Wednesday 27 February 2019

Reader Morality


* Spoiler alert – this post discusses Rebecca, Wuthering Heights, The Phantom of the Opera, and American Psycho and you may find some parts to spoil the plot *

Last year I finally got round to reading Rebecca, and although it wasn’t quite what I was expecting, it is a book that inspires debate. The final quarter is by far the most engaging section of the novel as Rebecca’s murder and true character are revealed. Of course, Maxim’s depiction of her may well be skewed – their marriage did not end well and he’s unlikely to admit to murder in the same breath as praising his deceased wife. There are hints from other characters that suggest she was not as perfect as others would have the new Mrs de Winter to believe. Assuming that we believe Maxim’s tale, does this justify the reader in rooting for him to get away with it? Does the fact we know it’s fiction lessen the moral dilemma? I would argue that we are more accepting of extreme behaviour within the confines of fiction, and yet it can help us to see the world in less black and white simplicity.

The point of view of the narrator will play a large part in our reaction to events. We have witnessed the story unfold through the eyes of Maxim’s new bride and although she is not particularly likable and seems self-centred to the extreme when discovering the sticky end of Rebecca and feeling only relief that she no longer has to live in her shadow. Yet, because we have never met Rebecca except through the reminiscences of other characters, it is easier to side with Maxim. We experience the events through the loving eyes of his new wife and so it is her desire for evading the law that is projected on to the reader.

Often it is either the narrator’s voice that sways us as readers or the knowledge of mistreatment that has led to their otherwise unforgivable actions. Take Heathcliff for example; he behaves abominably through large chunks of Wuthering Heights and yet generations of fans hold him up as a romantic hero or misunderstood man. Popular adaptations lean heavily toward this interpretation, cutting many of his wicked deeds, yet many readings of the novel are also often reluctant to condemn him. Why? Is it because we see his mistreatment at the hands of Hindley and abandonment by Cathy and hold on to the sympathy this evokes? Regardless of this, can we really justify his abuse of the next generation who have done him no harm? Is it fair to look the other way because of childhood trauma? Would we feel the same way if it were real life?

Similarly in The Phantom of the Opera we are led to feel pity for the Phantom. Again, popular adaptations downplay his villainy, but even in the popular musical he kills somebody. In the book he has a torture chamber that we see put to use in horrifying detail, but we are also told that even his own mother would not kiss his head. His rejection is total. This sense of him having been wronged throughout his life through no fault of his own, to begin with at least, encourages us to feel more compassionately toward him. These characters show humans to be much more complex than simply good or bad. We seem to find this almost easier to accept in fiction than in life.

In both Wuthering Heights and The Phantom of the Opera we don’t have the story told to us by the perpetrators themselves but pieced together through other narratives. This suggests that it is knowledge of hardship that plays with our reactions more than the narrative point of view. If we look at a more recent example, American Psycho, we are reading a first person narrative, experiencing crimes in uncomfortable detail, and I can’t imagine many readers making excuses for Patrick Bateman’s actions as we have in the previous examples. Why does he not hold this same ambiguity (for the purpose of this post, let’s assume the crimes are real and not figments of his imagination, as is the belief held throughout the bulk of the book)? Consumerism and the shallow society he lives in seem to be his main driving factors, seeing humans as little more than commodities. This admittedly does not spring from the same abuse that our other examples have endured, yet there is the suggestion that he is mentally ill and therefore not entirely culpable for his actions. Why is this not enough? If we witnessed Heathcliff’s actions against Isabella in similarly gruesome detail would we find it as easy to make excuses for his behaviour? Does Bateman’s lack of regret close him off to us where in others there is some inkling of remorse? Do we need this as something we can relate to on a human level?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on these famous characters, what books have raised moral questions for you, and if the experience translated into altered world views? Let me know in the comments below.  



10 comments:

  1. Maybe we enjoy these characters because we're not supposed to? Because they're different? Or because we see parts of ourselves in them? I believe a good writer makes the reader sympathise with the unsympathetic (and I would argue that Bret Easton Ellis, while a proficient writer, isn't a very nice person, and it comes through in the book. It's difficult to 'like' Bateman, but he is interesting).

    Lolita and the Collector are two of my all time favourite books, but I often question my morals for enjoying them so much. It's like the enjoyment of true crime. Why do people enjoy hearing about real murders? Escapism? Or is it more sinister than that?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it definitely has something to do with knowing that in ourselves we have the good and the bad. If the characters were wholly good or wholly bad they would be unbelievable and therefore unrelatable. It's definitely a skill for the author to create such depth of character that we can sympathise with them even when they behave in ways we wouldn't ordinarily condone.
      It is indeed very difficult to like Bateman, but then again, I don't think the author set out to make us like him.
      I'd never heard of the Collector but just looked it up and it sounds very interesting. Will add it to my to read list, thank you for the tip.
      That feeling of questioning your own morals for liking Lolita is one I've come across before. How do you feel toward the narrator? It's always interesting when it's the perpetrator whose perspective we get.

      Delete
  2. I loathed Wuthering Heights (I thought the characters were reprehensible), tried reading and then listening to Phantom, but gave up, and haven't read the others. Just not my type of books, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wuthering Heights is definitely a divisive book. I love it but I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. Thanks for taking the time to read my blog even though it's on books that don't interest you.

      Delete
  3. You make a good point about Heathcliff. He is a great character and what makes him good is that we know why he does what he does. But it does not justify what he does and how he treats Hareton and Catherine. I wonder if the author intended him to be a romantic hero. Maybe the way he is portrayed in the films has a lot to do with it. But also I find fault with Cathy for her selfish nature and treatment of Heathcliff and the narrator Ellen See (I forget her name) also can be blamed for meddling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's definitely interesting being able to see how his behaviours were formed, but then there's always the unknown of what happened to him before he was brought home by Mr Earnshaw.
      I can't imagine Emily Bronte wanting him to be seen as a romantic hero but then it's hard to know what her intentions were with the novel, possibly part of its appeal. The films definitely play a role in creating a softer image of Heathcliff, not least because many adaptations focus mainly on the first part of the book where he is the victim.
      I agree, Cathy is cruel, and incredibly unkind to Edgar as well as mistreating Heathcliff. I hadn't really thought about Nelly being instrumental in the action so thank you for opening up a new line of thought, I will pay extra attention to her role on my next re-read.

      Delete
  4. I have not Rebecca and can't say anything about it but for the other two, I read them and did not like them. In fact, DNF'd Phantom of The Opera. Loved the movie though (probably because of Gerard Butler). Back to your post. I am all for calling out that kind of behaviour. Something of the same came up in Game of Thrones discussion where I said a character was evil where the character was defended by the fact that there were other who were evil as well. That did not fly with me. In my book, two wrongs do not make a right.

    The same happened in the GrishaVerse when that short story regarding the Darkling's past was released.

    The villainous characters are romanticised so much that we start feeling bad. Maybe that talks of the deepest darkest parts of our own selves.


    Hina Tabassum
    https://hinalovestoread.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the musical too.

      There are definitely a lot of awful characters in Game of Thrones, and I agree it doesn't make it OK just because lots of people are behaving badly.

      Had never heard of GrishaVerse before, will have to look it up.

      Delete
  5. I skipped Rebecca and Phantom as they are in my TBR list but this is a great post. American Psycho makes for some unckmf8rtable reading though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. American Psycho was probably the most difficult book to read I've come across. I'd read it on my way to work and only just about be OK to pick it up again on my way home. Some of my friends said it's worse than the film (which I haven't seen) because something that takes a few seconds on film goes for pages of graphic description in the book.
      I hope you really enjoy Rebecca and Phantom, let me know how you get on with them.

      Delete