The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This thread is for the discussion of The Mysteries of Udolpho. Volume One. There will be threads for each volume 1-4 to cut down on spoilers. Feel free to add discussion questions.

I read the first chapter. Does the poetry add anything to the story? Some editions of this book delete the poetry because it interferes with the flow of the story

I haven't started yet but I'll bet you could just skip it.

Cindy wrote: "I read the first chapter. Does the poetry add anything to the story? Some editions of this book delete the poetry because it interferes with the flow of the story"

It's been years, and I'm not rereading it. One thing to keep in mind is poetry was one of the acceptable reading materials for women. Gothic novels were considered scandalous

Deborah wrote: "One thing to keep in mind is poetry was one of the acceptable reading materials for women. Gothic novels were considered scandalous"

Also, poetry , which includes versification, was much more widely read and written than it is today. Almost every literate person at least tried their hand at poetry from time to time, they would write little poems (verses) in each others' guest books, and the like.

(Originally, almost all literature was in verse, starting with Homer. Prose literature really didn't come in until later in the Roman empire. Over time the pattern gradually shifted from poetry to prose, but still many major literary works were written in poetry, from Dante's Divine Comedy to Paradise Lost to the Canterbury Tales. Even into the 20th century some full length works of literature were written in verse; I'm thinking for a few examples of Chesterton's "Ballad of the White Horse," Benet's "John Brown's Body," Sandburg's "The People, Yes," among many. But these days I know of very few full length works of literature which are in verse. There may be a few I'm not familiar with, but the transition from virtually all poetry to virtually all prose seems almost complete.

But in Austen's day poetry was still widely read and written not just by intellectuals but by virtually every literate person.

Everyman wrote: "...But these days I know of very few full length works of literature which are in verse...."

Yes, in fact poetry sometimes verges over into prose, as in Claudia Rankine’s Citizen: An American Lyric, recipient of TWO (a first) National Book Critics Circle nominations (ultimately, one NBCC award).

The poetic novel that caught my ear this year was Jacqueline Woodson's Brown Girl Dreaming , 2014 National Book award winner in the Young People's Literature category. I enjoyed it.

http://bookcritics.org/blog/archive/n...

http://www.nationalbook.org/nba2014.h...

Of course, English does not offer all those wonderful vowel sounds of Latin and Italian, but enough English poetry exists and I don't know that other languages use poetry either as much today to consider such a major factor in the shift to prose. (Pushkin used poetry for Eugene Onegin.)

Was poetry added to the book to make it more acceptable? As a modern reader it makes the story choppy. I can see why some editions delete the poetry sections.

I think there are several possibilities. It may have been a convention of the times for an author to open each chapter with a bit of poetry. It can set the tone of the upcoming chapter as does an illustration put there. It might also show off the authors knowledge of poetry, which has generally been regarded as the loftier for of written expression as compared to novels.

Personally, I love poetry but I don't particularly enjoy it mixed into the prose. Like you, I find it breaks the stride of my reading. I don't mind it at the beginning of a chapter so much if it seems really well chosen and adds something like a bit of humor or helps to set the tone. But, honestly, if it seems overdone I just skip it outright.

Radcliffe did give us the heads up in her subtitle... “A Romance
Interspersed with Some Pieces of Poetry” which is kinda funny now.

So far I'm enjoying volume one. Part travel journal, part background on Emily. And the budding romance, of course.

I read that Radcliffe got most of her travel information from guides since she had not been to these regions herself. Which made me chuckle. I'm so used to Dickens and Trollope who have worked their own travels into their novels so wonderfully.

Renee wrote: "...I'm so used to Dickens and Trollope who have worked their own travels into their novels so wonderfully. ..."

I'm enjoying lurking here. It has been several years now since I read Radcliffe, but I remember having much the same reaction about her sources of geographic information and perhaps even some strange glitches in the storytelling that happened therefore, although I don't remember an example. But, reading your note, I wonder what opportunities she had for traveling versus Dickens and Trollope. Certainly not on her own; still Mary Shelley, Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot are among female authors who all spent time on the continent.

Lily wrote: "Renee wrote: "...I'm so used to Dickens and Trollope who have worked their own travels into their novels so wonderfully. ..."

I'm enjoying lurking here. It has been several years now since I read..."

I've been lurking as well, and had the same thought as Lily. Maybe she didn't have the opportunity to travel so she did what research she could,

It probably would depend on the family in which Radcliffe lived. There would need to be enough money to travel, plus male relatives who were disposed to do so or at least a sturdy chaperone. I don't know enough about her to say.

Nearing the end of Volume one. Emily's aunt is a pistol!

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/eng...

Doesn't really answer our questions about Radcliffe, but found it interesting. Depending on sensitivity to spoilers, approach accordingly. I wouldn't consider what is there as spoilers, but I am very insensitive to them.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014...

Little is apparently known about her, but a rare letter, one to her mother-in-law, was found. No real spoilers here. (Has photo of Ann.)

http://rictornorton.co.uk/gothic/radc...

Still, a fair amount here, with a synopsis online.

I am just into Volume 2. The Aunt is just so mean, it amazes me that Emily stays with her. Wondering what the audio version is like? I was trying to imagine how the Aunt's voice would sound.

Thanks so much, Lily, for the background links! It was really generous if you to do the research on a thread on which you're just lurking. I enjoyed reading about her and agree that the spoilage was minimum.

Cindy-
I'm listening to the Librivox version which has a different ready for each chapter. None of them are doing voice modulation for the characters so there's no difference in tone for the aunt. Except in my head. My head still recasts her voice as stuck up and a little stupid.

Renee wrote: "...It was really generous if you to do the research on a thread on which you're just lurking. I enjoyed reading about her and agree that the spoilage wa..."

Renee -- my pleasure! I got curious. Hopefully, a teeny-tiny gift for those of you reading and posting.

Just run off with Valincourt! For Pete's sake!

I felt the same way. Emily was very annoying to me. She wanted to be with Valincourt, but when he showed up she changed her mind. I said the exact same thing, make up your mind and run off with Valincourt.

Yeah. There are flashes of spine in Emily, but it seems like as soon as they show themselves Radcliffe remembers that she's supposed to be a sweet, selfless ingenue and has her go all weepy-gooey instead. So annoying!

Emily had too many weeping and fainting spells. I thought she needed more of a spine. I laughed when her maid said why all this weeping and moaning.