Northanger Abbey: An Uncanny Novel

As I was reading Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey, I was struck by its similarities to Ann Radcliffe’s A Sicilian Romance. What made this more interesting is that Austin’s characters do note in the novel that they have enjoyed reading Radcliffe, which leads me to believe that the similarity between the two novels was intentional. The novels share somewhat of a similar plot, but also setting, character profiles, and themes.

The plot is similar in that both feature a love triangle where the main character is running away from and towards one gentleman over the other. In the case of Northanger Abbey, Catherine is running away from Mr. Thorpe in pursuit of Mr. Tilney. Radcliffe’s Julia and Austin’s Catherine also share some character traits in that they both are…what’s the word? Immature? Julia faints often for no apparent reason, and Catherine is entirely upset over her candle going out, and can hardly bear being more than a couple of paces from the chest in her room once she notices it. Both stories take place in a gothic setting: Radcliffe’s in Sicilian castles, and Austen’s at Northanger Abbey.

What’s most interesting to me is how both the authors demonstrate the uncanny. Using Freud’s definition, “the uncanny is in reality nothing new or alien, but something which is familiar and old established in the mind and which has become alienated from it only through the process of repression”. As the “uncanny” is assuredly linked with gothic sublimity, which is no doubt a main theme of the novel, aspects of the uncanny are present within the Austen’s novel.

Like A Sicilian Romance, the mother figure in Austen’s Northanger Abbey can be analyzed in relation to the uncanny. In fact, when Catherine suspects General Tilney of murdering his wife, the only other possibility that comes to her mind is that General Tilney has instead suppressed his wife and must give her food nightly; a situation which exactly mirrors that of A Sicilian Romance (likely because Catherine has read the book). In this way, Mrs. Tilney is seen to embody the uncanny in the same way that the mother figure does in Radcliffe’s novel, which is difficult to explain if you haven’t read Radcliffe’s novel. In what other ways is Mrs. Tilney used to represent the uncanny aspects of Austen’s novel? How do Catherine’s actions also represent the uncanny?

What is the significance of Austen’s novel being a remaking of Radcliffe’s A Sicilian Romance? Does it bear resemblance only because they are both gothic novels, or does the similarity extend beyond their respective genres?

Could Austen convey what she wanted to convey with Northanger Abbey using a different genre? To what extent does the Gothic genre contribute or inhibit Jane Austen’s story?

Another interesting take on this novel is the ways in which reading novels influences our opinions and ways of viewing the world around us. Catherine, after having read Radcliffe’s novels, among other gothics, began to think about her world as if it was set in a gothic novel itself. She made assumptions and inquiries reminiscent of the events of A Sicilian Romance, which ended up being quite an embarrassment for her. Reading so much, Catherine was less able to separate fiction from reality. To what extent does reading or watching television in our modern age affect how we see the world? Is the effect a positive, negative, or neutral one? Does awareness of the effects of fiction affect our engagement in it?

I found the morals!

I found the morals!
"Morality began to be introduced into human actions..." (Rousseau 115)

Not that I wanted to focus on them in this post, but I find that Rousseau speaks more of morals than Hobbes did in Leviathan…

What most interested me in Rousseau was the concept of dependence. Rousseau treats dependence as an origin of inequality. Interesting things Rousseau says about dependence:

·         Makes people weak – lose ability to defend oneself

·         Leads to creation of family groups which become like little states (we all know how that turns out…)

·         Leads to inequality as man begins to measure himself against others rather than himself

·         Leads to unhappiness in the same manner

·         Led to slavery

Since a child depends on his/her mother from birth, what does Rousseau then think of children?

Is there any sort of dependence which doesn’t lead to negative results, which Rousseau has overlooked?

To what extent is Rousseau’s view of dependence similar or different from Kant’s view of dependence?

The other thing I wish to speak of is Rousseau’s treatment of women. Although he speaks mostly of men, there are a few lines which indicate the respect he has for women, which is far different from Hobbes: “Lovable and virtuous women of Geneva – the destiny of your sex will always be to govern ours…It was this that women commanded at Sparta, and thus you deserve to command in Geneva.” (Rousseau 67)

Is Rousseau’s view of women consistent throughout his discourse?

How does the idea of women governing over men fit into Rousseau’s ideas on dependence?

The final thing I wish to note is a certain line on page 128 – near the end of Rousseau’s discourse: “The jurists who have solemnly affirmed that the child of a slave will be born a slave have decided, in other words, that a man will not be born a man.” (Rousseau 128)

This idea corresponds with my post on identity from a while back – this statement being about the extent to which family lines determine identity.  The judge in the statement is of the mind that family determines identity to a great extent, but Rousseau seems to disagree – to have family be the sole determinant of identity and position is to dehumanize man. Interesting!

Where are the morals?

So I just finished reading from Hobbes. (I see why it’s called Leviathan now!) Although it was difficult to get past the first 40 pages of definitions, there were some things about what Hobbes had to say about commonwealths that struck me.

What most interested me is that Hobbes seems to argue that in the absence of commonwealth, concepts such as justice and the like don’t apply. Hobbes says: “Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice” It’s difficult to explain, but I find myself opposed to that assertion, as I find myself opposed to many other assertions made in the portion of the book that I’ve read.

I guess what I’m wondering is: where are the morals here? What role do morals play in determining justice? I find myself connecting justice and morals in a way that defines “justice” in a little bit of a different way that Hobbes does. I have a hard time separating morals from justice and/or injustice, whereas Hobbes treats them as entirely separate. If I was a wanderer, completely separate from any commonwealth, my actions, according to Hobbes, cannot be unjust, but I still feel as though I would view them as unjust due to morals.

One of the other things that struck me, is that Hobbes tends to see issues in black and white, so to speak. There’s either war or peace, justice or injustice, love or hate, honour or dishonour, etc. There seems to be no middle ground in such issues, which is not the way I've seen the world in my experience. I would tend to see a middle ground in a lot of these issues such as war and peace. So, in trying so hard to define the world, does Hobbes overlook a middle ground, or am I seeing a middle ground where it really doesn't exist?

Is Hobbes writing as he does, and using the definitions he does only to describe concepts in relation to commonwealths, or is he trying to also describe the human condition? If so, is he doing it justice? 

Doctor Faustus acted out!

Not satisfied with just READING Doctor Faustus?

Sometimes, reading a play is just not the same as seeing it acted out.
If you're interested, here's a link! It is quite well acted out, so check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cPT-HH198g

What about Haimon?

In Antigone, the one character that seems to be overlooked in our discussion so far is Haimon. Perhaps it is because he doesn’t really dominantly appear until part-way through the play, or perhaps it’s because he’s just not as interesting a character as Antigone or Kreon. Nevertheless, there are some interesting points about Haimon which I would like to bring up.

Haimon seems to be caught between his promised marriage to Antigone (who admits to Ismene that she could never love him for her obsession with death) and his devotion to his father, the ruler Kreon.  Haimon, who only shows up halfway into the play, delivers his first lines to his father, saying: “You [Kreon] direct a course for me with good intentions, and I follow it. I don’t believe marriage is more important to me than you and your good leadership.” (46). This point of view is not consistent with Haimon’s later actions, however, when he kills himself for his love of Antigone, completely betraying his father and the state.

Haimon’s next lines on page 49, however, remind me of Gorgias for some reason… Haimon, after flattering his father, goes on to say: “Please be different this once…It is honorable to learn from honest men.” (49). In this statement, is Haimon implying that Kreon is not honorable? What implications does/could this have for Haimon? In the following pages, Kreon and Haimon have a disagreement, where Haimon decidedly takes Antigone’s side, thus disobeying and dishonoring his father, who then regards him as “a slave; Property of a woman.” (51). Interesting. Kreon clearly now views Haimon to be an enemy of the state also.

Does Haimon truly stand by Antigone’s actions, or does he only want to disagree with Kreon? Does Haimon have more to lose (i.e. the throne) if he sides with Antigone or Kreon? Do you think Haimon is aware that Antigone has no intention of marrying him when he sides with her against his father and the state? Can Haimon possibly guess that Antigone has a death wish when he's making plans to marry her?

Haimon kills himself in the tomb. The messenger claims that it was out on anger at Kreon, but that can’t have been the only factor. Antigone had also committed suicide, which came as a shock to Haimon. Having dishonored Kreon and lost his only other connection to the throne (Antigone), Haimon kills himself. From his actions, what can we make of Haimon’s character? On one hand, Haimon’s character can be seen as selfish: he only claims to love Antigone and care about the state and morals, but he is really only looking out for self-interests. He agrees with his father ONLY UNTIL he realizes that in agreeing, Antigone will likely die, delaying his ascension to the throne. On the other hand, Haimon, being the only son of Kreon, would likely inherit the throne anyway, once Kreon was dead, so killing himself after Antigone was dead could not have been his childish reaction to losing the throne. He simply pulled a Romeo… only Antigone can't really be compared to Juliet, so that analogy only works from "Romeo's" perspective...unrequited love...

In any case, Haimon is just as interesting a character as any other, albeit a little underdeveloped by Sophocles.

Since Antigone, in contrast, is a very well-studied character, it is interesting to put study Haimon in relation to Antigone. Do Haimon and Antigone ever have an actual conversation? Does Antigone even know that she is to marry Haimon, or does Kreon keep it to himself? It is even more interesting to view the relationship between Haimon and Antigone in light of Butler’s Antigone’s Claim, taking into consideration the character analysis of Antigone.

Thoughts?

Identity and Maturity

I've been noticing a recurring theme in the texts we've read so far. Generally speaking, the identity of the characters we read about has been defined by their profession.
In Genesis, great significance lies in the names of the main characters, and names are even changed from what they were initially to reflect changes in the purpose of the characters - Abram changed to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah, to refelct changes in their lives.

It seems to me that Plato really drives this point home, when he attempts to define Gorgias as an Orator. Sure, there are many names thrown around to personalize each character, but their essence, or identity, is in what they do. Plato obviously speaks the most about oratory, but speaks also of painting, of baking, and of gaming, even. They say that Socrates is a philosopher, and, that title seems to define him, or at least it defines him to Plato and Callicles. Socrates has issues with oratory, and by extension, attempts to trap Gorgias in his words, Gorgias, being an orator.

I'm not entirely sure how (if) this observation ties into the theme of remake/remodel, but it seems to me to be a recurring one, potentially worth noting.

I've named this post with another topic, however. Maturity. I'll begin by revisiting Kant. Kant has a few things to say about maturity, which I find to be interesting:

"...nature has fixed at the age of about sixteen or seventeen years - an age in which the youth in the crude natural condition literally becomes a man..." (Kant, 170)

"For the natural human being is in a certain age already a man, when the civil human being (who, after all, has not ceased to be a natural human being) is only a youth, indeed, is probably a child; for so one can call him who on account of his years (in the civil state) cannot even preserve himself, much less his kind..." (Kant, 170)

This point on maturity suggests that there are two types of maturity that can exist - a natural maturity and a civil maturity, the natural maturity corresponding with sexual maturity. This is all interesting to me, and caused me to think of how Canadians prosecute for crimes - for federal law, the age of majority is 18. This means that once we turn 18, punishments are more severe and we can be held more accountable for our actions. The government has decided that Canadians are civilly mature at age 18, although Kant seems to suggest that civil maturity should take a while longer...

The reason I bring up this point (besides interest) is that maturity is also brought up in Plato, our more recent read. Around page 24, Socrates demotes Polus as youthful and impulsive, which I think, is more Socrates' opinion of Oratory than his opinion of Polus himself, although he does indeed consider Polus to be immature.

This, of course, ties back to identity, if Socrates is indeed making fun of oratory: The fact that Polus and Gorgias are orators by craft, their identity as such, paints their characters in a bad light for someone (like Socrates) who disapproves of oratory in principle.

Than there is the question: Does Socrates dislike Polus because of his craft, or are both the dislike of Polus and the dislike of Oratory mutually exclusive?

It is also interesting to note that still today, a large part of our identity is determined by our profession. When introducing myself to people at UBC, I hear questions like "What faculty are you in?" and "What do you want to do with your life?" and "What classes do you have?" Are these not all related to profession rather than character? Or is character, now, as before, dominantly determined by profession rather than other qualities such as thoughts, impressions, behavior, or morals?

Rebellion in Monotony

It is interesting to me how society can be so repetitive when one of the things that society is best at is rebellion. It is almost as if we spend our lives trying to find loopholes and ways around rules that we don’t agree with or rules that we don’t like, yet, we all end up in the same place, more or less.

From the very beginning of Genesis, we have Eve disobeying God in the garden. Her disobedience is not met with death, but rather, it receives an invitation to go on living, albeit somewhere else. This point seems to resonate with even our society today: everyone makes mistakes and most of us just go on to live afterward. Even Moses stresses this point, as he includes a large number of genealogies throughout the entire book of Genesis. Even with Noah and the flood, some part of society is allowed to go on living, even though mistakes were made.

This continuation and repetition is more of the philosophical, circle of life type of point, but what is more intriguing to me is how our choices and rebellions contribute to change. For example, Eve’s decision in the garden resulted in clothing, among other things, which made for a slightly different way to continue living life. It seems to me that change is sprung though rebellion and disobedience, and the change builds up on a small-scale to create a large-scale different way of living that advances society over generations, without straying from the path of life.

Immanuel Kant brings up an interesting point at the start of his Conjectural Beginning of Human History that alludes to Plato’s Cave Allegory. In essence, Kant writes that the freedom to choose a way of living is not something that one can turn from, once it is discovered. Basically, we like to feel as though we are in control of our lives, even though nature dictates its length, which Kant further touches on. Kant notes later in the text that nature restricts the level of advancement that can be achieved through freedom of thought, in regards to science. In this sense, he acknowledges that humans are intelligent, and capable of creating change on a large scale, but we are restricted by death. In this way, nature allows only for change on a small scale, while forcing a repetitive rhythm of life: birth, education, contribution, death.

I am one that believes in change, whether it is genuine originality, or a remake of a previous idea. I do, however, appreciate that change most often comes in small increments, which, I suppose, indicates that I don’t mind the repetitiousness of life as I know it. Going back to last week, it is easy for me to imagine Sisyphus as happy, as perhaps he is content in knowing what comes next, and change may come in his lifetime-a change in weather patterns or, in his case, muscle mass, it doesn’t come fast enough to have a huge impact on his life. Change only comes fast enough to keep life interesting. 

Hippocrates states: ars longa, vita brevis, meaning "Art is long, life is short". I think that the same concept can be applied to change: Change is long, Life is short. 

Pre-texts (no pun intended)

Before reading any of the texts, and you get to know my literary analysis side, I hope to give you a small impression of who I am!
I chose the ARTS ONE program because I actually enjoy writing essays, which, as I understand, is a rare quality. As such, I express my ideas and opinions far better on paper than I do in verbal discussion, so this blog thing may just work well for me!

So here are some literary facts about me:

• The longest essay I've ever written was 3901 words. It was a literary essay on themes developed by music in Steven Galloway's The Cellist of Sarajevo, a book which I highly recommend!
• My most recent read was Richard Wagamese's Ragged Company.
• The first book I remember reading was C.S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew.
• The most disturbing book I remember reading so far is a tie between Isabel Allende's The House of the Spirits and Yukio Mishima's The Sailor Who fell from Grace with the Sea. 
• As far as plays go, I really enjoyed reading Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot  and Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest. 
• I quite enjoy the poetry of T.S. Eliot as well as Pablo Neruda's political poetry (but not Neruda's non-political works). I'm not a fan of W. B. Yeats' poetry.
• I am fascinated by George Orwell in all of his works that I have read including 1984 and Animal Farm, as well as many of his essays including Shooting an Elephant,  A Hanging, and How the Poor Die; all of which I highly recommend reading at some point in time.
• I've been warned about Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness...

Well, that's it for now. Next up: Insights on Genesis and Kant