I have attached instructions, novel notes below.
Do not attempt a comprehensive analysis of the novel; focus on something such as a particular episode or event, a specific character, or a specific relationship between characters, or some relevant aspect of the setting. Define your argument clearly at the outset (no later than the second paragraph) through a strong thesis statement (sometimes called an argument or a critical position or premise). Support your argument using focused literary textual analysis.
You might consider using one of the Canvas Discussion prompts on your chosen novel in developing a topic, thesis, and approach you genuinely want to pursue, one that you are really interested in pursuing in the greater depth a home paper allows. (However, choose one of the formal questions that address the novel itself, not a supplementary question concerning issues of general knowledge and context, or adaptations of the novel.)
The Discussion Prompts:
Note 1: Please see the Page of material on We Have Always Lived in the Castle in the Course Materials Module for some notes concerning the significant differences between the novel and its one film adaptation.
Note 2: Please avoid “life in general” points (e.g. what the text demonstrates about all people) and please do not look up and reproduce assessments of the legacy or reputation of the text: for one thing, doing so without acknowledgement of the source is plagiarism, so it’s not something you want to risk doing on the home paper or the exam.
1. This novel presents us with a first person narrator. In fiction, this is often seen as a limiting or filtering perspective. Sometimes a first-person narrator is the main character in the story (e.g. Offred in The Handmaid’s Tale) but sometimes it’s a sort of side character who observes and describes the main characters (e.g. Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby). The question always arises of whether the first person narrator is reliable or trustworthy. The text rarely tells us this outright; it’s an issue we analyze by thinking about how the narrator presents information, whether they have some sort of personal interest in the events described, and whether anything might influence their ability to tell the story (e.g. age, proximity to the events, involvement in the events, life circumstances, education, intellectual capacity, personality). Here, the narrator is Merricat Blackwood, who is in her late teens in the present setting of the novel. How trustworthy is Merricat as a narrator? Point to a specific scene that helps support your claim, and remember that trustworthiness in narration isn’t an either/or situation: a narrator can be somewhere between reliable and unreliable, with elements of both.
2. Merricat is 18 in the present, and was 12 when several members of her family were poisoned. Her elder sister Constance, a recluse who was accused of the murder, is now 28. Why are the ages of the sisters important?
3. How would you describe the Blackwood family? In a way they have two chroniclers: Merricat, who is the novel’s narrator, and Uncle Julian, who in his ramblings often alludes to a family history he is trying to write. Do you ever feel you get a clear picture of relationships among these people, or does the novel suggest untold secrets in the background? Is it significant that Charles is both a member of the family and an outsider?
4. You might connect this prompt to the previous one, if you like. The townspeople continue to ostracize and harass the Blackwoods even after Constance is acquitted of the murder. Why? Is any clear reason given for the extent of their hatred? Are the townspeople themselves presented as sympathetic? Why or why not? (Again, characters don’t have to be wholly sympathetic or wholly unsympathetic.)
5. Is Merricat’s self-definition as a sort of witch significant in her function as narrator and principal character? Does the novel ever suggest her witchcraft suggests any genuine power?
6. This is a story with a murder in the background. Does everyone perceive the murder in the same way? Is its motive ever satisfactorily explained?
7. Have another look at those monster definitions in the Course Materials Module. Where does monstrosity lie in this novel? Is there a clearly monstrous character? If so, how is that character monstrous? Is there more than one? Is there any implication of some sort of group/society monstrosity? Is there any element of the novel that suggests some sympathy for someone who might be regarded as monstrous?
