Welcome to the Tale of Rebecca

A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about the gothic novel "Bluebeard's Castle" by Anna Biller. While the writing was solid, I found the characters to be insufferable. It's an excellent character study on what causes women to fall for and stay with bad men. However, some of those bad choices the main character made could have easily been prevented with a quick Google search.

I am not victim blaming. I am saying she had the technology to fact check her handsome creep and chose not to.

But that's all in the past. I've moved on to other books within the genre - books like "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier. 

"Rebecca" is one of those classic books (and movies) that everyone has (likely) heard of. It's most famous for having a protagonist without a name, a lot of twists and turns, and some queer subtext. Alfred Hitchcock directed the 1940 movie starring Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine. There's also a Netflix adaptation that I am ignoring. 

"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again."

It's a haunting opening line to be sure. Our nameless narrator meets the much older Maximilian "Maxim" de Winter while on holiday with her employer, Mrs. Van Hopper, in Monte Carlo. They have a whirlwind romance (kind of sort of) after Mrs. Van Hopper is taken ill. Then decide to get married when Mrs. Van Hopper gets better and wants to return to America. Mrs. Van Hopper warns the narrator about marrying the mysterious de Winter, but is so unpleasant about it that I don't blame the narrator for running off.

The honeymoon is wonderful - or so we're told; it's not included in the text. Then, they arrive at Manderley and things start to unravel. Everyone expects that the nameless protagonist is about to step into the previous Mrs. de Winter's place, do things as she did, and prefer things as she preferred them. The narrator is so uncertain of herself - she is very young after all - that she goes along with the established routine. However, Maxim seems to be pulling away. Hurt and jealous of a dead woman, the narrator becomes even more timid and falls into more elaborate fantasies - which she is already prone to do. 

Rebecca...

Enforcing the traditions of the previous Mrs. de Winter is Mrs. Danvers, who seems to hate the narrator. There are a few intense scenes between the two women, which culminates in a nasty prank by Mrs. Danvers using the narrator to emotionally hurt Maxim. Mrs. Danvers loved Rebecca de Winter and thoroughly blames Maxim for her death.

For good reason, but that's getting into spoiler territory. 

The first half of "Rebecca" builds up the character, Rebecca, into this mythically perfect person who is wonderful and kind to everyone. Except, perhaps, she wasn't so nice to Ben, the neurodivergent (they didn't have this word in the 1930s when this book was published, but it's clear he is not neurotypical) "beach hermit" who wanders around the grounds of Manderley. He seems afraid of Rebecca and claims that she wants to lock him away.

This is the first clue that Rebecca is not the saint we and the narrator have been led to believe. The next is a reaction from estate manager and family friend, Frank Crawley after the narrator confesses that she's afraid that Maxim doesn't really love her (anymore). Frank seems to be warry of the memory of Rebecca - almost like he had a bad experience or two with the women. Plus there's this creep, Jack Favell, coming into the house when he's been told to stay away.

Spoilers

Maxim hated Rebecca, but couldn't divorce her for a variety of upper class 1930s English reasons. She slept around, did (unspecified) terrible things, and may have been bisexual (it is also not specified). Her death might have freed him from her physically, but not emotionally.

Maxim may be portrayed (and often interpreted) as a classic upholder of traditional upper class patriarchy, but he's also someone who has clearly been emotionally, if not verbally abused for years. I feel a lot of people overlook this fact because "patriarchy" and "he gets away with [spoilers]". I feel that his quick romance with the narrator is a bit of a read flag, but the narrator is so nonthreatening that Maxim might have felt safe for the first time in decades. 

Patriarchy...

Rebecca is often interpreted as the antithesis to Maxim's traditional patriarchy. She's bold, outspoken, sexually liberated, possibly queer (we only have that one declaration from Mrs. Danvers that doesn't verify anything), and knows what she wants out of life. This isn't a bad or wrong interpretation, but I do think it minimizes the horrible things she did (and is implied to have done) to Maxim and some of his friends (like Frank, Beatrice, and Giles).

Daphne du Maurier once admitted that she is bisexual - long after she published "Rebecca" - and that admission seemed to have made Rebecca the character look more sympathetic to the casual reader. 

However, I don't think Rebecca is a feminist character or a foil for the patriarch. She's an interesting character and seems to defy the patriarchy, but also feels comfortable moving within and weaponizing it against other characters - especially Maxim. There's a moment during Maxim's confession where divorce is brought up and Rebecca (according to Maxim) tells him that it would be far too scandalous for him to divorce her after four days of marriage; such a thing would ruin him (but weirdly not her).

Also her implied treatment of Ben (as suggested by Ben) should really put a stop to people's rosy analysis of Rebecca.

Queerness...

Is "Rebecca" a queer novel?

Yes in the sense that at least three characters might be queer. The first two characters are obviously Rebecca and Mrs. Danvers. Though never explicitly stated that the two are queer (Rebecca would be bi and Mrs. Danvers a likely lesbian), Mrs. Danvers at one point does declare that Rebecca never loved a man. This could be interpreted a few ways such as Mrs. Danvers being so in love with Rebecca that she is in denial about her many affairs with men (including her cousin Jack) or that Rebecca was such a narcissist that she only loved herself. Either way, Rebecca is likely bisexual like du Maurier and Mrs. Danvers only has eyes for her.

The third possible queer character is Frank Crawley. I haven't seen Frank come up as much in the queer discourse about the book - some people seem to think he should have paired up with the narrator. However, I'd like to make an argument that Frank is in love with Maxim.

1. Frank is a bachelor and implied to be a similar age to Maxim - being a bachelor isn't a sign of being queer in the early 1900s, but it is a hint. 

2. Frank seems to already know the big bad thing Maxim did and is perfectly happy to help cover it up as best he can - I know his job is on the line, but his actions are a little more over the top than an employee-employer implies.

3. Frank is completely devoted to Maxim in a healthier way than Mrs. Danvers was to Rebecca. He maintains healthy boundaries with Maxim and the narrator. When he is with the narrator, I get nothing less than platonic vibes (such great evidence I know) from him.

4. Frank is completely repulsed by the memory of Rebecca. There's a conversation between the narrator and Frank where he all but confesses that Rebecca made a pass at him and Giles (who is Beatrice's husband and brother-in-law to Maxim). Giles either enjoyed it or was very confused by the encounter (it's not really made clear in the text), but Frank implies he nearly jumped out of his skin. Based on what we're told about Rebecca and her conquests, she wasn't used to being rejected by anyone. This was the moment I started questioning if Frank was gay.

And that is why I think there are actually three queer characters running around the pages of "Rebecca". Rebecca is the "bad" queer representation, while Frank is the "good" queer representation. Mrs. Danvers is the queer representation that should have been "good", but ended up getting beaten down by the powers that be and had a break from reality. 

However in the movie, since Mrs. Danvers is implied to be a lesbian, she has to die in a house fire. Thanks Hayes Code. She is the only character "punished" for their actions during the course of the story.

That's also not the only change made between the 1940s movie and the book that's due to the Hayes Code interfering with the adaptation. There are a couple of other changes - one really big as to change the morality of the text - that happen. There's a great YouTube video about the adaptation if you're interested and are familiar with the book and/or movie.

Gothic Romance...

I love a good gothic aesthetic tale, but gothic romances are a toxic mix of red flags and tragedy. Though I did enjoy "Rebecca", I can't say that I was rooting for any of the characters other than Frank (he's a good guy). It was a bit more to my taste than "Bluebeard's Castle". I wouldn't call "Rebecca" a feminist book, but it is a critique on the patriarchy, class, gender, and social issues. "Rebecca" is a book full of queer subtext that can be overanalyzed to literary scholar's hearts content.

Do I recommend "Rebecca"? Yes, it's a good classic read. 

Wow, I spent like two hours getting all my thoughts out about this book. I hope this doesn't come back to haunt me...

Until next week. 

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off), please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me.

Welcome to the Gothic: Mystery, Exploration, and the Supernatural Science

Though I'm not big on announcing what my personal pet projects are at any given moment, I do want to give some context of my recent dive into the Gothic genre. I have spent the last few months writing Gothic style poetry. I currently have 15 poems with more likely on the way.

What will I do with this collection?

My hope to is publish it at some point. I might even include some illustrations or maybe a few performance videos. I haven't really decided. I don't know if I'll try to go the traditional route of publishing or self publish through Amazon. 

What I do know is that I like writing within the Gothic genre and there's a good possibility I might try to do similar themed collections in the future.

As I wrote last week, the Gothic genre is littered with the dark, tragic, and macabre. The stuff I'm writing isn't exactly happy. It's brooding, a little gory, a touch cliche (for good reason), and often "messed up" as one person put it. I think the poems would fit in well with the Addams Family or Beetlejuice.

Even Harry Potter had a touch of the Gothic

A few nights ago, I shared a few of the poems with my sister. Her first response was to ask if I "was doing okay?". Which is a fair question (especially since it's not a secret that I suffer from depression). 

The thing is, I wrote a lot of these poems while in a really good mood. I just happen to like the Gothic aesthetic and find it appealing regardless of my emotional state at the time. I mean, there's a reason I enjoy reading creepy fiction in general.

So what makes the Gothic genre appealing, or at least why do I find it attractive? Is it just the darkness and gore that I like? 

Not entirely. For the record I don't enjoy gore at all. I prefer atmospheric and psychological horror to slasher any day of the week. Don't get me wrong, though, I do enjoy the fine line of darkness, madness, and macabre the Gothic genre treads.

However, these aren't the traits I want to look at today.

I think it comes down to one major story device that I am attracted to in the stories I consume: a good mystery that is inevitably resolved.

Humans have this uncanny need for resolution. We, as a species, like things to make sense. It's why we try to explain the explainable. Religion, science, philosophy, and stories all have deep ties to this need. 

Going along with that need to resolve any mystery placed before us, we also feel really good when we're the ones solving that mystery. I know I feel extraordinarily special when I've solved a uniquely challenging puzzle that my peers continue to be stumped by. It feels even better if that solution has to be kept a secret, like I'm part of some elite club for figuring it out and not sharing it.

Gothic literature is full of this type of mystery and resolution. As soon as the protagonist is dumped into the plot, the questions begin and you can't have a mystery without questions. Layer by layer the protagonist is spoon fed answers, while being bombarded with more questions until everything starts to fit together like the internal structure of a clock. 

The mystery solving process often leads to fulfilling another human need: exploring and confronting the unknown. 

Have you ever wanted to explore a secret passage in an old house? Or find a map that leads to a lost treasure? Maybe crawl through a cave you never knew existed near your house?

Humans love to explore. The Gothic genre often includes exploring old castles full of forgotten rooms, manors with the occasional secret passageway, or dark forests with overgrown paths. The exploration is exhilarating and exciting. Plus reading about exploring is a lot safer than actually doing it ourselves.

Finally, one of the biggest reasons I am drawn to Gothic literature, is how the genre balances natural science with the supernatural. There are a lot of fairy tale qualities while incorporating early modern science in Gothic literature. Dracula mixes vampire folklore with the (at the time) new science of blood fusion. Phantom of the Opera shows how easy it can be to take advantage of the superstitious using optical illusions and stage magic.

What makes me feel that the supernatural so much more real in the Gothic genre is how alien that culture is to me. I don't know anyone who lived during the Victorian or Edwardian era. I can only try to piece together the culture based on what I've seen in the media, researched in old newspapers, or learned from other researchers. It seems perfectly plausible to meet a ghost or ghoul in 1890 England, but not so much in 2018 New York. The heyday of the Gothic genre seems much more fantastical and unreal than my modern world.

That's not to say that the supernatural doesn't still have a presence in modern times.

Though it could be due to overactive imaginations or fraudulent trickery, the supernatural continues to fascinate and captivate those drawn to the mysteriously unexplainable. People will try to explain or rationalize away supernatural activity, but occasionally the explanation given isn't satisfying. I mean the early 2000s saw a huge uptick in the Reality Ghost Hunting TV genre.

Since I live in a world with even more advanced scientific knowledge and technology, the science in these stories feels outdated and at times ancient. A Pepper's Ghost illusion, such as the one used in the ballroom dancing scene at most of the Disney Haunted Mansions, seems even less real now that holograms and virtual reality technologies are slowly being incorporated into our entertainment. Though it scares the characters in the stories, if I saw it I don't think I'd be scared.

An example of Pepper's Ghost

Then again, some of the early science used can be truly terrifying. The blood transfusions disregarding blood types in Dracula is super cringe worthy to read today.

There are a lot of reasons to enjoy the Gothic genre that have nothing to do with darkness and gore. Mystery solving, exploration, and confronting the unknown are a part of the human experience, one that the Gothic genre excels at.

However, I do still want to address the dark elements in the Gothic genre. How does that sound for next week?

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.

Until next week!

Welcome to the Gothic: A Quick Intro To The Classic

Every year I try to include some "classic literature" into my summer reading schedule. This started back in college when I picked up Treasure Island, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There, and Dracula. I loved these books and I would recommend them to anyone who wants to check out.

There were also the books that I never managed to get through. The Picture of Dorian Gray and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are two books that I don't think I'll ever be able to finish, though I've tried. Sometimes "classic literature" isn't to my taste (i.e. I find it boring). Other times, I find that the text hasn't been updated enough into the modern lexicon that I can't figure out what's going on at all.

I'm using quotes around the word "classic" because the term and status has primarily been determined by academia (who are typically of the demographics: wealthy, white, and male). Authors such as Agatha Christie and Stephen King have largely gained "classic" status through their fans and shifts in pop culture attitude. The Phantom of the Opera would have likely been forgotten about if the 1925 silent film starting Lon Chaney and the many remakes hadn't been such a huge success.

One of the oldest genres of "classic" literature that I'm quite fond of is the Gothic novel. Spanning nearly two centuries, Gothic literature was cultivated during late 18th century. Horace Walpole's novel The Castle of Otranto (1764) is largely considered to be the first published work in the Gothic genre.

There's more to the Gothic genre than horror (though there are a lot of horror elements to it). Considered to be the darker, edgier side of the Romantic arts movement, and largely inspired by the actual Gothic ruins found throughout Europe (but mostly the British Isles) are the key inspirations for the Gothic genre. British writers predominately shaped the Gothic style, though they weren't the only ones. French and American writers also heavily contributed to the literary genre, especially the great-granddaddy of modern western horror, Edgar Allan Poe.

But what exactly makes something worthy of the title Gothic?

A Gothic story might start out in a place like this...

Well, TV Tropes has an entire page dedicated to the genre, with even more links for hours of reading until you've fallen so far down the rabbit hole that even the Red Queen can't find you. In the simplest and most broad terms, I consider something Gothic if it meets any of the following:

• There's a creepy big house
• There's a creepy cemetery
• Creepy religious symbolism everywhere
• Dark and stormy nights
• Mist and/or fog
• Someone mentions the moors of England, Scotland, or Wales
• There's a ghost
• A dark and tragic past that one character can't get away from
• Secret passages
• Did I mention a ghost or two?
• There's the possibility of a curse causing mayhem
• Werewolves, vampires, and/or evil fairies
• Women fainting
• Someone - likely a beautiful young woman - has tuberculosis (also known as consumption)
• Did I freaking mention a ghost?
• There are creepy people around - a butler, caretaker, gardener, etc.
• Someone is brutally murdered

This list doesn't contain every possible trope that makes up the Gothic genre (in fact it seems to have a lot of the Gothic horror genre in it), but it's what I've noticed in the Gothic media I consume. It's not a genre full of sunshine and rainbows. It's dark and full of deep emotions that need to be expressed in the most dramatic way possible, with several chapters in a row dedicated to that character's tragic past.

Gothic literature eventually morphed into the pulp horror fiction of the early 1900s. H.P. Lovecraft has a lot of Gothic elements in his short stories. I would also argue that elements of the genre have managed to stick around, though they are not as frequent as I would like. Genres such as Steampunk and Neo-Victorian all have some elements of the Gothic style.

Movies are far more likely to play with updated versions of the Gothic genre. Hammer Horror, the horrible CGI monster movies of the 2000s, and pretty much everything Tim Burton has ever made has elements of the Gothic aesthetic. Sleepy Hollow is one of my all time favorite Halloween movies and it just oozes Gothic atmosphere. Guillermo Del Toro also released a Gothic style movie, Crimson Peak, that heavily draws on Gothic tropes.

I somewhat blindly stumbled into Gothic literature when I first picked up Dracula. I knew it was a classic Gothic horror story, but I didn't really understand what that meant. In fact, it takes a lot of liberties with Gothic tropes and in many cases subverts them. One example of the subversion comes when the horror that is Dracula follows the character Jonathan Harker home. In most Gothic horror stories of the time, once a character leaves a creepy location, they were safe from it.

I would totally live in that castle!

The Gothic genre wasn't without parodies. The Canterville Ghost contains the bones of a Gothic tale, but Oscar Wilde chose to take a much more comedic tone by having a very British ghost meet a very  American family. While Jane Austen poked fun  at the genre in her novel Northanger Abbey as early as 1803 (though the novel wasn't published until after her death in 1817). 

This year, I picked up The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux. I recently saw it on Broadway and loved it. The music is amazing, the story is interesting, and it has a feel that's reminiscent of a fairy tale. The play also made a lot more sense than the 2004 movie (though I love that too).

I brought this book

I've only just started the book and it's sucking me in. It's quite a bit different from the play or movie, but I can see how they adapted the story. Now, the book itself wasn't all the rage back when it was first serialized (that was a gimmick early news papers did to try and keep sales high), but it has since risen to be considered one of the lesser "classic" Gothic tales.

Next week, I'll continue my dive into the Gothic side of literature. Hopefully, The Phantom of the Opera continues to be as entertaining as it so far has been. Until next week!

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like hearing from me.