The Castle of Otranto

By Horace Walpole

The First Gothic Novel

"I can forgive injuries, but never benefits". — Horace Walpole, The Castle of Otranto

The Castle of Otranto is believed to be the first gothic novel and essential reading for both fans and scholars of the genre. The story is about Manfred, the lord of the castle, and his family.
This Xist Classics edition has been professionally formatted for e-readers with a linked table of contents. This eBook also contains a bonus book club leadership guide and discussion questions. We hope you’ll share this book with your friends, neighbors and colleagues and can’t wait to hear what you have to say about it.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xist Publishing
• Release date: Jun 8, 2015
• ISBN: 9781623959920

Horace Walpole

Horace Walpole (1717-1797) was an English writer, art historian, Whig politician, and a man of letters, a group of intellectuals dedicated to solving society’s problems. As the youngest son of a prime minister, Walpole was born into a noble family and became an Earl in 1791. Long before that, Walpole was an elected member of parliament, where he represented the Whig party for thirteen years. Because Walpole’s house, called Strawberry Hill, had its own printing press, he was able to enjoy a prolific writing career, publishing many works of fiction and nonfiction. Walpole has been credited for creating the gothic literary genre with his novel The Castle of Otranto.

Book preview

Questions

INTRODUCTION

Horace Walpole was the youngest son of Sir Robert Walpole, the great statesman, who died Earl of Orford.  He was born in 1717, the year in which his father resigned office, remaining in opposition for almost three years before his return to a long tenure of power.  Horace Walpole was educated at Eton, where he formed a school friendship with Thomas Gray, who was but a few months older.  In 1739 Gray was travelling-companion with Walpole in France and Italy until they differed and parted; but the friendship was afterwards renewed, and remained firm to the end.  Horace Walpole went from Eton to King’s College, Cambridge, and entered Parliament in 1741, the year before his father’s final resignation and acceptance of an earldom.  His way of life was made easy to him.  As Usher of the Exchequer, Comptroller of the Pipe, and Clerk of the Estreats in the Exchequer, he received nearly two thousand a year for doing nothing, lived with his father, and amused himself.

Horace Walpole idled, and amused himself with the small life of the fashionable world to which he was proud of belonging, though he had a quick eye for its vanities.  He had social wit, and liked to put it to small uses.  But he was not an empty idler, and there were seasons when he could become a sharp judge of himself.  I am sensible, he wrote to his most intimate friend, I am sensible of having more follies and weaknesses and fewer real good qualities than most men.  I sometimes reflect on this, though, I own, too seldom.  I always want to begin acting like a man, and a sensible one, which I think I might be if I would.  He had deep home affections, and, under many polite affectations, plenty of good sense.

Horace Walpole’s father died in 1745.  The eldest son, who succeeded to the earldom, died in 1751, and left a son, George, who was for a time insane, and lived until 1791.  As George left no child, the title and estates passed to Horace Walpole, then seventy-four years old, and the only uncle who survived.  Horace Walpole thus became Earl of Orford, during the last six years of his life.  As to the title, he said that he felt himself being called names in his old age.  He died unmarried, in the year 1797, at the age of eighty.

He had turned his house at Strawberry Hill, by the Thames, near Twickenham, into a Gothic villa—eighteenth-century Gothic—and amused himself by spending freely upon its adornment with such things as were then fashionable as objects of taste.  But he delighted also in his flowers and his trellises of roses, and the quiet Thames.  When confined by gout to his London house in Arlington Street, flowers from Strawberry Hill and a bird were necessary consolations.  He set up also at Strawberry Hill a private printing press, at which he printed his friend Gray’s poems, also in 1758 his own Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of England, and five volumes of Anecdotes of Painting in England, between 1762 and 1771.

Horace Walpole produced The Castle of Otranto in 1765, at the mature age of forty-eight.  It was suggested by a dream from which he said he waked one morning, and of which all I could recover was, that I had thought myself in an ancient castle (a very natural dream for a head like mine, filled with Gothic story), and that on the uppermost banister of a great staircase I saw a gigantic hand in armour.  In the evening I sat down and began to write, without knowing in the least what I intended to say or relate.  So began the tale which professed to be translated by William Marshal, gentleman, from the Italian of Onuphro Muralto, canon of the Church of St. Nicholas, at Otranto.  It was written in two months.  Walpole’s friend Gray reported to him that at Cambridge the book made some of them cry a little, and all in general afraid to go to bed o’ nights.  The Castle of Otranto was, in its own way, an early sign of the reaction towards romance in the latter part of the last century.  This gives it interest.  But it has had many followers, and the hardy modern reader, when he read’s Gray’s note from Cambridge, needs to be reminded of its date.

H. M.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

The following work was found in the library of an ancient Catholic family in the north of England.  It was printed at Naples, in the black letter, in the year 1529.  How much sooner it was written does not appear.  The principal incidents are such as were believed in the darkest ages of Christianity; but the language and conduct have nothing that savours of barbarism.  The style is the purest Italian.

If the story was written near the time when it is supposed to have happened, it must have been between 1095, the era of the first Crusade, and 1243, the date of the last, or not long afterwards.  There is no other circumstance in the work that can lead us to guess at the period in which the scene is laid: the names of the actors are evidently fictitious, and probably disguised on purpose: yet the Spanish names of the domestics seem to indicate that this work was not composed until the establishment of the Arragonian Kings in Naples had made Spanish appellations familiar in that country.  The beauty of the diction, and the zeal of the author (moderated, however, by singular judgment) concur to make me think that the date of the composition was little antecedent to that of the impression.  Letters were then in their most flourishing state in Italy, and contributed to dispel the empire of superstition, at that time so forcibly attacked by the reformers.  It is not unlikely that an artful priest might endeavour to turn their own arms on the innovators, and might avail himself of his abilities as an author to confirm the populace in their ancient errors and superstitions.  If this was his view, he has certainly acted with signal address.  Such a work as the following would enslave a hundred vulgar minds beyond half the books of controversy that have been written from the days of Luther to the present hour.

This solution of the author’s motives is, however, offered as a mere conjecture.  Whatever his views were, or whatever effects the execution of them might have, his work can only be laid before the public at present as a matter of entertainment.  Even as such, some apology for it is necessary.  Miracles, visions, necromancy, dreams, and other preternatural events, are exploded now even from romances.  That was not the case when our author wrote; much less when the story itself is supposed to have happened.  Belief in every kind of prodigy was so established in those dark ages, that an author would not be faithful to the manners of the times, who should omit all mention of them.  He is not bound to believe them himself, but he must represent his actors as believing them.

If this air of the miraculous is excused, the reader will find nothing else unworthy of his perusal.  Allow the possibility of the facts, and all the actors comport themselves as persons would do in their situation.  There is no bombast, no similes, flowers, digressions, or unnecessary descriptions.  Everything tends directly to the catastrophe.  Never is the reader’s attention relaxed.  The rules of the drama are almost observed throughout the conduct of the piece.  The characters are well drawn, and still better maintained.  Terror, the author’s principal engine, prevents the story from ever languishing; and it is so often contrasted by pity, that the mind is kept up in a constant vicissitude of interesting passions.

Some persons may perhaps think the characters of the domestics too little serious for the general cast of the story; but besides their opposition to the principal personages, the art of the author is very observable in his conduct of the subalterns.  They discover many passages essential to the story, which could not be well brought to light but by their naïveté and simplicity.  In particular, the womanish terror and foibles of Bianca, in the last chapter, conduce essentially towards advancing the catastrophe.

It is natural for a translator to be prejudiced in favour of his adopted work.  More impartial readers may not be so much struck with the beauties of this piece as I was.  Yet I am not blind to my author’s defects.  I could wish he had grounded his plan on a more useful moral than this: that the sins of fathers are visited on their children to the third and fourth generation.  I doubt whether, in his time, any more than at present, ambition curbed its appetite of dominion from the dread of so remote a punishment.  And yet this moral is weakened by that less direct insinuation, that even such anathema may be diverted by devotion to St. Nicholas.  Here the interest of the Monk plainly gets the better of the judgment of the author.  However, with all its faults, I have no doubt but the English reader will be pleased with a sight of this performance.  The piety that reigns throughout, the lessons of virtue that are inculcated, and the rigid purity of the sentiments, exempt this work from the censure to which romances are but too liable.  Should it meet with the success I hope for, I may be encouraged to reprint the original Italian, though it will tend to depreciate my own labour.  Our language falls far short of the charms of the Italian, both for variety and harmony.  The latter is peculiarly excellent for simple narrative.  It is difficult in English to relate without falling too low or rising too high; a fault obviously occasioned by the little care taken to speak pure language in common conversation.  Every Italian or Frenchman of any rank piques himself on speaking his own tongue correctly and with choice.  I cannot flatter myself with having done justice to my author in this respect: his style is as elegant as his conduct of the passions is masterly.  It is a pity that he did not apply his talents to what they were evidently proper for—the theatre.

I will detain the reader no longer, but to make one short remark.  Though the machinery is invention, and the names of the actors imaginary, I cannot but believe that the groundwork of the story is founded on truth.  The scene is undoubtedly laid in some real castle.  The author seems frequently, without design, to describe particular parts.  The chamber, says he, on the right hand; the door on the left hand; the distance from the chapel to Conrad’s apartment: these and other passages are strong presumptions that the author had some certain building in his eye.  Curious persons, who have leisure to employ in such researches, may possibly discover in the Italian writers the foundation on which our author has built.  If a catastrophe, at all resembling that which he describes, is believed to have given rise to this work, it will contribute to interest the reader, and will make the Castle of Otranto a still more moving story.

SONNET TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LADY MARY COKE.

The gentle maid, whose hapless tale

   These melancholy pages speak;

Say, gracious lady, shall she fail

   To draw the tear adown thy cheek?

No; never was thy pitying breast

   Insensible to human woes;

Tender, tho’ firm, it melts distrest

   For weaknesses it never knows.

Oh! guard the marvels I relate

Of fell ambition scourg’d by fate,

   From reason’s peevish blame.

Blest with thy smile, my dauntless sail

I dare expand to Fancy’s gale,

   For sure thy smiles are Fame.

H. W.

CHAPTER I.

Manfred, Prince of Otranto, had one son and one daughter: the latter, a most beautiful virgin, aged eighteen, was called Matilda.  Conrad, the son, was three years younger, a homely youth, sickly, and of no promising disposition; yet he was the darling of his father, who never showed any symptoms of affection to Matilda.  Manfred had contracted a marriage for his son with the Marquis of Vicenza’s daughter, Isabella; and she had already been delivered by

Reviews for The Castle of Otranto

[finxy · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

From BadelyngeManfred is having a really bad day. No really, he's having a really, really bad day. It all starts with his son being crushed to death by a gigantic helmet that falls out of the sky. And his day is going to get much worse.The Castle of Otranto was written in 1764 by Horace Walpole. So many times I have heard the name of this book being dropped by literary historians citing its place as the forerunner to the gothic novel, works that would include author's such as Poe, Stoker and Du Maurier. In fact the book is little more than fluff that just happens to contain a castle and a penchant for the romantic, the unlikely and the plain ridiculous.

[deltaqueen50 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I found The Castle of Otranto by Horace Walpole to be an odd yet entertaining story about a tyrant knight called Manfred, Prince of Otranto, and his family. Considered to be the father of Gothic romance fiction this fantasy is set in the middle ages, and is peopled by characters experiencing strong emotional and psychological distress. The story develops around a supernatural event that occurs at the beginning of the story and causes the death of Manfred’s only son and heir. Unfolding in a castle that comes with underground passages, sealed vaults, and trap doors, my favorite part of the story was when the young Princess Isabella, fearful for her virtue, is running away from Manfred through the dark and haunted castle.In a melodramatic yet playful manner the story has the evil usurper, the noble yet humble rightful heir, two virtuous princesses and a host of other characters running around the Castle of Otranto confronting vanishing giants, pieces of enormous armour, moving artwork and each other.This deceptively simple story deals with issues of inheritance, power and morality and religion. It is important to remember that this novel is the first of its kind and the plot, which appears overworked and familiar today is, indeed, the first of it’s kind and did cause quite a sensation in it’s day.

[jonfaith · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

We are all reptiles, miserable, sinful creatures. It is piety alone that can distinguish us from the dust whence we sprung, and whither we must return.

The Goodreads reviews of this pioneer work are a caravan of groans; how sophisticated we've since become with our forensics and our shape-shfting (very-meta) protagonists. I may shudder and say, whoa, and allow the blush to fade from our consternation. Otranto is ridiculous, sure, but it is damn charming. Anyone ever encountered a contrivance or laughable twist in the Bard or even Nabokov: the car which killed Charlotte Haze dented our credulity, didn't it? I say onward with the GIANT HELMET! What lurks beneath is but prophesy and paternity. Walpole's book offers little in terms of fear. The pacing and revelation are no more haunting than a production of Hamlet. The notion of it being a "found" medieval text gives it sufficient distance to unnerve our sense of legacy.

[xieouyang · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Taken in the context of when it was written, and the fact that it was new to the genre, I can advise that it’s wortwhile reading it. I found it entertaining overall even if it was so,ewhat difficult because of the way dialogue is embeshed within paragraphs- one has to pay continuous attention to follow who is saying what.However, I could not but find many of the passages hilarious, partly because of the extreme situations kn which the characters are placed.

[shereadsnovels · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

When I first opened this book I was confronted by page after page of almost continuous text with virtually no paragraph breaks and no quotation marks or any way of marking when one person stops speaking and the next begins. This made it difficult to follow the dialogue but otherwise the story is easy enough to understand considering it was published in 1764.Manfred, the Prince of Otranto, has arranged a marriage between his fifteen year old son Conrad and the princess Isabella. However, on the day of the wedding Conrad is found crushed to death in the courtyard beneath an enormous black feathered helmet which appears to have fallen from the sky. As his son is obviously now in no position to go ahead with the wedding, Manfred decides to marry Isabella himself...but Isabella has other ideas. Cue a never-ending chain of misunderstandings, coincidences and mayhem.The Castle of Otranto is historically important because it was the first gothic novel - complete with haunted castles, underground tunnels, damsels in distress, knights, ghosts and paintings that move - but don't expect a piece of great literature. In places the plot is so ridiculous and the writing so melodramatic that it's actually hilarious.The Castle of Otranto is funny and entertaining – and very short – but I can't imagine ever wanting to read it again. For a better introduction to gothic fiction I would recommend The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe, which is a longer book but much better written.

[ajbraithwaite_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I read this as part of research for an essay on The Gothic Novel, so I went back to this as the original example of the genre. I wasn't disappointed: supernatural elements, love triangles, masterful villain, meek heroines and good-looking yet virtuous hero. Truly sensational for its time. Well done, Horace.

[tloeffler_3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Described as "one of the first and greatest of Gothic novels." I'm not so sure about the "greatest" part, but it was a good read. On the death of his son, medieval prince Manfred decides to divorce his wife and marry his son's betrothed, Isabella. However, a young peasant intervenes, and when all the surprises and mistaken identities are revealed, the ending, though not a happy one, puts everything in its place. Except, of course, the statue in the church...

[sedelia_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

In The Castle of Otranto, Manfred is determined to keep his family in power, which means he needs an heir. When his engaged son dies by being crushed by a statue's helmet, Manfred resolves to marry his son's betrothed, Isabella, and produce heirs so that his family can live on. Understandably, Isabella doesn't want to marry the man who was going to be her father-in-law and leads Manfred on a merry chase throughout the castle and its surrounding area.If you take this book seriously, I'm not sure how enjoyable it is. The supernatural elements are a bit out of sync with the plot itself -- they aren't integrated well into the whole story. The characters are more like caricatures, and the end is quickly tied up into a haphazard bow. I know that if I looked at it as a serious piece of fiction, I would have hated it. Luckily, I found it all a bit funny. Yes, it's an important novel since it's considered the first Gothic novel, and yes, it's a "classic" and deals with themes like family, power, gender stereotypes, etc. But that doesn't mean you have to take the plot seriously, and I certainly didn't.It all started with Conrad being mysteriously crushed by a statue's helmet. Then, bits and pieces of the statue started appearing in the castle for no apparent reason. I just couldn't take it seriously. If you like the overly dramatic, bit of fun Gothic story, I think you'd really enjoy this. It has crazy twists and turns (you can definitely see a Shakespearean influence in this), and without including much character building, internal dialogue or much character self-reflection, the story moves along at a brisk pace. The writing may be a bit hard to understand (it is an eighteenth-century book, after all, and the editors have kept all the weird commas, lack of paragraph breaks, and misspellings), but if you read period lit, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. All in all, fun if you want to see what supposedly started the whole Gothic thing, but not something I'd want to enjoy a glass of wine and relax with.

[jawalter · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

[Northanger Abbey]
I think this is my favorite of Austen's works. It lacks any of the great romances that make her so popular amongst filmmakers and book clubs, but it shows off her greatest asset: her intelligence. Austen is, of course, famous for her wit and keen observations of social mores, and those are also put on display in Northanger Abbey. But this is one of the all-time great satires, demonstrating that she was capable of more than merely reproducing the world around her.

This is the book that makes me wonder what Austen would be like if she was alive today. Time and critical reception have pigeon-holed her; she's recognized as a great talent, but I think she's often dismissed as well. She's about more than just female empowerment and laughing at the way people acted in the 1800s. Austen's books are all about how people communicate, and it's still relevant today.

[shabacus · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

It is always difficult to review a book that is considered a classic. On the one hand, you have to discuss how the book was received in its time, what it added to the literature of its day. On the other, you have to balance that with its effect on the modern reader.The fact that "The Caste of Otranto" was successful in its day is undisputed. It is typically held up as the genesis of the Gothic novel, with its dual focus on the supernatural and the effect of the supernatural on human emotion. The realistic, introspective character study is juxtaposed with things that are unrealistic and unbelievable. Although fantastical elements certainly existed before this time in literature, they had not been tackled with a modern sensibility of character. To this book, we owe not only the Gothic stories of Edgar Allen Poe, the Bronte sisters, etc, but also the entirety of modern fantasy.However, as a novel for the modern reader, it fails to grip. It is far too rooted in its past to be much more than a footnote of literature for casual, modern fans of Gothic stories. Characters are shallow by comparison to its descendents The supernatural elements run from mild to goofy to a reader already accustomed to bleeding statues or paintings that come to life.Recommendation: If you approach it as an early example of the genre, you will enjoy it. As a standalone novel, it doesn't have the staying power.

[crypto3willobie · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

What a silly book! My nose hurts from snorting. At first I was thinking "This would be great filmed by Ed Wood." but then I decided it would be more suited to a staging by the Monty Python troupe. It even features a giant foot at one point!

[jkorta_2 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The book that started the taste for gothic novels in England and later Germany and France, this is by no means the best of the genre but holds pride of place. Replete with ghosts, set in the heart of the dark ages and within the walls of a mood-setting castle, it's no surprise this tale sparked the imaginations of its readers and continues to cast its spell today.

[391_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Let me put it this way...it's decent if you consider the historical aspect of the book (first horror novel, ect.) Otherwise, it's hilariously bad.

[kristelh_15 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A rather short story and the only one published by Horace Walpole tell the story of Manfred, prince of Otranto and the death of his son and only heir Conrad. The castle with its vaults and secret passages make for the setting of a gothic novel. The setting is chivalric Middle Ages and deals with cruelty and tyranny as well as usurping of the castle and title of prince. It’s a very quick and easy read for those working on the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die list.

[david.alfred.sarkies · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

To put it blunt, this book is rubbish, and I must admit that my English lecturer, when he spoke on this book, pretty much said just as much. In fact the only reason the English Department included this book on the reading list is because it has the distinction of being the first gothic horror book written. Okay, maybe it is the first, but it really does very little to make it stand out from among all the other books of much higher quality that were written afterwards. Hey, they even had an essay question on it.Anyway, this is a classic example of a child of a very famous person using his father's influence to get rubbish published. I suspect that it happens quite a lot these days as well (Jessica Rudd), though I must admit that even being able to pull strings to get books published does not necessarily mean that anybody will actually read, and then recommend, the book (though that seems not to be the case with Campaign Ruby).You might actually be wondering who Horace Walpole is and what is father did to make him so famous. To be quite honest with you, until I had gone to the lecture on this book, I had never heard of Horace Walpole, or any other Walpoles that he might have been related to, however, if you were living in England in 1764, you certainly would have heard of Robert Walpole, namely because he was, next to the king, the most powerful man in England. In fact, Robert Walpole holds the record for being the longest serving British Prime Minister ever (twenty-one years in total). These days, ten years as Prime Minister is an effort, however unless the country has descended into a one party state, it is highly unlikely, in today's political climate, that anybody could last twenty years (though Robert Menzies did last 16 and Franklin Delanore Roosevelt lasted 13).It was not so much different back then either, though the voting franchise was severely restricted and cabinet appointments were made by the king. Getting elected into parliament, especially if you were a member of the aristocratic class, was not just easy, it was a right. There was no universal franchise, or proper electoral boundaries. In fact, one could live in an electorate (known as a borough) where the only person who could vote was you, so whenever an election came along you would vote for yourself (and why not) and you would automatically get elected. However, politicians didn't get paid back then, which also made it difficult for the lower classes to become politicians).I seem to have written nothing about the book, but then again, it is such rubbish that I personally really don't want to write anything about it. As for the concept of Gothic Horror, in a way it doesn't actually strike any chords in my memory. I guess I do not see any distinction with Gothic Horror. Hell, I can't even define it (not that I really want to) or even has the desire to jump over to Wikipedia to see if they say anything about it. I guess I am simply not interested in determining any definition for the genre. Okay, there are other 'Gothic Horror' books on my read list, however I would probably just put them more into horror than Gothic Horror. If anything, though, thinking over the books and films we explored, I suspect Gothic Horror deals more with concepts of horror (much like what I wrote about in Carrie) rather than a simple slasher flick. Silence of the Lambs is a horror (and a very good horror at that) but it is not a slasher flick. Far from it. However, this book is horror in name only. If I really wanted to categorise it, I would probably put it into a category called rubbish, however, that is what the rating is for.

[jmoncton_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Castle of Otranto is one of those must-read noteworthy books, but heck if I know why. It is listed as the first gothic novel and has those elements of romance and horror. But, I must say, gothic novels have come a looong way. This had many elements that we stereotype and mock - the fair maiden who above all else, must maintain her virtue and the evil villain whose goal in life is to make sure she fails. Ok reading for the historical sense, but not outstanding.

[jbd1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

One of my reading goals for 2012 was to read through a few "classics" that I'd never read before. It hasn't gone as well as I'd hoped it would (those darn publishers just keep churning out new books!) but I've been able to enjoy at least of few of the titles I wanted to try. One of those was Walpole's The Castle of Otranto, considered the first gothic novel (Walpole's only novel, it was published in 1764).While to a modern reader some of the gothic tropes (scary castles, mysterious prophecies, portentously-timed thunderclaps, long-lost family members, mistaken identities, religious prejudices, unexplained bumps in the night, &c.) come across as more silly than scary, to readers unfamiliar with such motifs, this must have been quite an unconventional book indeed. It's easy to see how later authors (Radcliffe, Lewis, Brown) were able to develop the stories more thoroughly and create even more disturbing imagery and plot twists. The OUP edition I read contained a very useful introduction by E.J. Clery, contextualizing the work and examining some of the contemporary reaction to it.

[souloftherose · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I wanted to read a gothic novel to help me better understand what Jane Austen is satirizing in Northanger Abbey. I picked The Castle of Otranto purely because it was the shortest.The book (published in 1764) starts with an introduction from Horace Walpole explaining that this is an English translation he has made of an Italian manuscript dating from 1529; however the introduction makes clear that it's possible that the original work was in fact written much earlier. Walpole also states his belief that the story he has translated is based on truth and events that must have really taken place In fact, none of this was true; it was written in English by Horace Walpole in the 18th century, but at the time it was considered much more worthwhile to read a true story than a fictional one. Interestingly the wikipedia article on the book seems to indicate that the work was critically quite well received until Walpole 'fessed up and admitted he'd made up the whole thing when all the critics promptly decided that it was worthless fluff.Once you're past the introduction this gothic tale kicks off with someone being crushed to death by a giant helmet:"he beheld his child dashed to pieces, and almost buried under an enormous helmet, an hundred times more large than any casque ever made for human being, and shaded with a proportionate quantity of black feathers"Right.All the other gothic staples are included of course; innocent virgins, noble knights, princes in disguise, incest, duels, gloomy castles and ghosts. It was difficult for me to take this book as seriously as I assume the original 18th century readers took it. Most of the scenes which are presumably supposed to be scary seem ridiculous to a modern reader (death by giant helmet being the prime example). There are also a lot of scenes which I think may have been intended to be comic as the introduction notes that 'some persons may perhaps think the characters of the domestics too little serious for the general cast of the story'; there were some wonderful scenes very reminiscent of Shakespeare where the domestics were constantly interrupting each other or wandering from the point to the infuriation of their lords and ladies.Ultimately, this was a short, enjoyable if somewhat strange read. Reading the free kindle version I definitely felt the lack of any explanatory notes to help me put this work in context but I think it was worth reading even so as it's given me a better understanding of Northanger Abbey.

[cherylpeeves · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I'm reading this book right now and it is so cool. Supposedly the first gothic novel ever written. Secret passages, haunted castle, strange happenings, and a damsel in distress. One of the least boring classics I've ever read.

[jstuart_51 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Said by some (like W. S. Lewis) to be the first Gothic novel in English literature, this 1674 novel offers every element now considered to be characteristic of Gothic horror. Here, Walpole set the standard for supernatural armour, furtive friars, family curses, and things that go bump in the castle vaults!

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The evil prince Manfred plots to marry his deceased son's fiancé but is thwarted. This is the ancestor of all gothic novels. Poor prose, but it does move at a steady pace for the 18th Century. Best read for a course requirement. I have no idea of which edition I read in 1971, but the information relates to the current Oxford paperback edition.

[michaeladams1979 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Considered a gothic masterpiece, I found this to be a clever little novel of a crumbling monarchy in it's final days. You can certainly see how it influenced later works of both fantasy and more conventional literature. A number of convoluted machinations, some patent villainy, lots of life-changing revelations, and just a few hints of the supernatural. I honestly could have done with a little less of the domestic implosion of the household and a little more of the fantastical elements, but it is what it is. My one major complaint is the dialogue is not formatted in the modern style of quotation marks and individually indented paragraphs, separated only by commas, periods and dashes, somewhat inconsistently too, making it somewhat tricky to read, though I managed well enough once I found the conversational rhythm in each passage.

[lgandt · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I tried, just could not make hide nor hair of it. I got the jist of the story, but either I just found it simply too boring or missed a crucial element somewhere along the line.Of course I can see how gothic after was inspired by this, but I was expecting something a bit different.I loved the settings but just did not connect with any of the characters.

[cecrow · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The original gothic novel, this reads preposterously if you don't know its pedigree. Gigantic elements of armour appear in the story without warning (though they are warnings in themselves), crushing the hapless and frightening other characters who respond as anyone might when faced with such inexplicable events: horror, shock, dismay, fear. It's the meshing of these that brought this novel lasting acclaim, however ridiculous its events now appear to a modern reader. I'm afraid I laughed in a few places I wasn't supposed to, but with a better understanding came a greater appreciation. It's a comfortably short read, and at least an interesting curiosity.

[madepercy-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This book must be read in the knowledge that it is more than 250 years old. It is the original Gothic fiction. The story is somewhat gripping, although the dialogue is not punctuated as we would now expect, making you think twice about who is saying what at times. The spectre of the giant knight seems to fade away at the end, almost like the let-down from bad B-grade special effects but in literary form. I felt like every character actually liked to ball their eyes out every few minutes, too. But, taken in context, it is an enjoyable read. Only don't read the introduction and avoid checking the notes at every instance. Like many classic, the introduction, prefaces and notes are now longer than the story itself. It had to be read, and now it is done. If you are a fan of Gothic, then this is like what Evil Dead is to modern horror, or what Sherlock Holmes is to the modern detective story.

[autumnesf · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Crazy story about a giant knights parts showing up in a cursed castle.

[john257hopper · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is a gem of an early (1764) Gothic novel. There are some moments of genuine horror and a tense drive to the plot. Great stuff and the ending is very downbeat.

[philsyphe · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Not the most memorable of novels. It's three years since I read it yet even skimming other people's reviews and the synopsis hasn't jogged my memory!Well, I gave it three stars after finishing the book, so must've liked it, though clearly it's left no impression on me.

[dreesie-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Read on serial reader. A classic early gothic novel, this is very dated. But somehow it is so bad it is kind of good. The mystical is not explained, characters are killed off left and right, and surprises abound.I am not even clear where this is supposed to take place--England, or generic continental Europe?

[ctpress_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

A castle and abbey with secret tunnels. A dark landscape, lecherous villains, supernatural visions, a hero with a secret lineage, and beautiful and imperiled women (with a tendency toward the hysterical).What more can you ask for :)As an exploration of the history of literature this “granddaddy” of the gothic novel is interesting and a lot of fun. This is not my favorite genre at all - and the plot is so contrived that you want to laugh - and do laugh a lot of times.This is the kind of literature Catherine Morland loves in Northanger Abbey - as she asks in anticipation of yet another thrilling read: “Is it really horrid?”. Yes, Catherine. It is indeed.