Talk:The Monk

Comment

No longer a stub apparently though still invites expansion. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction?

"It is also the first book to feature a priest as the villain." Schedoni, the villain in 'The Italian' by Ann Radcliffe, is also a priest. Both novels were publisched in 1796. Which one appeared first? --85.60.4.173 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Monk appeared first and was a direct influence on Radcliffe's The Italian. Colin4C (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Feminism' of Lewis' - POV?

The whole section on 'Anti-Feminism' is absurdly anachronistic and written by some militant lefty. Lewis cannot be judged by the 21-st-century standards of PC. He is no more 'anti-feminist' than any 18th-century male writer and indeed less than many. The very fact that Agnes is seen by him as marriageable after having an illegitimate baby by other man than her would-be husband, is exteremely 'progressive' in the society where girls who had lost their virginity before marriage would be routinely jailed. Never read 'Tom Jones' by Fielding?212.13.96.18 (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

While it appears this section is original research (cites the book itelf rather than any critical source) I have to say there is a distinctly "anti-feminist" - for lack of a better term - slant to the novel. Agnes is punished for wanting to escape a loopy family, Matilda is a frickin' demon, and every woman over 30 is either stupidly wrong about damn near everything (Elvira's only moment of getting something right is realizing Ambrosio wants to do her daughter) or psychopathically vindictive (the prioress) or both (Agnes's aunt). I'd say including some commentary on this is warranted but it should definitely be sourced. If we can have long digressions on anti-semitism in the Gogol or Dostoevsky pages (also fair for its day) we can certainly include Lewis's lady-issues. Bardam0 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Said section seems indeed to be another lamentable example of a PC-motivated projection, rather than an analysis, let alone a scientific one. "women are seen to cause the downfall of other women" hardly serves as an argument! And it gets worse: "while The Monk ends with weddings, this does not mean happy endings for the women". Oh dear! Again, projection instead of logic, of analysis. Most of the characters of the novel end up unhappy, regardless of their gender. Isn't it the male protagonist who meets with the worst fate of all while Mathilda is saved from being burned at the stake? Besides, the figure of the female temptress who leads even a devout cleric to debauchery is not an invention of Lewis, but a hoary stock figure. As is the naive and innocent damsel in distress, by the way. Feminist it is not. But to misinterpret this as "anti-feminist" is indeed laughable, especially since we're dealing with a novel of the 18th century. If Lewis had portrayed women who attempt independence as despicalbe, then the anti-feminist label would be justified and appropriate. Again fashionable categories of the 21 century are being forced on historical literature, and the result is bizarre, as usual (reminds me of "socialist" readings of world literature common in eastern block countries at the time of the cold war). I assume that the author of the section on "anti-feminism" knows nothing about Lewis' other works or his life. A possible solution could instead be to stress the fact that the novel reproduces anti-modern stock charcters in its ambition to portray a makedly anti-modern society (= the catholic society of Spain which is possibly meant to symbolize catholicism in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.241.36 (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't judge the contents of this section, but "anti-feminist" clearly makes no sense. There was no feminism at the time, so nobody was able to be anti-feminist. I believe there is a simple established word for what is actually meant: "mysogynist".92.231.241.187 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Mary Godwin

I'm going to go ahead and tag this article as POV and OR. Two of the key issues are the heavy use of the book itself as a citation in the "Anti-feminist"/"misogynist" and "blurred gender roles" sections and the fact that the article introduces someone's opinion as fact (rather than "some critics have argued that..." we just get "this book is..."). I haven't read the book, nor am I an expert in literary criticism, but I also can't help but wonder if undue weight is being given here too... GoddersUK (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit to ping Bardam0 who was one of the above commenters (albeit a long, long time ago). GoddersUK (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Politics aside

The anti-feminist and gender sections are idiosyncratic academic readings, and shouldn't be presented as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.254.235 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

See my comment in the above section re POV and OR GoddersUK (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Influence

Isn't this novel chiefly significant for spawning the gothic genre (amongst various others?). I could have done with some more info on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.177 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)