« The House of Mirth | main | The Vice of Reading »
Longsword, Earl of Salisbury
26 Jul 06
Leland, Thomas. Longsword, Earl of Salisbury. 1762. New York: Garland, 1974.
I’ve been intrigued by the notion of Gothic for quite some time. Wikipedia’s Gothic Rock entry (at the time of this writing) says:
Associating the goth subculture with the first generation of goth bands can be troublesome. Since the adjective “gothic” was used to describe the sound of specific punk, post punk, and new wave bands, not all punks and new wavers who liked these groups associated themselves with a goth scene; regardless these early groups are where goth rock traces its origins. What is most notable about the core 1970s and 1980s bands is that, typical to their punk roots, they had a general distaste for labels. . . .
As one who, in the 80s, wore a fair amount of black clothing (with eyeliner to match) but who also disdained labels, I was rather surprised to discover at some point in the 90s that that thing we were doing had reified into a subculture with carefully defined characteristics by which one could be considered goth, or not goth, or (dread insult) weekend goth. It makes perfect sense to me that high-school kids might affiliate themselves with essentially two-dimensional stereotypical subcultures—although it seemed to me kind of silly even when I was in high-school some 25ish years ago—but it has never made sense to me that an actual adult might declare themselves a (fill-in-the-blank).
So rather than engage in any discussion or attempted understanding of goth culture, I figured I’d just go back to the literature. Where does this gothic thing come from, and what makes it interesting to me? But how does one discover what literature is considered gothic? Blessed with the gift of librarianship, I used my special powers to dig up a “Timeline of Gothic Authors and Works” in Thomson, Voller, and Frank’s Gothic writers : a critical and bibliographical guide. They provide an interesting list, beginning in 1762 with Longsword and ending in 1999 with Stephen King. I’m not sure I agree with the inclusion of King, but I admit to knowing fairly little about the topic at this point. Nevertheless, I’m fairly certain that gothic and horror are distinct (albeit often overlapping) subgenres.
That Longsword is included is also probably debatable. Published in 1762, it’s setting is England and France during the high middle ages, probably under Henry III (a reference in the text makes clear it is after the reign of John, and the king is referred to as Harry). The novel is a historical romance, but with none of the elements of the supernatural one might expect to be associated with the gothic. Coincidence, perhaps guided by the hand of fate or even God, plays an important role in the happy outcome of the story; but this is as much melodramatic as gothic.
Notable, however, is the role of good and evil in the story, and the importance of a very medieval understanding of nobility. William, the titular Earl, is above all else noble. The evil characters in the story are involved in one way or another in trying to dispossess William of his life, his land, and his wife. In short, they would undermine the natural social order. The good characters, on the other hand, support William; some, because they have long been friends or followers, but others simply because upon meeting him they recognize and immediately sense their responsibilities to his inherent nobility and the social order (essentially feudal and chivalric) he represents.
I not too long ago read Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and was struck by the way in which the characters’ souls seemed to emanate into their surroundings. There seems to be a possible parallel, here, which might be used to pull Longsword, however reluctantly, toward the gothic. I also wonder about a possible connection to the goth subculture I was perhaps a little harsh with, above (but for which I should confess a certain affinity, and no small affection). In some respects, goth subculture (like so many others) is about self-expression. The person you truly are is both disguised by the adoption of conformance to a subcultural style, and at the same time somehow (uncannily?) revealed to those who know how to look.
Further Reading
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. 1883. The Works of Nathaniel Hawthorne. Vol. 5. St. Clair Shores, MI: Scholarly Press, 1970.
Thomson, Douglass H., Jack G. Voller and Frederick S. Frank. Gothic Writers: A Critical and Bibliographical Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002.
Posted by pzed on July 26, 2006 at 2.35pm
Categories: gothic, scripture
Comments on "Longsword, Earl of Salisbury"
While I wouldn’t want to suddenly find myself living with a 40 year old who fits neatly into some sort of “goth boy” stereotype slot (weekend or otherwise), I’d sure like to see you in eyeliner more often.
Perhaps the inclusion of King in the list is based on a few particular works. While Cujo and all of that other dreck doesn’t seem to fit, he did also make some serious forays into fantasy/adventure with the Gunslinger series and, um, that other one I didn’t read (my brother could probably tell you about it). I still don’t think those works have much in common with the “gothic” writers I’ve read, though.
Posted by jodi on July 26, 2006 at 3.09pm :: link
hey baby… the Stephen King titles in the list include Carrie, Salem’s Lot, The Shining, Night Shift, Dead Zone, Firestarter, Cujo, Different Seasons, Pet Sematary, Skeleton Crew, IT, Gerald’s Game, Insomnia, The Green Mile, Bag of Bones, and Hearts in Atlantis. Has he written anything else? Yes, I know how to find out, but why bother.
Of course, I only know King from movie versions, all of which have been ridiculous except The Shining, which was genuinely funny. (Actually, Dead Zone was kind of enjoyable, if only for Christopher Walken.) I’m taking Thomson et. al.’s list as a starting point only. Their’s was primarily a bibliographic project, and a useful one, but perhaps not as long on theory or literary analysis as other treatments of goth lit, of which you will soon be reading more.
Posted by pzed on July 27, 2006 at 11.18am :: link
Yeah, he wrote other stuff. The Stand. Misery. And that Gunslinger series. Tons of other things, actually, which I guess indicates that these are the titles that the list-makes consider particularly “gothy”. Not sure how Pet Sematary or Firestarter fit if Carrie doesn’t, though. Ugh. I sound like I know a lot more about his work than I really do, but remember that I didn’t have access to the same calibre of public library as a teen as you did, and refrain from mocking.
Are you saying that I’ll soon be reading more treatments of goth lit, or more goth lit? Are you talking about Flannery O’Connor? I’m almost through with that bleakness, thank FSM.
Posted by jodi on July 27, 2006 at 11.41am :: link
It’s only a timeline, so perhaps these titles are meant to be representative rather than comprehensive. And Carrie is on the list, although again I’m not sure I’d call it gothic, but again (again) I’ve only seen the movie. Another funny thing about this list is that since 1950 there are only four authors represented: O’Connor, Margaret Atwood, Joyce Carol Oates, and King. Oh, and one Toni Morrison (Beloved). No Anne Rice? Surely if literary merit is a criterion, Rice is as good if not better than King.
Posted by pzed on July 27, 2006 at 1.33pm :: link
Duh. I completely skimmed over Carrie on that list. And, if literary merit is NOT a criterion, then Anne Rice should definitely be in there. But, if Margaret Atwood, why not Timothy Findley?
Posted by jodi on July 27, 2006 at 1.38pm :: link
By the way, I love the gothy new colour scheme you’ve got going here.
Posted by jodi on July 27, 2006 at 1.39pm :: link
