12-08-2007, 09:15 PM
Let's finish our discussion on the theme of good and evil.  We must note that in discussing these books, there are bound to be plot-spoilers. We've mentioned some salient points regarding good and evil in "Castle of Otranto".  Namely, that we have the evil Manfred the usurper, plotting for self-preservation and lusting after a girl.  Frederick, the supposed heir of Otranto, exacting revenge but is lured by the promise of another young girl.  Had he been the true heir, his heart might have been more noble and he wouldn't have been so tempted.  On the other hand, we have our hero Theodore, pure and good.  We must list Mathilda and Isabelle as good as well - the symbols of virginity and purity.  Hippolita (what a name) was a very weak character, influenced by her husband.  She is supposed to be very religious but she sets her husband above her God. Â
These early Gothics were believed to be very critical of the Catholic church, probably because of all the corruption prevalent during the medieval ages.  I know the book was written in the 18th century but these early Gothics were set in medieval times - during the Crusades.  This was a time of religious conflict and I think that's why religion was so predominant a theme.
You move into the 19th century and Gothic romances have evolved into a different Good vs. Evil theme.  In Jane Eyre, we can pick out many different villains and only a few truly good people.  There was conflict at every stage of Jane's life.  She was the good and innocent force.  She had to contend with the horrible Reeds, then the extremely hypocritical, self-indulgent and self-righteous Mr. Brocklehurst.  At Thornfield, she was compared to Blanche Ingram and of course, her secret enemy was Bertha Mason Rochester. (I'd like to know what kind of madness possessed her such that she was still aware of her surroundings and could feel jealousy towards another woman.) Except for Helen Burns, who remained so fervent in her beliefs of an afterlife, the other "good" characters were not as pure as what you would have found in the earlier Gothics. There is no longer the idea of righting a wrong. Even though the Reeds got their just desserts and Jane inherits her uncle's wealth, the two were not directly connected.
Moving on into the 20th century, as in the case of "Rebecca", the lines between good and evil become even more blurred. Whereas Rochester suffers his wife's existence, Maxim de Winter finally explodes and commits murder. What I find interesting is that in my opinion, good did not triumph in "Rebecca". As Maxim kept repeating in the story, "Rebecca has won". Rebecca may not have been evil in the sense that she committed horrific crimes, but she was evil in her manipulative, selfish, deceitful ways. What do others think? Did Rebecca win?
These early Gothics were believed to be very critical of the Catholic church, probably because of all the corruption prevalent during the medieval ages.  I know the book was written in the 18th century but these early Gothics were set in medieval times - during the Crusades.  This was a time of religious conflict and I think that's why religion was so predominant a theme.
You move into the 19th century and Gothic romances have evolved into a different Good vs. Evil theme.  In Jane Eyre, we can pick out many different villains and only a few truly good people.  There was conflict at every stage of Jane's life.  She was the good and innocent force.  She had to contend with the horrible Reeds, then the extremely hypocritical, self-indulgent and self-righteous Mr. Brocklehurst.  At Thornfield, she was compared to Blanche Ingram and of course, her secret enemy was Bertha Mason Rochester. (I'd like to know what kind of madness possessed her such that she was still aware of her surroundings and could feel jealousy towards another woman.) Except for Helen Burns, who remained so fervent in her beliefs of an afterlife, the other "good" characters were not as pure as what you would have found in the earlier Gothics. There is no longer the idea of righting a wrong. Even though the Reeds got their just desserts and Jane inherits her uncle's wealth, the two were not directly connected.
Moving on into the 20th century, as in the case of "Rebecca", the lines between good and evil become even more blurred. Whereas Rochester suffers his wife's existence, Maxim de Winter finally explodes and commits murder. What I find interesting is that in my opinion, good did not triumph in "Rebecca". As Maxim kept repeating in the story, "Rebecca has won". Rebecca may not have been evil in the sense that she committed horrific crimes, but she was evil in her manipulative, selfish, deceitful ways. What do others think? Did Rebecca win?