“Although terrifying, many of the stories are also darkly comic.” Consider at least two of the stories from The Bloody Chamber in the light of this comment. * candidates must consider at least two stories here – they may consider more * exploration of the ways in which the stories may be considered terrifying, an aspect of the gothic – likely reference to the numerous instances of horrific violence, sexual depravity, supernatural powers, psychological fear etc * exploration of the ways in which some of the stories may be considered comic – “Puss-in-Boots” is obviously comic – other stories have moments of sardonic humour, often created by surprise or defiance of our expectations * Response to the word “darkly” in the question and its implications of black comedy – laughing at things which are not normally considered funny – expect some personal response here – sense of humour is very individual! * some candidates may discuss Carter’s language – her intermingling of the poetic and literary with the bluntly crude may be seen as a source of dark humour, equally her choice of structure may make her writing darkly comic – her use of juxtaposition – some readers have seen the absurd brevity of “The Snow Child” as comic and it is unquestionably “dark”
Carter’s ‘The Bloody Chamber’ certainly embeds an element of terror within the collection. However, despite claims of horror apparent in the Marquis from the very start, it is also reasonable to argue that the tale also combines elements of dark comedy within the text provided by the very uncanny male protagonist. By the “leonine” portrayal of the Marquis, to his obvious fascination with murder; The Bloody Chamber could be seen to be crafted as too melodramatic and surreal, therefore setting itself up as dark comedy rather than a text of Gothic literature.
A sense of foreboding is created within the first paragraphs of The Bloody Chamber as the female heroine is constantly referring to the childhood that she “had abandoned.” The tale is set in retrospect and therefore alludes a Romeo and Juliet style tone, by stating the fate of the young girl by her opening lines: “I remembered”; she survives. One reading could suggest that Carter sets up the framework of a young girl telling her horrors from the past as an account, and therefore makes her story more dramatic as the events are gradually unfolded. However, it could also be argued that by the use of telling readers that the young girl survives, Carter steals the tension away from readers in the novel, by allowing us to approach the text with a more light hearted and almost dark comedy style approach to the text by knowing she eventually survives.
Indeed, an insane Marquis’ obsession with murder is surely terrifying, as he possesses a chamber of bodies in his very own castle. Despite one of the bodies being fresh from the “blue imprints” that the Marquis had left, she lay with “dead lips smiling.” Here, Carter combines a very much oppressed taboo of the 1970′s, death, with the slightly uneasy thought of masochistic behavior and the dead victim’s pleasure at feeling pain. It is clear that the juxtaposition of the deep, melancholy feelings associated with death, against the healthy and positive connotations of “smiling” is created to stimulate an unrealistic tone to the story, and therefore Carter reduces the tension in the story, so that it does not overpower the true message hidden within the novel in a way that becomes ineffective: Carter effectively emphasies her traditional feminist criticisms of the complicit female nature.
In addition, it could be argued that the “faery solitude” of the castle, and the abhuman feel of a man that “moved as softly as if all his shoes had soles of velvet” all adds to the tone of creating surrealism within the short story and thus Carter removes the room for almost any realistic aspects in the story. By emphasising the ghostly, uncanny features of the Marquis, as well as detaching the narrative “away from Paris” (symbolising civilisation,) Carter begins to shift away from any reality in the narrative, almost in attempt to allow the terrifying events of discovering a gallery of dead bodies seem dreamlike and unreal and inevitably as far away from reality as possible. Thus, consciously separating the two, The Bloody Chamber is constructed in a matter that shifts away from the true possibility of humans and the real corruption of men. It could be argued that through this, Carter’s The Bloody Chamber allows for a dark comical reading, as it is set up to say that these horrors are impossibilities to real life and therefore, as readers, gives us the permission to laugh at the extent of horror that goes on in the Castle, almost as if it is all too surreal to be true.
Similarly, the review “Carter-Gothic Terrorist” argues that Carter’s aims to shock readers in The Bloody Chamber are ineffective due to being written post World War 2. It argues that the War exposed the brutal capabilities of man in a manner that such butchery is no longer an idea created to instill fear into readers, but an actual real life event. Therefore, The Bloody Chamber is received as a text of pure reality, as opposed to a short story exposing potential human corruption and thus The Bloody Chamber is no longer a text that can be approached with amusement, but a confirmation of excessive terror seen in history. However, this is not to say that none of the events that occur in The Bloody Chamber appear slightly humorous to readers. Upon finding pornographic material “suffused in [the Marquis] library,” the Gothic protagonist comments “my little nun has found the prayerbooks, has she?” followed by asking “have the nasty pictures scared Baby? Baby mustn’t play with grownups’ toys” the questions in which the Marquis uses to mock the narrator, adds an almost teasing tone to the narrative allowing readers to find amusement in the conversation. However, as with all Gothic literature- things do not always appear ‘black or white.’ Here, Carter uses the question asked by the Marquis to allow readers an insight to what men appear to value most. Through referring to the sexual material as “prayerbooks” it becomes clear that the Marquis worships sexual gratification instead of traditional values of God and religion. Additionally, the playful mocking that the Marquis talks to the young girl appears almost pedophilic and therefore Carter comments on the utmost serious issue of child abuse, echoing that this is far more alarming than an ephemeral piece of “dark comedy.”
Despite the few, if any, instances of dark comedy that Carter incorporates in to her Gothic literature, it is clear that her stories are overpowered by the element of terror- in a way that dark comedy can no longer be sustained in The Bloody Chamber.
Within The Bloody Chamber, Carter incorporates elements of both “dark” – humour noir – and light-hearted comedy. “Although terrifying”, elements of black comedy exist and can be found in the inclusion of gothic literary clichés, use of excessive sexuality, cynicism and the grotesque. Alternatively, Carter alludes to other types of comedy – slapstick, physical comedy, elements of Comedia Dell’Arte, sarcasm and sexual humour – that could plausibly be interpreted as playful, or jovial, thus diminishing the emphasis on the stories as “terrifying”; this idea is stressed most prominently in Puss-In-Boots, in which a bawdy, sexual humour is explored. Additionally, Carter’s use of dark irony and sardonic humour devalues a serious gothic interpretation; the mere existence of comedy means the stories are not “terrifying” in nature, yet, propose a satirical self-mockery. Carter’s use of deliberately hyperbolic gothic descriptions, as exhibited in The Lady of the House of Love, conjures a comedy that is thematically and contextually ‘dark’ and sombre, yet lacks the frightening disturbances of traditional gothic literature. It is important to question whether the stories can be both “terrifying” and “comic”, or simply “terrifying” and therefore lacking in comical appeal.
Carter examines less ‘dark’ elements of comedy, particularly through the use of bold sexuality, conventional male and female dynamics, and traditions of Commedia dell’arte. Carter’s Puss-in-Boots exposes a bawdy, narcissistic, crude humour, also incorporating elements of disguise. Fundamentally funny in Puss-in-Boots is Carter’s examination of anthropomorphosis, presenting the story from the perspective of a chauvinistic, misogynistic, ‘Con Man’ cat “Figaro”. The use of a cat to express crudeness, perversities and controversially sexist ideas means such ideas are not taken extremely seriously.
Carter also explores aspects of Commedia dell’arte, which originated in 16th century Italy, a type of comedy characterized by improvisation and social stereotypes. The use of disguise, ““…my master must pose as a rat-catcher and I, his ambulant marmalade rat-trap.”, enhances elements of absurdity; Puss’ “Master” will go to such extremes for ‘love’ and sexual desire: “…makes himself another sign that announces, with all due pomposity, how he is Il Famed Dottore”, in order to “access her bedchamber” once more. Furthermore, the use of an animal’s perspective is immediately humorous, in the sense that we are confronted with an unconventional view of ‘cats’; how they feel, think and act, and fundamentally, how they view the world. The combination of Puss and an extreme sexuality is also comical: “...'convince her orifice will be your salvation and she's yours...’” focus on the female “orifice” emphasises the objectification of women for sexual means: “...since she is his prize possession, consents to finger her a little.” The woman is defined by her “orifice” which is only of use for the dominant male also exposed through: “…shows him the target, he displays the dart, scores an instant bulls-eye. Bravo!” Female genitalia, described as a “target”, implicative of being the main ‘goal’ amongst men; women are defined by their sexual potential. Through Puss, Carter depicts the assertive male voice, characteristically misanthropic and egotistical.
The sexual nature of a cat is presumably primitive, whilst Puss is ‘knowing’ and experienced in the art of sex and sexual encounters, or the “saraband of Eros”: “I gave her the customary tribute of a few firm thrusts of my striped loins”, his brazen and almost violent sexual encounter, “firm thrusts”, is animalistic, yet is more reminiscent of rape. Carter, although exhibiting an indecent, light-hearted comedy, still retains a feminist viewpoint. The use of such a piggish male voice presents a bigoted male view; the female voice is denied, and extreme gothic feminine stereotypes are explored: the interfering hag, ““...snaps the old hag, with the one tooth in her mouth, warts; she sneezes.” and the virginal, virtuous female victim. The virtuosity of the female is then corrupted, and Carter alludes to concepts surrounding the loss of virginity, highlighting female sexual repression: “…women, I think, are, of the two sexes, the more keenly tuned to the sweet music of their bodies.”, creating a reciprocal sexual relationship: “they strip each other bare in a twinkling…”, evoking a sense of mutual passion. His boldness is less ignorant and more comical: “For what lady in all the world could say 'no' to the passionate yet toujours discret advances of a fine marmalade cat?” the “fine marmalade cat” narrates the story in a particularly arrogant and cynical tone. However, we find Puss’ voice acceptable; the cat’s voice does not encourage agitation or dislike, but the reader takes his narrative lightly: “Proud of his fine, white shirtfront that dazzles harmoniously against his orange and tangerine tessellations...” and Carter’s use of first-person reference accentuates the sense of audacity and pomposity; this is a cat who clearly adores himself. Nonetheless, Carter’s use of alliteration and hyperbolic language: “…he's proud as the devil, touchy as tin-tacks, lecherous as liquorice and, though I say it as loves him…” evokes a hyperbolic playfulness, and thus, a light-hearted, almost poetical, form of humour. Increasingly lurid and brash descriptions, “…tonguing my arsehole with the impeccable hygienic integrity of cats...” enhances the sense of humanism; the humour derives from the animal/human combination. Carter attributes human qualities and feelings onto Puss, this personification creates a comical tension and contrast between the physicality of the cat, and the cynical - “But has my master witnessed my triumph? Has he, my arse.”- Sarcastic, humanistic qualities of the narrative voice. Therefore, Carter presents a comedy that is not ‘dark’, in a short story that is not ‘terrifying’, however, exemplifies the piggish, lewd and bawdy amusement of ‘cats’, or in other words, men within a patriarchal society.
The Lady of the House of Love exemplifies a form of Gothic parody, and thus, Carter presents a deliberately over-stated, exaggerated, hyperbolic and ironically gothic atmosphere, comical in its clichéd nature. The Lady of the House of Love herself, “the Countess,” is synonymous with Dickens' Miss. Havisham - “Wearing an antique bridal gown, the beautiful queen of the vampires sits all alone...”- evoking a similar sense of eccentricity, which is so potent that it becomes almost impossible to consider tragic. The “queen of the vampires”, ravaged with self-loathing and a conflicting bloodthirsty appetite, resides in an intrinsically gothic “dark high house”. Reflecting Miss. Havisham's 'Satis House', Carter includes typically eerie setting descriptions of the “...ornate and rotting place”, in which “the mistress of all this disintegration notices nothing.”; “disintegration” and “rotting” has connotations with death and decay, evoking a sense of wasting away; this is perhaps suggestive of the Countess' meaningless existence in the liminal stage between life and death: the living dead. She lacks substance and meaning in any form of existence, and thus “notices nothing”, as if time is of no concern in her rejection of reality. The “disintegration” ceases to be significant, but remains a symbol of constant dissolution and degeneration. Although dark – and arguably terrifying – comical elements exist in this parodied Gothic style. Carter, experimenting with postmodernist ideas, includes obvious stock-gothic features and combines conventionally gothic stylistic features, “cobwebs”, “winding staircases”, “endless corridors”, shrieking “owls” and swooping “bats” to expose a form of self-mockery. The humour derives from this idea of parodying – 'serious' and 'tragic' gothic novels intend to scare and disturb, whilst Carter subverts this conventionality and defies the notion of 'fear' by alluding to comedy. This 'comedy' is also evident in Carter's gender subversion - subversion of male and female dynamics, “The bridegroom bleeds on my inverted marriage bed!” is “darkly” humorous in its unconventionality – and depiction of the seemingly femme-fatale “queen of terror”, who is “reluctant to fulfil her role” as a bestial, predatory female. Although “reluctant”, however, Carter ensures the “queen of night” manages to seduce her prey; “When she takes them by the hand and leads them to her bedroom, they can scarcely believe their luck.”; men become vulnerable to the 'appetite' of the Countess, be that sexual or blood-thirsty, or both. What is darkly comic and ironic is the sense of fortune felt by the male victims, as they triumph in securing a night with the Countess; The Countess takes advantage of her feminine sexual prowess: “...now she is a woman, she must have men.” as Carter hints at both an insatiable sanguinary hunger, or necessity for survival, and a rapacious sexual desire, hinted at through the imperative: “...she must”; as if nothing else could satisfy her need. Another darkly comical feature within this particular short story, relates to Carter's reference to hereditary diseases within royal lineage: “under the eyes of the portraits of her demented and atrocious ancestors”, their “blubber lips” create a sense of ridiculousness, also stressed by the inclusion of “demented”; demented has connotation with lunacy and insanity, typical gothic villain characters. These “victims of inbreeding” appear ugly and bizarre; however, Carter alludes to a less sinister approach, and the sheer ridiculousness of the figures means they become laughable. In particular, Carter’s use of comical language: “…She is the last bud of the poison tree that sprang from the loins of Vlad the Impaler who picnicked on corpses in the forests of Transylvania.” in this instance “picnicked” creates a civilised sense, contrasting with the grotesque nature of the act; This form of sadistic humour is inherently “dark” in its combination of the incongruous and the ordinary; characteristically gothic in its breaking of conventions.
The Lady of the House of Love remains “terrifying”, however, in its re-enforcement of thematic ideas surrounding the inevitability of death and the impermanence of beauty. The soldier, heavily associated with rationality - “Although so young, he is also rational”, and the inclusion of his “bicycle”, hints at the progression of modernity towards the beginning of the 20th century - will experience his “fate in the trenches of France.”; Carter alludes to the idea that surrealist gothic ideas cannot permeate the rationality of man, whose reality is far more “terrifying” than the “unreality” of the Countess, “This lack of imagination gives heroism to the hero”; the soldier’s inevitable death is presented as tragic, perhaps as Carter emphasises the realistic notion of death, in comparison to the vampirism, gothic clichés that are merely superficial representations of human fears; reality is far more fearful.
Similarly, Wolf-Alice presents a dark comedy through elements of physical comedy, such as slapstick, and the combination of normality and the monstrous: “If you stuff a corpse with garlic, why, he only slavers at the treat: cadavre Provençal.” The Count is sarcastically described as ‘slavering’ or drooling at the thought of flesh; a stuffed corpse only adds to the delicacy, “cadavre Provencal”. Carter’s abruptness in “cadavre Provencal” emphasises a sinister humour; combination of the gruesome, “cadavre”, and the usually culinary “Provencal”, evokes a sense of incongruity; the Count is not perturbed by the ‘garlic’, he would only relish in the mixture of flesh and seasoning; seasoned human meat. This form of black comedy is appealing, as it makes light of usually serious subject matter – such as cannibalism, death and mortality.
Carter also examines physical comedy, whilst still remaining ‘dark’: “When they saw the white bride leap out of the tombstones and scamper off towards the castle with the werewolf stumbling after…” creating a cliché gothic visual spectacle: “tombstones” and “castles”, conventional gothic settings, accentuating the sense of extravagance and theatricality. The peasants then run “screaming from the presence of a ghostly vengeance on him”, which adds another complexity to the sheer ridiculousness of the scene.
In conclusion, Carter investigates both the “darkly” comic and the light-hearted comic, whilst eliciting a critical reading and judgement on both gender and society. Within Puss-In-Boots varied comical elements exist, and Carter tends to focus less on the “terrifying” nature of Gothicism, and depicts a lively and bawdy story, infused with disguise and trickery in the name of ‘love’. Within this, however, a darker social commentary exists; although not “darkly” comic, the story could plausibly be dark in tone; the brazen sexual nature of Puss-in-Boots exposes a male sexual aggression, synonymous with animalistic sexual encounters. Ultimately, the story is not “terrifying”, nor is it “darkly comic”, it is simply comical. In contrast to this, Carter’s inclusion of gruesome descriptions, in combination with conventionality, generates a “dark” humour, in which serious or heinous subjects become jovial. This type of black comedy is prominent in the stories that could easily be considered “terrifying”. Thus, dark, sadistic comedy and the aspect of fear can intermingle, in some respects, emphasising the sinister and disturbing undertone of the story itself.