“Gothic writing warns of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations”. How far does your reading of gothic writing support this view?

Throughout gothic writing, there are many protagonists who are presented as extremely ambitious; they are characters who aspire beyond the limitations imposed upon them by society and religion. Often, they appear to succeed. They appear to achieve their aims, which could interpreted as an encouragement of such behaviour. However, by the end of each text, it becomes clear that success does not follow their aspirations. In many cases, they are punished for revolting against their restraints, which would lead to the interpretation that gothic writing warns against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations.

   In The Pardoner’s Tale, the eponymous protagonist is presented as aspiring beyond his limitations within the Church system so that he can satiate his extreme greed. Throughout the entire tale, he portrays himself and his role as more important than it actually is: “myn heigh power”; “suffisant pardoner”. He even tells his audience that it is an “honour” to have him there, which connotes how he has elevated his sense of self-worth and importance within the Church. The Pardoner in this text aspires beyond the limitations imposed by the role, as he arrogantly believes he has the “auctoritee” to absolve people of their sins for his own “covetise”. Initially, it appears Chaucer is warning against the Pardoner’s ambitious nature, and highlighting the dangers of what he does to break his limitations. At the end of poem, the Host challenges the Pardoner’s hypocrisy and even threatens to “kutte of” parts of his body. This attack causes the Pardoner to lose his voice- “answerde nat a word”; “no word ne wolde he seye”- which is arguably the most powerful tool he has in the manipulation of his audience. For him to lose his voice, which he has been using to extort money from the “lewed” audience, could be considered a loss of his absolute power, and even a punishment for his actions. Thus, it could be interpreted that Chaucer is warning against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations, for it appears that the Pardoner receives his comeuppance for his aspirations.

   However, a much greater interpretation connotes that the Pardoner is not punished at all. Due to the Knight’s intervention, the Host stops challenging the Pardoner. They “kiste” and ignored what just happened, presumably carrying on as normal as they “riden forth hir weye” towards Canterbury. The Pardoner’s extreme “avarice”, and desire to satiate his “covetise”, appears to have gone unpunished. The only person to challenge him, and bring him some form of retribution, is silenced by the Knight. Thus, it could be argued that Chaucer is not warning of the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations- the Pardoner lives on without any penalties, despite doing so. Rather, it appears that Chaucer may actually be reflecting a deteriorating and fallen world. He appears to be satirically highlighting the corruption of the Catholic Church: an inverted religious institution where a desire to “winne” is more important than the “correccion of sinne”, as well as one where no one is willing to challenge the corruption that is so prevalent in society.

  Lady Macbeth is presented as having greater ambitions than the Pardoner when she aspires beyond the societal limitations of a woman in the Jacobean era. She seeks to defy the authority of God as she attempts to change everything which makes her human: “stop up… access to remorse”; “fill me… of direst cruelty”. This is a character who appears unable to accept her humanity, rejecting it in favour of "gall" and evil. Rather than abide by God’s authority and accept who she is, she aspires beyond that. She wants to connect with the “murdering ministers” and lose any human emotion which may affect the ruthless pragmatism she uses to plot Duncan’s murder. Initially, she appears to succeed in doing so, which would allow one to argue that Shakespeare is encouraging her ambitious nature. Before the act of regicide, she is able to use her powerful influence to control Macbeth. Once he was “strong against the deed”, but after being manipulated by his wife, it is clear he has become “settled” on murdering him. Her aspirations appear to have been rewarded in this scene. Aspiring to completely reject her humanity, which is best exemplified when she reveals she would “dashed the brains out” of her own child, has allowed her to be pragmatic and manipulate her husband. She has been rewarded with success and power over her husband, which infers that this text is encouraging a desire to break limitations.

  However, a much greater reading suggests that Shakespeare is not praising her ambitions; rather, he appears to be highlighting the dangers of them. At the end of the play, she is presented as succumbing to a guilt that is destroying her. Her sanity appears to be decaying as she begins sleepwalking, which suggests that she is lacking inner peace and rest. She realises “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten my little hand” or wash away her guilt. Whereas before she believed “a little water clears us of this deed”, her strong character has broken down so that she keeps re-living the “so much blood” from Duncan’s murder. It could be argued that this guilt is a form of punishment for her earlier acts of transgression. Thus, it appears that Shakespeare is warning of the dangers of her aspirations. Whilst she initially appears to be rewarded with the success of being able to overpower Macbeth, it is clear that her aspirations are punished with guilt later in the play.

  Frankenstein, the titular protagonist from Shelley’s novel, is presented as having the greatest desire to pass beyond his limitations. His ambitions are much grander than those of Lady Macbeth and The Pardoner. During the creation of his Creature, he imagines a future where a “new species will bless me as its creator”, when he is the “source” of a new type of life. The use of biblical terms such as “creator” and “source” suggest that Frankenstein is a character aspiring to reach a God-like status, and gain the absolute power associated with that. This extremely ambitious character seeks to break the “ideal bounds” of life and death and discover the “secrets of life”. This arcane knowledge would have been considered by an 1800s reader as only belonging to God. Frankenstein’s aspirations to discover it may have been considered an arrogant usurpation of God’s role, and certainly reaching beyond his limits. Furthermore, he desires to create this being because the “wisest men” from history were unable to do it. Not only does he aspire to a God-like status, he also seeks to become the best of humanity. This extreme ambition appears to be followed by success, which leads to the interpretation that this novel does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond your limitations. He creates the Creature, succeeding in his goals. His ambitious “endeavours” have led to the greatest scientific discovery imaginable, and his “ardent” curiosity is satiated as he finally discovers nature’s “secrets”. Thus, it could be argued this gothic novel is encouraging Frankenstein’s aspirations, for he appears to have been rewarded with the success of a God-like status.

  However, a much greater reading would suggest that Frankenstein does not reach this God-like status at all. In what is a complete reversal of the relationship between God and Satan in Paradise Lost, where the creator (God) has power over his creation, Frankenstein is presented as controlled by his own creation. The Creature later labels Frankenstein as a “slave”, and himself the “master”. Despite being Frankenstein’s ‘child’, it is clear the dynamics of this relationship have been inverted so that it is the Creature who “have power” over his maker  The absolute power in this relationship lies with the Creature, and Frankenstein has no choice but to “obey” his demands. Moreover, the Creature’s murderous rampage, which leaves characters such as William and Elizabeth dead, causes much “anguish” for Frankenstein- and Frankenstein is powerless to stop it. It appears that Frankenstein’s ambitions only lead to “slavery” and "anguish", not to the God-like status he sought after. Thus, it could be interpreted that Shelley is warning against aspiring beyond our limitations, for it brings nothing but death and misery to this transgressive protagonist.

   Some gothic protagonists, namely the Pardoner, do escape punishment and retribution for aspiring beyond his limitations, which suggests that gothic writing does not warn against the dangers of aspiring beyond our limitations. However, it is clear that the ambitious characters of these texts are presented as more punished, facing greater retribution for their actions than they do rewards. Their aspirations often lead to mental torment and pain, not success. If these characters face such serious consequences for aspiring beyond their limitations, it can thus be argued that Gothic writing warns against the dangers of such behaviour. With the exception of the Pardoner, ambition is rarely encouraged as it does not lead to rewards or success in gothic writing. 

To what extent do you agree that the presentation of The Pardoner is more terrifying than horrifying?

In Chaucer’s The Pardoner’s Tale, there are many aspects of the eponymous narrator’s presentation that creates terror for the reader. Whether it is his power over the other Pilgrims, his hypocrisy or his sacrilegious behaviour, Chaucer appears to be creating a mysterious terror about The Pardoner. We cannot help but question everything about him. Whilst terror is created from the uncertainty about his character, it is also clear that horror is inspired from what we actually do know, such as his disregard for Church values, selfishness and hypocrisy.

Chaucer presents The Pardoner as the most powerful character in this poem, which may evoke a sense of terror and apprehension from the reader. This narrator’s true power lies in his knowledge and command of language. The Pardoner openly admits to using Latin to “saffron with my predicacioun” as well as biblical allusions “of victories in the Olde testament” to preserve his authority. This knowledge and control of language naturally gives the character a certain superiority; a power over his vulnerable audience. He often describes them as “lewd” and, for one Pilgrim, “noght his propre name”. This infers the idea that knowledge has elevated him above his “doun yset” audience. A sense of terror may be evoked as the reader questions how he came to gain this power and whether there is a limit to his commanding demeanour. However, a contrasting reading suggests that the dominating presentation of the Pardoner evokes much more horror. This feeling of immense horror and abhorrence may stem from his “principal entente”: to exploit. He repeatedly states that “myn entente” is to “winne silver” and become wealthy. The repetition of “myn” and “I” certainly emphasise his egocentric nature, and his sole concern for “myn” wealth is evidenced as he takes advantage of other people’s fears, such as having “doon sinne horrible”, to swindle money. Thus, the reader may be horrified as they realise that The Pardoner’s great power is not used responsibly. In fact, it is used in a repulsively selfish manner that completely defies the societal expectations of a religious preacher in the 1300s, who were expected to live generous lives helping out the poor.

The characterisation of the Pardoner is presented as more horrifying when the hypocrisy about him is fully introduced. His tale is arguably the most moral in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, and the Pardoner even states his theme is “radix malorum est Cupiditas”. This would naturally imply the Pardoner is a self-restrained man who attempts to avoid the temptation of money. The use of apostrophe “o glotonye” initially appears to emphasise his dramatic opposition to the concept of greed, which is “ful of cursedness”. Nevertheless, Chaucer presents him as more like the antithesis of a temperate clergyman. The Pardoner openly admits to the hypocrisy which defines his character: he is “gilty of the sinne”, practicing the “same vice” which he preaches against. His “theme” constantly juxtaposes with his avaricious nature. It does not matter whether someone is the “poverest page” or a vulnerable child about to die of “famine”. The Pardoner “wol have” money from them all, which presents him as extremely greedy, as well as hypocritical. It could be argued that terror is created from these opposing representations of the Pardoner. We as readers may be left in anticipation and thrilled by the fact he continues to get away with it. His hypocrisy could attract our interest as we desire to know whether his greed will be punished. However, a much greater interpretation would suggest that this hypocrisy inspires horror rather than terror. For a Medieval reader, the hypocritical Pardoner may serve as an abhorrent symbol of the corruption of the Catholic Church in 1300s England. It may horrify, rather than terrify, to see how a Pardoner is capable of using religion dishonestly (not for “correccioun”)  in order to extort “pens and grotes” from the vulnerable in society.

Chaucer’s presentation of the Pardoner is at its most horrifying when his sacrilegious behaviour, and utter dismissal of Church values, become apparent. Despite swearing to a life of celibacy, the Pardoner will have a “joly wenche in every toun”. With fake “bulles of popes”, the Pardoner abuses his position as a Pardoner to make money, when he should have sworn to a life of poverty. He is presented as utterly dismissing all church principles: he cares “nothing for the correccioun of sinne”. His only goal is “but for coveitise”, which further connotes that he is devoid of all religious and moral values. Hell and sin were seen as very real concepts which frightened many readers in Medieval England. Yet, The Pardoner remains indifferent to it so long as he has “wonne” his money. This may create a sense of terror for the reader as we eagerly await whether this corrupt character will ever learn from his moral tale about the “dampnable” company, or from his sermon concerning figures like Stilboun and Attilla. By the end of the poem, we are left unsure as to whether he ever will repent from his self-confessed “avarice”. However, a much stronger reading suggests that his reckless behaviour would horrify many readers. It is appalling to see how he values money in contrast to his own eternal life and humanity. He understands that greed caused humanity to fall from “Paradise to wo” and that it has corrupted many authoritative figures “lasse in reputacioun”. Yet, he is willing to remain ignorant to this insight, as well as all religious values, in order to satisfy his gluttonous “vice”. To “winne silver”. This presents him as excessively greedy and inverted in all his values, and this is where the most horror stems from within his presentation. 

The Pardoner is a character capable of inspiring a thrilling sense of terror. We are left uncertain about many aspects of his character: the limits on his powerful use of language and knowledge; if he can continue to get away with his crimes and whether he finally learn from his own tale by the end of the narrative. However, it is clear that the Pardoner’s presentation is, in fact, more horrifying than terrifying. His exploitative intentions to gain as much money as possible, his hypocrisy and his disregard for Church values all serve to create abhorrence for the reader. Chaucer’s presentation of The Pardoner stimulates more horror as they steadily realise how corrupt and greedy this abhorrent character is.