From the Bookshelf of Easley Library Bookworms…

The Mysteries of Udolpho

Ann Radcliffe

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

No group discussions for this book yet.

What Members Thought

Aug 24, 2018 Werner rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: historical-fiction, classics

Note, Oct. 5, 2023: I've just edited this review slightly, to re-word one sentence.

As British literary scholar Bonamy Dobree notes at the outset of his introduction to the 1966 Oxford Univ. Press edition of this late 18th-century classic, Radcliffe's best-known novel held its place in the canon of British literature for half a century. It was subsequently eclipsed by more accomplished works, and by changing stylistic tastes; but its historical prominence and influence testify to some literary st Note, Oct. 5, 2023: I've just edited this review slightly, to re-word one sentence.

As British literary scholar Bonamy Dobree notes at the outset of his introduction to the 1966 Oxford Univ. Press edition of this late 18th-century classic, Radcliffe's best-known novel held its place in the canon of British literature for half a century. It was subsequently eclipsed by more accomplished works, and by changing stylistic tastes; but its historical prominence and influence testify to some literary strengths which merit attention for it even today in its own right, as well as for its historical interest. (Some modern readers' curiosity about it is also excited by Jane Austen's mention of it in Northanger Abbey as one of a number of "horrid novels" --"horrid" in terms of their morbid and frightening subject matter, not necessarily of their literary quality!-- that one of the Gothics-loving heroine's friends recommends to her; but I haven't read that particular Austen novel yet, and it wasn't a source of my interest.) The novel had long been on my to-read shelf; so I took advantage of an invitation to take part in a common read of it in one of my Goodreads groups. I'm glad to have gratified my curiosity about it and to have experienced Radcliffe's work for myself, though my appreciation for it didn't rise above mild liking.

Its faults will strike most readers more readily than its positives. Radcliffe's style is convoluted and wordy (this is a 672-page tome, that demands quite a commitment of time). To a degree, this is a general characteristic of Romantic fiction in the author's era, and doesn't bother me as such (though it will many modern readers). But while contemporary writers like Scott and Fenimore Cooper are also prolix, they aren't usually repetitive; they use a lot of sentences, but each of them contributes something to the literary edifice they're raising. Radcliffe, however, has a tendency towards repetitive overwriting; that is to say, she often belabors an idea (usually "Woe is me!" angst) by restating it over and over in the same paragraph --or two or three paragraphs-- to make sure we get it. (The principle of "less is more" was not one that she understood.) She also experiments here with interspersing poems nominally composed by the characters in several places in the text. Only one of these, "Stanzas," is IMO a pretty fair narrative poem; the rest are trite and conventional examples of mediocre Romantic lyric poetry, which remind me of why I usually don't like the latter. (There's a good reason why she's remembered as a novelist, rather than as a poet.)

Her characterizations are not particularly sharp --though, in fairness, several are sharper than others, and she can also scrutinize and skewer some characters' moral inadequacy and social pretension, in a few isolated passages, that foreshadow writers like Austen. (And while the main villain has been dismissed as "Snidely Whiplash" by one commentator, that's not strictly fair; he's not a cartoon, and not malevolent for its own sake: he's selfish for its own sake, like all selfish persons, but he has realistic selfish reasons for the way he treats people.) Heroine Emily is likable in her way, a kind and decent person with virtuous instincts that command our goodwill and respect. But she's not a strong heroine of the sort that really commands my admiration. She functions in "damsel in distress" mode in her various hardships and jeopardies, copes with stress by fainting a lot (to a degree that's irritating), and her lack of constancy in various situations comes across as vacillating. Radcliffe's drawing of the main male character Valencourt has some of the same flaws.

For a historical novel, the handling of the historical component is not particularly adept. Our setting is the 1580s, in southern France, Venice, and the mountains of north-central Italy (where the fictional castle of Udolpho is located). But the unsettled conditions Radcliffe depicts in Italy were actually characteristic of the first half of the century, not the second; and in a number of ways, the characters' attitudes and behaviors would often fit more with the author's own late 18th-century setting. Radcliffe also has a preference for narration over dialogue, with the latter often summarized or paraphrased; and perhaps related to this, in some crucial revelations she tells what happened rather than letting us experience Emily's discovery firsthand. Although Emily is our viewpoint character, we're told in a few crucial places that she sees something shocking, but not told what it was, a kind of authorial cheating that I found manipulative.

For all that, there are good points here. The author definitely has an earnest moral vision, and a genuine Christian faith with a strong awareness of its ethical component, which she isn't abashed about expressing. (Though again her tendency to tell rather than show can make her sound a bit preachy in places, and the ending had a certain Aesop's Fables, "...and the moral of the story is...!" quality.) She obviously had a strong affinity for the beauty of the natural world, and that comes through in many descriptive passages, although many readers might find the sheer amount of description overdone. (Radcliffe herself never visited France or Italy; she depended for these passages on pictures drawn or painted by other people, and traveler's written descriptions.) Her plotting is not necessarily predictable; she can surprise on occasion (and genuinely surprised me more than once). Her influence on later writers in the whole Gothic strand of fiction is undeniable, and she's particularly responsible for the tradition that shifted from supernatural speculative premises to naturalistic, descriptive ones. Despite one reference to "monkish superstition," she also deserves credit for a positive portrayal of the genuine Christian faith of her Catholic characters, at a time when anti-Catholic bigotry was quite strong in British Protestantism. (And I write that as a non-Catholic, but a non-Catholic who deprecates animosity towards any religious group, and particularly hostility of different bodies of Christians towards each other.)

While I doubt that I'll make any particular effort to read more of Radcliffe's work, I'm not sorry to have read this one. (Cynda, thanks for inviting me to take part in the read! :-) ) ...more

35 likes · Like · see review

Group Home Bookshelf Discussions

Photos Videos

Send invite Members Polls