Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.06 AVERAGE
3.06 AVERAGE
challenging
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Genuinely cannot believe that people in the Georgian era were unable to sleep after reading this (the girls from Northhanger Abbey for example). It was all very silly with a variety of too convenient plot twists but I suppose it does deserve some credit for being the first gothic novel.
ALSO the fake authors note where Horace pretends to have found the manuscript was hilarious as was the second when he admits the lie.
ALSO the fake authors note where Horace pretends to have found the manuscript was hilarious as was the second when he admits the lie.
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I made it halfway through, but then ended up reading the rest as a plot summary on Wikipedia.
Sigh. I was curious about the book, considering its historical significance, but this ish truly was badly written. And the plot awful. I could take one or the other, but not both.
Thought since it was so short I would read the whole thing. Could not be done.
There still is historical value to it, mind you. Worth checking out at least.
Sigh. I was curious about the book, considering its historical significance, but this ish truly was badly written. And the plot awful. I could take one or the other, but not both.
Thought since it was so short I would read the whole thing. Could not be done.
There still is historical value to it, mind you. Worth checking out at least.
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I am certain that had I been assigned this tiny book in Highschool in my senior year, I would have loved it. Here we have a strange tale that is not at all scary, with delightful gothic elements. When betrothed Isabella’s fiancée is suddenly killed by a mysterious Uber helmet, her (previous) father in law to be tries to force her to marry him. The rest of the night is spent with helpful spirits, skeletons, and the reveal of a secret that unfolds the true desires behind Manfred’s attempted new marriage. Link about the real castle: https://janeaustenslondon.com/2016/07/13/the-real-castle-of-otranto/ The Real Castle of Otranto | Jane Austen's London
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
First read 10/2023, reread 07/2025
The introduction to the Oxford World's Classics edition is fantastic, providing a background to the Gothic genre as a whole (the fall of Rome, classical style replaced by mediaeval, the construction of English/Whig identity in both tyranny and the resistance thereof, the veneration of melancholy) and to the book (Walpole's political career, his alteration of and love for Strawberry Hill House, the threat of losing both home and fortune). My only real critique is its dismissal of queer readings.
As for Otranto itself, I definitely enjoyed it much more the second time around. It's necessary on the one hand to abandon all experience of the genre and delight in the shadowy underground, the secret passages, the ghosts prophesying doom, and on the other hand to bypass cynicism and read it with camp delight. Since I first read it I've seen Vincent Price in The Fall of the House of Usher (1960), which is exactly the look of the thing, all cardboard and styrofoam. Price would make for a pretty good Manfred, and Theodore in the underground cloister is perfectly, exactly The Princess Bride-era Carey Elwes. The dialogue between Manfred, Jaquez, and Diego is only quite funny (and perhaps a little tiresome) on the page, but imagine it staged, with the appropriate gesturing and arm-waving, and it would be really quite funny. It's all very theatrical, and the influence of Shakespeare on the plot is plain to see. Unfortunately, my enjoyment waned as it dragged on, until by the end I was quite glad to be done with it, although I think that was mostly me. I'm glad I revisited it.
The introduction to the Oxford World's Classics edition is fantastic, providing a background to the Gothic genre as a whole (the fall of Rome, classical style replaced by mediaeval, the construction of English/Whig identity in both tyranny and the resistance thereof, the veneration of melancholy) and to the book (Walpole's political career, his alteration of and love for Strawberry Hill House, the threat of losing both home and fortune). My only real critique is its dismissal of queer readings.
As for Otranto itself, I definitely enjoyed it much more the second time around. It's necessary on the one hand to abandon all experience of the genre and delight in the shadowy underground, the secret passages, the ghosts prophesying doom, and on the other hand to bypass cynicism and read it with camp delight. Since I first read it I've seen Vincent Price in The Fall of the House of Usher (1960), which is exactly the look of the thing, all cardboard and styrofoam. Price would make for a pretty good Manfred, and Theodore in the underground cloister is perfectly, exactly The Princess Bride-era Carey Elwes. The dialogue between Manfred, Jaquez, and Diego is only quite funny (and perhaps a little tiresome) on the page, but imagine it staged, with the appropriate gesturing and arm-waving, and it would be really quite funny. It's all very theatrical, and the influence of Shakespeare on the plot is plain to see. Unfortunately, my enjoyment waned as it dragged on, until by the end I was quite glad to be done with it, although I think that was mostly me. I'm glad I revisited it.
Sentía mucha curiosidad por leer esta al ser considerada la primera dentro de la literatura gótica.
Su lectura me ha resultado muy amena, ágil y con un ritmo adecuado que se mantiene a lo largo de sus páginas.
Considero que su punto más débil son los personajes ya que tienen unas actitudes un tanto infantiles y desde mi punto de vista no están todo lo desarrollados que podrían estar. Aún así hay que tener en cuenta la época en la que está escrita la novela y que los lectores ya tenemos muchos libros leídos a nuestras espaldas por lo que nos fijamos más en esos detalles.
La ambientación me ha encantado, se reconocen fácilmente todos esos elementos que forman la base de la literatura gótica y el terror de hoy en día, a pesar de que este último y concepto sobrenatural pasen de puntillas en esta novela con una ligera presencia.
El castillo de Otranto ha conseguido que sienta aún más curiosidad por la evolución del género desde esta obra hasta nuestros días.
Su lectura me ha resultado muy amena, ágil y con un ritmo adecuado que se mantiene a lo largo de sus páginas.
Considero que su punto más débil son los personajes ya que tienen unas actitudes un tanto infantiles y desde mi punto de vista no están todo lo desarrollados que podrían estar. Aún así hay que tener en cuenta la época en la que está escrita la novela y que los lectores ya tenemos muchos libros leídos a nuestras espaldas por lo que nos fijamos más en esos detalles.
La ambientación me ha encantado, se reconocen fácilmente todos esos elementos que forman la base de la literatura gótica y el terror de hoy en día, a pesar de que este último y concepto sobrenatural pasen de puntillas en esta novela con una ligera presencia.
El castillo de Otranto ha conseguido que sienta aún más curiosidad por la evolución del género desde esta obra hasta nuestros días.
Good story, but I have to rate low because Warpole called Mary Wollstonecraft “a hyena in petticoats”
2.5 - that moment when a spooky big ass knight helmet crushes you to death
Actual rating: 3.5 stars.
This was surprisingly not terrible, lol. I read it as part of a study of Gothic literature, this being the progenitor of the genre. Before anything else, I think it's important to remember that this book was first published in 1764. People say, yeah, yeah, it's an old classic, but I don't know if people realize what that means. 1764 means a good decade before the start of the American Revolutionary War; it means Jane Austen would not yet be born for another couple of decades; it means a long-ass time ago. So, if the plot seems unoriginal, maybe that's due to the downsides of producing an entire genre of stories and influencing other genres in addition, rather than lack of originality on the writer's part. I think if you love all of the Gothic things, you can't help but love this book a little when you read it. At least that's how I felt.
Was I terrified? Definitely not, but that doesn't mean I couldn't appreciate the deliciously gloomy melodrama that suffuses every chapter. The preface to the story claims that this it is "a translation of a mysterious Italian tale from the darkest Middle Ages," which true or false, begins the story by tapping that most attractive feature of legends: the possibility that it really did happen. What follows is a very readable, mostly quick-paced story involving a suspiciously hasty wedding, a giant murderous helmet, an ancient prophecy, a tyrannical patriarch of "exquisite villany," haunted portraits, "spectres," lamp-lit flights through castle stairways and subterraneous passages, secret trapdoors, dramatic rays of moonlight, strategic claps of thunder, secret identities revealed, a magic sword, silent knights, brave and clever princesses, loyal female friendship, and, of course, star-crossed lovers! It's not a perfect book by any means, and I think this would indeed work better as a play, or movie, but it sure was a fun read.
This was surprisingly not terrible, lol. I read it as part of a study of Gothic literature, this being the progenitor of the genre. Before anything else, I think it's important to remember that this book was first published in 1764. People say, yeah, yeah, it's an old classic, but I don't know if people realize what that means. 1764 means a good decade before the start of the American Revolutionary War; it means Jane Austen would not yet be born for another couple of decades; it means a long-ass time ago. So, if the plot seems unoriginal, maybe that's due to the downsides of producing an entire genre of stories and influencing other genres in addition, rather than lack of originality on the writer's part. I think if you love all of the Gothic things, you can't help but love this book a little when you read it. At least that's how I felt.
Was I terrified? Definitely not, but that doesn't mean I couldn't appreciate the deliciously gloomy melodrama that suffuses every chapter. The preface to the story claims that this it is "a translation of a mysterious Italian tale from the darkest Middle Ages," which true or false, begins the story by tapping that most attractive feature of legends: the possibility that it really did happen. What follows is a very readable, mostly quick-paced story involving a suspiciously hasty wedding, a giant murderous helmet, an ancient prophecy, a tyrannical patriarch of "exquisite villany," haunted portraits, "spectres," lamp-lit flights through castle stairways and subterraneous passages, secret trapdoors, dramatic rays of moonlight, strategic claps of thunder, secret identities revealed, a magic sword, silent knights, brave and clever princesses, loyal female friendship, and, of course, star-crossed lovers! It's not a perfect book by any means, and I think this would indeed work better as a play, or movie, but it sure was a fun read.