In a Glass Darkly - Week 7 (Carmilla, Part 2)

[Lori, Moderator]

We've come to the end of Carmilla and the end of the book (will post a "closing opinions" post shortly where we can discuss and compare all of the stories).

What did you think of the story?

How does Carmilla differ from other famous classic vampires? She's very different from, for example, Bram Stoker's Dracula.

I enjoyed it, but I have questions (included in a comment to separate them from the discussion).

[Lori, Moderator]

The questions I had that were left unanswered:

Who was Carmilla’s “mother” who was traveling with her: her actual mother in life, now a vampire, or the vampire who turned her into a vampire, or someone else? What about the man? Is he a vampire? Where do they “sleep”? What do they get from helping Carmilla find a place to stay? Is there any chance Carmilla’s “mother” would want to avenge Carmilla's death, or do you think they had a “You’re on your own” arrangement?

If she has to sleep in her grave (presumably meaning she cannot go far), how has Carmilla not killed everyone in that sparsely populated area by now?

Why have the people she killed not turned into vampires, when the book says this: “That spectre visits living people in their slumbers; they die, and almost invariably, in the grave, develope into vampires.” Was the person who wrote that just wrong about vampires (in the world of this story)?

[Bill]

Yesterday I began reading Rachel Klein’s The Moth Diaries, a version of Carmilla set in a late 20th-c. school for girls. I’ll try to post a review here by week’s end.

[Lori, Moderator]

Bill wrote: "Yesterday I began reading Rachel Klein’s The Moth Diaries, a version of Carmilla set in a late 20th-c. school for girls. I’ll try to post a review here by week’s end."

Interesting! Yes, please let us know how you liked it.

[Brian E]

Lori, while I had some of the same unanswered questions, I sluffed off the unexplained details as not that material to the story. However, it probably did leave a few too many unexplained details.
Overall, the second half of the story went as anticipated but was not as impressive as the beginning part. I think that was because I had already experienced surprise at the so many traditional vampire and same-sex vampire erotic elements.
The story is worth reading as a forerunner of so much other literature and film. Evaluating this as just a story, it was well-written, atmospheric, but somewhat anticlimatic in the finale.

[Lori, Moderator]

Yes, it was anticlimatic. Part of that was the fact that Laura wasn't part of it, though this didn't bother me too much given her health, her extreme inexperience, and the times she was living in (in other words, while a bit disappointing, that part made sense).

[Alice]

Lori wrote: "Is there any chance Carmilla’s “mother” would want to avenge Carmilla's death, or do you think they had a “You’re on your own” arrangement?"

Why do I feel like vampires (assuming that's what these two other characters are) would be implicitly too selfish to take an interest in revenge, once a relationship of mutual benefit had ended? If these characters are not vampires, then it seems even more likely that their relationship with Carmilla would be of a transactional nature.

I agree about the flat feel of the ending. I had so hoped for the governesses, or better yet Laura herself, to take action! Apart from just wanting to see some women take charge, which is basically an imposition of my own agenda on the story, I think some emotional resolution is lost in Le Fanu's decision to remove Laura from the final scene as Laura never confronts Carmilla as she truly is (or, rather, in her own fully developed knowledge of what Carmilla is). So much potential energy is loaded, throughout the story, into a dramatic encounter which then does not occur. It's an evasion . . . but to what end? Is innocence being protected? Would direct confrontation cement something between Laura and Carmilla which Le Fanu did not dare cement? Would open acknowledgment of vampire nature, in the presence of the vampire, tarnish Laura in some irreparable way?

The expository paragraph in the last chapter describing a tendency of vampires to court certain victims and seek consent is so interesting. If that final confrontation had occurred, I wonder whether Laura would have been able to repudiate Carmilla, and see her destroyed . . . or, whether sympathy and the bond already established between them might have led her to defend the vampire, and/or to succumb herself. By not writing the scene, Le Fanu has at least succeeded in leaving this question open for us!

[Daniela]

Too many opened questions.

[Lori, Moderator]

Alice wrote: "Lori wrote: "Is there any chance Carmilla’s “mother” would want to avenge Carmilla's death, or do you think they had a “You’re on your own” arrangement?"

Why do I feel like vampires (assuming that..."

I agree, the ending was anti-climatic. You have a good point that a final confrontation between Laura and Camilla might have had a lasting effect. If I remember the introduction to the story correctly (will have to go back and look), didn't Laura die at a relatively young age, like in her late 20s or 30s? If so, I wonder if the shock of her experience (and of writing about it) contributed.

[Alice]

I'm just understanding her to have died sometime between sending her story to Dr. Hesselius, and its publication by the associate doctor whose name I don't think we know. This could have been early, but I don't remember if a specific timeline is established at the beginning of the volume.

[Rafael]

It was an interesting story for its time period. I really enjoyed it. Your discussion was really interesting. I wish Le Fanu have explained more.