The appearance of Studies in Gothic Fiction, a new "online refereed academic journal devoted to the study of the Gothic from its beginnings in the eighteenth century to the present," to be launched in November 2009 (and currently "seeking articles and reviews for its premiere on-line issue") has reminded me that I haven't posted much at TMT about twentieth-century gothic romances. As I'm not particularly well-read in the sub-genre, however, I won't attempt to present any analysis of my own. What follows is really a very brief literature review of some of the secondary material about the sub-genre.The twentieth-century gothic romance has its
roots [...] in the tales of terror and seduction which were the most popular type of fiction in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; it has, however, largely departed from the authentic gothic mould as the status of the heroine has altered and thus affected her responses to the archetypal male character [...]. The more extravagant excesses, both physical and psychological, have been toned down; incarceration in crumbling castles, haunted abbeys, labyrinthine forests or catacombs has been replaced by sojourns in roomy but not necessarily huge houses, and insane, power-crazed baddies have been replaced by calculating seducers and con-men. However, the central element - woman in jeopardy - has remained comparatively unchanged from the mid-eighteenth-century beginnings of the gothic story to the romantic suspense novels of the 1990s. (Cadogan 7)Carol Thurston described the modern gothic romance like this:
Also called romantic suspense, the modern gothic romance reached its peak of popularity in the United States during the 1960s, after paperback reprints of stories by Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Nora Lofts, and Dorothy Eden became widely available. This twentieth-century version of the gothic gives as much attention to the developing love relationship as to the mystery; more often than not the two are the same, a plot device exemplified in the title of Joanna Russ's 1973 article, "Somebody's Trying to Kill Me and I Think It's My Husband: The Modern Gothic." The frequently cited prototype of the modern gothic romance is Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, published in 1938 and essentially a retelling of Jane Eyre; Victoria Holt's Mistress of Mellyn (1960) is an unabashed retelling of Rebecca. (41)I can't agree that Rebecca is "essentially a retelling of Jane Eyre" since the personalities and plot seem very different to me. However, they are both written in the first person (the narrator is also the heroine of the novel) and in both the hero has had a first wife, details of whose life remain mysterious to the narrator, who will become his second wife, for much of the time-period covered by the novel. Kay Mussell also draws parallels between these three novels:
The novel that sparked the gothic revival of the 1960s, Mistress of Mellyn by Victoria Holt, resembles both these earlier romances. Mistress of Mellyn, like Jane Eyre, uses the "governess" plot. [...] Although the heroine, like the nameless narrator of Rebecca, may not know why her husband proposed to her, she genuinely loves him. (Fantasy 45)Mussell, in an article published in 1975, had earlier taken a look at the contrast between the figure of the heroine and the threatening "other woman":
According to the traditional "double standard," sexual relationships are permitted for men (accepted somewhat indulgently as "sowing wild oats"), but not for women, upon whom falls the responsibility for controlling the relationship by denying sex to the male until it has been sanctioned by marriage. Such a situation [...] gives rise to two related aspects of the modern gothic novel: the portrayal of female characters who fail to control their sexuality, and the assurance for the reader that such lack of control leads to defeat. [...] In the case of the gothic novel, social beliefs about female sexuality and its inherent dangers are suggested in the contrast between the heroine and the passionate woman. [...] In the gothic novels of four of the most consistently popular authors of the past two decades (Mary Stewart, Victoria Holt, Dorothy Eden, and Phyllis Whitney), such contrasting figures appear in more than half of the books. (84-85)While Mussell's article looked at the female protagonists and what one might learn from them about social attitudes towards women, Joanna Russ looked at the male characters in gothic romances and found that the novels' "emotional center is that 'handsome, magnetic suitor or husband who may or may not be a lunatic or murderer'" (679-80). In addition, she thought it possible that the novels themselves might "be a way that conventionally feminine readers can see their own situation" (686) and draw the following conclusions:
If my man treats me badly, that's because he's masculine, not because he's bad. There are bad men and good men; the problem is simply telling which is which. There are bad women and good women; I'm not a bad (read: sexual, aggressive) woman.Radway's essay draws slightly more positive conclusions about the sub-genre because of the "unthinkable thought" it provokes:
[...] Conventionally masculine men are good men (even if they treat me badly) and conventionally feminine women are good women. This makes behavior very easy to judge. It also validates conventional sex roles.
[...] Something is trying to hurt me and tear me down - but I don't know what it is. I suspect it's my man, or men in general, but that's an unthinkable thought. (688)
Careful examination of the works of such authors as Victoria Holt (Eleanor Hibbert), Mary Stewart, Dorothy Eden, and Phyllis Whitney demonstrates convincingly that while the popular gothic is essentially conservative in its recommendation of conventional gender behavior, its conservatism is triumphant because the narrative permits the reader first to give form to unrealized disaffection before it reassures her that such discontent is unwarranted. (141-42)As for the covers,
Nearly every modern gothic issued before 1974 sported a predominantly green and blue drawing exhibiting a terrified woman, clad in a long, swirling robe, who was fleeing from a darkened mansion lit only by a glow in an upper window. (Radway 144)You can see images of a number of gothic romance covers at Morticia's Morgue.
- Cadogan, Mary. And Then Their Hearts Stood Still: An Exuberant Look at Romantic Fiction Past and Present. London: Macmillan, 1994.
- Mussell, Kay J. “Beautiful and Damned: The Sexual Woman in Gothic Fiction.” Journal of Popular Culture 9.1 (1975): 84-89.
- Mussell, Kay. Fantasy and Reconciliation: Contemporary Formulas of Women's Romance Fiction. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1984.
- Radway, Janice. "The Utopian Impulse in Popular Literature: Gothic Romances and 'Feminist' Protest." American Quarterly 33.2 (1981): 140-162.
- Russ, Joanna. “Somebody's Trying to Kill Me and I Think It's My Husband: The Modern Gothic.” Journal of Popular Culture 6.4 (1973): 666-91.
- Thurston, Carol. The Romance Revolution: Erotic Novels for Women and the Quest for a New Sexual Identity. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987.
I found the image of the cover of the 1963 Crest edition of Mistress of Mellyn at Amazon.com.
Something is truly weird about the way that cover is loading. I saw it perfectly well in Google reader but it's only loading down to Mistress when I come to the site. Same browser.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, nice article. And I found a really good quote for you related to Gothic covers that I'm going to post on my blog next week. Watch for it. ;)
That's odd. It was working fine in my browser. I wonder if it was maybe because the image was quite big, so the text had trouble scrolling down the side of it. I've centered it now, instead of having it left aligned, so the text should be underneath it. Does that help?
ReplyDeleteI found a really good quote for you related to Gothic covers that I'm going to post on my blog next week. Watch for it.
Will do!
I am very excited about this new journal as my paper at PCA this past April was on the Gothic and first-person narration.
ReplyDeleteI just bought two old paperback versions of Mary Stewart books from the 1960's. I love the old covers with their Ingrid Pitt B-Movie like artistry, the lurid covers, the clingy clothes. There's something about them that I find vastly more appealing than the new covers that are just bland pictures of flowers or houses or some other object that Art 101 students use to practice still-life.
One of the things I end up doing when I go to used bookstores is trying to get books that both look interesting plot-wise but are older editions. I feel I'm rescuing from certain death.
I didn't go to the PCA conference, but I do remember you posted a bit about the gothic on your blog:
ReplyDeletethere are very few proper Gothics written anymore. And by anymore I mean in the last twenty years. Now this is entirely an opnion on my part, but it seems to me that romantic suspense has taken the place of the Gothic as far as thrills and chills go but to my mind romantic suspense has more in common with film noir or the detective novel than with the Gothic.
In thinking about this I began to wonder what it was that was missing from modern stories that was fundamental to the classic Gothic tale. I have concluded that it is comes down to two factors. The first is that the classic Gothic cuts off the heroine almost entirely from the rest of world, either by actual imprisonment or by the remoteness of the setting. The second factor is the element that I will refer to as friend-or-foe or everyone’s-a-suspect. Not only is the heroine entirely cut off from the world at large but she hasn’t any idea who to trust . . . now wait, that may be putting it too broadly. Let me try again. The second factor, friend-or-foe, is not simply that everyone is suspect but that there is not any definitive evidence that a threat even exists–making, paradoxically, the threat even more ominious because the heroine cannot even trust the evidence of her own eyes. This creep factor, the one that gets your blood pumping and makes your eyes go all round as you stay up all night reading, that is what I think is missing in modern stories.
I thought that was interesting because of the way that some of the earlier critics that I quoted do describe the gothic romance as romantic suspense (though that latter sub-genre has probably changed quite a lot since the late 1980s when Thurston was writing). The way you describe the gothic romance, it sounds a lot more like horror (which admittedly can have a suspense/crime element, but ....).
And that leads me on to another thought. How would you relate the modern paranormal romance genre to the gothic tradition? Were the "gothic romances" of someone like Mary Stewart actually spookier than modern paranormal romances which feature vampires, shapeshifters etc?
-sighs- I typed and submitted a reply but then it disappeared. Possibly, it was stolen by the internet fairies. I don't know. In any event . . . Wow! Laura, I am impressed with your memory. Even I didn't remember that post.
ReplyDeleteHowever, despite lack of memory, I concur with me. Gothic is more akin to horror because it really about the unexplainable whereas mystery is about the triumph of reason and justice over brutality and the inexplicable. Suspense, I think, toys with the unexplainable the supernatural but ultimately it is about reason, too. The tension of suspense is that the hero gets thrown into a mystery they are then forced to solve: think Cary Grant in "North by Northwest" but ultimately they are about to reason out the mystery. They go from victim to detective.
The gothic is more about the realm of emotions and also about powerlessness, especially female powerlessness. Reason is not always the trump card. Usually is is sheer luck. Luck that the man who we thought was the monster is really the hero; luck that the house burns down; luck that the heroine is rescued at the final moment. It has a lot to do with fate and coincidence and not much to do with logic.
Paranormals, even though they use mystery and supernatural, very rarely operate under the parameters of the Gothic. The reader knows that the monster is not a monster but a hero by page 2 or a third of the way through at the most. The heroine usually knows the vampire or what have you is a good guy long before the climatic ending of the book. Even in Anne Stuart novels with her dark heroes, everyone knows that they are heroic. There's not the ominious real potential of tragedy that traditional Gothic plays with, the prevasive sense of doom that is present. I think that this why "Rebecca" always gets mentioned because even when you get to the happy ending, there's something very melancholic about it. Almost like Shakespeare's problem plays where you leave feeling slightly discombobulated rather than eased.
Yes, the picture is all there now. ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd that leads me on to another thought. How would you relate the modern paranormal romance genre to the gothic tradition? Were the "gothic romances" of someone like Mary Stewart actually spookier than modern paranormal romances which feature vampires, shapeshifters etc?
I think it's an interesting question that I'm not sure has been adequately explored, even by romance readers. Put it this way, I've "heard" readers online bemoan the fact that so many romantic suspense and/or paranormals aren't scary enough for them. Of course, I've never been quite sure what exactly those particular readers where wishing for - Gothic spookiness or out and out off-the-charts scare the socks of off you horror.
And there's the rub. "Gothic" evokes so much. It's a setting. It's a mood. It's a type of plot. It's even a type of character to some extent. It does crop up in a lot of different types of stories but that doesn't mean they are Gothics. Or even Gothic in style.
But in answer to your question, Laura, I would say that many paranormals make use of the fact that their subject matter finds familiar home in Gothic background and so authors make use of it just like many other plots fit the familiarity of a medieval setting to connect readers to the story instantly.
Some plots and characters simply fit some "settings" more than they do others.
"Reason is not always the trump card. Usually is is sheer luck."
ReplyDeleteRuss writes of the heroines of gothic romance that
Unconscious foci of intrigue, passion, and crime, these young women (none of whom is over thirty) wander through all sorts of threatening forces of which they are intuitively, but never intellectually, aware. [...] Sometimes Heroines [...] possess some piece of information about the Secret (which they are incapable of interpreting). [...] At her most enterprising a Heroine may [...] recklessly toss about pieces of information that expose her to being drowned or pushed off a glacier. [...] But the Super-Male is the real detective of the piece.(678-79)
Russ is obviously being a bit sarcastic about the sub-genre, but I think it does support what you say about the female protagonist being successful because of external factors.
Paranormals, even though they use mystery and supernatural, very rarely operate under the parameters of the Gothic. The reader knows that the monster is not a monster but a hero by page 2 or a third of the way through at the most.
It's strange, really, the extent to which previously evil/monstrous creatures have been turned into heroes. I've noticed that there even seem to be demons and devils turning up as heroes, and one does have to ignore an awful lot of theology for a being like that to work as a romance hero.
"Gothic" evokes so much. It's a setting. It's a mood. It's a type of plot. It's even a type of character to some extent. It does crop up in a lot of different types of stories but that doesn't mean they are Gothics. Or even Gothic in style.
That makes me think of the discussion we've been having over at the IASPR forum about A Companion to Romance: From Classical to Contemporary. In the introduction to the volume (which covers Arthurian romance, romantic poetry, the novels of Sir Walter Scott etc) Corrine Saunders writes that "The pervasive nature of romance [...] means that it is inherently slippery [...] the genre of romance is impossible adequately to define. This is not so surprising when we recall that the term finds its origins in the French romanz, meaning simply literature written in the vernacular, the romance language of French" (1-2)
It's easy for specialists in one particular field of romance (or the gothic) to forget that other people may be using the term to refer to very, very different kinds of things. At least, I get forgetful that way, and then reading something like Saunders' introduction reminds me.
I would say that many paranormals make use of the fact that their subject matter finds familiar home in Gothic background and so authors make use of it just like many other plots fit the familiarity of a medieval setting to connect readers to the story instantly.
So does this mean one could think of them as "wallpaper" gothic? ;-)
So does this mean one could think of them as "wallpaper" gothic? ;-)
ReplyDeleteHehehe. Basically, yeah. And to be honest as a reader, I don't see anything wrong with that. Now as academics, I can see where all of you might have some reservations but that's the other side of the coin.
As to the definition of "romance" discussion, you really don't want to get me started on that one. At least not without moving this to the forum. I saw that discussion over on the forum and chuckled because I agree more with the person who wrote the book. I'm on record many times as saying I like the older, broader description of romance and not the more limited one used by RWA and you academics nowadays. And I think I can make an argument that that's what I actually read/seek out as a romance reader, too. ;) (And I don't believe I'm alone or we wouldn't have so many books out there that aren't strictly "relationship only" romances.)
Although, I will also concede that the RWA definition is what the publishers market for the most part. And therein lies the distinction.
And to be honest as a reader, I don't see anything wrong with that. Now as academics, I can see where all of you might have some reservations but that's the other side of the coin.
ReplyDeleteSince this isn't an area I've been working on, I personally don't have any strong opinions about what ought or ought not to be called "gothic" but I suspect some other people probably do.
I'm on record many times as saying I like the older, broader description of romance and not the more limited one used by RWA and you academics nowadays.
Well, but which one of the older ones? Medieval literature written in the vernacular? Arthurian romance? Romantic poetry? All of those are covered in that volume, and clearly the academics who contributed to it weren't using the RWA definition. IASPR's definition of "popular romance" is pretty broad too, since it's "dedicated to fostering and promoting the scholarly exploration of all popular representations of romantic love" and that includes film, music, etc.
But you're right, it's probably better to keep a discussion about that kind of terminology for somewhere else, rather than bringing it onto a thread about the "gothic."
Well, but which one of the older ones? Medieval literature written in the vernacular? Arthurian romance? Romantic poetry? All of those are covered in that volume, and clearly the academics who contributed to it weren't using the RWA definition.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much go with the dictionary definition and work my way out from that. Dictionaries are all pretty much in agreement or fairly close to each other on how they define romance in a literary sense.
From Merriam-Webster: “a medieval tale based on legend, chivalric love and adventure, or the supernatural; a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious; a love story especially in the form of a novel; a class of such literature”
See, the thing is that I feel like most of the romances I read are covered in that definition and they always have been. But then I'm not an academic that wants to get really specific about what's what. ;)
I almost started a thread over on the forum today to ask about this but wasn't sure exactly what to ask. It's such a convoluted question and I don't want to take away from the Gothic discussion here. The thing is, though, that the Gothics are a prime example of how the definition is used against us in exactly the ways you're bringing up here in this article.
Because I look at and use the broader definition, I have no problem with seeing "Gothic" elements in paranormals as part of the entire tapesty of the genre but someone who only sees Gothics as limited by gender considerations might think differently and not want to call them at all Gothic in nature. And around we go.
It's strange, really, the extent to which previously evil/monstrous creatures have been turned into heroes.
ReplyDeleteIt's all Anne Rice's fault. ;)
I guess one of the main differences between the older gothic romances and today's paranormals is that the former typically created a claustrophobic atmosphere and put the heroine into an insecure position, from which both she and the reader had to "decipher" the hero (I'm thinking of Victoria Holt's novels here; I have to admit I still haven't read a Mary Steward novel). The modern paranormals, by contrast, often contain a high level of violence, and due to the changed POV the hero is no longer such a mystery (at least not to the reader).
The thing is, though, that the Gothics are a prime example of how the definition is used against us
Bev, what do you mean by that? I didn't get that. (Probably because my head is full of dragons.)
It's all Anne Rice's fault. ;)
ReplyDeleteHa! That's totally my theory, too. Also, I blame her for the fact that for every dark-haired brooding vampire hero there's a blond, joie de vivre male counterpart. What up with that, peeps? Apparently the rumor about blondes having more fun is only true when applied to male vampires.
You could also blame, say, Byron. :) Just to be contrary.
ReplyDeleteThis is a timely post for me, as I'm trying to get my head around my thesis topic. Something in the area of Gothic Romance is topping my list. (Waves to Sarah! Nice to meet you at RWA.)
ReplyDeleteTo take Sandra's comments further...
Not only do modern paranormals usually include the hero's POV, taking that mystery away, but the isolation of the heroine is difficult to accomplish without sullying the hero's character quite a bit. Or, at the very least, calling his motivation into question. When a reader is in his head for half the book and he's treating the heroine with such distance or selfishness, the reader might become alienated and lose sympathy for his POV.
With Jane Eyre, for example, (which I don't think would make it past the slush pile of a Romance editor's desk today), the reader isn't necessarily left with warm fuzzies for Rochester. No matter how much I love that book, I have to admit, he's not quite the prime example of a hero in today's paranormal market. He's definitely quite the selfish character, isn't he?
"Rochester[...]'s not quite the prime example of a hero in today's paranormal market. He's definitely quite the selfish character, isn't he?"
ReplyDeleteThat might be due to POV, because some modern romance heroes act really badly, but the explanations I've read are that readers feel sympathy towards them because they get a bit of the hero's POV and understand his pain.
From what you all seem to be saying, there seem to be two or three different strands of "gothic" influence on the modern romance genre, and they can be combined or appear separately:
1) the brooding, apparently selfish hero with a mysterious past
2) a mystery which needs to be solved (often related to a horrible crime)
3) paranormal elements
From what you all seem to be saying, there seem to be two or three different strands of "gothic" influence on the modern romance genre, and they can be combined or appear separately:
ReplyDeleteDon't forget limited pov, particularly first person. I don't believe it can be underestimated in terms of created the ambiguity of the other characters and that sense of isolation of the main character found in the Gothic style, whatever gender the narrator is. In fact, I think that's been proven over and over again by how it's used in both straight mysteries and now in urban fantasies.
The book that resold me on first person - as in made me stop avoiding it completely - and gave me a Gothic itch again was the original ebook version of a science fiction romance of all things - Gabriel's Ghost by Linnea Sinclair - and it's in no way a Gothic type story. It just had that "feel" to me, which is what I was talking about earlier. First person herione, extremely ambigious hero with mysterious background and deep, dark secrets to hide. A good author can peel those layers off bit by bit and still keep the mystery about the character going right along with the romance.
Bev, what do you mean by that? I didn't get that. (Probably because my head is full of dragons.)
And mine's full of vintage paperback covers lately. I've tried twice now to write a response and it either ends up too long or way off the Gothic topic for here. Give me a couple of days - or maybe sometimes next week with the backlog of things in my queue at the moment ;) - and I'll either post something on my blog about this or on the IASPRF forum. I'm just not sure what folder to put a "definition of romance" thread in there. Any suggestions?
"I'm just not sure what folder to put a "definition of romance" thread in there. Any suggestions?"
ReplyDeleteHow about putting it in the "Chatter" forum? Its going to be a bit under-used if all it ever has in there is the introductions thread. And the admins can always move a thread if they think it's in the wrong place.
Don't forget limited pov, particularly first person.
Yes, I see what you mean. That's really very useful for creating the suspense about the other characters' motivations.
Yes, I see what you mean. That's really very useful for creating the suspense about the other characters' motivations.
ReplyDeleteOh, definitely. I tend to think that we do undervalue first person as a mystery devise a lot. One of the reasons I got tired of first person in "straight" or "regular" romances is that as far as I could see a lot of times there wasn't any reason for using it other than telling a personal journey. Don't misunderstand, that's a perfectly valid story to tell but it can become a single character journey and not one about two characters very easily. Hence something like chick-lit or women's fiction, which may or may not use 1st but the idea is the same.
And truth to tell, many of the traditional Gothics do fall into that trap. They may or may not have a Cinderella ending but essentially it's her journey. That gets old.
The trick for the author is to make sure that they continue to tell both of their stories, even when using only 1st and that means applying it as much as possible as the very effective mystery device it is. Mystery here not just being about a crime puzzle but also a character one.
If anything, I think the Gothic penchant of using first person isn't about being self-centered like, say, chick-lit but rather it's about basic survival. It's almost primal. Something that urban fantasy very much taps into, too.
Oh, and that post with the Gothic cover quote I mentioned the other day just went online @ http://bevsbooks.com/notes/?p=379
ReplyDeleteI recommend back issues of "Gothic Journal" magazine -- and not just because I published a couple of articles in it. (I was proud of my Evelyn Berckman article as it was so hard finding information on her.) The magazine still keeps its web site at http://gothicjournal.com.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Gothic Novels of the Twentieth Century: An Annotated Bibliography by Elsa J. Radcliffe is a good source for author names, pen names, bibliographies, reviews, etc. Used copies can be found more easily thanks to the Internet, and parts of it are viewable on GoogleBooks.
Thanks for the additional bibliographic information, Anne.
ReplyDeleteBev, the story told in the quote in your post is very funny (albeit in a somewhat bitter sort of way). Another reminder that one shouldn't judge books by their covers ;-)
The photo of the isolated figure, standing at the end of the tree-tunnel as dusk falls also reminded me a little of those gothic covers, despite the fact that it isn't green or blue and there isn't a running woman.