Most helpful customer reviews
|
|
3.0 out of 5 stars
Of historical significance only,, Jun 13 2004
By A Customer
Unlike, for example, Beckford's "Vathek" and Radcliffe's "The Italian," "The Monk" is a classic gothic novel that has only historical interest. When he wrote it, Lewis set out to go beyond anything his predecessors and competitors had done in terms of shocking the reader. In that respect, he definitely succeeded -- his book was notorious for over 100 years, and even by today's standards it's an eyebrow-raiser. Illicit sex, torture, rape, murder, satanism (with one real-live demon, no less) are all here, described in "loving" detail. All this sounds more titillating that it really is. Lewis's style is completely conventional, the characters are two-dimensional, and long stretches are quite dull. "The Monk" is worth reading if you have a real interest in classic gothic literature, but otherwise it may be safely by-passed.
|
|
|
1.0 out of 5 stars
Sensationalism passing for a Classic, April 7 2004
This immensely popular gothic novel desperately attempts to overload the senses with scenes of the most graphic, morbid, sexual, and shocking images Lewis could concoct. With no deeper themes than the immensity of temptation's power and the way even a devout man may fall, Lewis' main goal seems to be to make us cringe. Culminating in an incestuous rape and murder scene, the novel just leaves a bad taste in your mouth. In the year of its publication The Monk was a smash hit in England, mostly among upper-class women. It was, in essence, a soap opera of yesterday, with about as much depth as that trite form of entertainment. I do believe that its amazing popularity is its only credit for any continued study, as an historical phenomenon, but not as great literature.Years later Austen would satyrize The Monk and books like it in her Northanger Abbey. I would instead highly recommend (...)to leave The Monk on the shelf.
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
Being authentic/Romantic Zeitgeist/Momento mori, Nov 20 2003
Satan might dread to dwell in his (Lewis') skull for there he might find a deeper hell -- Byron. It wasn't as graphic and eroticly descriptive as one might be lead to believe by the reviews here; although for it's time apparently it was. The narratives were a bit tedious, dialogue was good, it was a solid story and was worthily meaningful. It seemed to advocate, somewhat in the line of Rousseauian/Romantic thinking that people are born with natures and should endeavor to find and live their authentic selves; society should not chain people to custom, tradition, or have abusive power. I didn't see it as whole hearted anti-Catholic or anti-Christian attack as I saw it as an attack on power and superstition, which not all religious people subscribe to; however it did point to the Romantic notion of there being a higher virtue present in nature it is just a matter of finding one's authentic nature (symptomatic of having one's feelings and actions in harmony). It was in-line with the Romantic/Humanist zeitgeist. The Monk, as the author points out, knew only the life of a monk, from birth, but as the author directly states his nature was something entirely un-monkish which was the root of the problem and the door for which demons could enter (in Lewisfs thinking). Once his authentic nature was awakened he became a threat because he had inauthentic powers which the demons were all too willing to utilize (his inauthentic powers which Romanitic/Humanists wanted to rid the world of); a few other characters are forced into these inauthentic lives as well by corupt uses of power. The hero is someone who is not wrapped in superstition but uses a disguise to hide his power (money/title) so he can know people for who they really are and not have money infringe upon human relationships, he is a Romantic-humanist who proves more virtuous than the church people; his feelings and actions were in harmony and he was not ruled by superstition. The demons are those who enjoy deception and portraying themselves as something they are not, they are the posers and inauthentic peoples who prey on people who are not who they are (and whose feelings and actions are in disharmony) by accident, choice, or vanity, greed, what have you. Some good monks and nuns are described, however, so it was not a whole hearted attack on religion per say; as some reviewers seem to imply.
The gypsy? Why does the author have her who she is? She mocks those that are not who they are with gleeful joy, she sees the precipice of hell and dances near it to envoke the anger of demons and mock them, she tells people who they really are, but she is no demon, she asks for money openly and tells it like it is, she even warns people by her manner that to be near her is to unveil disguises, so beaware of the truth -- the truth can be funny, that is what separates comedians (a high art) from clowns. Theodorious disguises himself out of love for his master his intentions are entirely different, his intentions are purely of the heart. The book supports Rousseau's ideas and is in-line with Romantic thinking of the time that society should not place people in chains and perhaps supports Rousseau's statement (in one of the most controversial statements ever and is really the root of public education) gthat people must be forced to be free.hObviously the Monk has many candidates whose lives might be made happier under such a standard A solid book, if it is taken in the right spirit. A literary momento mori in several places as well. It was also interesting that it was written by a nineteen year old. A definite advocation for the Romantic/Humanist Natural Man of Rousseau, Jefferson (he wrote a Bible with all the miracles taken out and the Constitution, by-the-way), Beethoven, Byron etc. A fine work of its genra and era. It is easy to see how personal these ideas must have been in Lewis' life and the the choices he was going to undertake, plus the particular situation of his mother and father's relationship as he was growing up. Some see contradiction between this book and Lewis' stance against slavery. Slavery, in the Protestant world, was largely justified by religious superstition, Lewis' heroes are obviously not superstitious; so I see no contradiction. It must be remembered that Jefferson, Rousseau, Beethoven, Washington, Byron etc. had much more in common with Jerry Garcia than Jerry Fallwell.
|
|
|
Most recent customer reviews
|
by Ann Radcliffe
by Horace Walpole
