First things first: I really enjoyed Northanger Abbey. I found it to be an entertainingly quick read and I didn’t want to put it down. I loved Austen’s wit sprinkled throughout, especially when subverting Gothic expectations. However, I did find that I had a hard time explaining the plot of this novel to those who would ask me what I was reading. My answer would go something like this: “It’s about this girl who is on a vacation, and she likes this guy.” “Oh,” would be the general response. “No, it’s actually so much more than that!” and I would try again and eyes would glaze over. Yet this novel is so smart. The subversions of the Gothic narrative are entertaining and plentiful, and the commentary on novels and readers is incredibly insightful and self-reflexive. But Austen goes even further, subverting other expected norms such as gender and romance.
The one true romance that Austen presents is the one between Catherine and Henry, as Eleanor’s romance takes place outside of the pages and Isabella’s romantic aims are for money rather than true companionship. Yet, Austen does not set up Catherine and Henry’s romance as some grand affair, but rather presents it more as an anti-romance. This begins with the set up of Catherine and Henry as unconventional characters or literary heroes. Catherine is immediately painted as a peculiar choice for a literary heroine in that she is so ordinary. In her young life, Catherine is called “plain” and “occasionally stupid” – not a great start for a literary heroine. Austen purposefully places Catherine in direct contrast to Gothic heroines, such as the sentimental and faint-prone Adeline of The Romance of the Forest. Catherine is “almost pretty” in contrast to Adeline’s intoxicating beauty, and is quite healthy without being prone to fainting. I just realized that she may be the first female character that we have read that doesn’t faint!
Henry is also not presented as a standard literary hero. He is “not quite handsome” and has a rather feminine knowledge of clothing. Even Catherine realizes that he does not resemble an ideal man as she almost calls him “strange” (16). Their romance is not filled with exceptional witty banter or any romantic gestures, but is instead filled with occasional discussions where Henry openly mocks Catherine and his sister. His absence is far more telling of their relationship than his presence. In his absence, we see Catherine wishing for his presence which is the only real indication of her feelings for him. However, his absence is most noted when General Tilney sends Catherine away with no guardians on a potentially dangerous trip back home. Here is the perfect place in the romance plot for the young literary hero to swoop in and save the day but again Henry is absent.
All of these anti-romantic (as in love relationships, not the Romance genre) characteristics of the plot work to highlight the frequent gender disruptions. In addition to Catherine’s tomboy past and her lack of traditional feminine arts and occupations, her first conversation with Henry informs the reader that Catherine does not keep a journal like most young girls do. In the same conversation, we learn that Henry has a vast knowledge about women’s fashion and frequently buys dresses and fabric for his sister. Though these characters are restricted in many instances by their gender, Austen creates characters who do not fully consist of gender norms even if they still have to play the gender game.
These comments are very interesting and make me think that Austen perhaps had to set these characters as physically and mentally separate from what the reader expects from male and female in a romantic/ Gothic story in order to create an individual through Catherine. If we do not have these physical disparities from what one expects from a heroine or her boyish characteristics, than the reader may be less likely to embrace a character that toes the line of society and manners so closely throughout the novel as an individual worth reading about.
ReplyDelete