Monday, November 28, 2011

Vathek Secondary Lit Review - Sam Bakall










Works Cited



  1. I have this vague feeling that the novel doesn't support religion or hedonism. Almost pushing towards agnosticism? Haha... I don't know. It contains too many ideas, all of which seems fatal to me. Even Gulchenrouz (what a weird name...) who seems happy till the end... is said to be "humble and ignorant." Being humble is great because it alludes to him having potential of bettering himself, but "ignorant" doesn't quite make his life seem fulfilling either.

  2. I think that the way this book is written is supposed to be quite moralizing, actually. True, it seems to glorify what is generally thought of as sinful, but it does that in a different way than is normative. It doesn't appear to be saying, "look how totally okay this is to do" so much as, "look how appealing the devil can make wickedness seem." I think it's showing the seduction of the dark side, rather than the horror of it. After all, the book is saying, there has to be some reason that evil chooses to be evil.

  3. I think that the overwhelming hedonism, horror and supernatural elements compel readers of the time to question the strength of their religious beliefs, acting as a test of their resolve in the face of contrary sentiments. Whereas earlier novels openly and explicitly delved into the value of spiritual growth and enlightenment, Vathek shows the whole ugly picture of what it means to NOT seek religious fulfillment and how, regardless of any hellish punishments for such in the afterlife, the very lives that Vathek and his mother lead are devoid of meaning, value, or appeal. Rank hedonism by itself cannot truly sustain one's soul, and so Vathek can be viewed as a pitiable creature, alone and ignorant of the value and nature of such things as love, friendship and the satisfaction of overcoming a real challenge. He, and not Gulchenrouz, is the truly ignorant individual, for Vathek doesn't know and couldn't comprehend the goodness that is absent in his selfish, apathetic life.

  4. I agree with Nora; I too found the novel to be pretty consistently moralizing. True, it does go into great detail about all the luxuries Vathek enjoys and the strange seductive appeal of dark magic and the occult. However, I think this is what makes it moralizing. At least for me, reading about all this excess was a testament to the sinful nature of it. I don't think Beckford meant for us to admire or envy Vathek; in fact, there was something almost pitiful about him amidst all his riches. It glorifies this lifestyle for the purpose of eventually associating it with eternal damnation.

    Similarly, I don't think this is an anti-religious novel either, or at least not any religion in particular. We could kind of read it as a negative portrayal of Islam, but then there is the fact that the characters renounced their religion. From that point, we can't really associate Vathek with any religious values because he isn't acting under the pretense of any religion anymore. But....I guess Vathek and his mother were pretty bad people before they officially rejected their religion... It's more of an anti-immoral than an anti-religious text.

  5. I was thinking along the same lines as Nora and Hannah on the question of whether or not Vathek can be seen as a part of the moral literature of the era. Unlike the other novels that we have read this semester in which the moral aspects of the story are obvious, Vathek is moralizing in the fact that it shows the consequences of giving into evil temptations. Beckford's description of what Vathek's life is reduced to (sacrificing his loyal subjects, performing witchery, etc.) in order to obtain more power gives readers a picture of what yielding to temptations does to the soul. While religion does not seem to play a major role in the novel, I think if anything Beckford offers readers a positive view on religion, including Islam. Vathek's problems only begin when he gives up his religious beliefs.

  6. I found Vathek's moralizing to be sarcastic and we weren't really supposed to get a true moral from this book. We talked in class how this novel seems to give us the extremes. To be completely evil with Vathek and his mom or be completely good with Gulchenrouz. I don't think we were supposed to really think that Vathek's path was to be completely avoided or Gulchenrouz's perpetual childhood to be completely wanted either. Although you could say this novel is about the consequences of greed or temptation, I feel like Beckford makes going bad look so enticing that it's hard for me to think that was what he was trying to moralize about. I don't think either choice of Islam or hedonism looked all that appealing and therefore, I don't think Beckford really supported either.