randy_byers: (brundage)
Infernal Desire Machines.jpgAngela Carter's The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman is a ferociously intellectual novel, and I'm frankly not sure I'm fully up to the task of analyzing it. The story concerns an assault on reality by Doctor Hoffman and his infernal desire machines, which cause imaginary things to appear real. The protagonist, Desiderio, is a government functionary who is more or less impervious to this assault, and he is sent by the uber-rationalist Minister of Determination to assassinate Hoffman. Complicating matters is that Desiderio is hot for Hoffman's unattainable and shape-shifting daughter, Albertine. He embarks on what even the novel itself calls a picaresque journey through a fantastic realm in which his goals are constantly transformed, but in the end (as he tells you in the beginning) he gets his man and restores the world to unmagical realism.

So much for the plot, and I have to say that for a ferociously intellectual novel it really does tell a story -- even an adventure story, an old-time romance of sorts. There's plenty of sex, quite a bit of death, gunshots, narrow escapes, river boats, exotic tribes, pirates, landslides, cannibals, centaurs, you name it. There's a bit of Gulliver's Travels to it (and at least one direct reference to the same), a bit of Heart of Darkness (probably including the racism), and more than a bit of the quest for the Holy Grail. It's a Romance, but it's very anti-Romantic too. It's about desire and how it mediates our perception of what is real, and about how the object of our desire is always out of reach. It's about love and death, and the love of death.

Jeff Vandermeer has called it "the finest surrealist novel of the past 30 years" (which dates the comment, since the novel is now over 40 years old), and it does seem Surrealist in a pretty direct sense, not just the common sense of surrealist as something weird or dreamlike. It is about irrationality and the human predisposition to it, about the fragility or artifice of meaning and causality, about the bestial impulses that we try to paper over with morality, decorum, and reason. It flaunts taboos and any sense of the obscene, and it features a character in the Count who seems clearly modeled on the Marquis de Sade -- a self-aggrandizing champion of the overthrow of all civilized hypocrisy. In fact, it feels very French to me in the way it embraces critical theory and uses it to tear down consensual understandings of reality through proclamations of the self-annihilating nature of ideas. Characters speak in manifestos, thrusting their theories into the soft underbelly of common sense.

As a bravura performance, it's impressive, but at times I found it exhausting in the same way I find Samuel R. Delany's exploration of critical theory and French philosophy exhausting. As I've said before, Carter's last two novels, Nights at the Circus and Wise Children, have a warmer, more humanistic feel to them, and perhaps I'm showing my age in preferring their more accepting view to the testier feel of The Infernal Desire Machines and The Passion of New Eve. That said, I was completely fascinated by Carter's wild imagination in this one, and her ability to shift not only from one remarkably strange setting to another but also to shift literary modes as she did so. Science fiction, romance, surrealism, fable, myth, magical realism, erotic daydream, philosophical treatise, swashbuckling adventure -- all are grist for her literary mill, and she seems to handle all these modes, and the blending of them, with ease. She has a real genius for synthesizing her different obsessions, and the flipside of the uncomfortably challenging nature of this work (as with Delany's) is that the lack of easy answers is invigorating. Once again she pries open the contradictions of desire, and while she folds it into a melancholy that feels comfortably familiar, she never settles for a nostalgic sense of loss or separation. Desire for Carter is uncontainable, unfathomable, disruptive. It makes monkeys of us all, and there's something magical in that transformation.

QOTD

Sep. 17th, 2015 11:24 am
randy_byers: (cesare)
'I led her to the bed and, in the variegated shadows, penetrated her sighing flesh, which was as chill as that of a mermaid or of the marmoreal water-maiden in her own garden. I was aware of a curiously attenuated response, as if she were feeling my caresses through a veil, and you must realize that all this time I was perfectly well aware she was asleep, for, apart from the evidence of my senses, I remembered how the peep-show proprietor had talked of a beautiful somnambulist. Yet, if she was asleep, she was dreaming of passion and afterwards I slept without dreaming for I had experienced a dream in actuality. When I woke in the commonplace morning, nothing was left of her in the bed but some dead leaves and there was no sign she had been in the room except for a withered rose in the middle of the floor.' (Angela Carter, The Infernal Desire Machine of Doctor Hoffman)
randy_byers: (blonde venus)
Passion of New Eve.jpgI should mention up front that before I read this novel, I bounced off of Carter's earlier novel, Love. It was published the year after Heroes and Villains, but it consisted pretty much entirely of the aspect of Heroes and Villains that I found least interesting: the depiction of a fraught, mutually-mutilating relationship between a thoroughly messed up young couple of bohemians. As lovely and weird as her descriptions were, without the fantastical setting of H&V there wasn't much for me to enjoy in this joyless vision.

So onward to a later novel, The Passion of New Eve. This is decidedly the weirdest of the four Carter novels I've read so far, which is saying something, since they have all been pretty weird. It's actually a bit hard for me to describe what this one is about. It concerns the American adventures of a Briton named Evelyn. He starts out in New York, and she ends up in California. Yes, there is a gender switch in between. The America that Evelyn travels across is a dystopian nightmare of clashing factions, with black militants taking over New York City, the feminist-separatist cult of a self-made fertility goddess doing battle with evangelical teenage male militarists in the Southwest desert, and California torn asunder by civil war between Bay Area revolutionaries and Orange County reactionaries. Evelyn is more or less handed from one cult to another as she flees across the country, and he/she suffers imprisonment, forced surgery, indoctrination, multiple rapes, lost love, and war. It's a savage book full of barbaric acts, and one way it's different from the two novels that followed (Nights at the Circus and Wise Children) is that it lacks their warm-hearted sense of humor. This is more of a satire, with a suitably gimlet-eyed view of the world.

The best description I've seen of how The Passion of New Eve works is as an exploration of the paradoxes of duality. Evelyn starts out as a man and ends up as a woman, but his/her gender is never really settled. He/she is both/neither. Likewise Tristessa, who is an actress worshipped by Evelyn and various other characters in the novel and who ends up having a dual sexual identity as well, although Tristessa's duality is virtual rather than real, if there's any difference in this mythological world. Beyond sexual identify, all the characters share a kind of moral duality, in which all are innocent and guilty, liberating and enslaving, selfish and selfless. The book is feminist, but the women are just as violent, domineering, self-destructive, and wrong-headed as the men. Carter's feminism seems to be centered on allowing women to be as fully human as men, and her view of humanity isn't an idealistic one. Power corrupts, and girl power is no different.

In The Infernal Desire Machines of Angela Carter Jeff VanderMeer says that Carter had fallen under the sway of the surrealists at this point in her career. I think you can see it in the way she plays on paradoxes and, well, passion. This is a novel about the mythological, the irrational, the illogical, the unreasonable, the unreasoning. It's about violence, suffering, and death. However, it largely treats these things in symbolic, exaggerated, imaginary forms without any pretense to realism. Indeed it is anti-realistic. It's not particularly funny, but it feels like a comedy or parody in the way it flaunts and capers. VanderMeer also says that Carter later left surrealism behind, and that may explain why her last two novels feel more humanistic and warm. This is a fierce novel full of dark energy, and with all its mythological metamorphoses it begs to be reread.
randy_byers: (2009-05-10)
Carter Heroes and Villains.jpgIt appears that I've embarked upon a deep dive into the works of Angela Carter. One thing I'd intended to do for a while now was to re-read Heroes and Villains, which was the first book of hers I read. It must have been in the early '90s sometime, because my edition was published after she died of lung cancer in 1992 at age 51. My recollection is that I didn't care for it much, but I obviously didn't dislike it enough to get rid of the book. I can no longer remember exactly what I thought of it, but having now re-read it my guess is that I found the characters unlikeable. That's still something that can cause me problems with a story, especially the first time through. It also portrays the relationship between the sexes as wounding, which I can well imagine was not something I liked to see at a time when I was more idealistic and hopeful for my own chances at a relationship.

So I'm happy to report that I did like the novel the second time through. It has been called post-apocalyptic science fiction, but it works more like a literary fable. (That could be another thing that threw me off the first time, if I was looking for an attempt at plausible science fictional world-building.) In any event, the story is set after the collapse of civilization. I don't think the location is specified, but because Carter was British I assumed it was Great Britain. Marianne is a daughter of the Professors, who live in armed enclaves that strive to maintain some semblance of the old agricultural civilization. Outside their gates roam the squalid Barbarians, who live through hunting and gathering and raids on the Professors. Marianne is a cold, unhappy character who doesn't like the constraints of civilized life, so she is halfway ready to go when she's kidnapped by the handsome barbarian chief named Jewel.

One thing that struck me repeatedly as I read the book, which was first published in 1969, was the feeling that the Professors and the Barbarians were oblique renderings of the Establishment versus the Counterculture. The Barbarians in particular, with their muddy feet, pagan accoutrements, and tattoos felt very much like hippies at times. (Well, the tattoos actually seemed very modern -- counterculturally speaking -- and not very hippy at all.) But while the premise is absurd, Carter delves into it much deeper than such a simplistic analogy might suggest. She's more focused on the Barbarians and thus examines more closely their childish brutality and hand-to-mouth lifestyle, camping out in the ruins of the lost civilization. This is not a Romantic story, but there are elements of romanticism in the exotic, sensuous details of this lifestyle, and in the moments of beauty she conjures amongst the abject terrors of mundane human existence.

As I alluded to in passing above, the relationship between Marianne and Jewel is fraught, difficult, and painful. Carter flirts with all the old romantic cliches, such as a rape followed by what looks like real intimacy, but she always maintains a tension of conflict even in moments of relative calm and warmth. Intimacy is never transcendence of difference or antagonism. Nothing is ever resolved, wounds are never healed, and she maintains this unfinished feeling to the beautiful last line. Again and again I was reminded of Ted Hughes' poem "Lovesong," about his conflicted relationship with Sylvia Plath: "His whispers were whips and jackboots/Her kisses were lawyers steadily writing." (That probably sent half my readers -- all four of you! -- rushing for the exits.) I was also reminded repeatedly, as I have been by other works by Carter, of Joanna Russ, with her gorgeous lyrical prose expressing the harshest truths and shifting tones between glib, abstract, lush, and acidic with amazing ease, although I suspect Carter was more of an old-fashioned humanist than Russ was. Maybe.

Carter Wise Children.jpgOr at least Carter's last two novels, Nights at the Circus (1984) and Wise Children (1991) feel warmer than Russ' last novels. Richard Boston, in his NYTimes review of Heroes and Villains, mentions the many literary allusions to be found in it, including to Shakespeare's The Tempest, and Wise Children courts comparisons to Shakespeare with reckless glee. It is a family saga about several generations of stage performers, the oldest of whom where per-eminent Shakespeareans. The novel opens with a quote from Ellen Terry, "How many times Shakespeare draws fathers and daughters, never mothers and daughters," and it's narrated by Dora Chance, who is one of the illegitimate and unacknowledged twin daughters of the great Shakespearean actor, Melchior Hazard. Melchior is also a twin, and an orphan of a different type. The whole family is riddled with twins, unacknowledged children, adultery, illegitimacy, incest, and the makeshift, ad hoc families that fill the void where biological family fails to meet the need for ties that bind.

I confess that I didn't notice myself one significant structural aspect of the novel, which is that it has five chapters, just as most of Shakespeare's plays had five acts. There is so much going on in the book, and it weaves back and forth in time so regularly, that I'm unable to say from one reading whether the five chapters can be read as a dramatic progression on the pattern of a Shakespeare play. It covers the Victorian era up through, hm, maybe the 1980s. (Dora and Nora were born in 1915, I believe, and are in their '70s when Dora writes the book.) The twin sisters are not actresses themselves, but rather a music hall dancing act -- the Lucky Chances. They are Cockney by upbringing, too, and Carter definitely has her eye on the highs and lows of social class, as well as of the theater, where various family members are involved in not only Shakespeare and the music hall, but Hollywood (where they work on a film adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream) and daytime TV.

It's a big, bustling, lively book with a large cast of characters and an abundance of history, witty literary references, bawdy jokes, tragic turns, and unlikely resurrections. One of the big differences between Wise Children and Heroes and Villains is the sense of humor. I don't suppose Heroes and Villains actually has no sense of humor, but its humor is more satirical and biting, where the humor of Wise Children is more rowdy and rollicking. More Shakespearean, perhaps, with plenty of gags on naughty bits. There's a celebratory feel amongst the yearning after lost mothers, paternal recognition, and impossible love. Life's hazardous (Carter knew she had cancer when she started writing the book), so you have to grab your chances when they come.
randy_byers: (blonde venus)
TheSadeianWomanAndTheIdeologyOfPornography.jpgThe Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography
Angela Carter
Pantheon Books, 1978

A friend of mine showed me this book back in the '80s sometime. I read a bit of it and took an immediate dislike to it. My guess is that I thought it was anti-pornography. This was the era of Andrea Dworkin, and feminists were arguing with each other about pornography. I was anti-anti-pornography. Ole tried to tell me that my reading was completely orthogonal to what Carter was up to in the book, but my mind was made up.

Fast forward thirty years, and now I come to The Sadeian Woman with fresh eyes. What we have here is Carter's attempt to wrestle with Sade's pornography, which she finds both liberatory and ultimately solipsistic. Maybe I should mention that I've never read any Sade myself. The closest I've come to his own work is Pasolini's Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom, which is an adaptation of one of his novels and one of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. I've also read Samuel R. Delany's Sadeian pornography (Equinox, Hogg, The Mad Man) and his writing about Sade. All of these things I find very challenging and difficult and unpleasant.

Likewise Carter's book, which is polemical and for example considers "masturbatory" a dismissive adjective, which is pretty demeaning to an old bachelor like myself. But I can take it. I'm all too aware of my flaws and limitations. Some of her demolitions are more pleasant to me, as when she levels her critical weapons on the mythos and iconography of Marilyn Monroe. In fact the section of the book on the iconography of Mae West, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, and Monroe was probably my favorite part of The Sadeian Woman. Unfortunately, much more of the book is dedicated to the description and analysis of Sade's depictions of sexual terrorism.

On an intellectual level I can appreciate that Sade was attacking the hypocrisy of state, church, and society, and it's fascinating to see just how far he took his taboo-busting. It's also fascinating how this taboo-busting allowed him to imagine much greater freedom for women than most of his contemporaries, and for that matter allowed him to understand the nature of the clitoris, which is knowledge that was lost to men in the 19th century. However, as I long ago discovered with Delany's porn, there's a limit to my ability to view this stuff intellectually and philosophically, so I found long sections of Carter's short book to be an ordeal to read. What I hadn't expected, however, is the way that in the end she seems to agree on some level that Sade's moral radicalism is inhuman and abusive. Or maybe she embraces the moral radicalism but simply finds Sade's radicalism limited. In brief, she finds Sade lacking love and mutuality, which is a surprisingly humanist criticism to discover at the end of an intensive exploration of narratives of pain and degradation.

I'm honestly not sure what to make of her argument, or how much of her argument I actually understand. She's clearly and consciously trying to be provocative, and I was suitably provoked. I did wonder sometimes what she would think of contemporary pornography. The book feels very much of its time. Yet even though I'm less of a fan of literary criticism than I once was and even though I've never had much interest in Sade (sadly proving my conventionality as a thinker), I admire Carter's intelligence and eloquence and fierceness. Now I need to read some more of her fiction to see how this analysis played out in the stories she told.

QOTD

May. 16th, 2015 11:31 am
randy_byers: (2009-05-10)
'Although [Sade] documented his sexual fantasies with an unequalled diligence, and these fantasies delight in the grisliest tortures (even if, in the context of his fictions, he creates an inverted ethical superstructure to legitimise these cruelties) his own sexual practice in life remains relatively obscure. From the evidence of the two court cases in which he was involved, the affair of Rose Keller in 1768 and the charges made against him by a group of Marseilles prostitutes in 1772, he seems to have enjoyed both giving and receiving whippings; voyeurism; anal intercourse, both active and passive; and the presence of an audience at these activities. These are not particularly unusual sexual preferences, though they are more common as fantasies, and are always very expensive if purchased. When they take place in private, the law usually ignores them even when they are against the law, just as it turns a blind eye to wife beating and recreational bondage. Sade, however, seems to have been incapable of keeping his vices private, as if he was aware of their exemplary nature and, perhaps, since the notion of sin, of transgression, was essential to his idea of pleasure, which is always intellectual, never sensual, he may have needed to invoke the punishment of which he consciously denied the validity before he could feel the act itself had been accomplished.' (Angela Carter, The Sadeian Woman, 1978)
randy_byers: (brundage)
I picked up this novel because of an article by Neil Gaiman on the importance of fairy tales in which he links it to Christina Rossetti's "Goblin Market" and Hope Mirrlees' Lud-in-the-Mist, both of which I'd recently read. (Or reread, in the case of Rossetti's poem.) A couple three years ago I was blown away by Carter's collection of reimagined fairty tales, The Bloody Chamber (1979), after seeing the movie The Company of Wolves (1984), which was based on a couple of them. I continue to be amazed by her writing. Nights at the Circus is a truly great novel, and a fitting companion to Lud-in-the-Mist, although it is a far different creature in many ways.

It's an old-fashioned romance of sorts, with a mysterious birth, foster parents, a complicated love story, and picaresque adventures amongst outlaws. The heroine, Sophia Fevvers, "the Cockney Venus," is a woman with wings. Found on a doorstep with fragments of egg around her, she is raised in a brothel comprised of many freakish women, and she graduates naturally to the circus after that. The first third of the book is about her life growing up in the brothel, told as a story to an American reporter backstage in London. The middle third is about the adventures of the circus in St Petersburg, where the reporter has joined the troupe as a clown and Fevvers is pursued by an amorous duke. In the final third, the circus heads across Siberia on the way to Seattle and is lost in the wilderness when the train derails. (Too bad they never made it here.) The reporter is initiated into a shamanistic tribe, while Fevvers and her old nurse, Liz, escape from bandits only to find an eccentric musician living in an isolated mansion near a frozen river.

What Carter is doing in this novel is not strictly fantasy in the manner of Lud-in-the-Mist. It is often described as magical realism, because the fairy tale elements reside squarely within a naturalistic world and thus have an absurd, surrealist aspect. There's no Fairyland or Elfland over the horizon or under the hill to explain Fevvers' incongruous wings. Even the magic of the shamans is explained in a naturalistic way. In fact, Fevvers' strange powers are an affront to commonsense, but then so are the adventures she undergoes. The novel presents a world of heightened drama and mystery. Beyond that, Carter delights in upending the narrative conventions of the fairy tale, commenting on it knowingly along the way.

'Marriage!' she exclaimed.

'The Prince who rescues the Princess from the dragon's lair is always forced to marry her, whether they've taken a liking to one another or not. That's the custom. And I don't doubt that custom will apply to the trapeze artiste who rescues the clown. The name of this custom is a "happy ending".'

'Marriage,' repeated Fevver, in a murmur of awed distaste. But, after a moment, she perked up.

'Oh, but Liz -- think of his malleable look. As if a girl could mould him any way she wanted. Surely he'll have the decency to give himself to me, when we meet again, not expect the vice versa. Let him hand himself over into my safekeeping, and I will transform him. You said yourself he was unhatched, Lizzie; very well -- I'll sit on him, I'll hatch him out, I'll make a new man of him. I'll make him into the New Man, in fact, fitting mate for the New Woman, and onward we'll march hand in hand into the New Century -- '

Lizzie detected a note of rising hysteria in the girl's voice.

'Perhaps so, perhaps not,' she said, putting a damper on things. 'Perhaps safer not to plan ahead.'


The deadpan sense of humor is magnificent, as is the sense of the thriving abundancy of life. The novel is loaded with sensuous details of the material world, yet remains playful about the precise nature of reality. Lyrical and sarcastic, savage and sweet, rich, deranged, and yet always sprightly, it often reminded me of Joanna Russ' prose style as well. (Russ is probably the writer I most wish I could write like.) Here we all are, New Men and New Women in a New Century (Nights at the Circus takes place at the end of the nineteenth), and I wonder who is writing like this now. What a talent was lost when Angela Carter died at the age of 52. I suppose it's time to dig out my copy of her non-fiction book, The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography. Sounds like a doozy, eh?

QOTD

Jan. 3rd, 2010 02:41 pm
randy_byers: (brundage)
She felt her outlines waver; she felt herself trapped forever in the reflection of Walser's eyes. For one moment, just one moment, Fevvers suffered the worst crisis of her life. 'Am I fact? Or am I fiction? Am I what I know I am? Or am I what he thinks I am?'

'Show 'em your feathers, quick!' urged Lizzie.

Fevvers, with a strange sense of desperation, a miserable awareness of her broken wing and her discoloured plumage, could think of nothing else to do but to obey. She shrugged off her furs and, though she could not spread two wings, she spread one -- lopsided angel, partial and shabby splendour! No Venus, or Helen, or Angel of the Apocalypse, not Izrael or Isfahel ... only a poor freak down on her luck, and an object of the most dubious kind of reality to her beholders, since both men in the god-hut were accustomed to hallucinations and she who looks like a hallucination but is not had no place in their view of things.


-- Angela Carter, Nights at the Circus

Profile

randy_byers: (Default)
randy_byers

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 8th, 2025 07:15 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios