I seem to be going through a gothic phase at the moment; sitting here under the eyes of my ancestral portraits, listening to the screams of my mad sister alternating with the howls of the storm outside as lightning smites the rain-lashed mountain peaks, and…
No.
I do, however, seem to have picked up a taste for gothic novels. There’s something in the theatrical nature of a gothic novel that speaks to my blackened soul – and my twisted sense of humour for that matter – and that leads me to seek the things out. This is one of the little list of books you’ll find in chapter six of Northanger Abbey (take the A46 out of Bath and stop for lunch at Petty France; the house must be somewhere near Stroud or Cirencester): Miss Andrews’ reading list.
I wonder what Miss Andrews thought of it.
I wonder what I’d have made of it had I not made one trifling error…
You see, I have – though sheer carelessness – read two versions of the first part; let us call them version A and version B. Both were accessed through links found on Wikipedia, and they are, frankly, rather different.
Let’s start with version B. Version B purports to be the original English translation: “THE NECROMANCER: COMPRISING A SERIES OF WONDERFUL EVENTS, FOUNDED ON FACT, Translated from a New German Work, purposely for this Magazine, By T. DUTTON, Esq.”. I liked version B: I thought it was lively, thrilling, more than a little lurid, and dispensed such details as were necessary for the story without getting bogged down. I don’t know if T. Dutton embroidered the original at all, but he did a good job, and I was rather annoyed to realise that this (suspiciously short) version was only part one of three. Which I should have deduced from the page-count.
So, of necessity, I moved on to version A, a 1927 printing kindly provided online by someone Canadian.
Well… You know how it goes when you go from one translation to another… Or perhaps you don’t? Maybe you never lend books. All I can say is never lend anything with the expectation of getting it back.
In any case, version A is less to my taste in terms of style, and of course differences of content really stuck in my mind. Version A gets bogged down in biographical detail at one point (though not to the extent of The Mysteries of Udolpho), and doesn’t contain some of the description that smooths out version B. It’s the same thing, it’s the same shape, it’s just not as good. Version B could have been written by Edgar Allan Poe; version A could also have been written by Poe, but only as a first draft. I don’t know if this translator cut the text at all; if he did I wish he hadn’t. So much of atmosphere is in the execution.
This is from version A:
“… we arrived at the gate and it was opened at his command; our way led straight through the suburbs, at the bottom of which a solitary house was standing; my conductor knocked at the door; we were let in: the house appeared to be empty and deserted, and we saw no living soul except an old decrepid man, who had opened the door. The stranger ordered a light; a lamp was brought, and he walked without stopping, through a dark passage till we came to a door, leading into a garden, in the back of which was a small pleasure-house; my conductor opened the door, and we entered a small damp room.”
It does the job, yes, but it’s a little sparse, don’t you think?
This from version B:
“… city gates: these were in an instant thrown open by the guard, and now our way led across the suburbs.
At the extremity stood a lonely antiquated house or castle, surrounded with a high wall, and apparently in a very ruinous condition. The stranger stopped short; three times he struck with his staff against the massy gates: hollow sounded his knocks through the solitary apartments. An old grey-headed porter gave us admittance. The stranger demanded a light; a lantern was brought: in mysterious silence he traversed the rooms, where desolation seemed to have taken up her abode; all was waste, empty, uninhabited; the old grey-headed porter excepted, I saw no signs of a single living animal. After passing through a long narrow passage, we came into a spacious garden, if a place overgrown with briars and thorns may deserve that title. Here, however, the former picture of silent solitary desolation was quite reversed: bats and owls swarmed in every part, and filled the air with their doleful lamentable cries. A ruinous antique summer-house, built of flint and granite, stood at the bottom; thither I followed my conductor.”
See?
Or perhaps you prefer the other one? I might just be a bit odd.
Yes, okay, no need to keep on about it!
In any case, I rather wonder what Dutton would have done with the other two parts.
What happens in version A is that we switch from a frame narrative of two old friends exchanging ghost-stories by the fireside to epistolary format. My goodness, they wrote long letters in the eighteenth century.
The effect of that is to favour the sparser texture of the… text. We move from merely relating ghostly goings-on to explaining them as well, and as the book wore on, I realised something:
I didn’t want the ghostly goings-on explained.
I would have been happier had I not read the investigations and confessions of the latter two parts, and had they been left as ghost-stories, particularly since the explanations were, to my mind, less plausible than the actions of spirits would have been. Now, how much of that is my fault (some of it, certainly), how much that of the author (because it’s clearly what he set out to do), and how much of the translator (come back, T. Dutton, come back!), I wouldn’t like to say, but the fact remains that I felt a tiny bit cheated.
I still enjoyed the thing, I just felt I should have enjoyed it more.
So I think this is, on the whole, second-tier gothic – as is Udolpho for that matter – and that, curiosity satisfied, I can move on.
Exit stage left, cue clanking of ghostly chains.