Angela Carter and the Fairytale. - book review

Edited by Danielle M. Roemer and Cristina Bacchilega. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2001. 269 pp. Illus. $19.95 (pbk). ISBN 0-8143-2905-5

In their introduction, Roemer and Bacchilega tell us that this collection of cross-disciplinary writings brings together contributions from "international scholars across disciplines who were actively thinking about Carter's magic." Their intention is to "intervene in the debate surrounding Carter's texts ... by providing more information ... seeking ways to shake easy labels from her work ... placing international perspectives in conversation with one another ... opening the way for further research."

Although the editors claim that the volume has "no one thesis," two overarching themes are suggested by this collection. First is the duality obvious in all of Carter's work: polarity of opinion, love/hate, but also the contrast between the decorative and the practical in her work, the imprecise and the rigorous. The mixture of the material and the ethereal in Carter's tales is one of their more fertile aspects. Second is the perception of Angela Carter as an icon; the examination as much of the myth that surrounds her as of those myths that she re-fashioned into intricate, decorative, yet practical objets d'art. This approach is implicit rather than, explicit. The inclusion of fiction, of interviews and of Elise Bruhl's and Michael Garner s educational research, reveals the book's true subject: Angela Carter as a subject for discussion in herself, as much a cultural phenomenon as the fairytale. Can one re-write Angela Carter?

The most interesting information about the Carter myth comes from Stephen Benson's "Angela Carter and the Literary Marchen: A Review Essay," which tells us of the "legend of the Carter Effect ... 'St Angela of the Campus.'" In the years 1992-93, there were more than forty applicants wanting to do doctorates on Carter, making her by far the most fashionable twentieth-century topic, and "the most read contemporary author on English University campuses." Another essay, "Teaching Improprieties: The Bloody Chamber and the Irreverent Classroom," by Bruhl and Garner, discusses the issues raised when teaching Carter's work and reminds us that Carter's writing polarises opinion like no other writer except Tolkien: you either love her or hate her. Her writing casts a spell of extremes. Thus, the volume deals with Carter the cultural icon and with the magnetic force of her opus, which attracts strong opinion from all sides.

The inclusion of fiction shows how Angela Carter has affected writers and artists as well as academics, but Robert Coover's and Marina Warner's pieces did not seem especially relevant as comments on Carter's fairytales. That is to say, any fiction can be read as a comment on the fairytale. No objective justification was given for the inclusion of these two writers in particular, except that they knew Angela Carter--does that mean that they write better responses to her as a result? And including fiction opens up a whole new Pandora's box: is it implied that this is "good" fiction? In my view, the book's besetting fault is its subjectivity.

The interview with David Wheatley and Corinna Sargood also has the fault of worshipping the icon of Carter uncritically. While interesting as a piece of journalism, some comments were vague; for example, we are told that Sargood "speaks softly, in a lovely staccato, a spark in her eyes." Very complimentary, but not strictly relevant to the quality of her art.

Another reservation concerns the introduction. Roemer and Bacchilega give a brief summary of the development of the fairytale, on an informed but not exclusively specialist level--a good thing, since it stops the volume from appearing too intimidating to the casual reader. They describe first the Grimms' approach, and second the tradition of the Conte de fees (thus placing Carter within the tradition of the literary fairytale). They then go on to discuss "the American tradition," but they give only Disney as an example of this, and they criticise Disney on the basis of his homogenisation of the fairytale and its conversion into a global corporate product that perpetuates masculine hegemony. The views of Jack Zipes are quoted (anti-Disney), but no others are placed in opposition. At least some hint of the existence of a sympathetic, or even not wholly negative, interpretation of Disney should have been included at this point: one sentence would have been adequate. They rightly point out that fairytales do not come from a single, "pure" folk source, and that re-writings are valid, but the implication is that Disney's re-writings of fairytales are destructive, offering "one dimensional, stereotypical" characters (fairytales are not known for their depth of characterisation!). Are some re-writings more valid than others?

An introduction does have to be brief, which is probably a reason for what comes across as a narrow approach, but it sadly gives the impression that the American fairytale = Disney = (by implication) bad. This is not worthy of an otherwise thoughtful collection of essays, and it is not useful to the reader seeking fresh perspectives.