The Castle of Otranto: A Discussion on the Novel

In the first ten pages of the novel, note the inexplicable/mysterious behaviours by Manfred.  How does this “set up” the reader for the gothic narrative? PS. Can you think of another protagonist named Manfred?

MANFRED THE UNHINGED

Manfred is, in a nutshell, emotionally unstable (and that’s putting it mildly, I think). He has no concern for his family beyond what they can do to elevate his own prestige. He is a horrible husband, a terrible father, and an unjust lord. The first thing we learn about him is that he has no time for his daughter, instead doting on the younger, sickly son. His daughter does nothing but her best where he is concerned, and nothing is ever enough. Despite her marriageable age, it is the son who is hastened off to be married first. This is because Manfred is concerned only with continuing on his own line, which would not happen if Matilda were married off; she’d be making another lord more powerful by providing other lineages heirs.

While under his care, he essentially owns her, and I think that’s a very egotistical way to view one’s family, but it sets up his entitlement where Isabella is concerned very nicely (if not disgustingly). Most importantly, it touches on his belief of the prophecy that someone will take his place who is more worthy. Naturally, he is threatened by everyone because literally everyone else conducts themselves better than Manfred does.

Next, we see how Manfred views the death of his son on his wedding day below a helmet. He does not seem to care beyond how this hinders the lineage, and he acknowledges “partial fondness” (pg. 19) for Conrad, his son. This is an odd reaction. What’s more odd is his willingness to set aside his own marriage to take on his son’s bride. Just a lot of weirdness all around. Isabella is terrified of him from the get-go (pg. 19) as a result of how she has seen the treatment of women, notably his wife and daughter, and she is not eager to become another woman in his circle, much to Manfred’s dismay.

Next we see how he deals with his subjects; he has a very short fuse, and he his sense of justice is inexplicably flawed. His judgement is based off of his fears and insecurities as opposed to coming from a place of love and fulfillment of self. He is insecure, and when he perceives someone being better at something or more balanced, it causes him to lash out—as we see with ‘the young peasant’.

All of this behaviour culminates and builds throughout the novel as tyranny, which touches on many of the gothic themes for abuse of power and oppressor. This lack of judgement also manifests in rash decisions and acting on every impulse he has, and when it’s violence... well... he kills his own daughter out of jealousy thinking it was instead his intended daughter-in-law (which is obviously not better).

It touches on the high, overwrought emotion, women in distress, tyranny over women, supernatural, prophecy, omen, mystery, suspense, burdened male protagonist. All of these themes obviously hit on the rest though as this novel contains every single element, but these are the most evident in the first ten pages concerning Manfred.

P.S.: I know there is a play called “Manfred” by Byron, but I’ve never read it. I have wanted to read it for a while, so if I get around to it, I will make another comment about it, but there is also Manfred “Manny” the mammoth from Ice Age.

 

There are many improbable events in the novel – do they make it difficult to create a “willing suspension of disbelief” or do they heighten the suspense?

INcoNcEiVabLe!

I think the events on their own, such as the helmet falling on Conrad, and the sighting of the Spector/giant thing would be unbelievable and would be so preposterous that you’d be sucked right out of the story if it weren’t offset by magical circumstances and dismal settings. If the castle was in pristine condition, as an example, it’s hardly likely that a piece of crumbling statue headgear would go plummeting onto the groom to be. However, because it is a crumbling castle, you can be like “wow, that’s incredibly bad luck man, you clearly aren’t Irish”.

There is both a magical explanation and a logical one, even if incredibly unlikely. By providing context for both types of people, superstitious and logical, it grounds it in a way that wouldn’t be possible with the omission of either because they play off each other. It’s quite exciting trying to unravel if it’s because of a soft magical system that we don’t understand, or if Conrad is unfortunate in every possible way, so for me, it definitely heightened.

Even if one doesn’t believe what is happening, the characters believe it, and by having the corroboration of different servants running into things as well as Manfred so vehemently saying it’s not real, if only to keep his staff working, it creates tension and stakes because if the prophecy is real, we know how this ends. What’s interesting, is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, so logically, the events lead to the same thing the magical thing predicted, so it’s very neatly combined either way to create a cohesive explanation.

 

What are the main gothic elements of the novel we find in this “first” of the genre?

THE ELEMENTS OF GOTHIC FICTION

The Castle of Otranto has all the hallmark elements of the Gothic Novel as we know it:

1. it is set in a castle with ruined sections, contains secret passages and trap doors, and has a labyrinth-esque basement level that leads to a church below the castle;

2. it has an atmosphere of mystery and suspense, fuelled by a prophecy, bad omens, visions, and sightings of specters and giants, starting with a giant helmet crushing the groom to be;

3. overwrought emotions are necessary to the plot as well, with episodes so melodramatic, the castle believes Matilda’s mother to be dead, not just unconscious from fainting;

4. Isabella flees from Manfred, terrified of being captured and enslaved to his will, thus depicting a tyrannical male resulting in damsel-in-distress tropes.

The setting is also a metaphor in many ways, informing plot, character development, creating tension, foreshadowing, and symbolism, all of which are incredibly suggestive of the ultimate fate of the characters.

Other important characteristics include: lost lineage (seen by Theodore), lost/discarded documents (as seen with the fabricated will passing the estate to Manfred’s ancestors instead of rightful heirs, and the lost documentation of Theodore’s own identity), themes of rape and incest (as seen by Manfred’s unlawful pursual of his intended daughter-in-law and the fact that she is not consenting to it in any way), as well as deception and disguise, (as seen with Isabella’s father pretending to be a knight to collect his daughter from her prison.)

 

Walpole’s two prefaces are very different from each other; what is the purpose of the first preface?  The second? Are prefaces important?

HORACE WALPOLE: THE OG TROLL

The point of Walpole’s prefaces are two-fold: it puts the story into greater context by placing it in history, and it also provides supplementary background information to elaborate on themes that will be explored within the story. In ‘The castle of Otranto’, at least in my edition, there is an introduction, a note on the text, select bibliography, chronology on Horace Walpole, a title for the first edition, a title page for the second edition, a preface to the first edition, a preface to the second edition, and then a sonnet before the story commences (which the back of the book says is very unusual seeing as Sonnets were not taken seriously until 1780.) That’s a lot of stuff to take in before the story even starts.

Within the context of the first preface it is to state that the work was found in the library of an ancient Catholic family in the north of England (I noticed the blackletter pun, one of my favourite moody fonts.) It is a debate on when the story is supposed to have taken place using clues to come to an acceptable timeframe. The timing would offer an explanation for the setting and be indicative of the time it was written, providing context by perhaps pin-pointing who is truly about.

Another point of the first practice is to start a conversation about the beliefs of the author, though it is conjecture. The preface for the first addition is essentially stating that the author believes that the groundwork of the story is founded on truth. Further explanation upon the first preference in the back of the book shows that it’s intentionally misleading his identity to conceal both personage beliefs and insecurity.

Now, I found the second preface convoluted and not nearly as interesting to read. I could be reading this entirely wrong, but this is what I gathered: the second preface is an updated version—the first edition was received so well that it was out of print, thus having to go into second edition. He comes clean in the 2^nd and gives an explanation to his deceit, essentially stating he used false identity to cover his bold and daring act of creating a new genre, a new romance, concealing his identity in case it was not well received. Having perceived his work a success, he decided to go public and claim the work as his own. Now, I’m not sure that prefaces are necessary, but they are certainly interesting. They add context to the overall story by allowing a glimpse into the authors mind.

 

How do men fare in the novel? What is the sense of masculinity at play? How do the women fare in the novel?  Do they exemplify the position of women in society – is it a justification or an argument against the position of women in society?  

DON’T BE A MANFRED!

At first glance, it may appear as though the men fare better than the women, but I don’t actually think that is the case.

• Conrad gets squashed at his own wedding by a steroid helmet from a crumbling gargoyle.

• Manfred watches everything fall apart and becomes the weapon of his own destruction—cursed with knowledge of his failure.

• Theodore, despite being the “good guy” gets to watch the love of his life die in his arms and gets to live the rest of his life with responsibilities alone apart from companionship with a friend.

There’s really no winning here.

Isabella gets out of the marriage to both men and gets the man she wanted, even if not at the capacity she desired, Matilda dies at the hands of her father, but died surrounded with loved ones and got to leave her father’s despicable presence, and the wife, though having lost her children, had a relationship with God and would likely have been able to heal from the trauma.

They had bad things happen, but I would not say it was worse. They are poorly treated by Manfred, but they are treated well by the rest of the men, so I don’t think Manfred overshadows everything else completely.

Every character experienced trauma, but I don’t think gender is really the determinant factor. The women have struggles ongoing, but their resolutions aren’t terrible (disregarding Matilda’s unfortunate demise that is). Manfred is rotten, but Theodore is his character foil and they both end up losing everything they hold dear even though one did everything right.

The women are the epitome of nobility, something Manfred lacks entirely, and yet the women are valued by the other men character, notably by Theodore and his father. Isabella’s father dies vying for her safety, something ironically absent from Manfred’s conduct (father faking identity and dying to save child vs. killing child through a case of unfortunate mistaken identity).

I can’t claim to know the author’s mind on whether or not it was indicative of “woman’s rightful place”, but given that Manfred if blatantly vilified, I think it stands to reason that the vilified character is a depiction of what not to do, so the beliefs and actions of men should reflect more of how Theodore acts rather than Manfred. Women are treated well by Isabella’s father, Theodore, and his father, ideally even, seeing them truly and valuing them, and I think the woman’s temperament is essential in balancing out the man; both are essential in the picture.

There is more than one masculinity at play and one is beneficial while the other is harmful. Manfred is a warning and a lesson, and a testament that women should be treated fairly and gently, with an open hand and with love, and not with apathy, violence, or vanity. Because of the actions of one man, everyone kind of loses in this story. He has a great deal of responsibility and he squanders it.