To me, defining feminism in the Gothic, seems as difficult as defining the Gothic itself. In Michele Byers article, she notes that “it is important to think about what it means to claim the label feminist,” and though they span generations, continents and hairstyles, this applies to Buffy, Ampata, and even Carmilla
All three of the ladies are plagued by a sever case of damned if they do, damned if they don’t. They are in situations that can be either read as empowering or imprisoning. For Buffy, it is the perpetual struggle with her role as slayer versus being your typical 90’s teen. Ampata battles with her destiny and her desires, and Carmilla so badly wants the affections of Laura, but as a vampire, cannot have them fully.
So if feminism is “paradoxical, ambivalent, and fluid,” how do we find it in these characters. For me, the paradox is the key point. Carmilla can be looked at two ways, as a wanton seductress or as a poor, lost soul. Ampata is either a vengeful woman looking for a second chance at any cost, or tragic teen seeking the life that was so cruelly stripped from her. And Buffy. Buffy’s paradox is much less black and white. On one hand she is a demon destroyer, protecting the world. On the other, she has a deep connection to the darkness which she fights both in the physical and mental sense. Regardless of your interpretation, all 3 women operate outside of typical gender roles. Carmilla is a powerful bloodsucker, who chooses to prey on women rather than men, and Buffy and Ampata share the role of “chosen one,” bearing a burden that benefits all of society.
One quote that struck me in Carmilla is when she says “love is always selfish.” She is explaining to Laura why she cannot be entirely truthful. But when compared to Xander’s heroic actions in “Inca Mummy Girl” we see that this too is a paradox. Xander is willing to give his life for Willow because her loves her (strictly platonic, sorry Will). But at the same time, Ampata is acting on similar feelings toward Xander. Just a final though before you decide who to stake in the heart.
Madison, really interesting points. I too was struck with the same paradoxical feelings, especially in regards to Ampata. Part of me wanted Buffy to successfully vanquish her, whereas another, yet equally strong part wished for Ampata to get to live the life that was taken from her. Again, this illustrates how Whedon plays with the "good" and "bad" binary. It is, in fact, not a binary. There are many gray areas and we definitely can see this with Ampata.
ReplyDeleteOf course, as Dracula tended to render me speechless in feminist fury, I have to relate Lucy, Mina and the sisters to this feminine paradox. I feel like the role of the female seductress or vampire as we've seen in our class highlights this duality of women. In Stoker, this dual nature of the feminine lies in the two roles they are supposed to embody, the chaste virgin and the maternal figure. Yet the foray into vampirism on Lucy's part proves that her acceptance of her sexuality also corrupts her. Although she is supposed to want to get married, she is not supposed to want the sexual identinty that coincides with her entrance into married woman-hood. So when she expresses any acceptance of this counter-societal want, Stoker turns her into a corruption of exptremes. So, while I am not necessarily screaming "Go Lucy, kill that small child!" I am less dissapointed with her transformation than I would imagine. So, outside of gender roles, yet still stuck in the corruption of womanhood, I see Lucy.
ReplyDeletePoor thing.
I think it's these paradoxical roles that keeps the Gothic alive: a love and hate relationship. We hate Ampata because her continuing existence would be at the cost of human lives. Yet, we sympathize her because she is just a innocent girl but fate dealt a death blow to her. Fate plays a big role in Gothic. Ampate is bound to be killed because her way of surviving would never be accepted by other people.
ReplyDelete