This story, as a Gothic parody, does not seem to have what would one traditionally call an antagonist. Our narrator, Catherine, is the closest thing we have to a villain in the story - as she views herself as a sort of character in her own Gothic story - well off, naive, and looking for answers. It is interesting to have the narrator as the antagonist in this way - it keeps the readers guessing as to who she is working against, when in many ways, she is working against herself.
John Thorpe could be seen as the antagonist in the story as well - his nature completely foils that of Catherine's. Loud, boastful, and fond of debauchery, Thorpe is the opposite of Catherine in many ways. However, the two do not interact in the way one would expect a protagonist/antagonist dynamic to work, leading me to believe (since the parody of Gothic novels is so important in this book), that it was meant to be taken as such; a less traditional role for the villain would suit such a genre well.
As far as whether or not this kind of book will encourage others to read Gothic literature, I am not certain. I have never found it appealing in the slightest - I don't really care about reading stories about rich people and their lives purely for entertainment. It was hardly though provoking, and ultimately I ended up asking the same question some of my classmates asked: "Why does this matter?" I appreciate the fact that it is a blend of a few different genres, giving us a chance to discuss multiple at once, but it seems to be lacking in all - it doesn't truly embody Gothic literature, from what I understand... it merely speaks to it and uses some of its traits. It hardly characterizes Romanticism... i'm not attacking the book or its value, per se, but I would say that maybe it could have been replaced by something else in this class that would seem more fitting.
No comments:
Post a Comment