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)
What strikes me almost immediately about Shelly’s and Bronte’s descriptions of their characters is how much prominence both authors give to the physical appearance. Their emphatic descriptions are often reduced to either extreme beauty or extreme ugliness of the characters. The monster’s unattractiveness in Frankenstein can be easily singled out as a primary reason for his alienation. In Jane Eyre I have actually stopped counting how many times the words “handsome” and “plain” appear in the text. The image of Jane as a sickly and fragile person is persistently created in our mind almost from the first pages. As the story develops and Jane’s character unwinds itself, we become increasingly aware of her ladylike looks and behavior. Somehow being sickly and fragile fits perfectly with the notion of a lady. Jane’s weak health contrasts Mrs. Rochester’s strong physical appearance. I have not yet formed a conclusive opinion as to the implications of this juxtaposition, but I cannot accept the following statement regarding Jane Eyre from The Madwoman in the Attic: “Such a tale explores the tension between parlor and attic, the psychic split between the lady who submits to male dicta and the lunatic who rebels” (Gilbert and Gubar 86). I actually would like to strongly disagree with this interpretation by the authors who seem to oversimplify Jane’s character in their attempt to substantiate their argument. Jane indeed at times seems to come under the influence of Mr. Rochester’s strong personality, but the scene of his proposal makes it clear to me that Jane is not afraid to directly face him: when Mr. Rochester calls her a caged bird she renounces this view of herself by declaring herself an independent human being: “I am no bird; and no net ensnares me: I am a free human being with an independent will; which I now exert to leave you” (253). Jane Eyre (and probably Charlotte Brontë) seems to believe that the marriage should be a union of two equal partners, free from dominance and intimidation. I do not see anywhere in the text that Jane “submits to male dicta” – in fact the ending of the book reiterates the view of a marriage as a union between two independent partners: “I have now been married ten years. I know what it is to live entirely for and with what I love best on earth. I hold myself supremely blest – blest beyond what language can express; because I am my husband’s life as fully as he is mine (450). They both commit to their marriage and treat each other with respect and dignity.
ReplyDeleteThe expectations of women as submissive and uneducated characters were common in the Victorian novels. The emotions of passion and rage were not acceptable. A woman expressing rage and blatantly retaliating against authority was a defiance against any sort of traditional. They were never seen as passionate or sexual beings, especially in the case of Jane Eyre. Bronte’s treatment of Jane’s plain and mostly unattractive characteristics as a major part of her misfortunes is interesting. Because of this, Jane struggles to reveal her own identity in the midst of temptation and solitude. By drawing attention to the misfortune of one’s appearance, Bronte’s “realistic” representation of society’s behavior against the “unbeautiful” is reminiscent of the way in which Shelley’s monster is shunned by society because of his looks.
ReplyDeleteDespite these misfortunes resulting from her less than beautiful appearance, Jane Eyre demands a say in her own destiny. As an educated woman, a role alien to other women of Victorian society, Bronte gives her heroine a new kind of power. She is separated from the patriarchal society. During her courtship with Mr. Rochester, she refutes his advancements, refusing to become another one of his possessions. He tells her, “I will make the world acknowledge you a beauty…I will attire my Jane in satin and lace, and she shall have roses in her hair; and I will cover the head I love best with a priceless veil” (259). He treats Jane as a statue. Though he may have been sincere, Bronte treats this confession as inauthentic. It seems as though the only way for him to display his love is to change her, to reinvent her identity so that it fits the traditional role of Victorian society. He may love her, but in order for him to maintain his own reputation in society he has to mold her to fit this same “identity”. Jane herself realizes this almost immediately. Not only would she not recognize herself, but neither would Mr. Rochester. Her appeal is that she is different, unique. If he dressed her in “satin and lace” she would be “an ape in a harlequin’s jacket – a jay in borrowed plumes” (259). Rochester’s need to “put the diamond chain round [her] neck” and “clasp the bracelets on these fine wrists” (259) embody the symbols of the female enslavement in a male dominated society. Jane’s integrity and inner reason allows her to refute these advances and remain herself. Her entire being is based on her ability to preserve her own individuality. If she succumbs to the bonds of male suppression than she ceases to be “Jane Eyre”. Where she develops her identity is through the adversity she endured in the face of her “puny and insignificant” (259) appearance. The fact that beauty, for a woman, is so important as it pertains to the society’s treatment of Jane speaks to the vapidity of Victorian society, a realist revelation Bronte exposes. Instead of valuing her educational background, the useful entity a woman possesses is her beauty and Jane is one of the unlucky ones. And yet, she still manages to maintain a uniqueness that never obeys the traditions of a male society.
“Unjust! Unjust!” said my reason, forced by the agonizing stimulus into precocious through transitory power;” p. 15
ReplyDeleteIt was right about here that I realized that I was probably not listening to the voice of a 10-year old. Unless Jane has incredibly advanced language skills for her age, an older Jane Eyre is reflecting upon her memories of some time in the past. However, this is very briefly mentioned explicitly; how much of Jane’s narrative should the reader consider to be factual?
For example, while Jane is locked in the red-room, she says, “I can now conjecture readily that this streak of light was, in al likelihood, a gleam from a lantern, carried by some one across the lawn; but then, prepared as my mind was for horror, shaken as my nerves were by agitation, I thought the swift-darting beam was a herald of some coming vision from another world.” If I am suggesting that Jane is an unreliable narrator, I am also suggesting that some of her accounts might be sensationalized and exaggerated or even invented. In this way, the extreme cruelty of the Reed household seems to be not so inexplicable.
Moreover, the reader has to keep in mind that the language that Jane Eyre uses to describe her thoughts is probably drastically different than how she would have expressed herself as a 10-year old. If her language changes, does the substance of her thought change as well? This was not an issue in the many memories within Beloved; more or less, it seems that every character used the same language throughout. This was something that Frankenstein’s creature did experience. His earliest experiences occurred while he had no language; it was only later, as he gained the ability of language, that he was able to describe them and perhaps think differently about them. Additionally, the sources that the creature obtained his language from undeniably influenced his thinking; perhaps something similar is happening with Jane.
I am curious about the role of religion in the text, specifically Jane’s relationship to it, and what this may reflect. Initially religion is represented to her as a child through memorization tasks. Religion is a kind of oppressor, especially when she is at Lowood, and subject to the evangelical reprimands of Mr. Brocklehurst. Helen is a religious character whom Jane admires. Helen sees God’s will behind all events, which allows her to remain calm, and not victimize herself, which Jane finds appealing. Although Helen is rather passive Jane admires her, and wishes she could be like her, but at the same time knows that she cannot. This is because Jane does not have the faith that Helen has. Helen is certain that she will go onto heaven, but Jane is quite uncertain that it exists. She is not expecting a second life, but sees her current one as all that she will ever have, and thus feels the need to advocate for herself in it. What Jane knows of existence is what she experiences for herself, and all else is questionable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a religion that seems to be an oppressing force here, but rather a specific interpretation of it in this particular school. Faith is something that helps some of these children to actually survive their miserable experience. Also note how with the change of a principal the school also changes for the better (religion remains the same). What is interesting though is the role the religious education played in the training of these young girls. The ideals of docility, obedience and duty are at the core of Christianity but they are also the ones inculcated by a patriarchal culture.
ReplyDeleteWhat can be gathered about the idea of family? in Jane Eyre as in Frankenstein and Beloved, notions of family continue to confound the ideal nuclear norm -- and is it even a norm? I'm wondering how it came to pass that a traditional nuclear family is normal at all given what we see so far are motley assortments of persons living under shared roofs or conditions, who appear to be sort-of related by nebulous blood ties or attachments formed by years of service, mutual hardship, proximity, or shared interest, or maybe even love -- another curious subject. It makes me wonder what a family is -- an ideal? An economic unit? A feeling?
ReplyDeleteJane is first a hated and abused niece of Mr. Reed's left in the care of his mean sister Mrs. Reed. She is abused and degraded by the children and the staff. Although a blood relative to the Reed's, she is treated with scorn and hatred -- blood relationship surely doesn't ensure warm and congenial feeling. She sees herself early on as " a heterogeneous thing", unloved and unable to love the Reed family (15). At Lowood she is further neglected and abused as part of a group of unfortunate foundlings and wayward girls under the "care" of Brockelhurst and his minions. Luckily, Miss Temple offers her some affection and the martyr-like Helen Burns arouses kindness, wonder, and care. She projects a sense of self-abnegation and faith that serve Jane well in her growth and survival. Later her living conditions improve and she becomes a teacher there but when Miss Temple breaks off and marries, Jane feels her "reason for tranquility was no more" (84). Perhaps family is not so much an institution as much as a feeling, as sense of tranquility among people in a shared space with perhaps a shared goal.
Later at Thornfield Hall, Jane is a paid employee, Adele's governess, yet she comes to love and care for her charge as if she were her more than a pupil. She gets a a generally cool reception and indifference from Mrs. Fairfax (herself a blood relative of Rochester) with whom she shares the great home. Even a marriage to Rochester, the creation of a union for the purposes of.... child-rearing, respectability, or security... seems wished for but is of course thwarted because of his marriage to beastly Bertha. And later as she begs for help from the inhabitants at Moor House, we see her come to love and share that sense of tranquility with Mary and Diana.
In Jane Eyre as in the other novels, the idea of family eludes easy classification -- material conditions dictate status, emotional ties form because of and despite those conditions. I'm not sure I even know what typical or traditional family is, except maybe a patriarchal household set up to strengthen and mirror the idealized national (male dominated) state, supported by (male dominated) religious dicta deployed to maintain those structures of economic productivity for the purposes of state interests. OK, so my question is, what is a family? Are these texts indicative of real family life or are they departures from it? Are these families "feminist" versions of families where male authority does not go unquestioned? Are novels entry points into discussions of accepted social norms or do they reflect them? Spivak in the first few paragraphs of "Three Women's Texts" seems to suggest that the novels tell the English about themselves. She is critical of this cultural representation in light of English empire building. But doesn't nineteenth century British literature seem critical of these accepted norms? And in the case of the family, do Mary Shelley and Charlotte Bronte show a typical or atypical version of it?
"I must shut up my prize" (p 294, jane eyre).
ReplyDeleteThis quote is uttered by Mr. Rochester, upon explaining his first wife's condition and herein confirming his lifelong mission: to shut his wife up for eternity from the world.
I think this small statement represents the patriarchal hold that Janes society has placed upon her womanhood. Afterall-it is after this description of spousal restraint that Jane flees Thornwood. Although Mr. Rochester is herein referring specifically to his wife and her ailment, I think the harshness in his statement reveals how marriage is equivalent to jailing, at least in the eyes of our protagonist Jane, and certainly in the eyes of our true narrator, Charlotte Bronte. In marriage, a wife is prisoner. The husband becomes the guard, and the wife the jailed. She is confined by social expectation to the domicile. THe wife must cook, and clean, and be subservient, and any slight showing of free-thinking impulse or creative bend must be severely thwarted and punished. It is as Gilbert and Gubar say: "Women are told if they do not behave like angels they must be monsters" (The Mad Woman in the Attic). Jane is not a lunatic, like Mr. ROchester's first wife, but her inner resilience and unusual character makes her a "monster" in terms of her desire to thwart societal expectation in name of her personal independence.
Yet there is more to draw from ROchester's small utterance. He refers to his wife as a "prize." THis word choice maintains hints of sarcasm, obviously when referring to the first wife's devastated mental state. BUt it furthermore bolsters the notion that women are possessions, objects, little "prizes" to be won. They must be adorned, and placed, and protected (this angelic nomination Jane severely rejects. Her love melts to disdain when Rochester suggests he will clothe her in the finest, and treat her like a gilded bird.)
Finally, Rochester's wish to "shut up" his wife recalls to mind Gilbert and Gubar's explanations of agoraphobia and its manifestation in women. It suggests that, for a wife, her entire sphere exists only as allotted by the men in her life. How can she not fear the outside world? How can anyone not be tremendously afraid of a life they are forbidden to explore? Is the natural world really that foreign to women, or does the danger spring forth from the males who inhabit the landscape? Or do women perpetuate their own permanent jail cell by refusing to take that step across the threshold?
Like Molly, I am curious about this idea of religion in the text. It seems like Jane tries to manipulate religion so that it fits into her own life plan. The religion theme is perhaps most prevalent in Jane's relationship with St. John. When she refuses his attempts to get her to marry him and go to India, he accuses her of not only refusing him, but also refusing God. She almost succumbs to St. John after this accusation, allowing her initial reasons for refusal to dissolve. Following this incident, a supernatural occurrence transpires. This juxtaposition of Christianity and its spiritual/supernatural event is interesting. What does this say not only about Bronte's style of writing as well as her development of Jane's character?
ReplyDelete