Also, Orientalism seem to play a big role in Vathek. From what we've read so far, how is the East represented in Vathek? What are some of the differences between this novel and the others we have read (especially The Castle of Otranto, since Vathek is also a Gothic novel)?
I found Vathek to be just a spoiled brat. His mother definitely seems to be the one sort of guiding the kingdom instead of Vathek. He's very focused on material things and wealth, but seems very unfocused on ruling the kingdom, or making any laws or whatnot. He does seem to be sort of a nice guy. He is "generous" with some of his possessions, allowing visitors to come to his palace of the senses and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteThe East is represented as very exotic and almost chic. Because it's so different than the west, it has a very alluring quality. The harems, the food, the luxury, etc. I found that this novel was more of a story for entertainment than a novel that was supposed to be used to teach, or be used for other reasons other than for fun.
I envied Vathek's position from the beginning of the story, but he is tempted; his fall is evident early on; and I was able to distance myself from the character quickly.
ReplyDeleteVathek is certainly a gluttonous character. He uses his resources to indulge to an immeasurable excess. However, I think Beckford ameliorates this tendency in him when he first presents Vathek to the reader. He is presented as a lover of science and knowledge. He says that Vathek is always kind to strangers because he hopes he may forever be learning something from them. It is the arrival of the terrible Indian who plants in Vathek the ambition to gain super-human knowledge and powers.
The early Vathek may have been selfish, but he apparently was not cruel. This is in line with an analysis of his strangely powerful glance--which the narrator says he tried to keep in check "for fear of depopulating his dominions and making his palace desolate." (pp 1)
I envied Vathek's position from the beginning of the story, but he is tempted; his fall is evident early on; and I was able to distance myself from the character quickly.
I also found the character very off-putting from the very beginning of the novel. Yes, he did appear to care on some level for his people (trying to prevent himself from getting too angry--which tended to cause the death of those around him), however when the sacrifice of these loyal subjects was to his benefit, Vathek did not seem to really struggle over his decision. I suppose in a way his focus only on his wants above the needs of his people could have come from his taking power over so many people at such a young age; Vathek was used to getting all of his desires satisfied by his people so why would he not sacrifice a few to get the knowledge that he desires?
ReplyDeleteAs for the depiction of the East in the novel, I think that it is both represented in a positive and negative light. The vivid descriptions of all of the goods and aspects of the East could have been very appealing to the reader who had not had the opportunity to travel. However, I think that the supernatural aspects of the novel make the East appear somewhat uncivilized.
I think the way that Vathek's character has been shaped not by his age, but by his surroundings. His mother seems to be very evil, and she strives for power, so he probably got his need for power from her. Also, The people seem to be absolutely devoted to Vathek, which has allowed him to get whatever he desires. I do not think that his greed and immaturity is a product of his age, but rather his mother, his wealth, and his people that he rules.
ReplyDeleteI feel that becoming king at a young age could have had this effect, but am conflicted because I think it also could cause someone to grow bored with the idea/act of greed. Since this novel is focused on lavish living, I agree with Nathan and believe that the culture is more of a cause than Vathek's age. As I have said earlier, the east is represented as lavish.
ReplyDeleteBeing a king at such a young age, would typically make the individual level headed and not pompous. Just as Prince Harry and Price William have been royalty their entire life and seem to be "down-to-earth" kind of guys, since they don't know any other lifestyle. I agree with Nathan in that Vathek's Mother is a huge factor in making him who he is. She seems to be a little creepy and a bit evil and she is Vathek's mother - his role model. Seeing how she acts is what I think has influenced his greed and need for power.
ReplyDeleteI think that Vathek's character is extremely hard to sympathize with. I also didn't like him from the very beginning; his relationship with his mother is bizarre, and he seems to fulfill the stereotypical role of the "greedy prince". I think that everything Vathek does is to fulfill his own selfish needs; he seems to cause other people great aggravation and sacrifice to fulfill his juvenile and silly needs.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the depiction of the East goes, I feel that it is portrayed very decadently and "extravagant". There are many descriptions of gold, riches, beauty, etc.. It is actually very similar to how the east is portrayed in our own western perception of it. It is also interesting how well Vathek fits into his setting. Do you think this was done intentionally?
I think that every person has agreed that Vathek does not possess any redeeming qualities. His thoughts and actions are based on the satiation of his desires. His selfish immaturity, however, makes me perceive him to be an idiot, dictated by his passions. His mother, Carathis, is extremely intriguing. She is crafty and diabolical. Carathis is devoid of womanly traits such as compassion, purity, and love. Both she and her son take advantage of the ardent devotion of Vathek’s followers, but for some reason, I believed that Carathis is portrayed as more manipulative. “Carathis…like a cameleon, could assume all possible colours” (Beckford 38). Unlike the portrayal of English women, her western counterparts, Carathis is characterized by duplicity. As the mother of the Caliph, the mother of her people, she willingly sacrifices them and devices plans to kill both adults and children. She is deceptive and representative of the exotic and yet sinful woman.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Beckford should describe the Caliph’s people as so obedient and trusting of their sovereign. After he had killed their most beautiful sons, his followers are always overwhelmed with thoughts of the well-being of their Caliph. “Their love for their sovereign immediately awoke;… their whole thoughts were occupied with the means of his safety” (Beckford 33). I believe that this alludes to certain facets of Orientalism. His people are oppressed by an irrational tyrannical ruler, the Caliph. The inability of the people to look out for their own well-being ties into Eastern assumptions of a lack of agency. They are child-like in their dependency upon the ruler. Likewise, Vathek is represented as child-like in his indiscretion. Ruled by his senses, he fails to discern right from wrong. Furthermore, unlike previous novels which take place in England, this novel is completely fantastical. The imagery is wild and monstrously untamed. Mahomet is invoked almost as an afterthought, splatterings of “For the love of Mahomet!” (Beckford 54) since many pagan ideas are included in this novel. Vathek and his people seem to be constructed from both classical mythology and stereotypes of the terrible Turk.
The construction of the Oriental male as feminine may be seen in Vathek. He gives into his pleasures whereas a rational male (English) would be able to resist such temptations. Many young boys are described as being beautiful and gentle. Gulchenrouz is described as a boy more womanish than his cousin, Nouronihar. He is described as fair in complexion and when “Gulchenrouz appeared in the dress of his cousin, he seemed to be more feminine than even herself” (Beckford 66). First and foremost, why would he be dressed as his cousin? The playful cross-dressing of boys as girls, men as women, describes assumptions that the East is a place without gender constructions and fixed roles. The people as a whole, live according to their desires. The masculine may be feminine(Gulchenrouz) and the feminine may be masculine (Carathis as more masculine than her son).
I never disliked Vathek, not really. He reminded me quite a lot of Faustus, actually, and the comparison no doubt romanticized him in my eyes. True, he acts selfishly and for seemingly materialistic ideals, but that isn't the only way to look at it. Being born into so much power and yet having hardly any, I saw his actions as a way of trying to take control over some part of his life. Now, of course, he more often than not is overruled by his mother, but I saw his use of emotions as a guide as a sort of way to break the rules. This way, he is not subject to laws or restrictions (as logic and reason are) but is given some idea that he has command over himself (false though it might be). This, I think, is foiled by his issues with his mother, which undoubtedly spring from his ascendance into adulthood at such an early age as well as the lack of father figure in his life. The point is, I think there is a great deal more to this book than initially meets the eye and that we need to give the characters a little bit more credit.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Vathek becoming a king at a young age may have played into the greedy, self-absorbed, power hungry person we see in the novel. His being born into power would make it seem like second nature and his mother's obvious lack of morals certainly helped shape him into the character we see in the novel. Indeed, he still follows many of her instructions and seeks her advice even as an adult. For that reason, I would argue that his upbringing by in obvious corrupt individual greatly influenced the man we see in the novel. Had he had a more kind-hearted mother and had his father been present perhaps he could of turned out to be a very different ruler, one who would not of been so easily tempted and lead astray.
ReplyDeleteVathek's becoming king so young is irrelevant: He is the product of his environment and a pawn of his mother's rule. He doesn't bear the true burden of rule, especially given the seemingly blind devotion his subjects show him without his having earned it. There is an important difference between BEING a young King and ACTING as a young King; the former describes his status by circumstance, the latter of how he chooses to deal with or adapt to that circumstance. Vathek, at least in the beginning of the novel, does not ACT as his title should require. He merely enjoys the privileges of his station without suffering the sense of responsibility or duty which merits those privileges. Vathek, in my mind, is simply a spoiled heir (I believe the proper British term is "wastrel")who happens to be technically King, but does not act in that capacity.
ReplyDeleteI disagree a little in the sense that I did not completely not like Vathek from the very beggining. I think that him being a king at such a young age got to his mind a little which is why he comes off the way he does; concieded, and caught up in his own wealth. However, I don't think that he is a bad character. In fact, I think that a big part of his character comes from his upbringing with his mother who to me seems like the root of evil. His surroundings is what caused him to be the way he is more so than his immature age.
ReplyDelete