Dolly Haze, Meet
Cathy Dollanganger
A middle-aged man
boarding in a widow's house, Humbert Humbert, becomes infatuated with
her 12-year-old daughter, and when the widow is killed in a car
accident takes advantage of the opportunity to kidnap the daughter
with the intention of raping her. After becoming lovers they settle
in another town, posing as father and daughter, until the girl tires
of his possessiveness and escapes with the help of another older man
who is infatuated with her. They split up after he tries to involve
her in pornography and she ends up married, pregnant, and poor.
Humbert helps her out with money, but she dies in childbirth at the
age of 17.
This, as everyone
knows, is the plot of Nabokov's Lolita (1955),
considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th
century.
After
losing her husband in a car accident, Corrine Dollanganger, a
beautiful young widow reveals to her children that their family is
fabulously wealthy and that she will be taking them to her
grandparents' mansion, Foxworth Hall. They arrive at night and are
taken to a far-off room leading to the attic, as well as meeting
their grandmother, a terrifying Bible-thumper who makes no secret of
hating them. Corrine explains that her sternly religious parents'
disapproved of her marriage to their father because he was her
half-uncle, and that they will have to stay in the room for a few
days or weeks, until she wins her father over. The “few days”
turn into months and then years of waiting for the old man to die,
during which their mother appears less and less frequently. The
children can only play in the attic, which they decorate to resemble
a garden. The monotony of their existence is broken up by surprise
visits from the Grandmother, who spies on them and doles out
whippings and other torture for disobedience or any hint of
sexuality. The growth of the two younger children is stunted because
they are never outdoors, while the two older children go through
puberty and, with no one else around, develop a romance. Meanwhile,
their mother gets remarried, to a man who knows nothing about them.
When one of the young twins dies, from pneumonia according to their
mother, Cathy and Christopher resolve to finally escape. When they
see that their dead brother's pet mouse died after eating one of the
powdered-sugar donuts that has been added to the picnic basket
recently, they realize that they're being poisoned. Worse, they
deduce that the poisoner is not their grandmother but their mother,
having learned that the grandfather added a codicil to their will
that she will forfeit her inheritance if it's proved that she had
children from her first marriage.
This,
as everyone knows (though perhaps not in all cases the same
“everyone” who knows about Lolita),
is the plot of V. C. Andrews's Flowers in the Attic
(1979), which is set in the 1950s upon which Lolita
is often presumed to pass scathing commentary. Whereas both Lolita
and Flowers critique
the nuclear family and the cheerful, suburban American ideal that
conceals its secret passions, Lolita
also criticizes the kitsch of American existence – tacky hotels and
slangy, gum-snapping teens. Both novels are also first-person
narratives, although Lolita
is told from the perspective of the abusive adult (every bit as much
of a charmer and self-deceiver as Corrine) and Flowers
from the perspective of the abused young girl (the oldest girl,
Cathy).
The
interesting question before us is, of course, why Lolita
is considered a masterpiece and Flowers in the Attic
a piece of irredeemable yet strangely undying trash. Usually a novel
is only considered “trash” if its subject matter is “trash,”
which is to say, deals with an unacceptable form of sex; otherwise
the milder pejoratives “garbage” or “junk” suffice. Obviously
I have no systematic way of proving this anecdotal observation, but
you know what I mean: novels dealing with taboo sex are put in their
own category of “badness” and assumed to be bad until proven, by
the defense of the cultural elite, to be aesthetically good, which,
according to that elite, mitigates or negates their moral badness,
and is in any case the more important value, or perhaps I should say,
the appropriate value when dealing with art. The fact that Humbert
Humbert keeps the reader morally anaesthetized by aestheticizing his
predation of a child only makes the novel better by making us aware
that the aesthetic defense is problematic.
But
no novel survives because of its prose style. We make distinctions
between novels based in part on the sophistication of the language,
concepts, and structure, in part on things like whether or not it
belongs to a genre (most genre fiction has to be around for a very
long time before it's accepted into the canon), on its marketing, on
what happens to be popular among the literati at the time (e.g. since
Modernism you have to be a Modernist), and, yes, still in many cases
the gender of the author (and presumed audience). But novels survive
because of their archetypal power, and at that level there is
frequent continuity between acknowledged great novelists and great
popular novelists: it's interesting to compare the character types
and the romantic endings of Portrait of a Lady
and Gone With the Wind,
for example, and Henry James is another progenitor of Flowers
in the Attic, particularly in
“The Turn of the Screw.”
Childhood,
the Gothic, and Freud
Dickens
is a rare case of a great popular novelist who is also considered
uncontroversially canonical; but this is unlikely to happen to V. C.
Andrews, because there is far too much shame associated with her
oeuvre. If the day comes that that shame is no longer present, the
novels will have lost the power that makes them important. If FITA's
chronologically immediate progenitors include sensational bestsellers
like Peyton Place
(1965), with its themes of incest, illegitimacy, and adultery, and
the child abuse memoir Mommie Dearest
(1978), it also takes its place among such memorable horror novels of
the 70s as Stephen King's Carrie
(1974), the ultimate account of female adolescent shame, and Anne
Rice's Interview with the Vampire
(1976), which also features a tremendously dysfunctional mock-nuclear
family, this one headed by two male vampires, and the idea of
doll-like children who are at once mature beyond their years and
unable to achieve physical maturity, in a hellishly suspended
puberty.
Both
Rice and Andrews revived and developed the “Turn of the Screw”
theme of the sexualization of children that appeared at the same
cultural moment as Freud's theory of child sexuality – an idea that
still makes as uncomfortable. The question that torments the
Governess in James's Gothic novella is whether she is projecting
sexuality onto the children or whether she has accurately assessed
their sexual knowledge, in which case the source of contamination was
their previous caretakers, Jessel and Quint. Her morbid fascination
with the question of the children's innocence, however, is itself a
kind of voyeuristic objectification of them – which finds one kind
of logical development in Lolita,
whose heroine is erotic for the narrator because
she is non-sexual, and another in IWTV,
in which our cultural fetishization of children and infantilization
of women is played out in the form of a kind of nightmarish curse
instead of the usual fantasy. Peter Pan
is another fairy-tale progenitor to these horror novels; the Lost
Boys are motherless children taken care of by Wendy, the Victorian
Little Mother who can't wait to get out of the nursery, or rather get
out of the nursery and then re-enter it as a mother. Only Peter Pan
himself (like Rice's Nietzschean Lestat) boldly refuses to grow up
(or in Lestat's case, grow old and die). It's perhaps interesting to
note that a dead child featured centrally in the lives of both J. M.
Barrie and Anne Rice: in Barrie's case, his older brother, whom
Barrie would imitate (e.g. by wearing his clothes) in order to get
the attention of his grieving mother; in Rice's, her daughter, who
died of leukemia soon before her sixth birthday.
Adolescent
Shame and Aesthetic Embarrassment
Although
King's Carrie may be
the ultimate account of female adolescent shame, with the DePalma
movie still being discovered by new generations of teenage girls
(even those who would never otherwise watch a movie made before they
were born), FITA goes
a step further: thanks to its “icky” incest theme, it is itself
contaminated by that shame. The shame that one felt reading this smut
as a pubescent girl transmutes later into an even more agonizing
aesthetic shame: one can see it in the comments, essays, and blog
posts by former readers of the series, who are only willing to
confess their former fandom if they also excoriate Andrews's writing.
The more recent the repudiation, the more hysterical the tone; the
psychological mechanism is similar to the one whereby a generation of
American movie critics who grew up with Jerry Lewis turned him into
the bete noir of American film criticism when, as adults, they
attempted to establish the seriousness of the medium, their
enterprise, and their country's films in particular. Lewis, as
Jonathan Rosenbaum has argued, epitomized the shame of the unruly
pubescent body; but the sexuality of the persona was officially
neuter, with even his lavish displays of sexualized affection for
Dean Martin falling under the permissible neuter category of male
puberty. In FITA, the
shame that the pubescent girl feels about her changing body and
biology and her curiosity about sex are projected onto the mother,
who hides her children away and then forgets about them, while the
book itself becomes another dirty secret, the act of incest
objectifying and rationalizing the shame and embarrassment that the
hazy idea of sex inspires in well-brought-up young virgins. Internet
fan fiction, mainly written and consumed by young women and girls,
now serves this purpose, and is aesthetically excoriated accordingly.
It's perhaps to be expected that this demographic has internalized
the idea that “female genres,” such as romance, are aesthetically
worthless, and mixed up this cultural embarrassment with their sexual
embarrassment and general adolescent shame or the shameful memory of
it.
Andrews's
Gothic Tropes
Andrews
may not have been much of a prose writer, but, based on the names
dropped in FITA, shewas a great reader, and there is a sophisticated as well as an
instinctive side to her understanding and development of the Gothic
genre. Take the invented name that the children's parents adopt for
the family: Dollanganger calls attention to the doll-like qualities
not only of the family's “all-American” beauty, but of their
approach to gender roles (with Cathy as the ballerina doll and Chris
as the doctor doll); it suggests the “gangliness” of adolescence
and Cathy's “anger” at their mother's betrayal, as well as
containing the word “gang”; and of course, as many have pointed
out, it resembles “doppelganger.” Camille Paglia has written
about how the profusion of doppelgangers in Gothic suggests
psychological obsession and claustrophobia on the part of the writer.
The Dollangangers are all doppelgangers for each other and serve as
substitutes for each other: Cathy competes with her mother first for
her father, then for Chris, as a substitute for her father; she wins
(partly because of their sexual relationship), but only precariously,
aware that Chris may at any time revert to his original love for
their mother, for whom, Cathy knows, she is only a substitute.
Brother-sister
incest has a respectable Gothic pedigree going back to Byron's
Manfred, and Paglia
has written about how Romantic incest is idealizing, with the
“sister-spirit” as a manifestation of the poet's androgynous
nature. FITA, however,
is told from the sister's perspective. Chris is no Muse; he is,
curiously, the sexually safe
choice within the terms of women's romantic fiction: incest as the
comfort of the familiar, a little like Isabel Archer's relationship
with her cousin Ralph in James's Portrait of a Lady.
Like many a romantic novel (or novel series) heroine, Cathy isn't
especially in love with any of the men she seduces, but any of the
others are more challenging to her than Chris – including Julian,
whose “vulgar” attitude to sex she can't abide, and Bart, whom
she comes closest to loving because her competition with her mother
for him creates emotions that are strong enough that she mistakes
them for love. But the only actual emotion Cathy is capable of
feeling the love-hate (mostly hate) she feels for her
mother/doppelganger, with whom she's stuck in the adolescent position
of wanting to establish her own identity/wanting to be nothing like
her and wanting to be just like her (the all-powerful seductress that
she worshiped in childhood). She ends up with Chris not because
they're Cathy-and-Heathcliff-like soul-mates, but because she can't
escape the matrix of her family romance: she can't cathect onto
anyone outside her immediate family. That claustrophobic
psychological situation is spatially reproduced in the room and attic
where they're kept prisoner, a womb-space where unpleasant emotions
strangely change into pleasant ones. The reader, too, wants to return
to that site of trauma, supercharged with emotion and meaning, which
is why even though the second novel in the series, Petals
on the Wind, is an enjoyably
soapy coming-of-age and revenge story, the most exciting scene is the
one where Cathy returns to Foxworth Hall to confront the Grandmother,
raising the spectre of a horror that Cathy learns, to her
disappointment, is now part of a past so irretrievable that revenge
will always miss its mark, even though that past will haunt her for
the rest of her life.
The
Southern Gothic, Invalidism, and the Family Romance
One
of the ways that reviewers of the new Lifetime movie adaptation dealt
with their embarrassment over the subject matter of FITA
was to accuse the movie of not being “campy” enough. But FITA,
although full of stylized (successfully or not) dialogue and
first-person narration, is the least campy of the novels actually
written by V. C. Andrews. The feverish My Sweet Audrina,
whose heroine must attempt, like the young J. M. Barrie, to channel
the spirit of her dead older sister, “the first and best Audrina,”
in order to please a parent, is easily the campiest of the novels
actually written by Andrews (there are so many
deaths-by-falling-down-the-stairs that it's like Ed Wood wrote a soap
opera), and as such would probably best lend itself to dramatization.
It also best fits into the Southern Gothic tradition exemplified by
writers as diverse as Truman Capote, Carson McCullers, and Flannery
O'Connor. Like those other famous female Southern authors, Andrews
found inspiration in illness, in Andrews case the arthritis that
afflicted her from the time of a teenage accident; like McCullers she
used a wheelchair, and like O'Connor, who moved in with her widowed
mother as an invalid, she lived most (all?) of her life with her
widowed mother. (All of this I've gleaned from the Wikipedia article
on Andrews and a couple of web biographies.) Andrews and O'Connor
were also both visual artists as well as writers; Andrews, however,
did not turn to writing until she was in her 50s, and died of breast
cancer early in her bestselling writing career. My Sweet
Audrina features two classic
Southern Gothic “grotesques”: Billie, a double leg amputee who becomes
Audrina's mother-in-law as well as her dad's girlfriend, and Audrina's intellectually disabled little
sister, Sylvia. The plot, however, is Henry James meets Robert
Aldrich.
Unlike
the angry, vengeful heroines of the Dollanganger and Casteel series,
Audrina is purely passive: she's Andrews's Maggie Verver, except that
the libidos and drama swirling around her belong to hillbillies
instead of members of high society. Just as Maggie gets her marriage
into hot water by clinging to her emotionally incestuous relationship
with her father, Adam, thus driving her husband into the arms of her
friend Charlotte, who's also, by the way, her stepmother, since she
married her off to her father so he wouldn't be left lonely by her
marriage; so Audrina, by clinging to her childhood and shrinking from
the physical side of her marriage, lets her jealous cousin and
illegitimate half-sister (that's right: dad had an affair with her
mother's sister before he met her mother) step in and seduce her
husband. Audrina, however, has a pretty good excuse for her
regressive tendencies: although she thinks she's afraid of men and
sex because her older sister was gang-raped and murdered in the
woods, in fact she was the rape victim, although everyone in her life
has conspired to persuade her otherwise.
Hi, my name is Neisha Chetty. I find your blog extremely fascinating. I've just scanned through it, looking at specific parts. I've actually done quite a bit of analysis and theories on the Dollanganger series. We have a higher theory group on facebook where I've shared your blog so others can read it as well. All I can leave you with is ... "Artists use lies to tell a truth" (Alan Moore from V for Vendetta) .
ReplyDeleteCathy at the end of Petals on the Wind and beginning of If There Be Thorns is an UNRELIABLE narrator ... What truth is Virginia trying to expose behind the unreliablility ("lie"- of Cathy. In that lies exposure, Virginia's genius and why my case for why her work is a masterpiece.
Www.facebook.com/groups/AtticSecrets
Interesting! I look forward to finding out about your theory
ReplyDeleteHi, Elize. Here's a link on my core theory. I'm not as eloquent as you are... Needs a lot of editing. I usually analyze trying to unravel the subtext and the symbolic meaning.
ReplyDeleteFirst
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/698067934
Second
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/726886575