When most people talk about Gothic writing, they mention books such as Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre or Dracula. Or even the poems and stories of Edgar Allan Poe. A few people will mention more contemporary Gothic writing such as Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles. But it seems like few people have any modern references despite the fact that there are many.
But how do these modern works differ from their historical predecessors? That’s what we’re talking about today – the evolution of Gothic writing!
This is a huge topic, one we can only cover at a minimum, but let’s take a look at as many examples as we can. And keep in mind that I’m including all of the works that are termed Gothic, many of which do not have truly Gothic themes and which I would not call Gothic. In addition, I’m going to consider works that aren’t marketed as Gothic…but should be.
I’m doing that for a reason. Including all of these works demonstrates the progression of what writers and readers believe about the Gothic genre. So stay with me.
To start with though, there are at least two things that have not changed since the Gothic genre began with the Castle Otranto, by Horace Walpole. And these are opposing elements. The first is the tendency of some writers to assume that Gothic writing is predominantly sensational superficiality and to focus on that. The second is the contrasting trend in which writers use the Gothic genre, especially its tropes to explore heavy themes related to spirituality, psychology and the progression of modern events.
Sensational Superficiality
If there was an award for the most sensational and nonsensical Gothic novel, the first Gothic work of all time – the Castle Otranto by Horace Walpole – would certainly be in the running. The book is so awkward that it’s hard to even argue that it’s Gothic, though I believe that it is. In order to find its Gothic underpinnings, we have to wade through the absurd. The plight of Princess Isabella at the hands of her soon-to-be father-in-law has real promise, but the remainder of the book takes this threat and explores it through comical events such as giant helmets falling from the sky.
Another example would be Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. While it’s less absurd than Otranto, it’s clear that Austen’s disdain for the Gothic genre stemmed from her misunderstanding of it. She wrote this book intending to write in the Gothic, while also satirizing the genre. But the result is not Gothic. She overlays a very Austenian theme – one of family and culture in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century England – with superficial Gothic elements. The Gothic components serve to mock those who make superstitious and illogical assumptions based on an overuse of their imagination. That may be a common misconception of the Gothic genre – that it’s nothing more than overblown emotional responses – but it’s certainly not true. And it misinterprets the reasons for the genre’s use of hyperbolic emotion.
While the style and method has changed over the years, this obsession with the superficial elements of the Gothic genre is still present in our modern era.
Case in point: Mexican Gothic by Silvia Moreno-Garcia. Her book, strongly implied to be, and marketed as, Gothic, is anything but. It has a haunted house, a fair amount of family secrets, and a hidden life force waiting to subsume the unwitting protagonist, Noemi Taboada. But the theme? The entire book hinges on the family’s obsession with preserving its genetic bloodlines. That’s a theme based on a secret sin, which is the underpinnings of the horror genre, not the Gothic one.
Keep in mind, I’m not saying that any of these books, or other examples like them – awkward Otranto notwithstanding – are bad. They’re just not Gothic. The authors have focused their Gothic intent on the superficial tropes, not understanding (or not caring for, I’m not sure which) the underlying purpose of Gothic literature: it’s irrational themes.
A Manifestation of the B-Plot
On the other hand, there are numerous examples of Gothic writing – in prior centuries or our current one – in which authors have used the Gothic tropes to highlight and elucidate Gothic themes. I wrote an article on this awhile back, in which I explained how Gothic enables this sort of exploration. You can find it here.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a good example. Shelley used her reincarnated monster to examine her contemporaries’ focus on science to an extent that concerned her. In the book, she explored the idea that science can give man the opportunity to play God to an extent that could be horribly destructive. The monster, the tangible result of just such a scenario, is an outward manifestation of the dangers associated with this practice.
Or the Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. In the book, Dorian commissions a self-portrait. As the book progresses, Dorian, an exceptionally handsome, upper-class young man sets off down a self-destructive path. Though Wilde handles the matter with a superb balance of subtlety and disclosure, it’s evident that Dorian is engaging in every form of immorality he can find. As his soul becomes more and more polluted, his portrait grows increasingly corrupted and hideous. In person though, he looks as polished and unchanged as before. The seemingly-possessed portrait is the Gothic trope Wilde uses to make the internal state of Gray’s soul tangible to the reader. The contrast between the two provides us with Wilde’s theme.
A more contemporary example of this is a book that’s not marketed as Gothic, but which explores a very Gothic theme. That would be Carrion Comfort by Dan Simmons. He uses characters whom he terms mind vampires to explore the idea of people who use others for their own gain, whatever form that might take. Using World War II, an era in which so many Nazi soldiers were willing to destroy millions of fellow humans, as his backdrop, he sets off on a journey that explores the idea of this concept at a global level. It’s brilliant. And it’s Gothic Horror.
All that to say that both the prevalence of a superficial and sensational use of Gothic tropes and a deep use of these tropes in conjunction with Gothic themes are evident from 1764 through the modern era.
So what has changed?
An Increase in Sensationalism
It probably won’t surprise you that, for those who see the Gothic genre as nothing but a sensational, superficial use of Gothic tropes, that sensationalism has increased in modern times. Mexican Gothic is a perfect example of this. The book, which is well-written overall, takes its darker elements to extremes.
This trend is even easier to spot in Gothic-branded television series, such as Hannibal, True Blood, American Gothic, The Haunting of Hill House and Penny Dreadful. I’m constantly looking for good Gothic writing – in literature or in screenplays – and am, more often than not, confronted with nothing more than a presentation of darkness. It seems like many of these writers assume that the more evil or taboo the subject, the darker the psychological state and ambience of the work, the more Gothic it is. However, cannibalism, incest, and blood sacrifices don’t necessarily have anything to do with the Gothic genre. But of course, there’s a market for this, Gothic or not.
Modern Events = Modern Themes
If we look at some of the modern works that are more consistent with the irrational Gothic themes that established the genre, the trend is to use these themes to address more contemporary issues. Earlier, I mentioned Carrion Comfort, by Dan Simmons. His theme – that certain people have a sociopathic desire to subsume the wills of others to their own – is certainly not a modern idea. But his use of WWII and the lingering questions that came out of that war, makes the theme particularly relevant and modern.
The same is true of Salem’s Lot by Stephen King. In the book, King addresses the theme that those who are willing to admit that evil is real are the only people who are prepared and able to fight it. Ignorance is not bliss. At first blush, this doesn’t sound modern, but it is. Throughout history, people have embraced an understanding of the supernatural and the occurrence of things that we can neither see nor control. Spiritual entities that act independent of mankind. But in more recent generations, the prevalence of atheism and agnosticism has made such a belief one of scorn and derision. In that respect, this book is actually something of a rebuttal against such a temporal focus.
Of course, this is less of a change, than a return to the traditional use of the Gothic genre. Mary Shelley did much the same in using the Gothic genre to call contemporary beliefs and practices to account. The only real change today is that the events and beliefs are unique to our era. But in many of these cases, the audience, the industry and perhaps even the writers themselves, by mislabeling these works, imply that they don’t understand what constitutes a truly Gothic novel.
Gothic Confusion
In summary, what I see is primarily an increase in confusion. Writers – literary or cinematic – are increasingly using Gothic tropes with no underlying Gothic theme and yet labeling the work as Gothic. That seems to be driving the increase in sensationalism. But it also explains the mislabeling of works that do explore Gothic themes and which are usually labeled as Horror.
All of this leaves the market of readers confused. What is Gothic and what isn’t?
Which, of course, is why I wanted to start this blog and my corresponding YouTube channel – The Gothic Literary Society. I love Gothic writing – the true Gothic stuff of Shelley and Jackson and Rice. I want to see it continue. And for that to happen, readers and writers need to know how to differentiate Gothic from sensationalism. And we need to go out and use Gothic tropes in such a way that they make deep Gothic themes come to life. Themes that cause people to think about irrational concepts that are hard to address in any other genre.
Help me end the confusion. Tell people about the rich complexity of the Gothic genre. And even better, go write a wonderful Gothic book! And let me know so I can tell everyone about it!