Purblind Argus
“. . . he hath the joints of everything; but everything so out of joint that he is a gouty Briareus, many hands and no use; or purblind Argus, all eyes and no sight.” (Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, Act I-Scene II)
“She lay back compliantly and did not take her gaze from him so he was still trembling from her scrutiny as he entered her. But, even if they now acknowledged the state of love, their lovemaking was still permeated by unease for she understood the play of surfaces only superficially; she was like a blind man at a firework display who can only appreciate the fires in the air by interpreting their various degrees of magnificence through the relative enthusiasms of the noisy crowd. The nature of the dazzlement was dimly apprehended, not known.” (Carter 24)
In this passage Lee and Annabel “make love”, during the period shortly following the time when the two first meet. The two of them do not connect with each other as thoroughly as is possible given their level of physical intimacy. This theme, of estrangement in spite of intimacy, runs throughout the novel.
Angela Carter’s style throughout this passage supports a consistent interpretation. The emphasis here is on “surface” and superficiality. The “state” of love is “acknowledged”, rather than mutually felt and created. The imposition of the word “but” following the description of penetration is an anticlimax, and the recognition of love is safely contained within a subordinate clause and the passive voice, overshadowed by the active clause that follows it. The missed magnificence outshines the minor flares that are misapprehended. Annabel is compared to a blind man at a fireworks show, reliant upon external “relative enthusiasms” for the definition of something unseen. Lee and Annabel are only skimming the surface of an otherwise “unimaginable privacy”.
This passage stands out because it is a powerful treatment of the theme of the distance that can exist even in seemingly intimate situations. The struggle to bridge this distance is the ultimate undoing of the characters in Carter’s novel. Sex, in many situations in the novel, becomes divisive, rather than establishing common ground and empathic understanding. More generally, I think it is a shame that sexual relationships between men and women are so often abused, through infidelity, insincerity, and such things, introducing conflict and thereby sapping a large potentiality that could otherwise deepen and enhance bonds. Edmund Burke suggested that the “insensible swell” (Of the Sublime), the subtle variations in contour, near a woman’s neckline and shoulders, was a grand source for the inspiration of the sublime. I think he was right in his perception of depth, though pessimistic in his approximation of comprehensibility and incorrect in his emphasis on terror rather than wonder. So much potential for wasted sight.
Anasyromenos 
Amazing analysis! Do you think this superficiality is consistent throughout the entire novel or does Annabel outgrow her limited perspective at some point? Also, I think this scene is talking about Lee and Annabel, not Carolyn.
You are absolutely right, sorry about that! I’ll change it in my post. I guess I lost the context whenever I looked back at my annotations!
Great job at wording the awkward sexual relationship between Annabel and Lee. I especially like your differentiation between sexual intimacy and merely sexual proximity. I think that is important to answer your questions about divisive sexual relationship and infidelity in terms of some feminist theories we have encoutnered in class. Can gender roles be an explanation for infidelity? I watched a documentary once, called Whore’s Glory, and men seemed to feel perfectly excused to cheat on their wives based on biological “needs”. In this case, Annabel cheats too, but her reasons seem to be mroe about emotion than physical needs. However, I do not think this excuses cheating for any sex. I just think it is an interesting differentiation to make. The problem might be that both men and women feel like they can justify betrayal using societal gender roles. Perhaps if men were invited to drop the social evolutionary argument for cheating, then relationships will have a deeper emotional meaning. In this way, perhaps, women will not feel emotionally lonely and also would stop cheating.
Very interesting comments here, Mariana. Your question “Can gender roles be an explanation for infidelity?” is quite a loaded one, and it relies so heavily on socially constructed (perceived, performed, etc.) gender roles. Your example is a great one, and it also makes me think of a silly rom-com, *Someone Like You*, where Ashley Judd’s character proposes a “new cow” theory that supposedly explains male infidelity similarly to how the men in *Whore’s Glory*. The potential problem with this, and it starts to emerge in the latter part of your comment, is that it reinforces essentialized and binary gender identities and their presumed “natures”, which can be problematic. (And I don’t think that’s your intention at all.) If we specify in terms of these particular texts, and these specific speakers, it’s fine, but be careful about making generalizations.
Excellent work. I especially love the simplicity and concision of the statement, “Annabel is compared to a blind man at a fireworks show, reliant upon external “relative enthusiasms” for the definition of something unseen (par. 4). Perfectly examines specific language and its effect on the passage and narrative. In terms of style, and this is just a suggestion, you may consider simplifying the language since this is a more informal blog that is meant to be engaging and reflective, rather than an academic research paper (though the scholarship should still be there!).