The Castle of Otranto

Although a complex read, The Castle of Otranto was an amusing escape into a Gothic world of magic, horror, ghosts and dynasties. As mentioned in our class discussion and in Walpole’s introduction to the novel (not written by him), his intention with the novel was to make an attempt at establishing a new Gothic style of writing - and for that, I admire him for being ambitious. His novel presents authentic reactions to imaginary actions, while also throwing in some comedy to balance the tragedy.

I am a fan of Gothic novels; I think they are fun reads that transport us to alternate universes, which is the case here. What’s really great about this novel is that it’s short, it’s full of action and excitement and it wastes no time. It throws us right into many (arm hair-raising) events. I felt that some of the revelations were a bit predictable. However, it’s a fun, pleasant diversion.

One of the most prominent ingredients of this Gothic work is the castle, which to me is the central to the narrative. Do you agree? Are there any others worth mentioning?

Otranto...

The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole was quite different than what I had expected for a “gothic” novel. I do think of gothic in the sense of the modern term, I did not find to the parts that were meant to be gothic to be scary or shocking but for the time it was released I can see how people would find it somewhat frightening and new to their genres. I do somewhat see how it laid out the pathway for further gothic novels, this seemed like a mild taste for further gothic writing, no one said the first story of a new genre had to be the best. It was hard to keep track of characters and their dialogue, it felt jumbled together and clunky at times. I keep referring it to Antigone and Oedipus in the sense of the irony that the prophecy came true, of course Otranto is not as severe of a story but they seem somewhat similar. I believe the quote, "A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it" fits the bill for this story and the character of Manfred. 

The Castle of Otranto: A Look at the Language

In addition to elements of plot and the supernatural, I feel that it is important to consider the particular sort of words that Horace Walpole has chosen to further reinforce the themes and images that forged The Castle of Otranto into a novel worthy of a lesson in Gothic literature.  Words such as "horror," "dread  ," and  "darkness" are employed countless times throughout the novel, chosen specifically for their texture and association, both denotative and connotative.  A close reading of these nuances in word choice allows a person to better understand the discipline of writing in its many meticulous forms and ventures.  Certainly, one of Walpole's primary tasks involving the writing of this Gothic novel was to fully consider the appropriateness of each word in regards to the Gothic style's images of terrible, absurd, and supernatural things.
What language/words stuck out to you as particularly frequent and precise?

A new breed of Story

The Castle of Otranto was definitely a new breed for the time period of its release. A literary fusion, if you will, of Shakespearean plot lines mixed with what the author refers to as a combination of the new and old styles of Romance. The way that he does this, allows the development of the plot and characters to happen in such a way that would be impossible without the air of mysticism he includes along with allegedly "real" characters so that they can respond in a way that a real person would to these supernatural circumstances.

It's no surprise to me that Walpole released this work under a pseudonym due to how controversial it could have been perceived. Whenever one is bold enough to combine and create a new genre, it does have the ability to either spring board or crash a person's career. It also allowed the public to take everything in it from a completely different point of view than if they had known that it was a work of fiction by Walpole. Typically, when I am about to start a book from a well known author, I have preconceived notions on their style, possible outcomes, character development, etc. However, since this was designed to be read as a "real" event that was just translated, it gives the reader the adrenaline rush and a "on the edge of their seat" feeling that is associated with strong character-reader attachment.

Shocker.

Castle of Otranto is a shock to the system.  It is an unpredictable, sporadic and, sometimes, grating read. It is not a bad novel, just jarring when first encountered. The language, the structure, the plot, and the characters all contribute to interrupting the traditional and familiar flow of how a story should proceed. The language is awkward to adjust to at first, there’s a careful eloquence in the way the characters speak but it lacks the grace of what we’re used to hearing. The diction of the characters is dark and foreboding and their syntax is unusual – their sentence structures don’t follow a pattern that we use to speak in the modern day and it’s akin but not quite the language of the Romantic movement; it lacks the flowery presentation that characterizes it. This is to be expected, of course, as it is a Gothic work and not a Romantic one, and one of the telling features that categorizes it as such is in the language.

The structure is also somewhat distressing at first. The most punctuation the reader is offered is the most basic – periods, hyphens, and commas. It forces the events of the story to run together in a chaotic and inseparable fashion. It creates confusion, frustration, and joins everything together like a complicated and ugly web so that even the most unremarkable events contribute to the overarching plot, even if their purpose is just to fluster the audience. Similarly, the plot is seemingly random and unpleasant – it’s unpredictable and, of course, chaotic. The melodrama of the characters in their despair also contributes to making the novel an awkward read as everything seems over the top and unnecessary. But that is, of course, the point.

Castle of Otranto is not meant to be fun, it is purposely chaotic to truly invite the reader into the world of the story.

Madness Unleashed

The Castle of Otranto…. Simple words cannot even begin to describe the kinds of pure madness that are bound within this book. It is defiantly… interesting to say the least. I mean, who wouldn’t find a crazy lord continuously descending into psychological darkness interesting? Oh, and don’t forget the supernatural which kind of just pops up all over the place. No big deal. Sounds like good fun right? I honestly was not really sure what to think once I finished reading this book other than “What the fish did I just read?!”. My mind kind of felt like it exploded from all the drama. I did enjoy reading The Castle of Otranto though, and found myself hooked from page one. I found the way it was written extremely clever and addictive for the reader. It appeared to have the same “powers” like that of a “secret shame” television show: no matter how weird, dramatized, or stupid it is to you/friends, for some reason you feel the need to figure out what happens next. In a way, the plot kind of reminded me of something from an Edgar Allan Poe story too with how twisted it all was. My favorite character ended up being Manfred. I liked the way he responded to the supernatural elements and how completely mad/obsessed he became by the end. He made me laugh and eased any frustrations the book wanted to give me. The Castle of Otranto is not for everyone, but if you go in open minded and get some Advil ready (for upcoming dialogue/drama headaches) I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

O' Brevity, Where Art Thou

   I indeed loved The Castle of Otranto, but it was the style of the writing that actually took me. Each and every page of the tale was littered with gorgeous descriptions of the characters places and events. All of the characters when introduced are underscored with some description, title or other qualifier. Nothing stands alone and that keeps the characters dynamic. Not only does it make for a more interesting read, but in a a way the descriptions become almost lyrical or even poetic. This creates a more interesting avenue in which to engage the story. The characters come to life with some trait revealed, such as the "hated boy" or "Isabella, whom every incident was sufficient to dismay", creating a three dimensionality that would otherwise take a much longer form to build. 
   With the characterization done every few lines the story itself is able to be expanded upon. Though there is relatively little that actually happens in Castle of Otranto, what does happen is in a vivid detail that comes through almost tangibly. Not only that, but it builds suspense through the use of repetition that further pulls the reader in, just so they can try and finally get whats going on. 
  AS we said in class all these things are clearly definitive attributes of the Gothic form, but what wasn't touched on is the fact that it works. This sort of writing elicits a reaction no matter what. Even those who may have felt bored to tears were frustrated at the pace, which was of course frustration was the point. When something like Gothic functions so well, and becomes reliable that's when it becomes a tool for messages. Often stories that are experimental or those that try hard to be different, lose their message, but the Gothic style is something that becomes a patent tool and functional innovation always has me impressed.

Ahhh yes, the "Castle of Otranto." This story really captures the essence of the Gothic novel, mostly because it defines it. I do enjoy the supernatural elements and the tragedy (because it makes a good read, not because I take pleasure in demise) but it was difficult for me to get around the great befuddlement that was the dialogue of Walpole's classic. Though it was only about 100 pages, it felt as though I was trudging arduously through a thick swamp of "gobble-de-gook," as the French would say. I realize that this technique was implemented to create a bond with the reader in regards to the frustration of the characters, but I feel that its effects were felt a little too heavily and I got sort of lost in the shit storm. That being said, I felt that I was being pulled through the book more by the actual action than the dialogue. I kept wanting to know more about the helmet and the sword and how all of these things would tie together, but when I got to the end I was only partially rewarded. In some confusion of strange goings-ons, loud voices and hysteric monarchs, I was able to find a little solace, as I'm sure some of the characters did (we're talking a modicum of solace here) in the union of Isabella and Theodore, but even this remained unclear. I think this story would do quite well if it were reformatted, but then again it might lose its ability to frustrate the reader, which seemed to be its entire point. Not a bad jam at all, I'd give it 3 out of 5 smiles and a couple what the hell?'s.

Walpole and Shakespeare

While Walpole shows a great command of Gothic literature with the use of ghosts, floating objects, and misplaced and misguided passion; I couldn't help but notice multiple ties with his work and that of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet, much like Manfred, has a great grief upon losing his father at the beginning of the play. Both of these deaths appear to be similar in nature, but in Manfred's case his son was merely killed in a strange turn of events and not murdered. While both deaths are unnatural, I believe Manfred's son gets the short end of the stick with the "helmet that fell from the heavens." There are also great parallel's between the female characters of these works; most notably with Manfred's wife and Hamlet's mother. Each of these women appear to be solely guided by their husband's will, and not that of their own. Hippolita, while loving her Lord husband greatly and truly, bends to his every will. Even if it ends with his divorcing of her, which contrasts with her devout religious beliefs. Hamlet's mother merely marries her brother-in-law after and seemingly short mourning period for her dearly departed husband. Both texts rely heavily on the use of phantasms and spirits, with the odd shot of misplaced passion and the death of a fair maiden. Of course, Shakespeare originated various tropes with which author's use greatly to their advantage. My thought was that the works were much too similar for my taste.

Grief or Misplaced Passion?

Grief is a common theme throughout Gothic literature, however the way that the characters handle grief within Castle of Otranto seems different than other Gothic literature that I have experienced.  Rather than dealing with grief outright, all characters within the story mask their grief at one point or another.  After Conrad’s death, Manfred does not mourn, but instead his grief is manifested through his desire for another heir.  Rather than lay his son to rest in a proper burial, Manfred pursues Isabella.  This begs the question, if Conrad had lived, would Manfred still have eventually pursued Isabella, or was this his way of coping with his only son’s death? Manfred seems to see only Conrad, and never Matilda, as his child until Matilda’s death, however he truly seems to mourn the loss of Matilda.  Is he truly mourning the loss of his child, or is he mourning what he now realizes is the total loss of his estate?

The Castle of Otranto

The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole made for an interesting read. I was not a big fan of this book for a couple of reasons. One, the plot line could occasionally be hard to follow; there was a jump from topic to topic. There were also a lot of characters being introduced throughout the story making the story hard to follow considering you never really got a sense of who is who. It was hard to connect with the characters and see the story from their point of view. They call this book gothic, but in my opinion a couple of creepy touches doesn’t quite do the trick. I feel that the gothic parts of this novel were almost distracting. There should have been more emphasis put on the characters and the back-story. The big reveal happened at the end of the book and was too brief. Overall I see more cons than pros for this novel. 

Castle of Otranto: Beware Projectile Helmets

I found The Castle of Otranto to be a fantastic read. Once starting the book I will admit that I had trouble putting it down. The almost comical chain of events which happens in the book kept me enthralled. However, it makes me wonder what the author had in mind when he originally set out to write the book. He published the first edition in 1764 under an alias, providing with it a letter regarding the origins of the story, which would later turn out to be false. It wasn't until the second reprint a year after, in 1765, that he published with it a new letter explaining his reasons for, "having offered his work under the borrowed personage of a translator." He was afraid of how the public would react to such a new genre of writing, so to protect his reputation he created the elaborate guise of an Italian book translated into English. No doubt taking some of the things which made Shakespeare famous, Walpole, expanded on the idea of tragedy and mistaken identity, then adding a dash of mysticism, ghosts and giant projectile helmets created a unique genre that would kick start the age of Gothic literature.

Public Domain http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/numimage/5000-093.htm

Walpole, Horace, and Michael Gamer. The Castle of Otranto. London: Penguin, 2001. Print.