Talk:Gothic fiction

Schauerliteratur (Schauerroman) and its inclusion in this article
In order to separate this particular issue, I am opening this subsection. I am firmly against removal of examples of Schauerliteratur from this article, as most scientific studies and books on the subject refer to this either as German alternative word for "gothic fiction" ("gotische literatur" is rarely used in German language, even for English gothic novels) or, at least, for the late-18th/early-19th century German variant of gothic fiction. Even the German wiki page on "gothic fiction" uses the term "Schauerliteratur": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schauerliteratur StjepanHR (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

German wiki articles refering to famous gothic novels as "Schauerroman/literatur": As we can see from the article on Melmoth the Wanderer, the German speakers simply use the term as an alternative to "gothic novel".StjepanHR (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_(Roman)
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udolphos_Geheimnisse
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Schloss_von_Otranto
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melmoth_der_Wanderer (refered to as "der beste englischsprachige Schauerroman", or "the best English language Schauerroman")
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(Roman)
 * The first sentence eliminated in your most recent reversion was "It was not merely in literature that a medieval revival made itself felt, and this too contributed to a culture ready to accept a perceived medieval work in 1764." -which was first Retrieved 26 MARCH 2016! Must you take a sledge hammer to everyone's work? Manannan67 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, I was reverting to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_fiction&oldid=1034391145 StjepanHR (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And must You remove everything me and other users contributed over the years, with all the relevant literature cited? P.S. As much as I see, the sentnce YOu have mentioned is still in the version I have revertd back to. StjepanHR (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If Schauerliteratur is nothing more than the German for Gothic Literature its inclusion would appear to contribute little to this page, particularly since none of the authors referred to in the German section of this article are mentioned in Schauerliteratur. Schiller's The Robbers is part of the " Sturm und Drang " movement. He himself is identified with Weimar Classicism. Manannan67 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The German article was probably created before this one was expanded and the German creators haven't updated it. As for the rauber- and ritterroman, the reorganization of this article some time ago resulted in some sentences not being clearly referenced, see here for the references for each statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_fiction&oldid=805439827 . Source for The Robbers is "Popular Revenants: The German Gothic and Its International Reception, 1800–2000" and are mentioned more as a general influence on Rauberroman(bandit novel), which the authors consider to be sometimes close to "gothic novel", depending on the theme (bandits were also present in British gothic novel). It doesn't matter if Schiller belonged to the Sturm und Drang, he wrote The Ghost Seer, which is undisputed gothic novel/Scauerroman. His "membership" is Sturm and Drang is not a synonym with "didn't write Schauerroman". StjepanHR (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Ghost Seer is Horrorliteratur, as is Spiess' Das Petermännchen. It is apparent that Schauerroman is being used for a synonym for "English Gothic literature" and doesn't even discuss German literature. As such, it is immaterial. Schwarze Romantik might be somewhat related, but that is discussed elsewhere. Popular Revenants is Cusack, and he says, "Benedikte Naubert's novel Hermann of Unna (1788) is seen as being very close to the Schauerroman genre" which would seem to suggest that he sees it as a separate genre. So, either it's identical, in which case, it adds nothing; or it's something related, but different, in which case it only needs a very brief mention. If there were a comparable article, as there is for the French Fantastique, it would be easier just to link to it. (Please note the discussion above that both the architecture and and the Female Gothic sections are too large. Your overly exuberant reversions also undid any cleanup in those areas.)Manannan67 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

First the Schauerliteratur article is invoked apparently to justify a listing of German authors in an article on Gothic Literature. Then when it appears that article does not mention any German authors, it is supposed that it just hasn't recently been updated. This is nonsense. The German authors were listed here in late 2018. The Germanwiki article was last updated in March of this year. There was ample opportunity to include them if the editors wished to. Clearly those over on Germanwiki see the Schauerliteratur article as a discussion of ENGLISH Gothic Literature. Manannan67 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Weighing in briefly as someone who has studied the Gothic -- I have always learned Schauerroman as the German term for gothic novels, which directly influenced or were even the source for the English gothic tradition in the 1790s. The various German gothics are, to my understanding, a subcategory of Gothic similar to the way Southern Gothic is a subcategory of Gothic -- the sort of topic that merits its own article and also some coverage here. I also think it's important to give enough space to the Schauerroman that we don't imply that the Gothic is a solely British phenomenon; the British themselves, in the 1790s, often considered it a foreign phenomenon entering Britain from Germany or France. All of which supports StjepanHR's arguments about the gothic. However, in terms of writing a useful article: given the very broad topic of "Gothic fiction" (which, given the inclusion of poetry, should perhaps be "Gothic literature"?) the only feasible approach to this article would seem to be having a few paragraphs on each chronological or geographical subcategory, linking outward to the full article on each. Frankly, even the current section on Walpole, Reeve, etc, could perhaps be reduced here and mostly covered in an article on British Gothic novels in the 18thC. The categories themselves should probably be sourced to an overall history of the Gothic, of which there are very many (one of the reasons I have not attempted these edits myself...). Much of the current material in the article seems odd in its emphasis, and often "narrativizes" a great deal, while also leaving out important information like the discourse of horror vs terror, the relation to supernatural superstition broadly (eg EJ Clery's Rise of Supernatural Fiction), the role of the gothic in feminist & queer studies, etc. Even though I agree with StjepanHR that Schauerroman is a synonym for Gothic novel, overall I am in favor of a simplification of the current article along the lines of what Manannan67 is doing, with details being moved outward to more specific articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank You for Your opinion, L. I think we should maybe do the following:
 * reduce the sections of individual writers in "Early Gothic romances" sections and move the content to the individual authors' pages.
 * leave the section "Contemporary developments in Germany, France and Russia" as it is
 * delete the list in "Matthew Lewis and the turn of the 19th century", after making sure that alllof them are lsited in the related List of gothic fiction works page, which I have created many years ago
 * leave the next few sections as it is
 * reduce Other media and move it to the Gothic film page, AFTER making sure none of the content is lost
 * maybe create new article for "Elements of Gothic fiction"? StjepanHR (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Early Gothic Romance section
I have reverted this section to the last version by Manannan67, double checking that no info is lost. I have removed the table, but feel free to put it back, if both of you (Mannannan and L.) think it is better that way. Also, I would like to hear both of your opinion on wheather the table in Matthew Lewis and the turn of the 19th century should be left or removed? StjepanHR (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it does not appear to be restored to my last edit, as it currently reflects neither the improved chronology nor 's very helpful organization and summation of the Elements. Manannan67 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is, only I forgot to move one paragraph to "Otranto" page (my mistake), the sections on Reeve and Radcliffe are like your last edit. Of course, we can't move everything to your last edit at the same time, it is important not to lose any information. Just be patient and most of the article would be reorganised. StjepanHR (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually you can. You could've done a simple rollback of your edits. Nothing is lost, since if it isn't here, it's at the Main|Dark Romanticism. You have no idea how much you've undone, and I very much doubt you can patch it together piecemeal.Manannan67 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't know why are You so unfriendly (to put it that way) towards me. As You can see, I am open to a compromise, but that doesn't mean that everything should go Your way (or my way, it doesn't matter). A lot of it would probably be the way You wanted, but that doesn't mean I, and other users, should accept every suggestion of Yours like it is a Holy Scripture. I have invested a lot of my time to internationalize this article (pretty much everything writen about German, French and Russian gothic fiction here is my work, see edits from August 2012). List of gothic fiction works was created by me and I have contributed to 91.3% of the text there ( https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/List_of_gothic_fiction_works ) and I certainly wouldn't invest that much of my time into it if I wasn't really passionate about the subject. I know that everything I have done can be improved, but let's do it in a cooperative way, as it should be done. Just as I am writing this, I am also writing a scientific paper for a Q1 journal (nothing related to literature, btw). I (my university) am collaborating with one other university, one private company and one state institution on it. Do You really think that any of us has final word on everything? Of course not, everything is a matter of compromise and willingness to improve the work as much as possible. So, I am offering You my cooperation and, if not friendship, then at least mutual respect. If You want to accept it, I will be happy, if not, well, let's at least be polite towards each other. Peace, StjepanHR (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely, -and have ignored the discussion above, to wit: "Roman noir and Schauerroman belong to a different tradition, they are literary products of a different society, they are not continental examples of the English gothic (another Angst underpins them)...Moreover, there is a common, gloomy zeitgeist among the countries in the period, however, each society has a different literary tradition resulting in distinct meanings for the horrors." And "The Roman noir and the Schauerroman are characterised as 'parallel Romantic literary movements', not as Gothic!" Given the demonstrated ambiguity regarding the term "Schauerroman", I suggest instead Schwarze Romantik. If you're so enthusiastic about continental versions, then perhaps you can come up with a Russian equivalent term. (-that section is entirely UNDUE). I am not recommending that there be no mention of the other European traditions, I'm suggesting that it be trimmed with a link to the appropriate Main. As far as your perception of a less than "friendly" tone, you have gutted an entire article with an overbroad reversion only to preserve your own largely irrelevant entries. Hello? Manannan67 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's take this point-by-point:
 * As, whose profession is literature studies, stated, treating Schauerroman and roman noir separately from British gothic is the same as treating Southern Gothic differently. I mean, they are certainly (slightly) different, but they are all forms of gothic fiction. I doubt that You can find scholarly opinion to contradict that (if YOu can, I stand corrected, but please, provide it first)
 * Although I can read Russian very well (and am able to speak it well enough to have conversation), I certainly won't do it, as I have already explained it here by citing much more relevant people than both YOu and me put together: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_fiction#Russia ; as You can see that English-language scholars use the term "gothic":
 * Cornwell, Neil (1999), The Gothic-Fantastic in Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature, Amsterdam: Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, Studies in Slavic Literature and Poetics, volume 33
 * Simpson, Mark S. (1986), The Russian Gothic Novel and its British Antecedents, Slavica Publishers
 * Russian scholars were mostly using the term "фантастика" (fantastika) during the Soviet period and sometimes "мистика" ("mystique" - for example, many Soviet film scholars would refer to gothic horror films as "мистическая драма", this term is sometimes used even today: https://fantlab.ru/work246600 (2002, "Мистика Серебряного века"), renamed in 2009 to "Готическая проза Серебряного века") or here: https://fantlab.ru/work132440 ), which is much less precise. However, recently, many articles, short story collections and monographies were published even in Russian language, with the term "готический" ("gothic") in its title, such as (if you don't read Russian, just use the "translate" function in Your browser):
 * https://fantlab.ru/work370545
 * https://fantlab.ru/work620767
 * https://fantlab.ru/work138824
 * https://fantlab.ru/work395925
 * https://fantlab.ru/work120992 (this is arguably the most important one, containing works such as: https://fantlab.ru/work121007, https://fantlab.ru/work121008 and https://fantlab.ru/work121009)
 * https://fantlab.ru/work125169
 * https://fantlab.ru/work90257
 * And this is just a quick search in Fantlab and only the works that have the word "gothic" in their title. StjepanHR (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One additional comment: You seem to repeat the opinions of two users - and , both irrelevant, since the Wiki is based on scholarly opinions, not the users' opinions. Here are some scholarly opinions on "roman noir":
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/4239285 ("gothic" used in English-language title, "noir" in French)
 * https://www.manchesterhive.com/view/9781526125699/9781526125699.00007.xml ("...the realm of the late eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century horror novel, specifically with regard to its British manifestation (where it was known as the Gothic novel) and its various French forms (ie the roman noir, which flourished...")
 * The Gothic Quest - A History of the Gothic Novel from the 1930s, in which Montague Summers cites several studies by M. Heine on "gothic fiction" (his word), which have in title "roman noir"
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/4149302 : here is an excellent description of the change of use of the term "roman noir" with time, as it originally meant "French gothic novel" and now means something along the line of "thriller", sometimes causing the confusion (for example, Roman noir now redirects to the new meaning of the term and we would firstly need to create a new article on original "roman noir" in order to remove the text from this main article)
 * Le roman terrifiant ou roman noir: de Walpole à Anne Radcliffe et son... : has an entire chapter on Walpole and Reeve as pioneers of "roman noir"
 * Réveils gothiques. Émergence du roman noir anglais (1764-1824) : again, refers to "English gothic novel" as "roman noir anglais" StjepanHR (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I remind you that you are the one who brought up "Schauerroman/Schauerliteratur" which as it turns out doesn't discuss continental authors. Manannan67 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Uf, have You even read the article? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schauerliteratur#Vertreter_in_Deutschland StjepanHR (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

And, surprise, guess how the German-speaking scholars refer to some of the French authors listed in List of gothic fiction works? Hint: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/17053/ StjepanHR (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * One final thing, you seem to say "you have gutted an entire article with an overbroad reversion only to preserve your own largely irrelevant entries". This is how the article looked while I was mor involved with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_fiction&oldid=508991302 . I hate how the article looks now and am all for improving it. However, we must do it by making sure NO CONTENT IS LOST. For example, YOu have removed The Black Spider with an explanation that "it is Biedermeier". Nobody would argue that it was written as a part of that period, but it does not mean it it not a work of gothic fiction, as more competent scholars than two of us have noted. StjepanHR (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you hate how the article presently looks, you have only yourself to thank. There was nothing removed that couldn't have been easily reinstated; you, however chose to obliterate every edit going back two weeks, much of which merely re-organized sections into better chronology. That's a tad excessive. Manannan67 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An You know what I hate more than the LOOK of the article? The loss of content built during the past decade and a half resulting from Your premature decisions and impatiance to do it the right way, slowly and step-by-step, consulting the other editors during the process. Next time make sure that You only REORGANIZE the article not REMOVE the content without adding it to separate articles. Feel free to bring this to Dispute resolution, as it seems we are in a stalemate. Kind regards, StjepanHR (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This article needs help
I tied up the contemporary gothic subsection some months back, but the rest of this article is dearly in need of help.


 * The opening is just a parade of author names that provides very little useful information to the reader (compare the article on Horror fiction, which actually provides a reputable definition and lists elements found in the genre). The subsections are organised rather randomly.
 * The word contemporary is used in both of its (opposite) meanings (compare Contemporary developments in Germany, France and Russia vs Contemporary Gothic, which cover the 19th century and the 21st respectively), which only helps to confuse the new reader.
 * The top image (The Abbey in the Oakwood) is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Surely there is an illustration from one of the out of copyright classic gothic novels we can use?
 * The section titled Precursors has good content, but its not actually about precursor genres. Instead it a mixture of explaining the elements of gothic literature, and describing early gothic and pre-gothic novels. These perhaps should be separated into two sections. The article as a whole has a weak section that actually explains the characteristics of Gothic literature, and some of this content could be expanded into that, while the rest can be folded into the wider history section.
 * The article is generally lacking in 21st century sources, which is honestly disappointing to see and severely hurting its coverage of the last 30 years of Gothic literature. The Gothic Studies Journal, Studies in Gothic Fiction, as well as Aeternum - the Journal of Contemporary Gothic Studies, and the Dark Arts Journal should surely have some useful material. There have also been many published books on this topic over the last 20 years.
 * Addition to this - There is just one reference published in the last 5 years.


 * The placement of Elements of Gothic fiction last should seriously be reconsidered. This section also needs more citations, and focuses heavily on quotes instead of descriptions of the characteristics. There are also certain wording issues that make me question if sections have been copied wholesale from published books. For example "As the review states, the virginal maiden character is above inspection as her personality is flawless". (What review?)

Before I begin rewriting it wholesale, I would like feedback on the points I have raised above.  JT dale Talk ~ 09:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with it. I think it would be best to create sandbox page for the new version of "Precursors", but I don't think the other edits should be controversial (as long as there isn't removal of current information, like in the previous attempt to "improve" this article :) ). StjepanHR (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Reorganised page structure
I have reorganised the page structure as the very first step in trying to rein this article in. However, it remains an unwieldy disaster. There are simply too many topics being covered simultaneously, and without much organisation, while also approaching the topic in potentially too academic a manner for Wikipedia.

Continuing issues of note
 * The female Gothic and The Supernatural Explained is a very unwieldy section, which attempts to provide good information but gets sidetracked to provide a plot synopsis of Radcliffe's The Romance of the Forest.
 * History is divided into many competing sections, not always ordered chronologically. Some subsections seem to be superfluous or repeating information provided elsewhere, or worded in such a way that I seem to be missing what they're trying to contribute.
 * Particularly the entire Precursors section seems unnecessarily long and divided - surely what it is trying to say can be said more concisely and combined into one section that outlines the same information?
 * Southern gothic is nothing but a list of author names, providing entirely no information to the reader about what really defines Southern gothic.
 * Contemporary gothic remains in need of expansion, as does the section on Scholarship — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTdale (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for wading in here, . I agree that there are a lot of longstanding flaws in this article. I made some structural edits myself just now but there is still much to do. Some thoughts:
 * The "female gothic & explained supernatural" section was especially bad since (as a subject area expert) I would say those two things are not particularly linked except in Radcliffe specifically. I moved some of the explained supernatural stuff to the section on Radliffe and tried to edit the female gothic bits down to just the least-incoherent, but it's still a quite bad summary of what is actually a very large and robust body of scholarship. (It should reference, eg, Madwoman in the Attic, and the famous piece on Bluebeard.) In general, removing unsourced content might be a way to usefull condense the article.
 * Gothic fiction should have all those examples reduced to a single sentence with a wikilink -- if the specific examples are well-sourced they can be moved to the novel's own page.
 * I tried to improve the images a bit, but a lot of them still seem decorative, rather than meaningfully linked to the subject matter per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE-- eg 19thC paintings next to a discussion of unrelated 18thC books. Going through and writing more thorough captions for all of them can probably help diagnose which ones don't belong where they are.
 * I'm not convinced that a "characteristics" section can actually exist in a meaningful way. Over 250 years across multiple countries, the Gothic has had a lot of characteristics. If we boil it down, anything that goes in a pan-Gothic overview ought to be applicable to all of The Castle of Otranto, Jane Eyre, The Telltale Heart, and The Sound and the Fury. To avoid an OR, some kind of literary encyclopedia on the Gothic might be the best source.
 * It was invigorating to see this article moving around. I don't have time to edit in a sustained way at this moment but hope to keep poking in. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contributions. I agree re: the images, the plate for The Castle of Otranto at the top seems to be the most relevant of all the images presently.
 * Personally, I think that a characteristics section can definitely be crafted in such a way that it remains useful. For example, I think that Translation as a Framing Device is (correctly) referenced as a common characteristic, but the key remains to explain them in a way that provides an inclusive definition not an exclusive one - many Gothic novels use this device, but not all.


 * Gothic: An Illustrated History by Roger Luckhurst provides a definition that might be a useful stepping off point for us -

"As Gothic ages, it has moved beyond its origins in architecture and the printed page to become fully transmedial, its tropes and motifs recurring in novels, films, television, fine art, comics, fashion, computer games, and the dark web of the internet itself. Gothic plots often revolve around ideas of transgression, the breaching of boundaries of life and death, good taste and bad, knowledge and belief..."


 * Throughout the book he then identifies a series of tropes he believes characterize Gothic (specifically as an entire artistic movement, not just literature) - The pointed arch, ruins, the fragment (his term for the device of a Gothic story being told as if translated or part of a lost manuscript), labrinyths, the framing device of the Gothic house, the landscape, monsters. He also has a section expanding on the various regional variants as divided by compass directions.  JT dale Talk ~ 06:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)