions. It won't do it like Balzac or Dickens.
True enough.
Actually, not really. Dickens was influenced by Gothic. Same goes for Balzac. Part of his works are in the Gothic. Many of them. Like FE, La Peau de chagrin. Even Notre-Dame de Paris by Hugo is considered Gothic.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 09:43 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:54, 12 Apr 2016.
|
Brought to you by the one and only internet: The digital dungeon in which you can encounter a guy with a doctorate on Gothic literature while opening a thread derived from playing a silly game of true or false.
Who's to say that's less horrifying than the machinations of an Italian brigand! 
@VokialBG
Influenced is a very vague comment. Artist are usually influenced by everything that surrounds them. But would you call them specifically Gothic? I wouldn't. Same as my Dostoyevsky example.
Btw, put aside what's Gothic, I wouldn't say the monster of Frankenstein is super-natural. On the contrary, I think it's the sci-fi of its time. Electricity was a very new phenomenon back then and things like electrifying the corpse of a frog and watching its leg tick made people imagine, you can resurrect the dead, had you known more about its powers.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Gryphs
Supreme Hero
The Clever Title
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 09:44 PM |
|
Edited by Gryphs at 21:45, 12 Apr 2016.
|
VokialBG said:
Actually, not really. Dickens was influenced by Gothic. Same goes for Balzac. Part of his works are in the Gothic. Many of them. Like FE, La Peau de chagrin. Even Notre-Dame de Paris by Hugo is considered Gothic.
He was not saying that their literature was not inspired by Gothic, but that they should not be considered mainly Gothic because that is not their main focus.
I have to ask now, do you consider Jane Eyre to be Gothic?
____________
"Don't resist the force. Redirect it. Water over rock."-blizzardboy
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 22:55, 12 Apr 2016.
|
Gryphs said:
VokialBG said:
Actually, not really. Dickens was influenced by Gothic. Same goes for Balzac. Part of his works are in the Gothic. Many of them. Like FE, La Peau de chagrin. Even Notre-Dame de Paris by Hugo is considered Gothic.
He was not saying that their literature was not inspired by Gothic, but that they should not be considered mainly Gothic because that is not their main focus.
I have to ask now, do you consider Jane Eyre to be Gothic?
According to most critics Jane Eyre is Gothic fiction. I agree with them. Same goes for La Peau de chagrin by Balzac and Notre-Dame de Paris by Hugo. They are all Gothic.
Jane Eyre is very Gothic. We have this manor, we have the madwoman in attic, we also have typical Gothic supernatural phenomena: prophetic dreams, ghosts, etc. You even have some quotes that are hits for vampirism (but this time not in supernatural aspect).
You guys just do 1 common mistake. That is why I started with the terror and the horror thing. You look for the horror. Where horror is absent you do not classify the specific work as Gothic. But there is also terror, and as I posted here, Gothic Terror is the same as Gothic Romance. While Gothic Horror is when there is horror. Both are Gothic.
So when we have only the sense of terror from time to time, just as in all Radcliffe novels, this is Gothic again. Meanwhile we have The Monk, Frankenstein and etc. They have the horror in them (read again the quote by Varma, it describe what is the difference between terror and horror in their Gothic aspects).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You are just messing them a little bit. Just a bit, but it is important in order to understand Gothic.
If you do not understand this difference you can not differentiate Gothic and FE Diabolics. "Tools" are very important for Diabolics, but less important for Gothic. Atmosphere is most important for Gothic.
____________
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 11:11 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 23:20, 12 Apr 2016.
|
Quote:
Btw, put aside what's Gothic, I wouldn't say the monster of Frankenstein is super-natural. On the contrary, I think it's the sci-fi of its time. Electricity was a very new phenomenon back then and things like electrifying the corpse of a frog and watching its leg tick made people imagine, you can resurrect the dead, had you known more about its powers.
Yes. Modern sci-fi evolved thanks to Gothic. One of the early examples for this genre is in all the legend about Dr. Faust, especially the play by Christopher Marlowe.
Early sci-fi is also called "Holy Sci-Fi" (HSF) or "Religious Sci-Fi". Most important for that proto genre is The Monk by Matthew Gregory Lewis. Its the first very popular novel with HSF in it. HSF use Theology and pseudo-science as "scientific" basics. The rest is pretty much the same as modern Sci-Fi. So you have some sort of religious speculative fiction dealing with imaginative concepts about pseudo tech and strange religious interpretations. This was the start. Marry Shelley was very impressed by The Monk and Lewis himself - both met during the famous vacation at lake Geneva in 1816. Thats right, with all those literature superstars: Marry Shelley, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron, John Polidori and even few more. Lewis visited them for few days only. There he was telling them scary stories. Yes, really... someone was telling scary stories to Marry Shelly. We know that for sure, for some of those stories are written in her diary. She also read The Monk and liked it a lot. Frankenstein is showing significant proximity to The Monk and the diary stories.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 11:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:31, 12 Apr 2016.
|
You convinced me.
We already agree on one thing: "Atmosphere is most important for Gothic."
The atmosphere never felt like the priority to me when it comes to Jane Eyre, but I'll scrub my magnifying glass if I ever read it again, it was so many years ago.
Edit:
Quote:
Marry Shelley was very impressed by The Monk and Lewis himself - both met during the famous vacation at lake Geneva in 1816. Thats right, with all those literature superstars: Marry Shelley, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron, John Polidori and even few more. Lewis visited them for few days only. There he was telling them scary stories. Yes, really... someone was telling scary stories to Marry Shelly. We know that for sure, for some of those stories is written in her diary. She also read The Monk and liked it a lot. Frankenstein is showing significant proximity to The Monk.
What was very significant about that gathering around is this. There was a wager about who would come up with the best story and all the "superstars" went "high-art." Byron wrote some epic poem which was perfect in meter etc, Mary Shelly's father wrote something similar.
Mary Shelley was the kid. "Ok honey, you can play, too." Yet, she came up with Frankenstein. She captured an idea: What if science playing God is a dangerous thing.
I think the idea itself is, when presented as a danger, wrongly conservative. But it was the question of the spirit of that time, it was alerting, it was significant: Where will all this lead us? I think Mary Shelley writing Frankenstein during that wager is kind of like Oppenheimer enchanting ""I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted April 12, 2016 11:25 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 23:30, 12 Apr 2016.
|
artu said:
You convinced me.
We already agree on one thing: "Atmosphere is most important for Gothic."
The atmosphere never felt like the priority to me when it comes to Jane Eyre, but I'll scrub my magnifying glass if I ever read it again, it was so many years ago.
Thats why we can't classify Gothic as "low" and "high". It is terror and horror. Since terror and horror are feelings, emotions and are part of the atmosphere. We can't judge Gothic by the supernatural elements (are they present, how many of them?). Specific atmosphere is what makes Gothic. "Low" and "high" work well with fantasy, but there the contents itself is very important. The "tools" and not a specific atmosphere. Gothic is more about emotions and feelings, suspense and shock. Atmosphere created thanks to both: emotions and descriptions.
____________
|
| |
|
|
