Though there are many aspects of the novel that I found to be fascinating, the relationship between the characters Carmilla and Laura was what I found to be the most intriguing. I have to say that I was quite surprised by the relationship between the two characters, especially when you take into account the fact that Le Fanu’s novel was not published until 1872. I did not believe that such open allusions to homosexuality, if any, were made in literature at that time. To be honest when Le Fanu first began to describe the two characters relationship I thought that I was imagining the less than innocent infatuation the two characters had with each other. However, it soon became clear that I was in fact not hallucinating and that Carmilla’s open displays of affection for Laura bordered on lesbianism. “Sometimes after an hour of apathy, my strange and beautiful companion would take my hand and hold it with a fond pressure…It was like the ardour of a lover… and her hot lips travelled along my cheek in kisses; and she would whisper, almost in sobs, “You are mine, you shall be mine, you and I are one for ever.” (Ch. 4)
Though the feelings were not returned as affectionately by Laura, her vivid accounts of her dreams were more sexually charged that anything else in the story. “Certain vague and strange sensations visited me in my sleep…they left an awful impression, and a sense of exhaustion, as if I had passed through a long period of great mental exertion and danger... Sometimes there came a sensation as if a hand was drawn softly along my cheek and neck. Sometimes it was as if warm lips kissed me, and longer and more lovingly as they reached my throat, but there the caress fixed itself. My heart beat: faster, my breathing rose and fell rapidly and full drawn; a sobbing, that rose into a sense of strangulation, and turned into a dreadful convulsion, in which my senses me and I became unconscious.” (Ch. 7)
While Carmilla’s displays of affection were sensual, Laura’s feelings for Carmilla were of an entirely different nature. “I felt rather unaccountably towards the beautiful stranger. I did feel, as she said, 'drawn towards her', but there was also something of repulsion. In this feeling, however, the sense of attraction immensely prevailed.” (Ch. 3) Carmilla’s supernatural hold on Laura was not quite strong enough to deter Laura’s own doubt as to Carmilla's insanity and to her motives. Having said that, Carmilla did still possess great power over Laura and in doing so was able to constantly draw Laura to her, resulting in Laura’s feelings toward Carmilla to be continually conflicting throughout the story. “I experienced a strange tumultuous excitement that was pleasurable, ever and anon, mingled with a vague sense of fear and disgust. I had no distinct thoughts about her while such scenes lasted, but I was conscious of a love growing into adoration, and also of abhorrence.” (Ch. 4)
While the relationship between Laura and Carmilla does seem to be romantic, I do not believe that it was so much the intention of the author to portray a lesbian couple, as it was to portray Carmilla’s supernatural seduction of her victim Laura. Although Carmilla did show blatant sexual advances toward Laura in her conscious and even unconscious state, and made professions of love toward Laura numerous times, I cannot help but think that her motives for such actions were solely for the acquisition of Laura’s blood. It was clear from the beginning that Carmilla was not in the her full strength and I believe it is why she pursued Laura in the manner in which she did, instead of taking her at once and bleeding her dry as vampires are known to do. Similarly, it is obvious that Laura’s feelings for Carmilla were a direct effect of her supernatural seduction and in her own mind she was actually repulsed by Carmilla and her advances.
It seemed that although the story was not set in Ireland, rather a place in Austria, the devastation that the vampires brought upon Styria was reflective of the effects of the famine that was plaguing Ireland at the time. Allusions to this can be seen in the meek population of Styria, “I have said 'the nearest inhabited village', because there is, only three miles westward… a ruined village...Respecting the cause of the desertion of this striking and melancholy spot, there is a legend which I shall relate to you another time.” (Ch. 1)
Another aspect of the novel that I found interesting was the role of the men in the story. I don’t know if it was just me, but I found the men in the story to be very emasculated. They all seemed to share a very submissive quality, always following the orders of the women, which I found to be very strange, like the theme of homosexuality, for the time in which the novel was written. What do you guys think; did you find the roles of the males and females were switched in the novel?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
“Maria Edgeworth In Blackface”
Having no prior knowledge of Irish history, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that when I first read Castle Rackrent I assumed that it was just supposed to be a comical story about a over zealous servant to a doomed family. I found it kind of strange how there was an introduction, glossary, footnotes and appendix to what I thought to be a light and inconsequential novel. Having read “Maria Edgeworth In Blackface” I now see that Maria Edgeworth’s motives were not so pure in her conception of this novel and that she had strong political incentive for including all of the attachments, especially the glossary, that were in the novel.
The Irish rebellion of 1798 was something that I had not heard of until reading “Maria Edgeworth In Blackface.” After reading the essay and doing further research online, it became obvious that Edgeworth intended on using the novel as her way of voicing her opinion on the subject of the rebellion. During the time after the Irish rebellion of 1798, many published their accounts of the horrors that took place during that time, almost all of them being from loyalist perspectives. To be able to publish her views of the rebellion without being criticized, Edgeworth created a humorous and seemingly insignificant tale of an artless and illiterate servant to the Rackrent family. To convince the readers of Thady’s legitimacy the Editor “…presents information in the editorial commentary to convince us of its simplicity and authenticity, while simultaneously presenting evidence which alerts us to the political tension in Ireland.” (851)
Edgeworth used several tactics to mask her intended interpretation of the novel. While the most obvious way in which Edgeworth masqueraded her novel was by having a comical overtone in it, I believe that the most successful way in which she achieved this was through her blackface portrayal of the narrator Thady Quirk. Although Thady was a white male, Edgeworth’s performance can still be seen as a form of linguistic blackface in the sense that she represented a simpleminded, imprudently loyal steward. “In taking Thady’s voice, Edgeworth thus becomes a minstrel character, performing what Kenneth Lynn refers to as “a white imitation of a black imitation of a contented slave.” (849) Blackface minstrelsy was a clever way for Edgeworth to cover up her real intentions of the novel because, while she did insert her strong political views into the novel, the fact that she was telling it from the point of view of a simpleminded, subaltern steward made it easy for the reader to dismiss anything they said without getting worked up. “Set apart from society, believed to be mentally inferior and immature, black characters could express serious criticism without compelling the listener to take them seriously.” (864)
Besides the heavy political implications, mostly provided in the glossary, Edgeworth also centered much of the story on land right and law. “Thady called it their whiskey; not that the whiskey is actually the property of the tenants, but that it becomes their right after it has been often given to them. In this general mode of reasoning respecting rights the lower Irish are not singular, but they are peculiarly quick and tenacious in claiming these rights.” (C, 127) In Castle Rackrent, Thady helped his son Jason acquire a farm on the Rackrent estate by manipulating the bids. This action turned out to be one of the first steps that led to Jason overtaking the entire estate. “The central question of the novel thus becomes, Whose land is it and what right do they have to it?” (854)
After completing the essay I found that my original interpretation of the novel was completely off. What I had once assumed to be a light and comical tale of little significance, turned out to be a novel filled with hidden political motives, and which centered itself a great deal around land rights and law.
The Irish rebellion of 1798 was something that I had not heard of until reading “Maria Edgeworth In Blackface.” After reading the essay and doing further research online, it became obvious that Edgeworth intended on using the novel as her way of voicing her opinion on the subject of the rebellion. During the time after the Irish rebellion of 1798, many published their accounts of the horrors that took place during that time, almost all of them being from loyalist perspectives. To be able to publish her views of the rebellion without being criticized, Edgeworth created a humorous and seemingly insignificant tale of an artless and illiterate servant to the Rackrent family. To convince the readers of Thady’s legitimacy the Editor “…presents information in the editorial commentary to convince us of its simplicity and authenticity, while simultaneously presenting evidence which alerts us to the political tension in Ireland.” (851)
Edgeworth used several tactics to mask her intended interpretation of the novel. While the most obvious way in which Edgeworth masqueraded her novel was by having a comical overtone in it, I believe that the most successful way in which she achieved this was through her blackface portrayal of the narrator Thady Quirk. Although Thady was a white male, Edgeworth’s performance can still be seen as a form of linguistic blackface in the sense that she represented a simpleminded, imprudently loyal steward. “In taking Thady’s voice, Edgeworth thus becomes a minstrel character, performing what Kenneth Lynn refers to as “a white imitation of a black imitation of a contented slave.” (849) Blackface minstrelsy was a clever way for Edgeworth to cover up her real intentions of the novel because, while she did insert her strong political views into the novel, the fact that she was telling it from the point of view of a simpleminded, subaltern steward made it easy for the reader to dismiss anything they said without getting worked up. “Set apart from society, believed to be mentally inferior and immature, black characters could express serious criticism without compelling the listener to take them seriously.” (864)
Besides the heavy political implications, mostly provided in the glossary, Edgeworth also centered much of the story on land right and law. “Thady called it their whiskey; not that the whiskey is actually the property of the tenants, but that it becomes their right after it has been often given to them. In this general mode of reasoning respecting rights the lower Irish are not singular, but they are peculiarly quick and tenacious in claiming these rights.” (C, 127) In Castle Rackrent, Thady helped his son Jason acquire a farm on the Rackrent estate by manipulating the bids. This action turned out to be one of the first steps that led to Jason overtaking the entire estate. “The central question of the novel thus becomes, Whose land is it and what right do they have to it?” (854)
After completing the essay I found that my original interpretation of the novel was completely off. What I had once assumed to be a light and comical tale of little significance, turned out to be a novel filled with hidden political motives, and which centered itself a great deal around land rights and law.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Castle Rackrent
When I first read Castle Rackrent I was fairly confident that the main villain of the story was Jason M’Quirk, especially after he had practically forced Sir Condy into signing away the whole family estate and cheated him into signing away, for only a few hundred golden guineas, his wife’s jointure. Although that can definitely be seen as villainous, after further reading I found Thady to be the true villain of the story. Thady may have appeared to be the simpleminded, subaltern steward to the Rackrent family, but in reality he was quite dubious and much more disingenuous than anyone would have guessed.
Through Thady’s skewed narrative of the Rackrent history we came to see Jason as the villain of the story based on his coup over the Rackrent family, when in reality Thady had crucially aided his son in the take over of the Rackrent estate from the beginning by assisting Jason in buying up pieces of the estate under market value. Although Thady may not have deliberately helped his son in the takeover of the Rackrent estate, Thady performed a litany of other actions that contributed to the ruin of the Rackrent family.
“While in theory Thady is naïve, what he says and what he doesn’t say may plainly be determined by partisanship or cunning.” (10) Thady stated, “Sir Condy, was ever my great favorite,”(83) and even called him his ‘white-headed boy.’ While this might give the impression that he took great care of Sir Condy, in reality he contributed to his ruin most of all. “It was he who taught his ‘white-headed boy’ to gamble, and to consider the drunkard Sir Patrick Rackrent the model of a popular Irish gentleman.”(11) Though it may seem like these were not such terrible things to do, they were the two contributing factors that causing Sir Condy’s death, and not only that, his death ended up being an imitation of the way in which Sir Patrick died.
Thady’s relationship with his son was a very complicated one. Thady introduced his son by saying, “To look at me, you would hardy think ‘poor Thady’ was the father of attorney Quirk; he is a high gentleman, and never minds what poor Thady says, and having better than fifteen hundred a year, landed estate, looks down upon honest Thady; but I wash my hands of his doings, and as I have lived so will I die, true and loyal to the family.”(66) By this introduction it is clear that Thady and Jason had a strained father son relationship. Jason, who had established a fine life for himself, seemed to have no respect for his father or what he did, while Thady will forever be unashamedly devoted to the Rackrent family.
What surprises me the most about Thady is how he so blatantly aided his son by manipulating the bids on the lease of a farm on the Rackrent estate. “I spoke a good word for my son, and gave out in the country that nobody need bid against us.” (74) I found this to be very interesting, for although Thady could not foresee the consequences of his actions, to see him choose anybody, including his son, over the best interest of the Rackrent family and estate went against the actions of the blindly devoted and loyal servant that I understood Thady to be.
In the end of the story when Thady was devastated over his son’s takeover of the Rackrent estate, it seemed that his angst was because Thady was always the subaltern servant to the Rackrent and cannot see himself as anything else. By the Rackrent family ruined and his son taking over the estate, in Thady’s eyes Jason has betrayed him and the subaltern class he had always known.
An event that Thady was an active participant in, which were actions less causative to the ruin of the Rackrent family as they were just plain villainous, included his part in the seven year “incarceration” of Sir Kit’s young Jewish bride. The thing that I found most disturbing about this was that even after Sir Kit’s death Thady had nothing to say about his actions except that “he was never cured of his gaming tricks; but that was the only fault he had, God bless him.” (81) The only fault he had! What part of locking a girl in a room for seven years does not raise a red flag of being wrong? Seeing that Thady did not find anything wrong with what Sir Kit did, and what he did for that matter, just proves how truly evil he was.
When looking back over the novel it is clear that "honest Thady" was an active participant in the downfall of the Rackrent family. The family which he claimed to love so dearly.
Through Thady’s skewed narrative of the Rackrent history we came to see Jason as the villain of the story based on his coup over the Rackrent family, when in reality Thady had crucially aided his son in the take over of the Rackrent estate from the beginning by assisting Jason in buying up pieces of the estate under market value. Although Thady may not have deliberately helped his son in the takeover of the Rackrent estate, Thady performed a litany of other actions that contributed to the ruin of the Rackrent family.
“While in theory Thady is naïve, what he says and what he doesn’t say may plainly be determined by partisanship or cunning.” (10) Thady stated, “Sir Condy, was ever my great favorite,”(83) and even called him his ‘white-headed boy.’ While this might give the impression that he took great care of Sir Condy, in reality he contributed to his ruin most of all. “It was he who taught his ‘white-headed boy’ to gamble, and to consider the drunkard Sir Patrick Rackrent the model of a popular Irish gentleman.”(11) Though it may seem like these were not such terrible things to do, they were the two contributing factors that causing Sir Condy’s death, and not only that, his death ended up being an imitation of the way in which Sir Patrick died.
Thady’s relationship with his son was a very complicated one. Thady introduced his son by saying, “To look at me, you would hardy think ‘poor Thady’ was the father of attorney Quirk; he is a high gentleman, and never minds what poor Thady says, and having better than fifteen hundred a year, landed estate, looks down upon honest Thady; but I wash my hands of his doings, and as I have lived so will I die, true and loyal to the family.”(66) By this introduction it is clear that Thady and Jason had a strained father son relationship. Jason, who had established a fine life for himself, seemed to have no respect for his father or what he did, while Thady will forever be unashamedly devoted to the Rackrent family.
What surprises me the most about Thady is how he so blatantly aided his son by manipulating the bids on the lease of a farm on the Rackrent estate. “I spoke a good word for my son, and gave out in the country that nobody need bid against us.” (74) I found this to be very interesting, for although Thady could not foresee the consequences of his actions, to see him choose anybody, including his son, over the best interest of the Rackrent family and estate went against the actions of the blindly devoted and loyal servant that I understood Thady to be.
In the end of the story when Thady was devastated over his son’s takeover of the Rackrent estate, it seemed that his angst was because Thady was always the subaltern servant to the Rackrent and cannot see himself as anything else. By the Rackrent family ruined and his son taking over the estate, in Thady’s eyes Jason has betrayed him and the subaltern class he had always known.
An event that Thady was an active participant in, which were actions less causative to the ruin of the Rackrent family as they were just plain villainous, included his part in the seven year “incarceration” of Sir Kit’s young Jewish bride. The thing that I found most disturbing about this was that even after Sir Kit’s death Thady had nothing to say about his actions except that “he was never cured of his gaming tricks; but that was the only fault he had, God bless him.” (81) The only fault he had! What part of locking a girl in a room for seven years does not raise a red flag of being wrong? Seeing that Thady did not find anything wrong with what Sir Kit did, and what he did for that matter, just proves how truly evil he was.
When looking back over the novel it is clear that "honest Thady" was an active participant in the downfall of the Rackrent family. The family which he claimed to love so dearly.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
“Violence and the Constitution of the Novel”
Hello everybody and welcome to my first official Irish related blog. Wow, what an essay, and by that I mean, Holy Confusing! After completing reading “Violence and the Constitution of the Novel” by David Lloyd, a very long and arduous article I might add, to say that I was overwhelmed would be an understatement. I felt like the author purposefully used vocabulary that only about ten people in the world understand to make it way more ambiguous than it needed to be. I am not going to lie; I looked up at least fifty words and still had no idea what he was talking about. I felt like the essay was in another language with all the deciphering I had to do!
Now that I got all of that ranting out of my system I can get to my interpretation of the essay, which focused on the stereotype of violence in Ireland.
The one thing that really stuck out to me when reading the essay was the first line. “With the possible exception of greenness, no quality has more frequently and repetitiously been attributed to Ireland than violence.”(125) This line really surprised me and confirmed by prior confession of knowing absolutely nothing about Ireland because I, like the line states, attribute greenness to Ireland almost instinctively when I think about the country, while on the other hand I would have never guessed to attribute Ireland to violence. To read that violence is attributed to Ireland almost as frequently as the color green really changed my perspective and opened my eyes to the history of Ireland. Reading further I found that this perceived connection between Ireland and violence is one of the biggest stereotypes attributed to Ireland, historically as well as in its literature.
“…while traditional accounts of Irish history, historical as well as literary, constantly stress the endemic and excessive violence of the culture, the more detailed studies of agrarian disturbances tend to suggest that actual levels of violence were far lower than such representations imply.” (141) Understanding the true level of violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries is based on your perception of violence in general.
Tom Bartlett, writer of “An End to Moral Economy,” sheds light on the distinction between agrarian disturbances and disturbances stemming from military intervention. This distinction between the two types of violence showcases the inconsistency of representation. Even though neither type of violence can be said to be more violent than the other, disturbances stemming from military intervention were seen as state-sanctioned and so it “ceases to be violence insofar as bloodshed is subordinated to the founding of the state,”(126) while agrarian disturbances, also known as local outrages, were seen as savage. This brings to light the double standard that is held in differentiating violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries. Violence in Ireland was caused more by land than by food, which in the eyes of the British, made them archaic.
Accounts of violence in Ireland were not only exaggerated in its history, but also in its writing. The volatility of Irish society, and the stereotype of its violence, plays a major role in one of the reasons that Irish literature is characterized as inadequate. The continual eruption of violence in Ireland prevented writers from providing compelling resolutions, which were very much apparent in English literature at the time.
After reading “Violence and the Constitution of the Novel” and acquiring a better understanding of violence in Ireland and its stereotype, I really feel like I grasped a greater knowledge of Irish history and writing. And although I will never fully understand all that I read, or half of it for that matter, I feel that what I have taken away from the essay will really help me in understanding the backgrounds of the novels that we will be reading this semester.
Now that I got all of that ranting out of my system I can get to my interpretation of the essay, which focused on the stereotype of violence in Ireland.
The one thing that really stuck out to me when reading the essay was the first line. “With the possible exception of greenness, no quality has more frequently and repetitiously been attributed to Ireland than violence.”(125) This line really surprised me and confirmed by prior confession of knowing absolutely nothing about Ireland because I, like the line states, attribute greenness to Ireland almost instinctively when I think about the country, while on the other hand I would have never guessed to attribute Ireland to violence. To read that violence is attributed to Ireland almost as frequently as the color green really changed my perspective and opened my eyes to the history of Ireland. Reading further I found that this perceived connection between Ireland and violence is one of the biggest stereotypes attributed to Ireland, historically as well as in its literature.
“…while traditional accounts of Irish history, historical as well as literary, constantly stress the endemic and excessive violence of the culture, the more detailed studies of agrarian disturbances tend to suggest that actual levels of violence were far lower than such representations imply.” (141) Understanding the true level of violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries is based on your perception of violence in general.
Tom Bartlett, writer of “An End to Moral Economy,” sheds light on the distinction between agrarian disturbances and disturbances stemming from military intervention. This distinction between the two types of violence showcases the inconsistency of representation. Even though neither type of violence can be said to be more violent than the other, disturbances stemming from military intervention were seen as state-sanctioned and so it “ceases to be violence insofar as bloodshed is subordinated to the founding of the state,”(126) while agrarian disturbances, also known as local outrages, were seen as savage. This brings to light the double standard that is held in differentiating violence in Ireland compared to that in other countries. Violence in Ireland was caused more by land than by food, which in the eyes of the British, made them archaic.
Accounts of violence in Ireland were not only exaggerated in its history, but also in its writing. The volatility of Irish society, and the stereotype of its violence, plays a major role in one of the reasons that Irish literature is characterized as inadequate. The continual eruption of violence in Ireland prevented writers from providing compelling resolutions, which were very much apparent in English literature at the time.
After reading “Violence and the Constitution of the Novel” and acquiring a better understanding of violence in Ireland and its stereotype, I really feel like I grasped a greater knowledge of Irish history and writing. And although I will never fully understand all that I read, or half of it for that matter, I feel that what I have taken away from the essay will really help me in understanding the backgrounds of the novels that we will be reading this semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)