The Italian: A Discussion on the Novel

In the preface, Radcliffe sets up what follows in a manner that distances the reader. Who is telling the story and why might she choose to create such a “blind” in the preface?

PROLOGUE…?

Perhaps it is just a matter of the edition that I have, but my book does not have a Preface, but a Prologue, and to me there is a difference. A prologue is usually contained within the fiction itself, something that is within the story and provides foreshadowing that will be understood as a revelation later on, typically by the end of the novel. A preface, on the other hand, is typically external to the story, providing information and context to specific influential events or persons as background information necessary to the reader prior to the story commencing.

The Prologue in the Italian acts like a preface in some ways, providing context into why the story is about to be told: the Englishman is about to be handed a manuscript, and the remainder of the book is the Englishman reading the manuscript (the retelling of the events between Vivaldi, Ellena, and Schedoni.)

The two principal characters in the prologue are The Englishman, and The Italian (Title reference) and the Italian states, "We, in Italy, are not so apt to despair," in response to the Englishman speaking about the general gloom. This also sets up expectations, making the Italian character a persevering, optimistic, and courageous one, while also kind of setting up the Brits as the opposite of those things, albeit somewhat inadvertently.

It's kind of meta when you think about it, a story within a story. Such distance is yet another way that the author can suspend belief because not only is the story fictional, the story the fictional characters are reading about is a retelling of another story that happened within the fictional world itself. The game telephone generally results in the morphing of the truth as it goes from one ear to the next, and by using the retelling of a story through the perspective of a student writer, particularly young, we now associate the story through the context of youth. Youth itself is associated with naivety, rose-coloured glasses, optimism, joy, perfection, simplicity, feeling greater than the world itself, and because it's a young person writing it, an older person will understand that and see beyond that to another layer of truth.

 

In contrast to her aunt, is Elena a radical figure? Before you answer, keep in mind the contextual time.

Nobility Is In Character... Jk. It's In Blood

I think even now she’s a bit of a radical lady. She stood up against authority at literally every turn, something many people can’t do today either regardless of the actual figure being rebelled against, be it god, church, government, parent, wrongdoer etc. Given the time, given the context of the power of the church and the lack of power with women, we see her wield power she really shouldn’t have, even if it’s simply standing true to her own ideals with the threat of death or a fate worse than death such as becoming a nun! *gasps in horror* I agree though, so that’s only kind of an ironic gasp.

She wanted a man above her station—and succeeds; she refused to become a nun or to marry against her will—and succeeds; she goes to save Vivaldi—and, well that in itself is flipping the damsel in distress trope on its head, isn’t it?

Elena is radical comparatively to literally everyone in the story. Everyone except perhaps Vivaldi who is basically only impressive because he is decent and passionate among a sea of those who are not decent and impassive. His parents are so stereotypical and haughty it hurts, as is Schedoni, and every other religious figure since ever, and Elena’s aunt is the epitome of a chaste, respectable woman, which basically means yielding to a will contrary to yours to keep the peace, which is not really a respectable thing to oneself if you really think about it.

Elena is radical because she is in alignment with herself, not to the interests of others, and that makes her a danger because if everyone took that attitude, it would immediately dissolve the notion of “blood nobility”.

HOWEVER.

The ending completely ruined everything. If this book truly wanted to be bold, it should have disrupted the hierarchy by keeping her a Jane Doe and proving blood nobility is stupid and that nobility is of strength character not genes. By making her patronage noble and by being like:

“Oh… wait, noble you say? She’s actually noble and not a disgusting, plain peasant? Oh, my dear, sorry for trying to kill you and stuff. Forgive me, I thought you were basic. My apologies.”

It undercut all of her moral integrity and strength by making her noble instead of average and also made Vivaldi’s struggles all pointless too. If she were average, it would actually be making a case for something constructive and made Vivaldi’s struggle more noble because he stood by her despite her being base born thereby also making a case for marriage for love’s sake. By making this contrived happy ending, Radcliffe basically says “I’m going to be a great point! The status quo is just capital! As you were!”

It took all the power away for me by her lost patronage being so stupidly hidden. What an absurd misunderstanding. I feel like no lesson was learned, and no point was made by the end of the book. In the end, nobility (through blood) is all that matters. It was on the road to making a point, but then chickened out at the last second and went just kidding. I'm unimpressed.

Teacher Response:

Early novels can be disappointing, but we have to keep the context in perspective -- when you read novels which are written in a different century, the reader(s) must try to imagine themselves reading at the same time and in the same context as when the novel was published. For example, if we read Jane Austen now, there is much in twenty-first century life that would see her novels dismissed as sentimental or even 'girlie' (argh). However, if we look at what Austen, as a woman confined to her own drawing room and writing in a corner was able to capture about gender and class dynamics, it is remarkable! Early novels often 'required' happy closure, usually a marriage, to reassure the reader that order has been restored and, in the case of the Gothic, that evil has been overcome!

My Response:

My contention wasn’t that there was a marriage at the end. A marriage between Vivaldi and Elena was established as a given from the outset of the novel when Vivaldi expressed his desires as such. My complaint is that at the end, Radcliffe cheapened the ending by making Elena a noble instead of some low-born girl who had captured the heart of the Lord. If the marriage occurred in the latter way, it would actually be making a case for marriages for LOVE. In the former, it makes the entire plot of the book pointless because if everyone had known she was actually a Lady of status, there would have been wedding bells on page 25. It’s a “Miscommunication Trope” and I loathe it. It’s contrived and silly. All of the necessary elements would have remained intact without the “plot-twist” , so it feels like a slap in the face.

 

In contrast to the depiction of femininity, how are the men depicted?

A How-To Guide To Perpetuate "Toxic Masculinity"

Schedoni and Vivaldi are character foils: one is ruled by logic and reason (however disagreeable that logic may be) and the other by passion (however short-sighted that too may be). As the former is the villain and the latter the hero, it is fairly obvious where Radcliffe stands on how men should be. I don’t think it’s really a case of whether men are more one than the other, but more so an argument for how the ideal man should be. It seems to me that Radcliffe makes the case that a man should first and foremost be a protector, as Vivaldi is. A man should be passionate yet gentle, and brave but also fierce when need be.

Seeing as she also gave Vivaldi an incredibly improbable (if not contrived) happy ending, she seems to be saying that being good is rewarding and you will get what you want by being genuine (I will touch on this more in the discussion in comparing the Monk). I mean, that’s a nice thought, but life does not work that way. It can work out, but that’s not really the moral truth of the matter. You can do everything right and die by tripping over a shoelace at the wrong time, hurtling headfirst into traffic.

Death comes for us all, and to say that being good ensures your fate is better is just not something I agree with because that is straight up false. I mean, yes, I think we should all be moral, but if you need the promise of something in return for being moral (i.e.: getting the girl) then it’s pretty cheap morality. All of these ideas intersect in intriguing ways, but in short, I think men are not so easily dumbed down to an either-or scenario of “do they have a brain or do they have a heart”, and I find that sentiment more detrimental to masculinity than anything else because God forbid men use both…?

A problem I had with this novel consistently was how every character was stereotypical and caricaturized as, ‘if one has a head, they lack a heart’ and vice versa, which is simply not the case. This is how you get "toxic masculinity", by saying men "should be" one way or another instead of allowing people to be who they are. Case in point: Schedoni is so “smart” he is heartless and Vivaldi is so “in love” he is brainless. If men were able to integrate both head and heart, there were be fewer issues in this regard and by stating one type of man is better than another also doesn't help matters. There just needs to be acceptance. That's like saying "women are only for childbearing and nurturing" and because they have a great capacity for love, they have no room upstairs; that's equally problematic.

I think this transcends beyond all intersectionality though, because what intersectionality really points to in the end is that we are all unique individuals... period. It's not really a matter of gender, it's a matter of compatibility. If someone has a tendency to fall one way, their partner should balance them in the other direction. Ideally, a person is balanced in themselves first, but the point of partnership is to cover the bases and have a harmonious partnership.

I guess my point is this: men and women can both be passionate and logical in varying degrees each and it's a matter of personhood of the individual and not allocated organ (head or heart) to a specific gender saying men are for the head and women are for the heart. (You'll note that men and women both have heads and hearts.)

Teacher Response:

Ok, so above you comment: "A problem I had with this novel consistently was how every character was stereotypical and caricaturized as, ‘if one has a head, they lack a heart’ and vice versa, which is simply not the case. This is how you get "toxic masculinity", by saying men "should be" one way or another instead of allowing people to be who they are." -- Sure, yes, I agree. BUT, is it legitimate to take a twenty-first century conception of 'woke' masculinity and put it against 'toxic' masculinity two hundred years ago? Masculinity shifts and changes over literary and historic time.

My Response:

I see what you're saying here, but I am not really comparing the early man with the modern man, but instead talking about masculinity outside of "time" in a general sense within fiction itself because there are token characteristics that don't change regardless of the century. It's usually more of a blend which grounds it into plausibility, so that a character can be compelling in general. If I don't feel like the characters themselves could be real, I won't be invested in anything they do. I get that it was designed that way to drive home the opposing natures, but it was overdone in my opinion.

It's no different than a flat villain: no person is 100% evil in fiction, or at the very least, no good villain. The best characters have complexity, and my commentary is on the flatness of characters in their traits as opposed to the traits themselves, which to me are pretty irrelevant.

As for Austen, I wish I had a Mr. Darcy. He is logical nearly to a fault in the beginning, albeit adorable in how he is so terrible at professing love, but he amends his behaviour and moves into his heart space as he goes, which is more the idea of what I'm saying. Mr. Darcy is balanced, even if he is obviously the rational man, not the sentimental one. I really don't like the portrayal of the rational man as less important in the book, or even as sinister/evil/heartless. I have a book called "The Art of Manliness: Classic Skills and Manners for the Modern Man" and there is a list of 100 books all men should read, and Austen is on that list, which I think is wonderful.

Men in fiction, regardless of when it's written, especially when written by a woman, is going to be idealistic towards certain "types" and really critical of the opposite. What I meant by the 'caricature stuff' was that Vivaldi has so much unfounded passion for her that I don't believe him, whereas Father Schedoni is just heartless and is a cookie cutter villain until he thinks someone is his own progeny and then suddenly he cares (very different from Mr. Darcy who is indeed, logical, but not heartless and just doesn't feel comfortable when expressing it.) The pitfall of writing about "the perfect man" is that he's boringgggg.

I guess what I am saying is this: Radcliffe was obviously a talented writer, but for my tastes (which is a modern-take comment) I wanted more complexity in the characters given how she had no problem making the plot convoluted, and I don't feel it would have been very difficult to do so even within the constraints of when she was writing; it felt unbalanced for some reason with a complicated plot and simple characters. Perhaps that's simply a matter of preference, but I prefer the inverse. I don't want to read about 2D characters, no matter how cool the plot is. Give me a 5D character though, and I will read about them buttering toast with delight.

I thought it was just too black and white and too stiff in the characterization and that it would have been more interesting if there was a little more good in the 'villain', and a few more flaws in the 'hero', from a storytelling perspective, not commentary in a social/gender way even though I understand that's how most people would perceive what I was saying. I still feel like I'm not quite able to articulate what I mean... so frustrating.

Perhaps the title of my thread could use some work to more accurately reflect what I meant. I guess in a way though, if modern people read it, they will take what the will away from it and apply it from their perspective, and from a modern perspective it is not a message I agree with, though I know that's not at all the point. I've read a lot of books, and there's not many I dislike, but so far in my life, the only two I've genuinely not enjoyed are this one and Mrs. Dalloway which I actually despised. They’re both in the sentimental genre, so that’s illuminating.

 

How does Radcliffe employ the ‘sublime’ within ‘The Italian’?

I Scream! You Scream! We All Scream For The Characters To Get To The Point!

Everything about “The Italian” is overwrought and exaggerated. It’s a sensational novel (the singular reason I did not really enjoy this book). I found it naïve at times, illogical, and exasperating. The dialogue alone was sublime, so frustrating with characters that can’t tell a story to save their lives, (to the point I actually liked Schedoni because at least he wasn’t a blithering dunce who could not get to the point.) I actually screamed several times, particularly when the guide was involved, saying (incredibly paraphrased and yet, at once, an exact replica of style) shit like:

“Oh, I would tell you the greatest tale with wonderful detail just as my father—before I—did, but only if you would allow me to get to the point, for you interrupt at most inopportune times—just when the tension of my incredible story gets to the precipice of wonderment, you endeavour to halt my progress by asking me to omit the beauteous portions, the soul of my story, to give you mere bones of the events that I am attempting to relay instead of using your grace and patience bestowed upon thee by God to hear me out, so please, for God’s sake, be quiet and listen to my tall tale that is beyond the ability of everyone else I know for I have the storytelling skills of my father before me, a gift passed from generation to generation, each greater than the last, and I shall be the greatest because I would never give someone else a greater gift than I possess and if I had a son, he’d tell stories even better than I, which, as we have established, just would not do – interrupted again! Must you make me tread over ground – ground already previously trod?”

~Me being zesty and making fun of stupid characters, all while doing it better.

... and proceeds to immediately retell details of literally zero importance, straying from the point at once. He was a politician but without the title, speaking in circles, saying nothing. I feel like the book would have been a mere fifty pages if every character were able to be succinct in speech which left me feeling that the plot itself was all kind of pointless and could have been so easily avoided and navigated if key players were just in the loop.

The setting too is sublime, very Romantic in the idolization of pasture and fields, as well as the descriptions of monastic locations. The characterization of the setting and characters both being “veiled” brings forth a religious connotation which is also a sublime sentiment, since it’s a symbol of god and higher something or other. The fact that women are meant to be chaste and pure is another symbolic portion of the sublime. Moral and spiritual purity is a revered quality (until a woman employs it and then she’s disrespectful—go figure). Vivaldi’s passion is sublime, so extreme. Basically the extremity of everything: the men, the women, the “evil”, the nuns, the monks, the inquisition—they’re all sublime to the point they felt like caricatures to me and altogether unrealistic and unbelievable.

 

Using specific examples and specific passages from the text, explore the similarities and differences between ‘The Italian’ and ‘The Monk’. Create an argument either for or against the following statement: in many ways, Mrs. Radcliffe’s last novel, ‘The Italian’, is a response to Matthew Lewis’s ‘The Monk’.

THE ITALIAN IS AN IMPOSTER

I found this question very difficult because there is overwhelming evidence that they agree on things, but they also disagree; that being said, the similarities are superficial at best, and the things they disagree on are clearly beyond the scope of genre. It's hard to say if Radcliffe is responding to The Monk specifically, or simply writing a gothic novel—full stop. As gothic fiction goes, there is a pretty standard formula, so to say one is a response to another is a little contrived given that they are all following the same format and responding to all predecessors of the genre.

There are as many similarities between The Castle of Otranto and The Monk as there are between the latter and The Italian, at least plot-wise (more even). Therefore, similarity in plot cannot be used as a device to say "yes, she is responding to him". Yes, she is responding to Lewis, but not less than any other gothic novel that came before hers, or after.

The formula in very, very, very loose terms: "damsel" dies, the lover is sad, and the villain/anti-hero may or may not die but loses much, or everything, in the process.

• The Castle Of Otranto: Matilda dies + Theodore lives sadly  + Manfred loses everything he held dear.

• The Monk: Antonia dies + Lorenzo lives sadly + Ambrosio loses everything he held dear (and dies).

• Interview With The Vampire: Claudia dies + Louis lives sadly + Lestat loses everything he held dear.

• Dracula: Lucy dies + (Mina almost) + Their lovers are sad + Dracula loses everything (and dies).

• SE7EN: Wife dies + Husband is sad + Bad guy loses everything (and dies).

• The Italian: Ellena lives happily ever after, Vivaldi lives happily ever after, Schedoni is forgiven and dies with absolution.

(VUN UV ZEES SINGS EEZ NOT LIKE ZEE UZZERS)

To the point, I think her novel is a response to Gothic Literature at large, and I think she disagrees with basically everything that gothic literature explores. It is the only outlier with a "happy ending". It uses the Gothic genre as a vehicle to subvert all the themes of Gothic literature itself; it possesses all the characteristics, but none of the resolutions or "life lessons" that every other book in the genre does.

It is an imposter (veiled yet again). It's like an optimistic princess dressed like a goth. The aesthetic is there, but the accompanying sentiments are superficial at best. It's brilliant, really, to ride the genre while not actually conforming to anything the genre believes. In my personal belief, it is a satire of the gothic novel, making fun of it in an attempt to criticize the genre.

I see you Ann Radcliffe, I see you.

And I disagree with the entirety of my head, heart and soul. Gothic Lit is awesome. The Italian… wasn’t.