May 2015: Angela Carter

We'll be reading Angela Carter in May! Anyone have any plans for their May reads?

In case anyone is interested, these three titles by Carter are on the list of 1,001 Books to Read Before You Die:

The Passion of New Eve
Nights at the Circus
Wise Children

I snagged a copy of Wise Children real cheap at a used book sale, so I'm planning to read that since it's already on my bookshelf. :)

I also got a very cheap copy of Wise Children at a thrift shop so that is what I will be reading.

Wise Children is the only Angela Carter novel my library has, so that is what I will be reading, too. Looks like we'll all be enjoying the same novel!

I'm going to try for Passion of New Eve.

I love Angela Carter, one of my favorite authors. I really like "The Bloody Chamber".

>6 SoschaF: The Passion of New Eve sounds similar to Orlando by Virginia Woolf.

>4 Tara1Reads:, >5 sparemethecensor: Cool, lots of Wise Children going around! :)

>6 SoschaF: Please feel free to share your thoughts about the Carter books you read in the past also; I'm sure we'd all love to know what are the things that make her a favorite of yours. And then we can look out for those things as we read in May. :)

>8 sweetiegherkin: Seconded! I would love to hear your thoughts.

Well, it's officially May now and it's brought some warm weather to where I live. I started Wise Children late last week but, being busy, I haven't gotten too far yet. So all the parts I've read still seem to be the introductory phase where all the many characters enter and are described. But I like the tone so far; there's an undercurrent of humor that's not exactly snarky but it's definitely a more underhanded kind of humor than straight slapstick. I'm finding it hard to describe but I'm definitely enjoying it. :)

I picked up Wise Children from the library on Friday (May 1 exactly!) but haven't started it yet. (Over the weekend I started House of Leaves instead and it is both engrossing and long, so it may be a while before I turn to Angela Carter.)

>10 sweetiegherkin: I agree with you completely about the tone. In every scene, there is this undercurrent of amusement that adds mirth to otherwise tough events (denial of paternity, for instance). Nothing in the book has made me laugh out loud, but everything seems tohave a light varnish of humor on it.

Looking at the publication date on this book surprised me -- it feels older than a 1991 publication.

Wise Children is witty, amusing, very London. Haven't quite gotten to what makes it a Great Book yet, but highly enjoyable.

>12 sparemethecensor: Yep, not laugh out loud funny but definitely a tongue-in-cheek humor sprinkled throughout. I also like the pacing of the novel - even though not a ton happens in terms of a succinct plot, the style is so easy flowing that it reads quickly.

Hmm, maybe it felt older since the protagonist is in her 80s and reflecting back on her life? So much of the book is taking place in the 20s-40s that it gives it an "old-timey" feel.

>13 annamorphic: I'm with you. I'm enjoying the book, but I don't know that I think it belongs on the 1,001 Books to Read Before You Die list. There's a few people in my acquaintance who I think would particularly enjoy this book, but I'm not sure that I would recommend it widely.

>13 annamorphic:, >14 sweetiegherkin:

I agree with you both. I just finished Wise Children, and while I liked it, I think I must have missed what made it so wonderful. It's an enjoyable read, with great humor, setting, and characters -- not to mention a lovely amount of Shakespeare! -- but I didn't see it as a classic.

I just finished The Passion of New Eve. Just everything I love about Angela Carter--weird, erotic, full of symbolism, almost purple in imagination and description, like reading an sweet, over-ripe, slightly rotting fruit. She's a literary corpse flower. I love her, just love her.

Someone posted this New York Times article about Angela Carter in one of my other groups, thought I would share:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/books/review/subversive-pleasure.html?_r=0

>17 sweetiegherkin: Thanks! I appreciated that view. How sad to think on the 90s people were only supposed to write domestic realism...

I started Wise Children a couple of nights ago. The characters of Nora and Dora are a trip! The novel is going slowly for me right now because I am still in part one and making use of the list of characters at the back (much appreciated!) to keep everyone and their complicated relations straight! For the most part I like what I have read so far.

>19 Tara1Reads: Yeah, I referred to that list at the back a bunch, too! :)

>14 sweetiegherkin: Hmm, maybe it felt older since the protagonist is in her 80s and reflecting back on her life? So much of the book is taking place in the 20s-40s that it gives it an "old-timey" feel.

On page 2, Dora says it is their 75th birthday as the story is opening up and she is going back through their past to tell their history. To me, Dora still has a youthful voice for the most part. The only times she really mentions being old are when she's describing Tiffany's antics and she says "youth, youth" and later when she says now she understands how Grandma Chance felt when she laughed at her old, wrinkly, sagging body. I don't get an old timey feeling. I guess all the events being described seem youthful with all the dancing, dating various men, and traveling so that gives the book more of a youthful vibe to me. I knew the publication date before I started the book though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was confused by one thing in Part 3. Who was the woman that pretended to be Dora and married Genghis Khan? I must've missed something.

I agree with everyone else that the humorous tone and the characters are enjoyable (I love Dora and Grandma Chance!), but I don't see what makes this book deserve to be on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die List.

I am in Part 4 now and shall hopefully finish the book tonight or tomorrow.

>21 Tara1Reads: Ah, yes, I clearly rounded up to 80s by mistake. I don't know, for me it didn't necessarily didn't feel old, but it didn't necessarily feel youthful either. It just sort of was.

Answer to question about Part 3: It was Genghis Khan's first wife. The older woman who was from Brooklyn (I believe) and had been following Daisy around and phoning her, then later doing the same to Dora. She somehow got some miracle disguise that made her look more like Dora to fool Genghis Khan into loving her, although I don't really see the appeal of this horrible person for her. But to each his (or her) own.

I've never used the spoiler tag before, that was exciting! Thanks dieKatze! :)

>22 sweetiegherkin: Oh I love the spoiler tag! When people just say **SPOILER** that does NOT prevent my eyes from glancing over it anyway! But that may just be me hah.

Yeah I agree and I almost said the same thing in my original comment. I don't feel much of anything as I am reading Wise Children, but if I had to pick I would lean towards a more youthful vibe.

Part 3: Oh yeah Genghis Khan's first wife wanted him back after she saw him with Dora. I remember the old woman creepily calling them on the phone and crying and never talking but I didn't make the connection until just now that that was the same person at the wedding ceremonies. I also don't understand how she magically got a disguise to look like Dora either. What I really never understood was why on Earth Dora was marrying or "marrying" Genghis Khan in the first place when she obviously didn't want to. I don't understand why she felt like she had to. I guess it had something to do with Nora and what Nora wanted but I missed something in that part too. It's hard for me to go back and find a lot of these passages to re-read them since nothing is really broken up by dialogue. Such bizarre scenarios in this book!

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

>23 Tara1Reads: Part 3: Yeah, I don't know if maybe some plastic surgery was involved? The whole thing was a little unclear. I don't recall if there was anything specifically said about why Dora was marrying Genghis Khan; I just remember that he propositioned Nora first about bearing his children. The underlying thing was probably that Dora felt lost with Nora becoming engaged, so she felt the need to get engaged also. And Khan had a lot of money as well as influence in Hollywood so that could be beneficial to their careers. But Dora didn't seem the type to want marriage and children at all (unlike Nora), let alone with some creeper like Genghis with little to recommend him. So that part felt a bit rushed, although I guess that was supposed to be the takeaway of that part of their lives - hectic, blurry, and not entirely rational. Definitely lots of bizarre circumstances, and you haven't even gotten to the end yet, which I thought topped it all for oddity!

>24 sweetiegherkin: Part 3: Yes I remember him asking her to bear his children. I got lost in that Hollywood part. I agree Genghis Khan was a creeper!

I got to the ending tonight when I finally finished the book! I am all for magical realism, but there's no way 3 month old twins could fit in Perry's pockets! That is too far fetched and crazy. Also, Dora sleeping with Perry !!!! I'm not sure what to think. It definitely made me squirm a little though just thinking about the fact that he was 100 years old and her uncle...

ETA: I read your review on the book page and agree with pretty much everything you said except about the pacing of the book. For me the book dragged, and I was forcing myself to get through despite liking Dora.

>25 Tara1Reads: Re: the ending - Yep, Perry's showmanship always seemed so far-fetched. Most of that party scene took to the book to new levels of absurdity. It was nice, I suppose, that Nora finally got a chance to have kids like she always wanted, but it's an absurd "happy" ending for two 75-year-old women to have infants to care for and raise.

And the whole thing where Perry and Dora ended up having sex ... yeah, that was just too much for me. Not only 100 and her uncle, but most people thought he was her father and even she had to clarify that with him after the fact just in case! The funny thing was, I had been thinking on & off that my uncle might like this book, given all the Shakespeare references but once I got to that part I was like, um, no way am I passing this book on to him next, I am way too skeeved out!!

Hmm, for me, the beginning dragged a little bit just because there were so many characters being introduced, and it was a little bit difficult to figure out what was really the most relevant and where the book was going. After that, it sped up, especially the Hollywood part, which felt a little whirlwind.

>26 sweetiegherkin: Ending: Yes I agree. I kept thinking to myself "Why would a couple of 75 year old ladies want newborns?!" Dora wasn't that happy about it. She was looking forward to teaching them to dance etc. but certainly not as happy as Nora was about it.

Dora did question her parentage right then and there with Perry about who her mother AND father really were. That slipped my mind when I was typing my message to you I guess. Haha that's a funny story about giving the book to your uncle. I definitely wouldn't! It's a good thing you finished the book and didn't just pass it along to him when you were 3/4 of the way through or something!

There were a lot of characters to keep straight. Even at the end of the book I had to look up who Daisy was again because I could never remember if she was or wasn't the same person as Delia. At least Carter knew that it might be confusing and provided the list! I also spent a lot of time in the first part of the book trying to figure out where the book was going to go and if there was actually going to be a plot or not and when we were ever going to get back to the twins' birthday and Melchior's party and the whole bit with Tiffany disappearing. Then of course none of it comes up until the end which I finally figured out that's when it had to come up because it wasn't going there in the meantime.

A lot of other reviewers said the same thing about the Hollywood part. I am glad I am not the only one that thought it was rushed and confusing. I got lost and gave up on understanding that part which is what led to my confusion about the wedding in Part 3 I believe.

It's good to have someone to discuss these things with!

>27 Tara1Reads: re: ending - That's true, Dora didn't seem as crazy happy about having children, which is not a good start to having two newborns in your home!

Haha, yep, I was little on the fence on passing it on even before that just because there is a lot of sexual vulgarity in the way Dora speaks ... but when I got to that point, I was definitely like, nope, not happening!

Yeah, it didn't help that everyone had alternate names or were related to people in ways other than what they said (i.e., how Nora & Dora were Melchior's actual kids while Melchior's kids were actually Perry's kids). The back cover of my copy also had a quote from a reviewer that mentioned 5 sets of twins in the book, which kept throwing me off ... until of course the newborns show up at the end. That reviewer should have put a spoiler tag on that comment!!

Re: plotting - yep, in the beginning, I was much more like, where is this book going? With the stuff with Tiffany, I thought her disappearance was going to play a much bigger role in the main plot than it did. Once I settled down into realizing the book was mostly going to be Dora recounting their life, I was able to get in to more.

The Hollywood part definitely did feel whirlwind, although the more I think about, the more I think Carter was trying to capture the spirit of that time in the twins' lives - that themselves were caught up in things much bigger than they anticipated and they were kind of blown along for the ride, especially Dora. I was a little more disappointed that after that part, it pretty much just skipped ahead to the birthday party again. I would have liked to known a little bit more about Cynthia, Brenda, Tiffany, and Melchior's sons (I already forgot their names, darn), and how all of them came in to the twins' lives. I know Carter provided some of that in the beginning, but it seemed out of place there because there were so many characters being introduced then and a whole bunch of them just dropped off the map for quite some time there. Plus I was curious to know more about what the twins were doing during that time.

It is indeed good to discuss! I always am amazed after a good book discussion how much more I get out of a book once I start talking to someone else about their take on it.

>28 sweetiegherkin: Dora's sexual vulgarity...
That's what made me both admire her and not like her at the same time. I admired that she had the guts to say all the open and blunt things she said, but I was also surprised by just how much of it there was. I certainly don't think that older people can't be sexual beings or have a sense of sexuality it's just that I wasn't expecting it I guess and maybe I can be a bit prudish. I really liked her character for her humor and her bluntness/openness about all matters including sex. It also felt like she was fairly honest and objective about Nora and how Dora herself felt about Nora and Nora's actions. They were definitely different from each other and Dora didn't fall in love and sleep with all those men like Nora did. I also appreciated how Dora was honest with herself and with the reader with how she felt about Perry. I read a review on GoodReads where someone called Dora an unreliable narrator, but my immediate reaction is to not agree with that at all for the reasons I stated above. Also, there wasn't much of a plot for her to twist. Since it was a re-telling of the past, the reader should expect that Dora cannot remember every little detail completely and accurately. Furthermore, Dora said towards the end that she couldn't remember little details like the Irish's favorite alcoholic beverage.

i.e., how Nora & Dora were Melchior's actual kids while Melchior's kids were actually Perry's kids).
True. I had to ponder that for a minute and check the list at the back to make sure I was understanding correctly. I think we read the same copy. Mine also has the same reviewer mentioning 5 sets of twins which never threw me off while I was reading because I didn't bother to count the twin sets! I have the Penguin paperback copy with the light purple cover with drawings of Nora and Dora in costume with the tragedy and comedy masks on the front.

Yes, I also thought that the main plot of the book was going to be finding Tiffany and Nora & Dora helping Tiffany get her life on track. It seemed that since it was brought up in the beginning and was fairly dramatic, Dora would continue with that story not go off into the past. I didn't completely mind that it was a re-telling of Nora and Dora's past though once I read all their antics.

I also thought that the characters mentioned in the beginning would play a bigger part than they did such as Our Cyn and Brenda. I'm still confused about why Our Cyn had any significance to the story or to Nora & Dora. She was Tiffany's great-grandmother and was hardly mentioned past the first part. She could've just been left out altogether in my opinion.

The other twins were Tristram and Gareth. ;-)

I agree. Even if I didn't like a book that much, discussion makes it worthwhile.

>29 Tara1Reads: re: characterization of Dora: I agree that her openness and bluntness were part of what made her interesting to read about and also allowed the reader to feel an emotional connection with her, even if her actions and said bluntness don't necessarily vibe with the reader's own lifestyle.

I also saw a review that called her an unreliable narrator, but I didn't find her to be more unreliable than most ... she's recounting things that happened decades ago, but she doesn't seem to be putting any kind of twist or falsely positive (or negative) light on things.

Yes, I had that same copy of the book.

re: plotting Yep, I totally thought that the dramatic introduction to Tiffany being missing meant the book was going to be about what happened to her and how they were going to find her. The past story was fine, it's just that the opening hints at a different premise.

Our Cyn was, I believe, one of the last boarders that Grandma Chance had in the house. If I recall correctly, she also was mentioned in the long section about the past when Dora talked about the picnic they all went on together (Perry, Dora, Nora, Grandma, Cyn & the cabbie Perry hired for the day, who I think later became Cyn's husband).

By the way, what did you think of Nora's assertion that Perry & Grandma should have made a go at a romantic relationship?? And the brief suggestion at one point that Grandma Chance might indeed have been the girls' actual mother?

Thanks, it was really bothering me in particular that I couldn't remember Tristam's name since he played a bigger role. I also starting thinking about the whole Saskia-Tristam relationship and wondering how that whole dysfunctional thing got started. It was strange to me that several times it was mentioned that Saskia was his aunt, even thought Saskia and Imogen didn't know up until the end that they were really Perry's children (and even then, that would make Saskia and Tristam cousins, not aunt and nephew). So at the time that Saskia and Tristam were sleeping together, they both assumed they were actual half-siblings? How bizarre. Of course, there was some question at some point that Tristam and Gareth might also be Perry's children.... It was interesting to me how Perry and Melchior were supposed to be such polar opposite personalities and yet they both kept getting attracted to the same exact women.

Yep, talking over everything helps! :)

>30 sweetiegherkin: Our Cyn: I think you are right that she was one of Grandma Chance's last boarders. I had already forgotten about Our Cyn and the cabbie!

I didn't understand why Nora thought Perry and Grandma Chance should have been together. To me, there never seemed to be a hint of anything romantic between them. But, again, we are also seeing their relationship through Dora's eyes and her looking back on it years later and maybe she just didn't want to look back and admit there was something between Perry and Grandma Chance since Dora herself had harbored these romantic feelings about Perry. If that was the case, then Dora would be a bit of an unreliable narrator. Hmm... so many things to consider.

As far as Grandma Chance being Nora & Dora's biological mother, I suppose anything is possible especially in this book! I can go either way on this one. I mean Dora did say that Perry visited them throughout their childhood and paid what sounded like the British equivalent of child support. And during Perry's visits, I think I remember Dora saying that Perry would sit in the kitchen and have conversations with Grandma Chance. Kitchen conversations do not equal romance, but who knows what they were discussing? Grandma Chance was extremely upset one of the times she took the girls to the theater (I believe) when they were young and Melchior came in; she was so upset to see Melchior freely living his life with all these women and not acknowledging his daughters at all. But Grandma Chance could feel that angry at Melchior's slacking off on his parental duties regardless if she was their mother or not just because she undoubtedly felt strongly towards the girls.

Perry paying child support or whatever it was brings me back to Grandma Chance and Perry being romantic. Dora did say that that arrangement made it look like Grandma Chance and Perry were married on paper. Grandma Chance's reaction to that was light-hearted and humorous if I recall correctly.

Saskia and Tristram...yes another incestuous relationship! Dora said that Tristram and Gareth did not know that Saskia and Imogen were actually their half-sisters. No one ever told Tristram and Gareth any differently so Tristram and Gareth called them their "aunties." Aunts or great-aunts was believable to them probably because Saskia and Imogen were so much older than them.

I also don't know how Saskia and Tristram's relationship started. Perhaps it was mentioned in the book and I just don't remember. Saskia was portrayed as a total brat by Dora so I am inclined to agree with Dora since I sympathized with Dora as the narrator. And Tristram seemed douchey to me so he and Saskia seemed liked a perfect match. The way Dora spoke about it it sounded as if they had some weird undeniable connection because even at the birthday party at the end when Tristram was trying to patch things up with Tiffany, Dora said that Saskia was looking at Tristram in a way that it was obvious she wasn't going to leave him alone yet despite him professing "love" for Tiffany. (If he did profess love...I've already forgotten).

Yes, Saskia and Imogen believed they were Tristram and Gareth's half-siblings until the end when they finally learned they didn't share a father after all. Tristram and Gareth grew up calling Saskia and Imogen "aunties" so they thought their relationship was an aunt-nephew one. Dora said Saskia and Imogen just let the twins call them aunty without ever telling them what they believed to be the truth--that they were half-siblings. So Saskia and Imogen played into the lie too just as the other family members did about letting them believe they were half-siblings. This probably goes without saying but whether you're someone's cousin or half-sibling, I think it's weird to have any type of sexual or romantic relationship. In either case in this story, they are still some sort of blood relation so it's incestuous. What a messed up family!

Of course, there was some question at some point that Tristam and Gareth might also be Perry's children....

Regarding the parentage of Tristram and Gareth, Dora implied that Melchior fathered one and Perry the other (I forgot who fathered which, Perry's son would have the one that ended up with the red hair). The character list at the back of the book said that Tristram and Gareth were fraternal twins. In a normal case of fraternal twins there are two separate eggs and two separate sperm but the two sperm come from the same man. In Tristram and Gareth's case, there were two eggs and two sperm but the sperm were from Melchior and from Perry. That can and does happen where the mother has sex with two different men around the same time and gets impregnated by each of them. There was another case of it in the news a few months back. I got this idea just from Dora mentioning multiple times how Tristram and Gareth each favored either Perry or Melchior and were definitely different (this is also displayed in how they lived their lives with Gareth separating himself from the family and going into theological studies and Tristram sort of misaligning himself with all of that).

It was interesting to me how Perry and Melchior were supposed to be such polar opposite personalities and yet they both kept getting attracted to the same exact women.

I never even thought about that but that's true! And the opposite is also true if what I said above is true about Tristram and Gareth's parentage because then that means their mother was also attracted by both Melchior and Perry!

Whew! I would have never put this much thought into this book if it wasn't for this discussion. The reading group guides at the back of books are usually useless to me because they never ask the questions I am actually curious to ponder. This is why online book groups are better!

>31 Tara1Reads: re: Grandma Chance: Yeah, I never saw anything romantic between Perry and Grandma, but maybe Nora was going with the idea that a friendship-based relationship would be a more lasting one than a romantic one... In a way, Perry had a stronger relationship with Grandma than with anyone else, because she was really the one constant woman in his life, whereas some of the others (e.g., Lady A) were women he slept with once and didn't really interact with much later.

Grandma seemed like such a blunt and honest person that I doubt she would make up a story to the girls about their mother dying at birth rather than just say she was their mother. Then again, like you say, with this book and this family, anything is possible!

Tristam & Gareth: Were Tristam & Gareth as dumb as rocks? They were the result of their father's third marriage; Saskia & Imogen of his first. They had to know Saskia & Imogen were their half-sisters ... unless they somehow knew the secret of Saskia & Imogen's parentage (re: Perry), in which case, wouldn't their calling Saskia & Imogen "aunt" tip those women off that Melchior wasn't really their father? Ay, this family lineage is so messed up, it's making my brain hurt.

I think that Tristam was trying to patch things up at the party with Tiffany, but she was having none of it. So it makes sense that he probably just fell in the old habit of going back to Saskia. I don't think Carter ever explains how that relationship started, which is part of what makes the whole aunt-nephew/sister-brother thing confusing as well.

Re: Tristam & Gareth's parentage: I totally missed that implication. I know Dora was pondering at one point how Perry went to visit an "old friend" in a particular neighborhood, and she later realized that person could have been "Lady Margarine," but then she kind of dismissed that thought. Interesting theory.

Re: Perry & Melchior: Yikes, somehow I never thought of it that way either! That's a lot of women who find two distinctly different men equally attractive: Lady A, Daisy/Delia, Lady Margarine possibly, and goodness knows who else.

Maybe this book is on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list not because it's necessarily that compelling or well written, but because it generates so much discussion!!

>32 sweetiegherkin: Grandma Chance: I don't really think she was the girls' real mother. There was never any indication of that throughout the book. I agree with what you said; she probably would've just told Dora and Nora the truth in that case. She never tried to hide who their biological father was or the fact that he failed as a father in many ways.

Tristram & Gareth: I agree with what you said about Tristram & Gareth and Saskia & Imogen all knowing/not knowing. You would think they would be able to figure it out (not the part about Perry being their real father maybe but at least that Tristram and Gareth were their half-brothers). That leaves a hole in the book kind of that their relations and knowledge thereof was never explained and why Saskia and Tristram got to together never being explained either. It is a complicated family to say the least.

Maybe this book is on the 1001 Books to Read Before You Die list not because it's necessarily that compelling or well written, but because it generates so much discussion!!

Good point! While I was reading it, I definitely never thought I would have this much to say about it.

>33 Tara1Reads: re: Grandma Yep, I feel like she didn't really have any motivation to lie about her relationship to the girls. But I guess perhaps the point of adding that seed of doubt was that with this family, you never know how anyone is related to anyone else!

re: Tristam & Gareth The more I think about, the more I feel like Carter made this family tree so convoluted, that she herself was starting to get confused. It just doesn't make any sense for Saskia and Tristam not to think they were half-siblings, up until the very end when they would realize they were actually cousins. No aunt-nephew relationship at any point! Maybe if Carter had explored the roots of Saskia and Tristam's romantic/sexual relationship, she would have thought about that more... who knows.

While I was reading it, I definitely never thought I would have this much to say about it.
Same here! In some ways, it seemed sort of superficial and shallow (especially the Hollywood part, although I guess that's a fitting tribute to Hollywood itself), yet there was definitely a lot going on under the surface in this book!

Just a random bit of trivia but I'm currently reading The Hazel Wood and one character dropped a reference to Angela Carter, which made me realize how fans of Carter just *might* enjoy this title as well. Of course, I haven't gotten to the end yet so maybe not....