Despite differing over their certainty regarding its gender, Holt’s and Atherton’s markedly ethnographic descriptions of the Beetle work within expected Orientalist typology to align the bestial, the non-European, and the non-Christian in opposition to a homogeneous, white, Christian self. Both men’s portrayals of the Beetle rely on anti-Semitic aspersions about nasal size. (It should be noted that, in the contemporary Orientalist sense, “Semitic” referred to Arabs as well as Jews [Said 230-36].)
Harris and Vernooy, pp. 376
I have mixed feelings about the book ‘The Beetle’. I think it was a very effective gothic horror novel, maybe even the best we’ve read so far. It can’t go without noticing, however, the stereotypes and political motivations the author had when writing it. It is openly racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic; typical for that time, you could say. But I would say I don’t particularly care about that context, because we are reading it today, and philosophy could suggest that those ideologies were always ‘wrong’, regardless of how the society around them treated them.
This novel, I feel, could be adapted really well to a modern format with some examination of women’s studies and race theory to correct the biases and harmful stereotypes used in the book. I think this may be why The Beetle didn’t last the test of time compared to its counterparts (Dracula, Frankenstein, etc.); its political biases were too overt to brush over, while the others were mostly subtextual.
