The story behind Fredric’s past seemingly represents a negative perspective of royalty and kingdoms as a whole. While Fredric himself, fights for his honnor and his bloodline to have his daughter returned to him, we learn that Isabella’s relevance to Manfred was completely built upon a dark temptation. At the beginning of chapter three, specifically on pages 57-58, we learn that Isabella had guardians that we’re bribed by Manfred in order to get closer to Isabella. He wanted to tempt her into marrying his son, but for more than believing his son was his prodigy and successor. We learn that he knew that Isabella’s father was the true Heir to the throne as he was directly related to Alfonso himself. So he intended to have his son marry her so he may take over the rule of all of Otranto, and by extent, Manfred would have all the power he wanted. Presumably, the author made this fixed wedding as a parallel to how he saw royalty at the time. He must have seen them as one rich family trying to sway those beneath them to do their biding in a quest for everlasting power. From a modern day perspective, his interpretation seems like a cliche of a pure evil villain that wants nothing but power and world domination. Overall, the brief details about the arrangements for Isabella’s wedding to Conrad actually adds a whole new layer to how the author felt about the political ruling at the time of writting the novel.
I totally agree. This really opens up your eyes to how corrupt royals could be. While still trying to portray that they were above other people , even going as far as to call others peasants or speak down to them.
As we know Manfred has been defined as selfish from chapter one. We know he would not do something unless it benefitted him. That is really sad as he could be so cruel. I agree with “the brief details about the arrangements for Isabella’s wedding to Conrad actually adds a whole new layer to how the author felt about the political ruling at the time of writting the novel.” as the author may have thought about the common things rulers could do to usurp power and so maybe he did have a plot like this. It could also be possible Manfred was characterized as so cruel because during those times rulers only cared about an heir, power, and kingdom. They really did not care for anything else.
“It could also be possible Manfred was characterized as so cruel because during those times rulers only cared about an heir, power, and kingdom.”
Yes, it is interesting that throughout most of the book, Manfred maintains his crazed focus on power; no matter what obstacles are thrown at him, he attempts to break them down with sheer will.
You have a good point. I agree that Manfred’s interpretation seems like a cliche of a pure evil villain that wants nothing but power and world domination. Even though Manfred is such a bad guy, he isn’t really different from dictators and kings, as they all want power and can sometimes use unorthodox methods to gain more power.
Interestingly, Christianity and super natural coexist throughout this novel. At the same time that Manfred wants power and control; this is not surprising that given christianity’s code of moral behavior show women as subordinate in that era. Hippolita acknowledges in the novel when she comments “heaven, our fathers and our husbands must decide for us”
As I agree with you about Manfred’s interpretation, I also have to disagree a bit. Since the mindsets of children can be molded by their parents, did the same happen with Manfred? Perhaps he was taught to seek power and domination when he was younger. Living in poverty and living in riches are very big factors when growing up. Growing up in one of these situations makes it hard to understand the other side. Also, Manfred might lack self restraint. Despite being sneaky and evil, he has a bit of a child-like mind, as he wants everything to go his way and plots when they don’t.
Even though Manfred is focused on power and heir. He knows right from wrong. To reiterate what Brian said, that “kids are molded by their parents” But as the child gets older and gain experience and knowledge, they understand morals and doing what should justifiable. Manfred wants more power and with his egotistical ways, he didn’t care who got hurt during the process.
I agree how Manfred can be seen as a cliche evil villain according to modern day perspectives. He has shown us readers that he does not care much about anyone but himself and only cares about who will carry on his legacy after he dies and leaves the Castle. He lets his rage take over and allows it to make decisions for him as shown in the pursuit for Isabella after she rejected him and in the dim moonlit church where he kills his own daughter.
“He lets his rage take over and allows it to make decisions for him”.
The depiction of Manfred as personification of his rage is an interesting point. Manfred succumbs so much to his irrationality that he almost becomes his rage.
I think Manfred is a evil villain. Reason being, this novel mimics damsels in distress, visions, tradegies which were uncivilized. The Gothic essence is an imaginative revolt in those ages.
The spirit of St.Nicholas inspires awe yet at the same time, the almost comical nature of the giant armor and spirit mocks the susceptibility of man to his nature and the pointlessness of his existence. Wallace can almost be heard through his text saying “Give yourself to the Dark Side. It is the only way you can save your friends. Yes, your thoughts betray you. I see through the lies of the Jedi.”(Darth Vader, Sith lord) Life is a lie, a beautiful lie that must be destroyed! Muahahah
Perhaps horror movies are compelling in their portrayal of blood because it appeals to the innate bloodlust in humans, the terrifying everyday acts of humanity personified and given tangible form. It could also be a derivative of Dionysus, god of revelry, wine and bloody acts during revelry, suggesting that as creatures of Chaos, humans desire “revelry”, or wine, more than food and water. In other words, austerity is freeing, yet perhaps revelry is also austerity, in its purging of life. Yet Dionysus is also surrounded by the beauty nature, representing and mocking the dual nature of humanity.
“Oops, accidentally killed some more people. Oh well, the world is overpopulated anyway. We’re due for something drastic, a perfect leader perhaps…”
“From a modern day perspective, his interpretation seems like a cliche of a pure evil villain that wants nothing but power and world domination.”
I agree, evil villains are often portrayed as larger than life but at the end of the story, they too bleed.