( 9 reviews )
-
Posted: Apr 20 2008
Known as the landmark in "Gothic literature", I wasn't too sure of what to expect with this. Things started off well when the would-be husband gets squished under a giant helment mysteriously fallen from the sky. But then... I believe this book has some bad flaws, and despite it being a readable read, these flaws really don't help. For instance, Walpole very often falls into the "telling" of the story, which makes you feel very distant from the events described, almost as a chronicle, or as a sum-up of what happens. Another flaw is the supernatural events, which are either ridiculous, or ridiculously put. As a critic wrote, they look like representations of themselves, rather than supernatural events per se. The problem with that is that it entirely kills any fear the reader may have. This reads like a fairy tale or a medieval legend, and doesn't cause enough immersion to create any real fear or concern. It's like a play, over-acted and even cartoonish at times. As Walpole himself writes in his preface, I applaud the attempt, but am less satisfied with the result. And I'm not even sure that this book is so original: if you know medieval novels like "Mélusine", you know that the supernatural and castles aren't that original in the 18th century, and thus the only originality here seems to be restricted to this very century - the 18th - and to be cast against a classicism of that day. That's alright, but it isn't enough to make a good book. That said, "The Castle of Otranto" is not a bad book. It is sort of awkward and irrational, albeit on purpose, and you'll end up wondering about these giant knight parts that show up seemingly at random and do weird things. It's close to a dream, and surrealism, in a way, but again, that alone is not enough to make it a gripping story. As a conclusion: fails to create immersion, makes the reader feels distant and as though watching a play in which actors and actresses over-act, leaves much mystery that the reader will eventually not really care to elucidate. This ancestor of Gothic certainly does not live up to its successors, like "Wuthering Heights" or "Frankenstein" and all those master pieces.
-
Posted: Apr 20 2008
Known as the landmark in "Gothic literature", I wasn't too sure of what to expect with this. Things started off well when the would-be husband gets squished under a giant helment mysteriously fallen from the sky. But then... I believe this book has some bad flaws, and despite it being a readable read, these flaws really don't help. For instance, Walpole very often falls into the "telling" of the story, which makes you feel very distant from the events described, almost as a chronicle, or as a sum-up of what happens. Another flaw is the supernatural events, which are either ridiculous, or ridiculously put. As a critic wrote, they look like representations of themselves, rather than supernatural events per se. The problem with that is that it entirely kills any fear the reader may have. This reads like a fairy tale or a medieval legend, and doesn't cause enough immersion to create any real fear or concern. It's like a play, over-acted and even cartoonish at times. As Walpole himself writes in his preface, I applaud the attempt, but am less satisfied with the result. And I'm not even sure that this book is so original: if you know medieval novels like "M??lusine", you know that the supernatural and castles aren't that original in the 18th century, and thus the only originality here seems to be restricted to this very century - the 18th - and to be cast against a classicism of that day. That's alright, but it isn't enough to make a good book. That said, "The Castle of Otranto" is not a bad book. It is sort of awkward and irrational, albeit on purpose, and you'll end up wondering about these giant knight parts that show up seemingly at random and do weird things. It's close to a dream, and surrealism, in a way, but again, that alone is not enough to make it a gripping story. As a conclusion: fails to create immersion, makes the reader feels distant and as though watching a play in which actors and actresses over-act, leaves much mystery that the reader will eventually not really care to elucidate. This ancestor of Gothic certainly does not live up to its successors, like "Wuthering Heights" or "Frankenstein" and all those master pieces.
-
Posted: Dec 10 2007
Here it is: the novel that created the gothic fiction genre and paved the way for such works as Frankenstein, Dracula, The Monk, Melmoth the Wanderer, The Shining and Alien (to name just a few). Yet, comparing The Castle of Otranto with the works it helped inspire is like comparing the Wright Brothers' airplane with a Boeing 747. Walpole's novel is certainly an important step in the right direction, yet it clearly lacks many of the features of gothic fiction developed by later writers. There's no real sense of mood or atmosphere, no wickedly evil villain (Manfred comes off like a wishy-washy used car salesman), and little suspense or drama. At times this novel reads more like a parody of gothic fiction rather than its earliest example. It's filled with fainting ladies, noble princes in disguise, miraculous reunions, graveyard rendezvous, hereditary curses, etc. While some parts are interesting and engaging, sometimes the story feels like a novelization of a Disney movie, that is: trite, contrived and very predictable. Honestly, I wanted to like this book, and kept hoping that a silver lining would emerge at some point. It never did, and this book never rose above the level of just being okay. Unless you're really interested in learning more about the origins of gothic fiction, I would recommend reading something else.
