- Some see the Gothic as a counterfeit form of Romanticism. The structure of Romanticism is turned upside down: both "hero" and "heroine" become opposites of the typical romantic form, should we say, anti-heros and anti-heroines. They do not fight for goodness, nor do they have their wishes fulfilled. The Romantic vision of an unlimited human potential is castrated by a abuse of human power. The characters risk all, not for love, salvation, or redemption, but for self-gratification in many disguises. The result is a separation of character from what is considered good: nature, society, and God. After having read Vathek, do you agree or disagree with this notion of a bastardized Romanticism? It may be easy to see how the Caliph and Carathis fit the definition above; however, do Nouronihar and Gulchenrouz experience a complete separation from Romantic ideals?
- Beckford's characters in Vathek seem blinded by a false sense of hope. Like characters in other Gothic novels, they are never free, although they deceive themselves with the dream of freedom through sensual, untruthful, and sadistic conduct. However, hope that their freedom will not be lost, and that their lives, no matter how illusory, will somehow be preserved or improved is ever present. In Vathek, a predilection for the occult shows that the Caliph has a strong desire to be free of mortal bonds at all costs. However, the text exposes the falsity of his hope through glimpses of the “pure at heart” and by presenting him with opportunities for “redemption.” How does a moral/spiritual war manifest itself in the Caliph and the text? In what circumstances does he reflect on purity? Where is he given opportunities to turn from his “sinful” life? How do these opportunities and reflections seek to add depth to his character and the text?
(I thought it would be interesting to ask the same questions of the prior story, The Castle of Otranto, because I see some interesting likenesses and differences in light of above questions. Might be the beginnings of some good comparison contrast papers. Not required.)
11 comments:
Leigh Lawrence said, Religion and superstitition is very strong in the Vathek. This is perfect example how some in authority like Caliph uses religion, or at least parts of religion, along with superstition to manipulate others for his own selfish wants and needs. Caliph went so far as to take the lives of others in order to get what he wants. I don't think he really knew what he wanted, or what was involved. Power has been the destruction of many men.
I have asked a few questions here. Most of them require that you interact with the text to find specific examples for their answers. Focus on one question if you have to. Think about it, and how the text answers that specific question.
Leigh, I like that you have a broad understanding of the Caliph's character. Look at the second set of questions: "How does a moral/spiritual war manifest itself in the Caliph and the text? In what circumstances does he reflect on purity? Where is he given opportunities to turn from his “sinful” life? How do these opportunities and reflections seek to add depth to his character and the text?" Focus on one, and see what you come up with.
1. From the beginning of the course, I was struck by the commonalities between Gothic and Romantic literature. I was curious to see where the lines were drawn between the two, and Vathek has definitely helped to define those lines. I cannot identify with any of the characters. They all have very deeply flawed ideals and values. Although one might argue that those flaws make the characters human, I find it makes them reprehensible and irritating. They are selfish, self-centered, and power-hungry. I think even Nouronihar and Gulchenrouz fit these descriptions. Nouronihar is drawn in by the possibility of greater power and pleasure than she would have enjoyed in a marriage to her cousin. Gulchenrouz is so weak and underdeveloped (both physically and as a character) that it is hard to identify with him at all. The characters in Vathek also lack proximity to the common people; they live in very privileged societies. Some of them may be found in nature frequently, but only to indulge their whims.
2. Vathek is given far more opportunities to redeem himself than he deserves. He struck me as a sort of opposite to the Biblical Job. Vathek indulges himself and is given multiple chances for redemption; Job is afflicted in various ways and remains pious throughout. The text’s examples of the “pure at heart” consist of the fifty children sacrificed to the Giaour, and the childlike Gulchenrouz. Vathek’s opportunities for salvation may be an attempt to add depth to his character, but I find that they serve to reinforce his lack of depth.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Romanticism has an optimistic perspective on life, praising Nature, believing that humanity can achieve their full potential. Gothic literature has a more pessimistic view and is reminiscent of the Dark Romantics--Poe, Hawthorne, Melville. True, they are American writers, but we have Mary Shelley who takes on the Romantics and their ideals with the flaws of Victor Frankenstein. It's not counterfeit--Gothic literature does not pretend to be anything like the Romantics; I think they are turning what the Romantics believe about human potential upside down to bring them down to reality. They are asked to see the world as it is and not for what they would like it to be. Seeing the world for what it is becomes the first step to finding solutions, which cannot be quick and half-baked, but clearly thought out, and the Romantics have not done that, at least is the argument of Gothic literature.
2. When Vathek meets the Emir, he has the best chance to think about purity. I write in my essay that the Emir's dwelling is like Eden. There are beautiful domes and the valley is extremely attractive--the perfect paradise. I feel that its a contrast from Vathek's city, which is darker and gloomy, a reflection of the Caliph himself. Here is his chance to turn away from the sinful life and return to Islam, but he fails. Vathek's ambition and greed is so consuming he looks at beauty and turns it into lust. This problem is most evident when he meet Nournihar. She's beautiful and innocent, but he doesn't respect that part of her. It doesn't add more depth to his character; we expect Vathek to dance with madness. We've seen it from the beginning of the story, so we are not surprised that he tries to take a new wife. Vathek asks for redemption at then end when it is too late,
The notion of bastardized Romanticism is all too easily assigned to Vathek. However, this cannot be the precise case, as Vathek and his mother do indeed have their wishes fulfilled. The terminal point of this very long story is that he and his mother are welcomed into the Palace of Fire (a dubious title, to be sure) and are given the chance to obtain all the knowledge that they ever wished. The cost is hardly worth the effort, but so often we as humans are quickly caught up in doing what we want and ignore the price, even if it is our soul and our hope.
Nourohihar and Gulchenrouz are interesting characters in this piece. While Gulchenrouz remains the spoiled effeminate child, Nouronihar embraces her adulthood so much as to lust after precious jewels and power. It is this lust for power and jewels that drives her to follow Vathek--indeed, to push Vathek onward when he falters. So to say that she has been separated from Romantic ideals is true in once sense--she is hardly a heroine. However, she does obtain what she desires, despite the cost. Gulchenrouz is allowed to remain as a child, but in doing so we could argue that this is indeed a complete separation from Romantic ideals. He is self-serving and effeminate, neither seeking to harm nor assist anyone. As such, Gulchenrouz really appears to be the ironic complete separation from any ideals.
The moral and spiritual war is manifested in the Caliph when his kingdom is overtaken by his brother. In losing his kingdom, the Caliph essentially feels that he has nothing to lose. This is also true in the battle of his soul--when Vathek is approached by a Genii in the form of a shepherd and given one last chance to turn back, he essentially says that he has done too much: he is condemned already.
Though fierce in word, Vathek does take the time to reflect on piety. However, such pious thoughts only occur when he is missing a wife, food, or amusement. In being so utterly selfish, Vathek seems to undermine any such purity regardless. He is given several opportunities to turn from his ways--from the pious eunuchs to the Genii intervening on his behalf the spiritual dwarves who mysteriously appear. However, Vathek not only ignores them all but sometimes acts sacrilegious towards them, gleeful in their discomfort and shock.
I would personally argue that these opportunities and reflections do not add depth to Vathek. He is a shallow individual, through and through, submissive to the whims of his overbearing mother. He has no individual thought process beyond obtaining more things for himself.
The moral or spiritual war of the Caliph manifests itself in many different ways; one of which is the constant struggle he has between passion and rationality. He has the capacity for extreme violence that exposes itself when he feels crossed. The kicking of the guards is one example of this as it is an instance of his anger overcoming the logical choices that he could have made, i.e. not kicking corpses for hours on end. He forsakes his position in a sense, reverting from a spiritual leader to a child in desperate need of scolding. With such an attitude, combined with a love of material goods, redemption is nearly impossible for him. Any chances that he is given to change his ways will be brushed aside in the pursuit of pleasures and immortal knowledge.
1. Vathek is definitely a tale of anti-heroes and anti-heroines in that the main characters are far from heroic. Their selfish aspirations are what ultimately form their demise, yet we as readers hope against hope that they will somehow find salvation. The ideal of unlimited human potential is overshadowed by Vathek’s foreshadowed perdition. Although he acquires the knowledge and power that he strives so ardently for, he only keeps that power shortly before his heart is filled with fire and all is lost. Carathis is, perhaps, an even better example of this bastardized Romanticism in that she is far from a nurturing mother and her fate is inevitably worse than her son's. He realizes that all is not well before his heart is inflamed; yet Carathis still clings to her selfish habits to the very end. Her abuse of power is what led her to relinquish all. She is ultimately left weak, tortured, and worst of all she is unaware of it coming.
The fate of Nouronihar is similar to Vathek and Carathis because her selfish pride is what ruins her. She accompanies Vathek because she feels that he is "better" than her cousin, Gulchenrouz. She is promised material rewards and power with Vathek, which makes her quickly forget her fancy for her cousin. While she follows the Romantic ideal of self-betterment and riches, it quickly fades away when she is cast to damnation and loses it all. Gulchernrouz, however, seems to be the only character that reaches Romantic ideals and stays there. He is rewarded for his innocence with a never-ending life of innocence. He is separated from the harsh world that did him injustice and is elevated to a level of purity. Ultimately, these characters and their actions are what throw the Romantic ideals askew and turn Vathek into a tale of bastardized Romanticism.
2. Throughout Vathek, the Caliph is faced with several moments of inward struggle. It seems as if his conscience is warning him of his misconduct, yet Vathek seems almost too prideful to listen even to himself. For instance, Vathek feels guilty for sacrificing the children when he hears them suffering during the shepherd episode. If he had no morals, there would be no emotion other than disdain for his time being wasted. He also turns to his faith after believing that he has lost Nouronihar. His love for her is an earthly thing, yet it completely encompasses his emotion when he feels he has lost her. For the first time in the tale, Vathek disobeys his mother when she orders him to drown his lover. In fact, he has thoughts of murdering his own mother in his love’s defense. Along with the shepherd episode, Vathek could have found salvation with the help of the dwarfs and their devote piety. It seems, however, that the Caliph’s urge for power overshadowed every instance of possible redemption, even when he found something as precious as love. None of it was enough for him; hence he leads a life of perdition.
The opportunities for salvation gives Vathek’s character huge amounts of depth because we see that he does, in fact, have a conscience. He has the ability to decipher right from wrong, yet he chooses to take the evil path. This proves that Vathek is far more corrupt than we would otherwise believe because we see that he has the ability to be “good” and doesn’t.
1. Gothic does seem like a reversal of romanticism, but I do not know if this was an intentional device of the authors, or not. In Castle of Otranto, we have both good and bad characters; however, no one seems to really be rewarded in the end. Manfred, Hippolita, Isabella, and Theodore survive, but at what cost? Manfred, rightfully, loses his kingdom, but the "good" characters suffer in many ways. In Vathek, there does not seem to be any good characters, except perhaps the fifty sacrificed children and Gulchenrouz. Vathek and Carathis get what they deserve. Nouronihar cannot be seen as entirely good or bad which perhaps makes her the most believable character in the novel. She starts off "good" but is lured by the promise of power and riches.
2. Vathek is supposed to be the supreme representative of Mahomet on earth, but he uses the power of his office to benefit himself and not his people. He does not make any effort to make life better for his fellowman, and, instead, seems to go out of his way to make life miserable for others. Vathek very rarely is at war with his "better" side. He gives in to pleasure at every turn. His downfall comes from his inability to resist the lure of power and riches. His curiosity to always know more is his attempt to put himself above Mahomet. Vathek should be horrified at the actions of his mother; he should be ashamed of his behavior with Nouronihar; he should be remorseful at his behavior toward the priests and the representatives of Mahomet -- but he is not. He turns away from all these opportunities to depart from a sinful life and fulfill his responsibility as Mahomet's agent. These failures to act morally and responsibly give the reader a deeper picture of Vathek's true character.
1. Early Gothic literature certainly gives the impression of veering off a Romantic avenue. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Romanticism as “characterized chiefly by…an emphasis on the imagination and emotions, and marked especially in English literature by sensibility and…a predilection for melancholy.” With this said, Vathek inarguably incorporates themes of Romanticism. Imagination, for one, prevails throughout the book; consider its exceptionally outlandish setting, as well as the imaginative characters and their actions. Beckford makes every attempt to mold the work into something exotic and bizarre to readers. Several strange incidents slip easily into Beckford’s plot: for instance, an offering of mummies, “oil of the most venomous serpents,” rhinoceros’ horns, wood from the Indies and loyal servants to the Caliph (177). The characters, most notably the Caliph, also exhibit a range of emotions. Furthermore, could the ending of this story be categorized as not melancholic? Though Vathek utilizes key themes of Romanticism, it cannot entirely be Romanticism for its excessive use of morbidity and intense focus on the sinful nature of man. Gothicism instead evolves into its own by including themes of darkness, death, insanity, obsession and many others. As one informal website stated, “Gothic is a horror-centric flavour of Romantic.”
2. The Caliph indeed desires to know what other men do not; he yearns for a higher state of intellectualism, yet he is never satisfied. Say hypothetically that the Caliph did learn the secrets of heaven, would he achieve happiness? Most probably, no. Happiness to the Caliph is not an attainable goal, like climbing a mountaintop. He never finds contentment in what he has, which is perhaps an indication that the gifts bestowed to him in life are what he cannot appreciate, simply because of the readiness in which they are given. The Caliph’s loyal subjects throw at his feet whatever he wishes on a whim; never checked, this also leads him to his fate. He is offered redemption numerous times, and some go out of their way to save his soul. The shepherd in disguise is the last example of this before Caliph faces eternal damnation. However, as Dr. Gerard mentioned in last Wednesday’s class, the Caliph desires freedom from mortality, yet he is persistently ruled by mortal inclinations. This is strongly evident in his five palaces, as well as his insatiable appetite for fleshly things.
These comments and connection to the text are very good. Yes, I agree as many of you have written (Miranda) that the Gothic is a bastardization, a turning away from the ideals of the Romantics; however, I do see similarities. Tafar writes: "It's not counterfeit--Gothic literature does not pretend to be anything like the Romantics; I think they are turning what the Romantics believe about human potential upside down to bring them down to reality."
On the one hand I disagree, Gothic literature is like Romanticism in that it is a revolution against the norms of church and government, which many people saw as corrupt and decadent. Gothic literature embraces the same revolution, but turns it to a different focal point: the mortal sin and supernatural consequences of the sin. This expression of disapproval of church, religion, power, and government, of course was influenced by the Seven Years War and the French Revolution. In addition, the style of writing is very similar to the Romantics in that it embraces a sort of reverence for the descriptive and pictorial. It also set apart the writer, or narrator as the case may be, as an island unto himself just as the Romantics of the period.
These comments and your made connection to the text are very good in this series of comments. Yes, I agree as many of you have written (Miranda) that the Gothic is a bastardization, a turning away from the ideals of the Romantics; however, I do see similarities.
Tafar writes: "It's not counterfeit--Gothic literature does not pretend to be anything like the Romantics; I think they are turning what the Romantics believe about human potential upside down to bring them down to reality."
On the one hand I disagree, Gothic literature is like Romanticism in that it is a revolution against the norms of church and government, which many people saw as corrupt and decadent. Gothic literature embraces the same revolution, but turns it to a different focal point: the mortal sin and supernatural consequences of this sin. This expression of disapproval of church, religion, power, and government, of course, was influenced by the Seven Years War and the French Revolution. In this way it does pretend, the Romantic ideal of Man's Power to shape his world is the same; however, the Gothic explores more sinister themes in conjunction with the power of humanity. ?(I don't know if "pretend" is the exact word to choose, maybe "mutates.") In addition, the style of writing is very similar to the Romantics. It embraces a sort of reverence for the descriptive and pictorial. It also sets apart the writer, or narrator as the case may be, as an island unto himself just as the Romantics of the period.
On the other hand, I do agree that by turning the Romantic notion of human potential toward the unlimited potential for power and destruction is turning Romanticism on its head. To say that this brings the characters down to "reality" is a stretch for me, as Vathek and so many other characters from the book hardly seem rooted in "reality." I find them absurd, grotesque inflations of the human potential. For me there is nothing real about this, nor are the horrid and supernatural elements that are present.
Much appreciation for your comments for this discussion. Look for questions tonight on the upcoming reading of The Monk through pages 125. Have a great weekend!
Post a Comment