Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is for use by students in Anjuli Raza Kolb's "Legacies of the Gothic Novel" course at Columbia University.
Course Description
The gothic novel is a genre of 18th and 19th century fiction that concerns itself with fear, mystery, the supernatural, violence, purity, otherness, and the impact of these conceits on its largely female protagonists. Much maligned as a popular or 'low' genre at its inception, the form has nevertheless persisted in its popularity as well as crossed into 'higher' forms of modernism and postmodernism. This course will read three key texts in the gothic mode-Frankenstein, Jane Eyre, and Wuthering Heights-and follow the ways they are revisited and rewritten by contemporary American and Caribbean novelists. We will look at how these texts subvert the realist leanings of 18th century narrative prose in English-and its assumptions of enlightenment rationalism-by way of two main processes: narrative hypertrophy and feminist versions of horror. Additionally, we will take up select contemporary criticism on the gothic in literature, film, and art.
There are no prerequisites.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(20)
-
▼
June
(15)
- Guerillas/No Telephone to Heaven
- Guerillas II
- Guerillas
- Sylvia Plath reads Purdah
- Wuthering Heights III
- Wuthering Heights II/Sedgwick/Kristeva
- Wuthering Heights I
- Wide Sargasso Sea II/ Caribbean Gothic
- Wide Sargasso Sea
- Jane Eyre II
- The Other Side of A Mirror
- Jane Eyre I
- Beloved III/ Modern Medea/ Black Frankenstein
- Beloved II
- Whitman "A Boston Ballad"
-
▼
June
(15)
If we assume that Bryant is the rebel, then Camus' essay makes a lot of sense, but brings an interesting perspective. I hadn't really considered Bryant as resentful of Jane, but it certainly is a valid claim. Jimmy and Roche seem to resent her as well, even though she is so unassertive. There's so much hostility towards Jane throughout the novel, and she never quite embodies what the men want her to be.
ReplyDeleteit's hard to nail down just what rebellion is. i don't get why jane is portrayed the way she is, especially in say, the scene depicting her inserting a tampon. um, maybe the tossing of the tampon and the clatter of it's applicator on the floor is seen as irreverent or rebellious or defiant, she's at war with her body? the body she "yet cherished and whose needs she ought to satisfy" (123). should she be more proper, less casual with her bodily functions? is there a specific code for female sexuality? maybe that's why she's so brutally killed by jimmy and bryant in the end? they don't like her hunger or her bodily needs?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Beth. I cannot comprehend what exactly this rebellion is about. Many characters in the book seem to be very hostile. There is definitely a lot of internal struggle for identity, but overall the book has too much underlying aggression directed at no one in particular. And at the end Jane is falling prey to this violence. Why? Because as a woman she is irrelevant to this rebellion?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Beth and Olya, I agree that at first Jane's character, and the implications of her presence, confuses me slightly. I think she represents the "war" that is going on seperately from the political tumult of the island: Jane perhaps stands for the personal battles of women and the underlings of any society. Her viciousness towards her own body, as depicted in the coarsely described tampon scene, indicates an alienation between body and soul, and furthermore allies Jane's wildness with animal-like desperation and fervor. Her death at the end is significant because it indicates how women, or any category of persons so "othered" by patriarichal society, will probably never win that ageless war for acceptance, prosperity, and inner peace.
ReplyDeleteIn response to chicklet, I agree that Jane's battle is a separate line in the text. In fact, Jane's character makes me think what type of femininity these male characters are seeking. If we agree that patriarchal society wants to see a passive, fragile woman, submissive to the will of a man (be it a lover or a husband), confined to particular areas of social life (such as housekeeping, giving birth and raising children), then I do not see why any of these men should resent Jane's character. She seems to be the embodiment of passivity, content with revolving around a male leader. She has no thoughts or wishes of her own, no will of her own either. Isn't it what the "perfect" woman should look like?
ReplyDeleteit could also be that she's a white liberal lady in land wrecked by slavery. still, i can't help but wonder why SHE gets killed in the end.
ReplyDelete“Something inside is laid wide like a wound, some open passage that has cleft the brain, some deep, amnesiac blow. We left somewhere a life we never found, customs and gods that are not born again…” The more I read about former colonies, the more I feel like these places are driven by some kind of madness. Their sickness does not have a name, but can be seen in random fits of aggression directed at no one in particular. Even though they achieved political independence, they are not truly independent in spirit since they keep defining themselves in reference to the former empire. On the one hand, we see people either leaving their newly independent country or dreaming about such a possibility. On the other hand, those who stay do not seem to be particularly devoted to rebuilding their nation. Somehow neither No Telephone To Heaven nor Guerrillas inspire much enthusiasm about the future of these nations.
ReplyDeleteHarriet says to Clare, then "This place nuh your home? Things can change here, you know." She should know, as the embodiment of change.
ReplyDelete(That was me, beth, that b above)
ReplyDeleteIn response to Olya, I found this teling: "For we have taken the master's past as our own. That is the danger" (127). That seems to be the difficulty in creating change, even revolutionaries repeat the same behavior as the masters. How do you let the ghosts settle? Is killing the only way? I can't picture Harriet the healer, nurse, as a killer.
It seems as though white supremacy (imperialism, slavery) replaces the dark castle (old families) as the object(s) of impregnabibility and immutability. Characters like Jimmy, Clare, Sethe, and Antoinette struggle against white supremacy while Jane Eyre, Heathcliff, and Frankenstein's creature struggle against entering or initializing established families. There. I have summarized the entire syllabus.
ReplyDeleteOlya has made a really interesting point about madness without a name. I hadn't planned to write about that, but it was so striking I thought i would look into it. This idea about namelessness relates to a lack of identity - but how much does a name really contribute to the truth about one's identity? I wonder, how much does a name really say about identity? For Catherine in Wuthering Heights, it is everything. Same goes for Jimmy in Guerrillas. For Clare, however, it is not wuite the same. Her struggle to find a real identity and uncover her true roots is not about renaming herself, but about the stories of her ancestors. When she comes to realize that Jamaica is where she was meant to immerse herself, then she discovered her identity. Interestingly enough, this really is not so much a factor in her name. What about Harry/Harriet- how does a name change a person? can it change a person? why is a name so important to the story of one and not another?
ReplyDelete