Thursday, 19 January 2012

Five Things I Hate About Women's Magazines (In no particular order)

5) Improve! Now, improve some more!

Try and find a women’s magazine that doesn’t say something about improving yourself. Whether it’s lose some weight, get better friends, get a new job or just be a different person (articles like ‘How To Be Funny’ or ‘How To Be A Social Butterfly’ are fairly common), every single magazine aimed at women preaches that you should never be satisfied with yourself. Now, of course everyone has aims in life, but if you have to get them from a magazine, you should probably be worried about yourself.

4) What does [insert random action here] show you about him?

Women’s magazines analyse everything men do. Quite literally, everything. How they eat, how they style their hair, what sort of music they like. Because obviously, women and men are completely and utterly different and could never understand each other without the help of these magazines.

3) Sex: How to please him. And only him.

Do this position, do that position. Wear this. Talk like this. You must experiment, you must be ‘fun’, or your boyfriend will get bored. Why talk to him about this sort of thing when you could read a magazine?

2) Budget Buys…or not

A budget outfit £500 does not make.

1) How to change your entire life, look and personality to find a boyfriend

You can quite literally find articles such as ‘Hobbies that men find attractive’, ‘Jobs that men find attractive’, ‘What to wear to hook a man’, etc. Alongside advice to ‘just be yourself. Guys like that’. Apparently the people that make these magazines see no irony in this whatsoever. 

Updating Fairytales ; Example

Cinderella

Ella Cendrillon was a miraculous baby. Not in the sense that she was amazingly beautiful, or incredibly clever; her existence was quite literally, a miracle. 31 Crescent Drive was burnt to the ground on the 18th of September, 1990; when the firemen were sifting through the ashes, they found Ella, still cradled in her baby basket, sleeping peacefully. The newspaper headline, which framed a photo of her still sleeping soundly, read CINDERS ELLA, and the name stuck.  

In some early versions of 'Cinderella', the heroine's name is Ella and her nickname derives from her sleeping in the ashes of the kitchen fire. It doesn't make sense in the modern world for Ella to be cleaning fires, so I've changed the reason why her nickname emerges. Additionally, Ella's surname literally means Cinderella in French. In all versions of the story, Cinderella is an orphan (common theme in fairy tales) so all I've done is lose the stepmother. I never understood why she didn't ship Cinderella off to a relative or something anyway, if she really didn't want her.


How to Update A Fairy Tale : Part Two

Love at first sight? No thanks. 
In almost every fairy tale you care to name, as soon as the prince and princess (or equivalent) meet, it’s love at first sight. They don’t even have to talk (in Sleeping Beauty and Snow White’s case, only one of them has to be awake) and they’re both quite happy to marry, have babies and live happily ever after. How often do characters in modern romances fall in love at first sight? In ‘When Harry Met Sally’, twenty years elapse before the pair even realise they have feelings for each other. In ‘You’ve Got Mail’, they talk for months but can’t stand the sight of each other in real life. No modern reader will accept the two main characters falling in love at first sight. Use whatever romantic plot device you fancy, but they’re going to have to really connect before we can believe in, and care about, their love story.
Less is more
A lot of modern fairy tales take the original story and just ‘convert’ the main features into a modern form. How many modern versions of Cinderella replace the lost shoe with a mobile, or a purse, or some other modern girl accessory? The prince’s ball is replaced with a high school dance, or a work do, or something equally banal. This makes the story oddly jarring sometimes; some elements of fairy tales just don’t fit with modern life. Why is Cinderella never helped by social services? Why doesn’t Red Riding Hood just get a taxi over to her granny’s house? How did the 3 Little Pigs all get planning permission at the same time? It’s also incredibly predictable.
A far more subtle and effective way of retelling fairytales is to take the original elements as an influence, but not let them dictate your story. Cinderella can grow up and move out of her stepmother’s house before she meets her Prince Charming; it doesn’t take away from the magic of the story. Another way of dealing with the difficulties of translating these classic stories to the modern age is to take the original elements as symbolic; for example, Snow White’s stepmother, in the original, demands her heart on a platter. Maybe in a modern retelling, she breaks Snow White’s heart in some way, or takes a heart shaped necklace from her. Don’t make the reference so subtle that a casual reader will miss the allusion, but there’s no need to overstate it either.

How To Update A Fairy Tale


How To Update A Fairy Tale; 

Fairy tales are as relevant today as they were when they were first told. They are constantly being retold, both on screen and in writing. Modern, or updated, versions appear all the time. Angela Carter’s ‘The Bloody Chamber, and other stories’ is a perfect example of the different types of retold fairy tales that appear. Some stories simply allude to the original fairy tale (in the first story, there is a statue of ‘The Little Mermaid’, some are direct retellings, such as ‘The Company of Wolves’, and some are more modern versions, such as ‘The Courtship of Mr Lyon’. Often, writers attempt to translate the original fairy tale directly into the present, but the change in social conventions and the development of new technology necessitates some work to make sure the new version isn’t laughable. I’ve come up with some key things that need to be changed for a modern fairy tale to work.

Modern Story, Modern Heroine

The role of women in society has changed an awful lot since the times of Han Christian Anderson and the Grimm brothers. Snow White may be lovely both in looks and character, but she is utterly helpless. She is content to just sit and wait to be rescued, first by the dwarves and then by a handsome prince (who she has no qualms about marrying after only meeting him once). Will this appeal to a modern reader? Not a chance. A modern heroine is independent and thinks for herself, and while she might need rescuing she’ll certainly make an attempt on her own account. There’s really no need for her to be the most beautiful women in the world, either; a modern women might appreciate a heroine she can empathise with. 

Next post:
Love at first sight? No thanks.
Less is More.

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Chekhov's Gun; How to and How not to use it

Literary techniques, and their weird and wonderful names (bilsdungroman hardly rolls off the tongue) fascinate me. For one thing, it makes you sound like an absolute genius when you can comment on the use of incluing, or leitwortstil in a text. They're also incredibly interesting in how specific they can be, and sometimes in where they come from. Chekhov's Gun is an example of this; Chekhov advised that if you have a rifle on the stage in Act One, it should be fired in a later act. Otherwise, leave it out of the staging. This literary technique is both an example of foreshadowing (in that a seemingly unimportant object becomes significant later on) and minimalism, in that Chekhov advises that nothing should be mentioned that is not significant to the overall plot. Chekhov's gun is a technique that appears again and again, in film, television, literature and comic books. Sometimes the technique is used effectively - the "gun" is subtle enough so it comes as a surprise when it's involved, but noticeable enough for us to have the "Ohhhhhhh" moment when we realise we should have known all along. Sometimes it's ineffective; it's too obvious when first mentioned, or too subtle for us to even notice it at all.

Some effective uses of this technique are in 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' and in the 'Harry Potter' series. In 'The Hobbit', the Ring Bilbo obtains from Gollum is a magical novelty; in 'The Lord of the Rings', it's the most important object in the entire story and the central plot point. There are a lot of examples of Chekhov's Gun in Harry Potter. To name but a few, the Deluminator which opens the first Harry Potter book becomes a significant object in the last, and the cursed necklace which Malfoy examines in the second book is used by him as a murder weapon, four books later. The time between the first appearance of the 'gun', and its significant second appearance in these examples is particularly skilful.

In the Alex Rider books, and in several James Bond books and films, the spy is given several gadgets designed to help him. These gadgets are coincidentally EXACTLY what the spy will need in his next mission. Either the gadget designers are psychic, or this is a very poor use of Chekhov's Gun.

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Can we trust Nick?

Having recently read 'The Great Gatsby' for my American Lit class, some points came out in the class discussion and lecture on the book; the main focus of both was Gatsby; is he so great? What does he want? But someone raised an interesting point about Nick, questioning whether he was a reliable narrator. I decided to take another look at the text with this in mind.

 Point One;

Nick does not hesitate in providing us with other characters' versions of events, and never questions their validity. For example, he is told of Gatsby's love affair by Jordan and presents her narrative to us unquestioningly; how do we know we can trust Jordan? If Nick trusts this so implicitly, what else might he take on trust, and therefore present to us as true?

Point Two;

Subjectivity; Nick does not judge Gatsby at all, despite his many actions which might lead another character to form an entirely different view of him. Like attempting to steal another man's wife away, for example.  He consistently calls Gatsby, well, great - is he really? Likewise, he is not particularly fond of Tom and therefore is disposed to paint him in a negative light; can we really trust what Nick says about other characters?

Point Three;

He is recounting this story from three years or so onwards. How can we trust that his memory remains utterly accurate, to the exact word of every sentence every person speaks? 'The Great Gatsby' is a reconstruction of Nick's memories, rather than an accurate record of the narrative.

Point Four;

 On page 25, a curious lapse occurs. We jump from a scene in an elevator, to "I was standing beside his bed and he was sitting up between the sheets, clad in his underwear." No explanation is given for this gap, and shortly another follows: "lying half asleep in the cold lower level of the Pennsylvania Station." Does Nick not remember what happened here? Or is he purposely withholding information from us? Either way, he proves himself an unreliable narrator and we are warned to treat his narrative with caution.

Monday, 14 November 2011

Critical Analysis; 'The Bloody Chamber', by Angela Carter

The motivations and identity of the narrator of Angela Carter's short story 'The Bloody Chamber has long been debated by critics, and still remains unclear. Is she the innocent virgin of fairytale legend, horrified by the depravities her husband offers her, or a knowing, sexual woman with a "potentiality for corruption"? In fact, I propose that she is neither; in her revision of the classic story of Bluebeard, I argue that Carter depicts an immature, rather selfish woman rejecting the traditional roles of wife and mother but eventually finding her own way towards accepting the strength of these roles through an equal partnership.
   
The narrator certainly attempts to depict herself as an innocent virginal girl before her marriage, carefully inserting references such as "little nun" and "white, enclosed quietude" into her recount of events, but there is a wealth of evidence within the text to contradict this. Carter's use of exaggerated sexual language in the opening of the story, mocking erotic literature, emphasizes the narrator's longing for sexual fulfillment. Even after her first sexual encounter, which "infinitely" dishevels her, she still longs for the "renewal of his caresses." Even more telling is her careless mention of the "most pornographic" "etching" her husband has shown her before they were even married, which leaves her "stirring"; hardly the language of a girl who says she "knows nothing of the world."

The narrator may not be innocent, but Carter takes care to emphasize her youth and inexperience of the world. Her husband refers to her as his "little love", his "baby", even his "child." Quite apart from the Freudian overtones, his language shows that he regards his new wife as emotionally immature, and she hardly does anything to disprove his view to the reader. When he abandons her on her honeymoon, she takes a childish delight in surprising the overbearing "housekeeper", and then races "crazily" around her new home seeking diversion in "the costume of a student"; her eloquence in describing her actions are belied by the childlike nature of them.

Her immaturity is coupled with her refusal to accept the "practical aspects of marriage." She turns her back "pettishly" on the realities of the world, refusing to hear about her new husband's previous three wives and even when she arrives at her new home, wants to displace the new and bring back the old, in the shape of the forbidding "housekeeper" and her "old nurse." When left to run a household and maintain order, she makes it clear that she expects instead to spend her time in "the picture gallery". She eschews the costume of a wife, remaining in the "costume of a student" and rejects her "luncheon" and "dinner" in favor of "sandwiches and a flash of coffee"; essentially she rejects all the responsibilities of her new life, but freely enjoys the pleasures.

This rejection of responsibility and costume is a metaphor for her rejection of the role of wife and mother. The "practicalities of marriage" are symbolized by the Marquis's sadistic pornography, symbolically representing the dominance of man over woman in a traditional marriage, and the narrator is left with "painful, furious bewilderment" at this realization. She pities the wives she finds in the bloody chamber, who have willingly allowed the Marquis to assert his dominance over them but has no intention of allowing him to do so to her.

The issue of sacrificing for love is referenced several times; the narrator recounts how her mother "beggared herself for love" but seems only to focus on how this brought both "poverty" and a "legacy of tears". When traveling towards her husband's home, she describes it as having "walls made of foam", with a "melancholy" "mermaiden" inhabiting the sea surrounding in. Carter, queen of intertextuality, is clearly referencing the classic fairytale 'The Little Mermaid', whose roots are utterly different to that of its modern, cartoon incarnation. In the original, the mermaid falls in love with a prince of the land above. She sacrifices her voice for legs, even though every step she takes causes her agonizing pain; when she finds her prince, despite all her sacrifice, he is marrying another woman. Her sisters urge her to return to the sea, the only way to do so being to stab her lover through the heart, but instead she uses the knife they give her to kill herself. The narrator's attitude, almost mocking the "mermaiden", waiting for a lover who died "long ago", makes it clear she has no intention of sacrificing herself for love.

The narrator's attitude to motherhood is also one of the most challenging and intriguing aspects of the texts. Helen Simpson sees Carter's version of Bluebeard as not being particularly interested in "the perils of childbirth" (see her introduction to Carter's collection of short stories, also entitled 'The Bloody Chamber') but I have to disagree. The "practicalities of marriage", particularly in the world of the narrator (which is clearly some time ago) could easily be taken to represent the fact that many women died in childbirth; the ultimate sacrifice for love.

Early on, the narrator clearly shows that she has little respect for the institution of motherhood. Her own mother is "indomitable" but her daughter dismisses her as "eccentric" and recounts how she "teased" her for her insistence on carrying a gun; ironic, in light of the events that transpire. She recounts her mother's "adventurous girlhood" proudly, but it seems clear that to her, her mother lost her importance on becoming a mother, and only gains status (in the form of a "black silk" dress) when her daughter is married. Her relationship with her mother, which is traditionally seen as rather intimate, is apparently so distant that she is keen to "defer" her call to her mother for as long as possible and earlier "would say no more" on the subject of marriage. Surely a 'close' mother and daughter would do absolutely nothing but discuss said topic? The narrator even goes so far as to dismiss her mother as a "poor widow", hardly a term of praise or endearment.

Not only does the narrator have little respect for motherhood, she actively fears what she sees as its inevitable outcome; death. "One day, I might bear an heir" she says, without a hint of emotion in her tone. The passionless attitude to having a child comes just moments after Carter makes the association between marriage and 'The Little Mermaid; taken in juxtaposition, the reader is forced to make the association between marriage, childbirth and agonizing pain and sacrifice. Her "bony hips" contrast with a description of one of the Marquis's previous wives (who sacrificed herself for her husband gladly), where Carter uses animal imagery and references to a "jungle" to create an image of lush fertility. Her attachment to her childhood, her longing to "cling" to her husband and take "comfort" like a "child" all signify her reluctance to accept adulthood and with it, motherhood. Later, she even more clearly indicates her distaste for motherhood by associating the words "queasy" and "tainted" with "pregnant women" and "dark" with "newborn." The image of the "fat stems" of the lilies floating in "greenish water" brings to mind the classic Gothic movie image of a fetus in a jar; an image that Carter, so fond of intertextual and cultural references, could have created accidentally. Later, Jean Yves reinforces the narrator's fears by saying "no bride should suffer so much, so early in her marriage", the implication being that no bride truly suffers until she sacrifices herself to childbirth, later "in her marriage."

However 'The Bloody Chamber' is a journey, a woman's journey from a selfish "seventeen year old girl" to a mature woman ready for marriage. The pivotal moment for this transformation, fitting for a modern fairytale, is when the errant wife enters her husband's "enfer", the "Bloody Chamber" itself. She discovers the fate of the three wives, who were, it seems, only too happy to submit to their husband's dominance, fulfill the role of a traditional wife and make the ultimate sacrifice for love. She is utterly horrified by her husband's expectations, and repulsed by the smile on his previous wife's "dead lips"; her horror stems from the fact that she is being asked to submit and sacrifice herself willingly for her husband's love. She returns to her chamber, rejecting motherhood once again with her wish to wake in the "morning", "once again a virgin".

Here, Jean Yves is introduced. His name is significant, standing in opposition to the "Marquis", with its masculine and sinister overtones. Jean Yves is a more feminine name to English readers, and it is significant that he is the only character, the only alive character at least, to be given a first name. The narrator's choice of words to describe him as in stark contrast to the "heavy" "leonine" Marquis. She directly compares the "irredeemable bulk" of the Marquis with the "slight, stooping figure" of the piano tuner (a rather unpretentious choice of career, too), who is also "lovely" and "a boy", words which hardly bring to mind strength and masculinity. He readily admits he can offer only "comfort", and he also offers a new perspective on relationships to the narrator. "He would come with me, if I would lead him" she says, realizing that he offers the possibility of an equal partnership.

Her discovery also leads to another, more subtle, discovery. As Jean Yves enters her chamber, she refers to herself as her "mother's daughter", seemingly accepting her role and expressing respect and deference for her mother. She admits that "courage" makes her think of her "mother" and symbolically, motherhood itself. Most significant is Carter's metaphorical reference to a "curious child" bringing about the final events of the text. Gone is the "dark newborn", now the "child" brings about her salvation. She gives her castle up to "children" and lives happily with her "piano tuner", finally having found a way to be married without sacrifice.

To conclude, in 'The Bloody Chamber', Carter creates a journey of 'self-discovery', a woman finding that she cannot survive within the traditional strictures of marriage, cannot sacrifice herself to give her husband a heir, and cannot live with a husband who desires to dominate her entirely. This discovery changes a selfish, immature "little girl" into a woman prepared for the "practicalities of marriage"; one can almost imagine that Carter, who married young and divorced only to find love again later in life, and became a mother in her second marriage, drew from her own experiences and essentially created 'The Bloody Chamber' as a metaphor for her own experiences with love and marriage, framed within the fairytale.