Showing posts with label horror movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror movies. Show all posts

19/01/2020

Corridors : From Encounter to Uneasiness




In 1716, the Duchess of Marlborough was not pleased with Sir John Vanbrugh’s design for her new home, Blenheim Palace. What the hell was he doing with this weird distribution of rooms? The architect scrambled to explain: “The word Corridoor, Madam, is foreign, and signifies in plain English, no more than a passage.”


Vanbrugh’s design for Blenheim Palace was one of the first times the word “corridor” appeared in English. His idea — novel at the time — was not to have grand rooms opening into each other, but to align them along a central space with the sole function of distributing rooms along each side of a receding vista. The domestic corridor was born, later to be scaled down and adopted in more modest houses.

Today we knock corridors down, or design without them. We used to wait in hospital corridors. Now we fret in glass atriums. Nothing screams “NHS winter crisis” more than patients left on gurnies in a corridor for days. Open-plan offices came in the 1960s. Giant asylums, built along endless corridors — some of the longest ever built — started to be shut down in the 1960s. This is a profoundly anti-corridic era.

They are the overlooked parts — the boring conjunctions in a building’s grammar. We walk through them quickly, anxious to get to a room with a view and a proper purpose. They are merely serviceable, often windowless and oppressive. In communal buildings they are neither public nor private but oddly in-between. In large hotels, they unnerve us with the chorus of the anonymous, transient lives we have chosen to join for a night. Bad things happen in corridors in horror films — most notably to little Danny Torrance in The Shining, whose props are currently on display at London’s Design Museum.

In domestic spaces we have been knocking out hallways for a generation. The corridor is a deep offence to open-plan design. In public buildings, corridors cower as necessary bits of infrastructure behind ostentatious atriums. Shameful service corridors and fire exit routes, built to purely functional international codes, are tucked out of sight.

Its history is full of fascinating details. Football’s off-side rule is said to have been invented by Charterhouse pupils to make scoring a little harder in one of the school’s connecting corridors. Many communal social housing projects derive from the architectural plans of French utopian thinker Charles Fourier, who in the early 19th century hoped to build a giant phalanstère which would house thousands of people along a “street-gallery”, to better facilitate social and sexual harmony. The communal corridor would smash the bourgeois family and aid the circulation of partners: a swinger’s charter.

But Vanbrugh’s corridors were not popular for over a century. The revolution came when Jeffry Wyatville began his renovations of Windsor Castle for George IV in the 1820s. Radically, Wyatville proposed to connect the ceremonial rooms of the castle along “The Grand Corridor”, conceived as a processional pathway over 500 feet long. It was lined with treasures from the royal art collection and 41 identical marble pedestals to display busts that consolidated the genealogy of the British throne. The Grand Corridor culminated in the Waterloo Room, a celebration of the 1815 victory over the French and a mark of the renewed imperial power of the British state. Lady Dover proclaimed in 1829 that the coup d’oeil of the corridor “is the most strikingly beautiful thing you can conceive”. In famous watercolours of the Grand Corridor by Joseph Nash, painted in 1846, there is a glimpse of the corridor described as “sacred to the private life of Queen Victoria”.



The Victorians were enthusiastic adopters of the corridor — and this was a precursor. The Grand Corridor divided the ceremonial rooms of Windsor from the private apartments where Victoria and Albert retreated from view. When they built Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, the house was organised around corridors that separated family and guests, a long corridor that divided the house from the servants’ block, and another that separated the house from the ballroom.

The Victorian domestic corridor was about guarding privacy. One of the leading architects of the age, Robert Kerr, published The Gentleman’s House in 1864, a book that is obsessed with getting corridors right. The most important distinction was between family and servants. The principal aim was to ensure that “the family have free passage without encountering servants unexpectedly” and rather bluntly stated that “whatever may be their mutual regard as dwellers under the same roof, each class is entitled to shut its door upon the other, and be alone.”


In Kerr’s ideal house, this principle of separation led to complex divisions of function by corridor: corridors for family, servants and guests; for men and women; for adults and children, with noisy nurseries placed at the far end. A contradiction — of the need for servants to be kept away yet also nearby to respond speedily to requests without circuitous routes — led to contortions. The country retreat, Bearwood, which Kerr built between 1865 and 1874 for the proprietor of The Times, John Walter, was a disaster. One survey of Victorian country houses judged it “impossibly unwieldy”.

The most extreme example of this mania for corridors was at Welbeck Abbey. Between 1854 and 1879, the eccentric Fifth Duke of Portland built miles of brick-lined and paved tunnels under his house and grounds. His underground picture gallery was the largest room in Britain, connected to other rooms with glass-roofed corridors that stretched for thousands of feet. He built an underground railway from the kitchens so that food had a chance of being hot when it arrived.

No one is quite sure why the Duke built an elaborate underground maze, but he spurned his family, refused guests, and servants were requested to turn away if he appeared. The tunnels meant he could finally travel unseen.

If we knock corridors down these days, it is partly in reaction to the Victorian concept of privacy. But that is not the whole story. Modernists such as Le Corbusier wanted to reorientate the corridor as a passage of light and transparency, a pathway to a new kind of communal living. In his Unité building in Marseille, Le Corbusier dreamt of a society built around open corridors. It had influenced architects after 1945 who built Britain’s social housing, often with explicitly socialist intentions.



In the 1980s, our perspective changed. Corridors became places of violence and threat. Estates were neglected and starved of funds. Even the Barbican was mocked as a labyrinth of concrete corridors where no one got out alive.

We may now idealise open-plan living, but we also want 24-hour security and separate entryways. We never dawdle in communal corridors, unless they are in the open air, like the narrow promenades of New York’s High Line or Paris’s Coulée Verte. We spend a lot of time in massive urban transport corridors and create ecological corridors to help migrating animals avoid extinction on tarmac — even as we banish passages from our buildings.

If the present seems anti-corridic, what of the future? Universities favour corridors and the headquarters of European businesses are often built around internal galleries to encourage staff to talk to one another. All is not lost.

The next time you walk through a corridor, consider the twists and turns of architectural history that have shaped your steps.

From Blenheim to Kubrick: the dark history of the corridor. By Roger Luckhurst. The Financial Times, June 21, 2019. 




 Jordan Peele’s Us, his eagerly anticipated follow-up to his paranoid conspiracy film Get Out, opened in March 2019 with the largest box-office revenue for a horror film ever recorded. The focus of early reviews has been on how the film is yet another Trump-era exploration of the toxic race politics of contemporary America.

Yes – of course. But I was also interested in how Us imagined the architectural space of the conspiracy. Without giving too much away, our protagonist eventually descends under the city to find an infinite corridor stretching under the world. There are lots of rabbits down there, and a lot more bad stuff.

Peele’s Get Out introduced the idea of the mental trap of ‘the Sunken Place’ of an individual thrown into a psychic dungeon in a small-scale, suburban Stepford Wives plot of menacing white privilege. It’s fascinating that the more overtly national vision of Us imagines bad things happening in ominous corridors. Why should that be? Why do so many horror films use corridor spaces to fill us with dread?

Cinematic effect

A few years ago, I was forced to think about this question when asked by the British Film Institute to write a short book on Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. I learnt then that the famous scenes of the little boy Danny pedalling through the labyrinthine corridors of the Overlook Hotel had such a major effect in culture because this was the first time the new device of the Steadicam had been used in this way, Kubrick turning the camera cradle upside-down so that the boy was followed in an eerie, smooth, subjectless glide just inches from the floor.

It freaked a lot of us out, once we’d worked out that horror had a new kind of machine-gaze. The smooth flow of those disorienting corridor plans were scarier then descending into basements, attics or staircases. The vertical axis of the old haunted house had been replaced by the horizontal dread of the hotel corridor.

Yet once I was alert to corridor camera creep, I saw it everywhere. David Lynch is good at it. John Carpenter likes gliding around domestic hallways or hospital corridors. Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby is basically about that blocked corridor in Mia Farrow’s Dakota Building apartment. In Robert Wise’s brilliant 1963 version of Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House, we see nothing in those long vistas down the mansion’s corridors, yet still know they are malevolently haunted.

Era of optimism

This has led me to pursue a longer history of corridors, and once I discovered that these structures are relatively late additions to the architectural history of buildings in the West I realised that here was a focus that could tell a larger story about this history of the built spaces of the modern world.

Corridors first appeared in the stately homes designed by Sir John Vanbrugh at Castle Howard and Blenheim Palace at the very beginning of the eighteenth century. The word was so new, that Vanbrugh had to explain to the Duchess of Marlborough that ‘The word Corridor, Madam, is foreign, and signifies in plain English, no more than a passage.’ The word did not get really taken up until about a hundred years later, in the 1810s.

By then, the corridor had actually become the principal device for utopian thinkers, such as the splendidly eccentric Charles Fourier, who wanted to re-organize society into ‘phalanxes’, huge buildings that housed people along ‘street-galleries’. This disrupted the neurotic family, corrected the evils of capitalism, and introduced infinite sexual possibilities for combination and recombination. You can see utopian thought in plans for social housing long into the twentieth century, with Brutalist ‘streets in the sky’ offering a new way of transforming lives.

Meanwhile, optimistic reformers re-built prisons as ‘penitentiaries’, where the incarcerated were housed along long galleries (first called Corridors in Pentonville Model Prison). The new mental asylums were vast structures that used wide corridors and tiny rooms to push inmates into the social world of the passageways for ease of surveillance and a sincere belief that social pressure would pull the mad back into reason.

Universities turned to corridors to imagine an ideal where the disciplines would flow into each other without interruption. The beautiful symmetry of the main building of MIT in Boston was rebuilt in 1916 around ‘The Infinite Corridor’, which all the sciences share. Another one, called ‘The Red Route’ in Leeds University, was completed in the early 1970s.

Gothic ruins

My sense is that the era of optimism about corridors ends with the rupture of the 1960s. Social housing begins to be condemned as a failed socialist experiment. Soviet communist housing used the corridor as a coercive space to expose dissent. The large asylums were declared failures and began to be abandoned, leaving menacing Gothic ruins on the outskirts of towns in the UK and the US.



The term ‘corridors of power’ entered the language in 1964, and we begin to associate corridors with faceless bureaucracy. Now, the most terrible thing is to be left on a gurney in a hospital corridor – the defining experience of chronically underfunded public care. Now, the vast hotel corridor is the symbol of our anonymity, our being swallowed into identikit corporate spaces.

After tracing out this trajectory, it’s no wonder, I think, that Jordan Peele envisions the secret horror underneath American life taking place along the vanishing perspectives of a bland, brightly-lit institutional corridor. This is our condition of administered being; this is our favoured space of absolute dread.



Chronicling the Corridor. By Roger Luckhurst. Reaktion Books, April  8, 2019. 






Why do dark corridors fill us with a sense of unease?  Why was The Shining so successful at creating an escalating sense of dread as Danny Torence explored the haunted corridors of The Overlook?  Daniel J. Glenn has  an eye-opening conversation with the  worlds foremost expert on corridors Roger Luckhurst.  They discuss the history of how corridors became the most feared passageway in cinema, but  also discuss living in a pre-corridic era, doppelgangers in hotels, how corridors are the path to utopia, and how  Daniel is not cut out for communal living.


Fascinating Nouns, October 15, 2019.  (podcast)








In​ the original film noir, John Huston’s Maltese Falcon (1941), private investigator Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) visits criminal mastermind Kasper Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet) in his San Francisco hotel room to discuss the delivery of a mysterious ornament. The elevator attendant points him in the direction of Room 12c. After some cagey preliminaries, Spade delivers a ferocious ultimatum. Once out in the corridor again, he unlocks a wolfish grin. He’s got Gutman where he wants him. Or so he thinks. As he enters one elevator in order to descend to the lobby, Gutman’s accomplice, Joel Cairo, whom Spade already has grounds to distrust, exits from another. His failure to spot Cairo will very nearly prove fatal. Since Cairo is Peter Lorre at his most flamboyant, you would have to be quite far gone in self-congratulation not to notice him. Spade has failed to understand that a corridor is less a space than a channel of communication through which people, things and messages pass in both directions. Mind the traffic.

Roger Luckhurst’s ambitious and consistently informative cultural history of the corridor makes brief mention of The Maltese Falcon in accounting for film noir’s preoccupation with bleakly anonymous lobbies, passages and hallways. But it’s not the skills and attitudes required to negotiate these spaces that interest Luckhurst. In his view, corridors have a meaning rather than a function. Film noir, he says, set out to ‘interpret’ lobbies, passages and hallways as an index to modern alienation. This is emphatically a cultural rather than an architectural history. Literature, film, TV and other media are called on to elucidate meaning. One touchstone is Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980), in which the camera stalks young Danny at just above ground level as he pedals his tricycle down the interminable featureless passageways of the Overlook Hotel. ‘The Shining,’ Luckhurst concludes, ‘revealed something about the emotional latency of corridors: a simple lesson in the social construction of space.’

The point of a corridor has always been to make it possible to get from one part of a building to another without having to pass through a succession of intervening rooms. Emerging into prominence in 17th-century Italy, corridors found an early champion in John Vanbrugh, whose designs for Blenheim Palace and Castle Howard modelled the new arrangement of a series of rooms opening off a long central axis. The idea gained wide currency during the Enlightenment, Luckhurst notes, as a ‘rational proposal’ for the redistribution of public and private space. Where domestic interiors were concerned, the proposal’s aim was in large measure defensive: a reinforcement of privacy. Luckhurst proves an excellent guide to the distinctly mixed bag of ‘utopian conceptions’ and ‘dystopian results’ that was the outcome of this Enlightenment project.

The first flower of the ‘utopia of corridors’ was the phalanstère (from the Greek phalanx, a body of soldiers in tight formation), dreamed up by the philosopher Charles Fourier and his disciple Victor Considerant as a solution to the social and economic instabilities of post-revolutionary France: a settlement house or estate for 1620 people organised around a street gallery that ran the full length of the second floor. This public thoroughfare was the only way to get from one domestic interior to another, or to gain access to an array of facilities including canteens, nurseries and workshops. Fourier had it in mind to dismantle the bourgeois family. ‘In utopia,’ Luckhurst notes, ‘the corridor always promises radical social reassemblage.’ No phalansteries were ever built. But the idea lived on in experiments ranging from the Oneida Community, founded by John Humphrey Noyes in 1834 to promote the practice of ‘complex marriage’, through the Soviet dom kommuna (communal house) of the 1920s and 1930s to Le Corbusier’s Unité d’habitation or Cité radieuse, a housing block in Marseille designed around lengthy ‘rues intérieures’ on every third floor. Luckhurst’s trenchant survey of social engineering by means of ‘corridic horizontality’ reaches its conclusion in the City of London, which boasts the Golden Lane Estate, constructed in the late 1950s with the Cité radieuse very much in mind; and, of course, the Barbican. Community – ‘universal linkage’, in Fourier’s phrase – has long been the corridor’s most charismatic meaning, its noblest latent emotion.


The modern state has also invested heavily in other less charismatic if not necessarily ignoble ways to make or remake the citizen-subject. By far the longest chapter in the book merits the longest title: ‘Corridors of Reform: Prison, Workhouse, Asylum, Hospital, School and University’. And then there are the passageways threading capitalism’s ‘immersive dream worlds’, from the Parisian arcade through the vast iron and glass enclosures of 19th and 20th-century Great Exhibitions and World’s Fairs to the postwar shopping mall. The latest incitement to active consumption is surely the serpentine path that seeks to detain us for as long as possible in the duty-free zone of an international airport. Luckhurst remains as alert to the dystopian failure of many such modernising projects as he is to the powerful allure they once cast. ‘Dystopia,’ he writes, ‘does not come after but inhabits the utopian impulse from the beginning.’ Two final chapters aim to get to grips with the ‘windowless and oppressive’ corporate or bureaucratic corridor-system, and with the nameless existential dread attributed by Gothic fiction and film to that or any other proliferating, maze-like structure.


Given his interest in social and political utopia, it’s curious that Luckhurst has nothing at all to say about The West Wing, perhaps the most influential, and certainly the most uplifting, recent exploration of ‘corridors of power’. The show’s signature idea was the walk-and-talk: an elaborately choreographed tracking shot which follows several characters at a time as they navigate the corridors of the White House while engaged in multiple, overlapping conversations. These quick-fire exchanges, a tribute to screwball comedy, reveal the protagonists as perfectly matched in charm, bloody-mindedness and fingertip command of breaking world news, as well as exemplary sangfroid concerning personal mishap. There’s quite a lot of utopianism in the thought that the government of the most powerful nation on earth might run on articulacy and grace under pressure (George W. Bush entered the White House during the show’s second season).

A more serious problem with Luckhurst’s account concerns the crudity of meanings he attributes to the less appealing aspects of corridors. He is certainly not alone in describing the ‘annihilation of the self’ engendered by the modern institutional labyrinth as ‘Kafkaesque’. His main example is a scene towards the end of The Castle. Land-surveyor K., whose sole ambition has been to establish the connection (Verbindung) with the castle that would secure his status, presents himself for interview at the inn used by its emissaries whenever they have business to conduct in the village. The summons to a meeting with an official called Erlanger looks like his last chance to ingratiate himself with those in power. He makes his way down to a basement corridor lined on both sides with cubicles in which the emissaries work and sleep. Whatever ‘clear purpose’ he might possess is ‘confounded and confused’, Luckhurst remarks, by the unintelligibility of the space confronting him. It is true that K. is confused enough to enter the wrong cubicle. The confusion, however, owes more to tiredness, and the contents of a carafe of rum, than it does to nameless existential dread. Far from confounding him, the mistake further reinforces the ‘clear purpose’ that has absorbed all his energies since his arrival in the village, since the cubicle’s occupant, Bürgel, describes himself as a ‘communications secretary’ (Verbindungssekretär), and thus the ‘main line of communication’ (stärkster Verbindung) with the castle. The wrong destination may, after all, be the right one; and in another sense, too, since K. falls asleep and dreams that he is wrestling with a naked castle official who resembles a Greek god. It’s all to no avail. The next morning, Bürgel can’t wait to get rid of him, and he is subsequently brushed off by Erlanger too. But he decides to stick around anyway, for Kafka’s interest in the corridor as a channel of communication has only just been ignited. There follows a lengthy description of the work done by two servants who distribute files from a trolley to the secretaries in their cubicles, with varying degrees of success. The corridor Kafka has imagined is not in the least Kafkaesque. K., indeed, feels ‘almost happy’ amid the stir and bustle. A role amid stir and bustle is all he’s ever wanted. He has to learn not to want it; and since the novel remains incomplete, we don’t know if he will.



The corridor​ that so absorbs K. has nothing in common with the one Sam Spade ignores except that each has been conceived in terms of its function rather than its meaning. That should not debar them, and the many others like them, from attention. Luckhurst acknowledges, but does not engage with, Kate Marshall’s Corridor: Media Architectures in American Fiction (2013), which shares his emphasis on modernity, as well as specific points of reference such as Bruce Nauman’s Live-Taped Video Corridor (1970) and Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves (2000). Both draw substantially on a seminal essay by the architectural historian Mark Jarzombek which demonstrates, from the 17th century onwards, the way the corridor became the ‘organising structure’ of the modern large-scale edifice, public or private. Jarzombek points out that in 14th-century Spain and Italy, the term referred ‘not to a space but to a courier, someone who, as the word’s Latin root suggests, could run fast’. A ‘corridor’ was a messenger, a scout, a carrier of money, a negotiator: a person in a hurry. The West Wing’s walk-and-talks are a hymn to speed without haste. While Marshall develops this line of inquiry into a compelling account of a variety of fictional corridors in which information flows either too freely or not at all, Luckhurst shies away from it. Neither seems to want to take on Jarzombek’s further intriguing suggestion that the corridor should be regarded as a program rather than a structure, since it ‘encodes’ the building which contains it with the ‘terminology of couriered messages’. We might say that each opening off it constitutes an address, or even a URL. The sequence of numbered rooms thus creates both the channel and the procedures by means of which a person, thing or message is able to reach its destination. (K. notices that the servants wheeling the trolley laden with files seem to negotiate as much with the rooms along the corridor as with the officials who occupy them.) We use these sequences in order to courier the things or messages we have been charged with conveying as swiftly and securely as possible to a destination; or, more often, we just courier ourselves. Corridors can be made to harbour uncanniness, disclosing the unfamiliar within the familiar. But they’re canny enough when they need to be, as writers have long understood.




Luckhurst finds much to support his argument in 18th-century Gothic fiction, the genre that, according to him, most fully articulates the ‘distinctly modern feeling’ of ‘spatial dread’. But there was no shortage of canny corridors in the literature of the period. Novels of high-toned seduction such as Les Liaisons dangereuses could scarcely have got by without them. My favourite corridor is the one which simultaneously structures and programs the house of assignation in the anonymous Memoirs of a Man of Pleasure (1751). ‘All the rooms were in a corridor, or gallery, pretty like that of a convent, and all numbered.’ On arrival, each couple is conducted to one of these rooms. ‘At the side of every door there was a turning machine, by means whereof servant-maids, very intelligent, served their guests with supper, if they thought proper.’ Anyone who wants to leave their room for any reason must summon a maid, who then rings a ‘great bell’ heard all over the house, which is ‘the signal for everyone to keep in close quarters’. ‘The same formalities were observed on the arrival of new guests, and thus people could go in and come out without being seen by one another, though there was a continual flux and reflux in this palace of pleasure.’ Mind the traffic.



The Gothic persisted, and Luckhurst wrings plenty of ‘spatial dread’ from the corridor of Thornfield Hall in Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre (1847), where Bertha Mason is held captive behind a small black door. More frightening, I’d say, because a lot cannier, is the one on the upper floor of a village inn in Mary E. Braddon’s Lady Audley’s Secret (1862). The scheming protagonist ventures along it in search of the room occupied by her husband’s nephew, Robert, who is hot on her (bigamous) trail. ‘She stopped and looked at the number on the door. The key was in the lock, and her hand dropped upon it as if unconsciously.’ She stands for a few moments trembling, ‘then a horrible expression came over her face, and she turned the key in the lock; she turned it twice, double locking the door.’ No prizes for guessing that she’s about to set fire to the place. The number on the door of Robert’s room has targeted him as unerringly as the GPS lock that launches a drone strike.

Since poetry turns as much on what words do, under particular circumstances, as on what they mean, it’s not surprising that poets should have done a fair amount to illuminate the functionality of corridors. Tennyson’s Merlin, for example, defends a Knight of the Round Table, Sir Sagramore, from malicious gossip by laying the ultimate blame for his indiscretion on a bug in the Camelot room-booking system. One night, Sagramore stumbles in the dark into the suite occupied by a complete stranger, and promptly falls asleep in the only available bed. The next day he proposes marriage in order to avoid a scandal. It was all an honest mistake, Merlin explains.

   An angry gust of wind
Puffed out his torch among the myriad- roomed
And many corridor’d complexities
Of Arthur’s palace: then he found a door,
And darkling felt the sculptured ornament
That wreathen round it made it seem his own;
And wearied out made for the couch and slept,
A stainless man beside a stainless maid

Tennyson has had to work on the word ‘corridor’, buttressing its final syllable in order to fit it smoothly into Merlin’s laconic account of a structure complex enough to have earned Vanbrugh’s approval. But even the grandest of designs contains the odd flaw. The ‘sculptured ornament’, which could indicate either of two rooms equally (or several), fails as a URL. Like Kafka’s K., Sagramore has mailed himself to the wrong destination, which turns out to be the right one after all – or as good a one as any.

Browning, like Tennyson, felt no qualms in supposing that modernity was nothing new. His closet drama In a Balcony, set during the lifetime of Rubens (1577-1640), associates the traffic in a palace corridor with an entire media ecology. Norbert has served his queen faithfully for a year, while conducting a clandestine affair with her young cousin, Constance. He wants to ask her for Constance’s hand in marriage. Constance is not so sure, fearing the queen’s jealousy, but also, it emerges, reluctant to abandon the thrill of the clandestine. Married respectability – ‘To live like our five hundred happy friends’ – would be scant recompense for the loss of what they now have. Does he not recall the sharpness of the feeling that prompted him to abandon a political assembly simply in order to ‘bring about/One minute’s meeting in the corridor’? Mention of the corridor provokes a radiant description of the absurdly intoxicating manoeuvres, at once public and private, shameless and hermetic, which have sustained the affair:


    And then the sudden sleights, long secrecies,
The plots inscrutable, deep telegraphs,
Long-planned chance meetings, hazards of a look,
‘Does she know? does she not know? saved or lost?’
A year of this compression’s ecstasy
All goes for nothing?

The signalling does not require a corridor. But corridors are a constant reminder of just how much of life is spent in the transmission and reception of ‘deep telegraphs’ of one kind or another; or, just how much of life at its most engrossing. Constance’s term for the excitement of deep telegraphing – ‘compression’s ecstasy’ – is as good a definition of the romance of connectivity as anything that media theory has since come up with. We shouldn’t overlook the fun Tennyson and Browning had with corridors. In literature as in life, what a corridor does may in the end count for more than what it means.

Stir and Bustle. By David Trotter. London Review of Books,  December  19, 2019. 








Exactly 40 years ago, Stanley Kubrick finished filming perhaps his most popular movie, The Shining. Released in 1980, one of this celebrated horror movie’s most unsettling scenes sees a five-year-old boy, Danny, ride his tricycle along a corridor in the empty Overlook Hotel. The innocent boy cycles around a corner, only to be faced with the unnerving apparition of two ghostly twin girls standing side by side at the end of the hotel corridor.

It’s one of the great moments in cinema – and one that has also helped cement an association between corridors and dread in the popular imagination.

There are good reasons why directors of horror films love the corridor. Its dimensions have always suited the camera, which advances through its narrow space, multiplying the anticipatory fear of what’s just off screen – the doorways and voids it passes. But in the case of The Shining, there was something more: Kubrick’s use of a new piece of gear, the Steadicam stabiliser, allowed the camera to glide smoothly behind child actor Danny Lloyd, creating the impression of a supranatural presence.

The corridor has become a staple “dark place” in film and TV. From crime drama to political thrillers, the camera sweeps, glides or creeps along the corridors of schools, asylums, prisons, hotels, hospitals and offices. Moving through the corridor’s horizontal confines, it induces emotions that range from low-level anxiety to overwhelming dread.

A corridor? That’s the narrow space where they keep you waiting, where you feel nervous and jittery before an interview, or where your mind races into nightmare mode as you await the outcome of a medical examination. In film and TV, it’s the place where shadowy authority figures often lurk, conspiring.

Corridors are indispensable spaces: we spend much of our time moving through them. Yet, as the theorist Stephan Trüby has observed, the corridor is “an under-examined, transitional non-space between places, an unregarded, unloved non-architecture” relegated to the level of “infrastructure” rather than being considered architecture.

It’s a subject that fascinates the academic and writer Roger Luckhurst, whose absorbing new study, Corridors – Passages of Modernity, provides a timely reminder of the corridor’s overlooked place in the modern urban space and our collective imagination. We live in an open-plan, “anti-corridic world”.

A key turning point in the corridor’s fortunes, in Luckhurst’s view, came during the 1960s and early 1970s as the tide turned against the failed utopian vision of modernism. Exit the corridor, enter the atrium, the open-plan office and the yuppie heaven of loft living.

The pattern that emerges in Luckhurst’s study is of initial utopian conceptions that gradually curdle into dystopian disappointments. More subtly, Luckhurst argues that “dystopia does not come after but inhabits the utopian impulse from the beginning.”

From the late 18th and into the 19th centuries, the long corridor that radiated off a central hub was a notable feature of reformers’ enlightened new designs for prisons and asylums. These had at their heart religiously based ideas of prisoners as penitents ripe for reformation, who would reflect on their actions through solitary confinement, free from contaminating contact with other prisoners. Cells were distributed off corridors that provided clean sightlines for surveillance. But, as Luckhurst notes, the relative failure of these architectural mechanisms of reform, overtaken by a harsher view of humanity that favoured punishment over redemption, is one of the influences that have helped foment the dread that accompanies the thought of institutional corridors. 



The pattern of utopian ideals going awry is marked in the public projects that addressed the post-war shortage of housing. Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation in Marseille, widely regarded as a seminal creation of functionalist modernism, had at the heart of its conception of the city within a city, “rues intérieures” – internal double-loaded corridors on each of its seven floors. These weren’t simply seen as circulation spaces but as communal spaces where neighbours might gather and socialise.
Luckhurst contrasts the Unité d’Habitation with subsequent serial failures of other social housing projects that it inspired and influenced in the UK and the US.


Le Corbusier’s double-loaded rues intérieures were transposed into single-loaded service decks and interior corridors of housing estates which, while they may have been designed under the influence of utopian, socialist ideals of communal living, were often fatally hobbled by cost-cutting, lack of maintenance and social deprivation. Service decks, imagined as “streets in the sky”, were often blamed for providing useful escape routes for muggers.


By the late 1960s the corridor space was being explicitly pinpointed by the likes of US architect and city planner Oscar Newman, and later in the UK by Alice Coleman, as “a netherworld of fear and crime”. The design itself was blamed, rather than challenging social conditions, for the failure of estates.

The souring of the utopian vision of institutional spaces and the backlash against misfiring modernist schemes can perhaps be detected obliquely in another Stanley Kubrick film, A Clockwork Orange (1971), which used the recently built modernist Thamesmead estate in south London, notable for its elevated concrete walkways, as a futuristic location for its scenes of ultraviolence.



Such negative associations are mirrored by growing critiques in the latter half of the 20th century that took aim at the soulless space of the corporate office and the labyrinths of bureaucracy. Again, the corridor was in the firing line, becoming symbolic of institutional fear.

As Luckhurst observes: “Dystopia is often depicted as a windowless corporate corridor where receding identical doors mark out the systematic destruction of the individual by bureaucracy or an oppressive state administration.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell’s seminal post-war portrayal of a totalitarian society, Winston Smith, the rebellious worker who toils in the Ministry of Truth, imagines execution by the Party: “One day they would decide to shoot him. You could not tell when it would happen, but a few seconds beforehand it should be possible to guess. It was always from behind, walking down a corridor.”
Arguably, the corridor as a feature reaches its apotheosis in the modern hotel, whose double-loaded corridors are so richly represented in film. And so often, it’s in a distinctly uneasy way.

An interesting example is found in the classic film noir Double Indemnity (1944), in which the scheming murderess Barbara Stanwyck hides from her lover’s work colleague in the corridor – a space, Luckhurst observes, suggestive of illicit plots and amoral anonymity.

Fast-forward to our own age of global chain hotels with their replicated design features and those vistas of identical doors receding infinitely down long corridors have become a key trope of the alienating anonymity of modern urban life.

The irony is that those seemingly infinite modern hotel corridors can induce a sense of unease by their very blankness – that feeling of “corridor dread”. These “unhistoried non-places”, as Luckhurst terms them, are an imaginative vacuum that our angst inhabits. In literature and cinema, the feature-rich spaces of the haunted house are joined by a new species of space: in a direct inversion of the Gothic, it is the precisely the “bland, horizontal anonymity” of the corridor that turns it into a place of unsettlement and unease.
To what degree we should blame movie and TV directors for this? From Netflix’s American Horror Story to Resident Evil computer games, directors and game creators just love to lead us down corridors, and the outcome in these confined spaces is rarely good.

Back in the real world, we might wonder whether it is Game Over for the corridor? Not necessarily. Corridors have played a happier role in the realm of education. Take the so-called Infinite Corridor, the 250-metre-long hallway that traverses the campus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Built in 1916, it was designed to allow the scientific disciplines to flow into each other seamlessly, encouraging cross-departmental connections and the sparking of ideas. A hundred years later, it’s a much-loved feature of MIT that (still) works.

Even in the age of email and the internet, some forms of intellectual exchange benefit from physical proximity. And that’s something, for better or worse, that the corridor has always offered: it’s a space where you can bump into people by chance and – just sometimes – make serendipitous connections.

Although modern buildings may almost never have conventional-style corridors any more, a new kind of corridor is possibly emerging that reflects the more open and collaborative nature of society and the way work is now done. The corridor is morphing into something wider, lighter, with areas where people can meet. As so often, we can look to California for an example of this change. The software company Autodesk’s headquarters in San Francisco, for instance, has numerous “community tunnels” carved through the core of building, transforming corridors and passageways into useful, productive spaces. There’s life in the corridor yet.




Who’s afraid of corridors? Why do film directors love these spaces so much? And why are hallways imbued with such creepy associations? By James Hadley. KvadratInterwoven , [September ?], 2019. 











Roger Luckhurst’s book travels through time and type via horror films, history and architectural fashion

This book goes off in all directions. At first glance a study of the corridor, seemingly that most mundane of places, this is actually a romp through the history of many different building types, all seen through the lens of the corridor, in its various manifestations from humble service passage to toffs’ promenade.

It is unexpectedly fascinating and informative, even if at times it feels like several books in one, from architectural treatise to readings of the portrayal of corridors in film and literature.

Perhaps it’s this multiplicity that makes it such a good read. The author Roger Luckhurst is a professor of modern literature at Birkbeck College and author of books on films and zombies, and is clearly at home tackling the corridor as a source of unease in popular culture. He also gets stuck into architectural history and unearths all sorts of oddities. We hear about the Duke of Portland, who built miles of underground corridors around his Welbeck Abbey estate so he could get about without ever being seen and Joseph Paxton’s outlandish proposal for a Great Victorian Way arcade to link all major London stations. There’s discussion of the corridor as both a means of open socialization and closed privacy, and as a source of efficiency but also alienation. He discusses the negative feelings of unease that corridors have generated in popular culture. There’s even a look at perhaps the final corridor – the journey to death – through the testimonies of near death experience survivors.

According to Luckhurst, we are living in an ‘anti-corridic world’ with most recent trends in building types eliminating corridors, which are often seen as ‘un-architecture’. But it hasn’t always been this way. He takes us way back to consider the role of passages in temples, labyrinths, the classical stoa, cloisters, fortifications, before considering the role that corridors have played in the evolution of building types such as prisons, shopping malls, housing and workplaces.

Luckhurst concludes that corridors open into ‘some of the major experiences of modernity itself’ and certainly the corridor proves to be a rewarding focus for an analysis of these various building types over time. We learn about Charles Fourier’s utopian concept for a phalanstery in the 19th century, a mega-structure that could house 1620 people organised around a street-corridor. A broad look at housing takes in Soviet communal housing and the role of the corridor as a place for social and personal transformation in this new collectivism before moving onto Corbusier, drawing attention to the use of corridors at l’Unite d’Habitation in Marseilles as a counterpoint to the lightness of the apartments. Luckhurst looks at the ‘streets in the sky’ of post-war British housing, taking in Robin Hood Gardens, Park Hill, and the Barbican before considering the backlash to large housing estates. Far from the utopian corridors of Fourier and post-war planners, these internalized spaces became seen as ‘dark passages of menace and threat’.

The retail chapter is fascinating, taking in 19th century British arcades and grander versions in Brussels, St Petersburg and Milan. The latter, a four-storey Galleria Vittoria Emmanuele II (1877) was to inspire the American mall of the next century. This is a good yarn. Architect Victor Gruen designed the first, Northland Shopping Center in Detroit in 1954, a development praised by Jane Jacobs with buildings and landscaped squares tied together by long colonnades and traffic banished to the peripheries. Two years later, he designed the first fully enclosed air-conditioned mall in America, described by Frank Lloyd Wright as ‘repulsive’. Gruen incorporated art, fountains, and public spaces for events, even lectures. As well as effective retail spaces he ‘seemed genuinely to believe that he could create a cultured agora in the new social spaces,’ says Luckhurst. A new mall was built in America every year until 2008, but Gruen hated the legacy of malls which deviated from his vision and in 1978 disclaimed his role in creating the building type, which he said had ‘destroyed our cities’. I enjoyed the consideration of the ‘Zombie Effect’ – the semi-trance state that shoppers can find themselves in within shopping malls. Now, one third of the 1200 malls in America are dead or dying, another sign of how a corridor once associated with utopian ideals has developed what Luckhurst calls a ‘darker, dystopian flavour’.

The hotel corridor gets full consideration, including the extraordinary mega expo hotels of EM Statler around the turn of the 20th century in America – at the St Louis hotel, some corridors were almost half a mile long. There’s an account of the curious story of Peacock Alley, a promenade for wealthy guests built between the Waldorf and the Astoria in New York that attracted thousands of gawpers a day in the early 20th century. Luckhurst enjoys exploring the idea of corridor ‘dread’ ­– the sense of unease that long hotel corridors create in films such as The Shining.

The private home typology is also rich territory, with corridors used variously as grand processional spaces or to achieve privacy by by-passing enfilade series of public rooms. Circulation in grand houses could become highly complex, with separate family, servant and public routes that were challenging to keep apart.

It’s all hugely disparate and stimulating stuff, with the architectural narrative greatly enlivened by the cultural references and analysis. But I’m surprised that the author didn’t make more of what has in recent years been something of a resurgence of the corridor as a social space, whether in the widening of school corridors into learning areas, re-shaping of some hospital corridors to include places to sit and chat and in today’s workspaces, a determined effort to design circulation spaces as areas for serendipitous encounters where people have space to pause and converse.


Open the door to the secrets of the corridor. By  Pamela  Buxton. The RIBA Journal, August  12, 2019. 





We pass through passages and hallways everyday without pause. They're boring, empty, uneventful dead-spaces unworthy of consideration - not so much architecture to stop and appreciate, as infrastructure to quickly pass through. All they do is channel things around buildings, moving us from one room to the next. But while we so often take these in-between areas for granted, rushing down them in order to reach places of real importance, they can also be incredibly evocative.

Corridors are anxious, uneasy places, and horror has a history of using them to put us on edge. They're rarely the site of explicit terror or violence, but they lead us there. Zones of anticipatory fear, the corridor is conducive to horror through its ability to heighten suspense and gesture to the unknown. What lies around the corner, or beyond that door? Every hallway is a world of undetermined possibility.

Roger Luckhurst, a professor at the University of London and expert in all things horror, recently penned a book about corridors. He's quick to mention the Resident Evil series and the various facilities of the Umbrella Corporation, where horror is sometimes confined and squeezed into a particularly pure form. On many occasions the video game corridor is a gauntlet (in the Resident Evil spinoffs for example). In these corridor shooters, the constrictive form of the horror hallway becomes a condenser for an adrenaline-fuelled onslaught where you're forced to hack or blast your way through a narrow, zombie-infested space.

On the more cognitive end of the scale we have the dreaded corridors of P.T. Kojima and Del Toro's scrubbed-from-history playable teaser is the very definition of a contained space. The short game offers players a minimalist loop: a single domestic corridor split up by a 90 degree angle, out of which seems to arise infinite opportunities. Gareth Damian Martin, in his article on P.T.'s duplicating corridor and corner, identifies the source of architectural horror in this bend. It's the player's inability to ever see the end of the hallway, and the uncertainty that simmers in this absence, that makes the game such an anxious experience.

The corner isn't the only way corridors can build tension, tease the unknown, or create shocks and twists. Take an endlessly horizontal corridor for example, one that seems to lack a vanishing point - it simply stretches on until you can no longer see what lies ahead. Luckhurst also points to the "dread of anticipation that comes with every door the player passes". If the corridor simply takes us from one room or event to the next, then each gateway and threshold passed is an opportunity for a terrifying encounter. It's often stated that horror is most effective when the true source is obscured.

The majority of Luckhurst's book charts the long history of the corridor from utopian beginnings to its modern dystopian associations. While I think the spatial structure of the corridor is important, it's the historical context of this much-maligned architectural form that really allows the dread to ferment. Out of the associations leaps the ominous corridor-mood we're all so familiar with.

In the ancient world, temple complexes possessed what Luckhurst calls "imposing corridor structures" - passages to anticipate an approaching godly encounter. From the very beginning corridors seemed to be inherently anticipatory and revelatory. They're also imbued with the "mythic resonances of the labyrinth", alluding to ideas of lost souls and wandering monsters. In the same way, games use corridors to isolate, disorientate and - occasionally - assault.

The word "corridor" can be traced back to the latin for "run", a verb all players will be accustomed to. The original corridors, as Luckhurst explores, were city perimeters made for couriers to sprint through in times of crisis. Long before the corridor became the archetypal place for horror chase scenes they were purpose-built to be run down.

In the 18th century the architect John Vanbrugh built Blenheim Palace, one of the first buildings to use internal hallways to connect each and every room. The baroque palace, with its organised, symmetrical layout, was built for the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. These names will be familiar to those who've seen 2018's film The Favourite, which depicts the feud between a Duchess and her younger cousin, both of whom desire to become the Queen's court favourite. While the film isn't set or filmed in Blenheim Palace, its long darkened galleries and secret passageways seem to be imbued with the same qualities as the modern corridor. "In the shadows... amoral anonymity, illicit plots and sexual corruption" appear to flourish, writes Luckhurst.

As the wealthy implemented the corridor in their grand houses and palaces in order to distinguish between their own private space and servant areas, the corridor also became a state tool for rational organisation. In the 18th century, in newly designed prisons, hospitals and asylums, the corridor reigned supreme. They became a way of logically distributing space, and beyond this, reformers even began to believe they could "refashion subjectivity itself". In asylums "taxonomies of insanity" were "ascribed in architecture", as burgeoning states began to recognise the psychic power of brick and mortar.

While the corridor began as part of a utopian project to improve the health of society, corridors of power and discipline were increasingly met with suspicion. Luckhurst explains places like the asylum began to be "seen as an environment that induces lunacy rather than cures it".

"The limitless, faceless corridor is one of the foundational images of envisioning a totalitarian condition, the individual swallowed up by the larger structures of the state."

These stark, dehumanising corridors are a potent source of dread. There's something perceptibly eerie about the emptied halls of a school after dark or wandering down endless, antiseptic hospital wards, but it's the "mental asylum" that appears again and again in horror fiction. Outright horror titles like Outlast and The Evil Within use the locale, but there are also stealth and action games like Thief: Deadly Shadows and Batman: Arkham Asylum that thrive in the oppressive atmospheres asylum corridors naturally conjure.

Moving into the 20th century we began to distrust, if not outright despise, these bureaucratic labyrinths. The monotonous and austere corridor was a "Kafkaesque annihilation of the self" - architecture that coldly categorised and turned us into instruments to be moved about and manipulated. It's this historical context that creates the uneasiness we feel when we walk down a corridor - even when we might know there's no monster waiting ahead. We look at corridors suspiciously, traverse them nervously, distrust those we meet there, and fumble every doorknob with a deep apprehension.



Resident Evil 2, recently remade and re-released, does a great job at building stress through its claustrophobic hallways, but it's the specific context of its setting that makes it interesting. The original Resident Evil's Spencer Mansion, as well as Resident Evil 7's Baker family residence, are homely spaces that delve into the realm of the uncanny. While those buildings made the familiar strange, lingering on the psychological drama of family life, Resident Evil 2 takes place in a cold, calculative municipal building. The Raccoon Police Station is a bureaucratic maze in the same way as a 19th century prison or hospital.




Based on the Osaka City Central Public Hall built in 1918, Resident Evil 2's station is a grand public building meant to highlight the power of the state and overwhelm the individual. This is why when walking the station's halls something doesn't sit right. We never feel at ease within its inhuman corridors. Unlike the haunted returns and repeated temporality seen in the original game's basements and attics, the sequel's corridors represent a bland and superficial modernity. This is the difference between the traditional haunted house, with its metaphors for the conscious and unconscious mind, and something like the dreaded hallways of the Overlook Hotel in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.

According to Luckhurst, the Overlook Hotel's corridor plan is "an uninterrupted, unfolding space that... limits the action but multiplies the threats of menace from off-screen". The "anonymous and unhistoried" hotel corridor perfectly captures our existential dread. It's an utterly alienating space where all "individual lives are standardised" and identical doors, bland wallpaper and patterned carpets stretch off into infinity. It's no wonder we feel so anxious in these transient places.

Polish game studio Bloober Team recreated these dreaded corridors in detail with its most recent game, Layers of Fear 2. Heavily inspired by film history, the game sees you play an actor in an unhinged director's bizarre new production. The events take place on an Ocean Liner - essentially a floating hotel. The developers bend and loop their corridors in the same manner as P.T., although in much longer combinations. Here are a thousand different variations on the creepy, angst-ridden hotel corridor! It's bewildering, twisted stuff, but to my mind it's Bloober's earlier game, Observer, that crafts the more focussed corridorscape.

Observer, as much a sci-fi game as a horror one, is set in a large apartment complex in future Kraków, Poland. According to Roger Luckhurst, we now live in an "anti-corridic" world. In the last few decades we've shunned corridors, turning instead to open-plan living, large glass atriums and office cubicle work spaces. This isn't just a turn against overbearing institutional spaces like asylums, but also public housing. In other words: it's political.

Past Prime Minister and all-round bozo David Cameron once described "brutal high-rise towers and dark alleyways" as being "a gift to criminals and drug dealers". This perception isn't new. The architect Oscar Newman described high-rises in his 1970s survey as a "nether world of fear and crime". Instead of being an indictment of poor city planning or rising poverty, the developing horrors were blamed on social and community living, and even the architectural design of the corridor itself.

Like in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, where the new brutalist Southmere Estate in Thamesmead acts as the dystopian backdrop for Alex and his rampaging street gang, Observer's Krakow housing unit is a decrepit concretetopia filled with illicit criminal activity. A mutated serial-killer wanders the hallways, and the corridors themselves become a vacant anti-social no-man's-land.

Another recent release to delve into the unnerving interiors of the public housing block is Red Candle Games' Devotion. Set in 1980s Taiwan, the game sees you not only explore the cramped confines of your old household, with an L-corridor straight out of P.T., but also the longer, twisting corridors of the apartment complex itself. Again and again you approach "home" from outside, from the stairwell and from the dreaded, anonymous lobby corridor that seems to shift around you.

Devotion's housing complex is dark, dingy and derelict, but it's also the historical context of oppressive state control, the classifying and compartmentalising of human life on a mass scale, that makes us so restless when we traverse its corridors. Red Candle Games now faces a different kind of suppression, its game removed from storefronts in a state-sanctioned scrubbing, and its business license revoked.

It's in the institutional failures of the corridor and its slide from utopian to dystopian we find the architecture's dreaded source. Game developers can do wonders with the narrow, binding structure of the hallway, but it's the long history of the corridor that makes these spaces so deeply unsettling. Scratch beneath the surface of the bare walls and abstractly decorated carpets and you'll reveal something dark and nasty.




The creepy corridors of video games. By Ewan Wilson. Eurogamer. August  6, 2019

















01/09/2019

Be the Monster




One Friday night, in March 1895, Michael Cleary of Ballyvadlea, Ireland, set fire to his wife for refusing to eat a piece of toast.

Bridget Cleary had always been a bad fit for Michael. She was an exceptionally beautiful woman, and—thanks to her parents’ purchase of a Singer sewing machine—an exceptionally powerful one, too. Bridget taught herself to work as a milliner and dressmaker, which, along with keeping poultry, allowed her to live off her own income. That level of independence was rare in a married woman, and Bridget didn’t do much to downplay it: She had not moved in with her husband for some time after their wedding. She wore ostentatiously stylish clothes of her own design, in part as a walking advertisement for her business, but also for all the reasons beautiful women wear stylish clothing. She had a reputation for arrogance; “people speak of [Bridget] as being ‘a bit queer’ in her ways,” one local newspaper wrote, “and this they attribute to a certain superiority over the people with whom she came into contact.” There were rumors that she’d been having an affair.

“She was not my wife. She was too fine to be my wife,” Michael said of Bridget after her death. It might sound like bitterness, a man venting his insecurity at a woman who made him feel small. But Michael was being literal. He also claimed the woman he’d killed was “two inches taller than my wife.” By the time he was on trial for murder, Michael was not framing the problem in terms of some flaw in Bridget. He claimed that the woman he’d killed was not Bridget at all.

The thing that looked like Bridget, Michael said, was a changeling—a fairy that assumed someone’s appearance in order to disguise the kidnapping of the original person. Though they preferred to take children, fairies also stole adult women from time to time, especially pretty ones or nursing mothers. Like the vampires of New England, the changelings of Ballyvadlea were surprisingly noncontroversial. When Michael asked Bridget’s family to drive the changeling away, they were glad to help.

In the days leading up to her death, Michael’s neighbors recalled hearing screaming coming from his house—“take it, you [bitch], you old faggot, or we will burn you” was one widely reported comment—and seeing Bridget tied to the bed, where she was doused and force-fed potions to repel fairy magic. Sometimes that meant herbs boiled in milk. Sometimes it meant urine. Fairies hated iron, so she was threatened and prodded with a hot poker; fairies hated Christianity, so a priest was called. Bridget was made to recite her name and her male relatives’ names; she had to describe herself as “Bridget Boland, wife of Michael Cleary, in the name of God” over and over, as if the spell could be broken by reaffirming the proper marital relation. When she was slow to answer, they held her over the kitchen fire. Johanna Burke, Bridget’s cousin, affirmed in her testimony that Bridget “seemed to be wild and deranged, especially while they were so treating her.”

Here’s the thing: it worked. After hours of counter-magic, everyone agreed that the real Bridget had been returned to them. But then, while the participants were recuperating by the fire, Bridget made the mistake that would end her life. She insulted Michael’s mother.

“Your mother used to go with the fairies,” is what she said, according to Johanna. “That is why you think I am going with them.”

The toast was on the breakfast table. Bridget had eaten two pieces. When she refused a third piece, Michael knocked Bridget to the ground and began forcing the bread down her throat. He began demanding that she call herself “the wife of Michael Cleary” again.

“I said, ‘Mike, let her alone, don’t you see it is Bridget that is in it,’” Johanna said, “meaning that it was Bridget his wife, and not the fairy, for he suspected that it was a fairy and not his wife that was there. Michael then stripped his wife’s clothes off, except her chemise, and got a lighting stick out of the fire. She was lying on the floor, and he held it near her mouth.”
Fairies hated fire. So Michael held fire to his wife’s mouth, telling her to take back what she’d said. Some of the witnesses remembered her crying out for Johanna—“oh, Han, Han”—and Johanna remembered Bridget saying, “give me a chance,” but then her head hit the floor, hard, and she stopped talking. So it may have been the blow to the head that killed her. We can’t know. Somehow, in the struggle, a spark got loose, and Bridget’s chemise caught fire. Over the screaming of her assembled family, Michael reached for a lamp and poured the burning oil over Bridget’s body, stoking the flames.

James Kennedy, her aunt’s brother-in-law, recalled trying to stop him: “For the love of God, don’t burn your wife,” he shouted.

“She’s not my wife,” Michael said. “She’s an old deceiver sent in place of my wife. She’s after deceiving me for the last seven or eight days, and deceived the priest today too, but she won’t deceive anyone any more. . . . You’ll soon see her go up the chimney!”

They assembled family, believers all, may well have looked for the miracle. But the body of Bridget Cleary stayed where it was.


It’s difficult to tell what motivated Michael in those final moments. It wasn’t just his belief in fairies; the other participants believed in them, too, but by the time Michael killed Bridget, everyone else knew that she was a real person. It may have been that Michael believed in fairies a little more than the others. It may have been mental illness; one popular theory places the blame on Capgras syndromes, in which sufferers are afflicted with the delusion that a loved one (“usually a spouse,” as per one Irish doctor) has been replaced by an identical duplicate. Or, given what we know about the other men, the obvious pride Bridget took in herself, and the financial power she wielded—say it plainly: the fact that Bridget was not under her husband’s control—it may have been a lie, and a way to justify killing her. Men kill women every day to assert their authority. Bridget wouldn’t have been the first.

But if Michael was lying, it was a lie with deep roots. Ireland and the other Celtic countries have a long folkloric tradition of fairy wives. Like Bridget, they were women who were hard to keep in one place—women who asked for more than was normal.


In the typical story, as per W. Y. Evans-Wentz, “a man catches a fairy woman and marries her. She proves to be an excellent housewife, but usually she has had put into the marriage-contract certain conditions which, if broken, inevitably release her from the union, and when so released she hurries away instantly, never to return, unless it be now and then to visit her children.”





Among the conditions, ironically, is the right to leave an abusive husband; in one story, collected by Evans-Wentz, the man learns “that he must not strike the wife without a cause three times, the striking being interpreted to include any slight tapping, say, on the shoulder.” Other fairies are disquietingly independent; a selkie, for instance, will come into her new husband’s home with a trunk, which he is not to open under any circumstances. If he disobeys her—suspecting treasure, or just not wanting her to have any secrets—he will find that the trunk contains only a sealskin, which the selkie will use to transform herself back into a seal before disappearing into the sea. In the Welsh Mabinogion, we have the story of Rhiannon, a fairy woman pursued by the human Prince Pwyll, who was struck by her beauty as she rode through his kingdom. Pwyll chased Rhiannon for days, unsuccessfully, until he became so tired and hungry that he begged her to stop. Only then did Rhiannon turn around: “I will stay gladly,” she told him, “and it were better for thy horse hadst thou asked it long since.” Rhiannon had been in love with Pwyll from afar, and had come to propose marriage, but she wasn’t going to let him grab her off the road and call it conquest. To be with a fairy woman, even one who loved him, a man had to get her consent first.

The ur-myth here is probably the French story of Melusine. When she married Count Raymond of Poitou, her only demand was that he leave her alone in her own room on Saturdays. Raymond agreed, and for many years, they were almost happy. Yet each of their children was born strange and frightening—with claws or tusks, or too many eyes, or too few. Though the maladies varied, “all were in some way disfigured and monstrous.” The problem defied explanation, and in time, Raymond grew suspicious of his wife. One Saturday, he peeked through a crack in the door and saw Melusine, taking a bath, with the lower half of her body transformed into a long, snaky tail.

Melusine loved Raymond, and initially forgave him for spying on her. It was only when Raymond publicly called her a “serpent” and blamed her for “contaminating” his noble line that she dropped the act, transformed into a sea dragon, and flew away. The legend says that she came back in the dead of night to nurse and hold her children, proud Mama Snake cuddling her little monsters to her clammy breast. Melusine could forgive her husband for curiosity, or even for being afraid, but not for turning on their children; she may have been a hideous, recently divorced hell-snake, but she was not a bad mother.



“Fairy wives” behaved less like inexplicable creatures of the spirit world and more like women who’d figured out how to have long-term heterosexual relationships without ceding their dignity or autonomy. So if Michael Cleary had a wife who was more beautiful than ordinary women, who wielded more control than ordinary women, who acted “too fine” for him or anyone, who had a habit of disappearing—well, he knew what to call her. If tradition had taught him anything, it was that a woman who insisted too much on being treated like a person was probably not a person at all.

From Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers: Monstrocity, Patriarchy, and the Fear of Female Power by Sady Doyle


Sady Doyle on the Man Who Insisted His Wife Was a Malevolent Fairy. LitHub , August 26, 2019.





Sady Doyle wants you to know it’s okay to be a monster. In Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers: Monstrosity, Patriarchy, and the Fear of Female Power, her follow-up to 2017’s Trainwreck: The Women We Love to Hate, Mock, and Fear … and Why, Doyle unpacks the many tropes that box women in from adolescence to adulthood. The taboo of menstruation and the sanctity of virginity; the lawlessness and danger of unbridled female sexuality; and the castrating and all-powerful mother. Doyle argues that throughout history, patriarchal social norms have dictated an acceptable set of standards—mental, physical, relational, sexual—that non-cisgender men must conform to. Diverging from these subservient, effacing, purity-obsessed standards causes women to be perceived and portrayed as a temptress, villain, or monster.

But, as Doyle argues in the book, even women who choose to live within these narrow confines fall victim to the very same accusations. Patriarchy creates a system of traps and Catch-22s: We have to be pure, but not so pure as to displease men. We have to give ourselves to our children, but not so much that we smother them. We have to be sexual, but not so sexual that it threatens men—and certainly not sexual in a way that excludes them. We have to be aware at all times that our bodies are not our own, but not so vigilant that we seem dramatic or paranoid. We cannot have both power and agency because the things patriarchy tells us we need in order to gain power strip us of our agency.

Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers draws a macabre, validating, and empowering roadmap of the origins and manifestations of female monstrosity, from gothic literature and exorcisms to the mothers of serial killers and the catharsis of watching horror movies. I talked to Doyle about who gets to be a monster, the challenge of changing our approach to discussing gendered violence, and the power of leaning into the darkness of it all.

CR : In the book, you write about the dichotomy between the “lethally beautiful and unbearably ugly.” Women aren’t given room for nuance, which is something that a lot of women struggle with. We only get to be a “career woman” or a “sexy temptress” or a “mom.”

SD : That’s a dynamic you see a lot in patriarchy: Every woman is ugly unless she’s beautiful, but if she’s beautiful, she’s untrustworthy because of that. There’s so much mythology [around] that. There’s the fairy-bride mythology about dangerous women from another world who might steal your soul or trap you underground. There are [also] mermaids and sirens singing you onto the rocks.

And that’s what [we] think of when we think [about] women who have sexual agency. The assumption is that we need to keep women under control and restrained from their own sexuality because otherwise they’ll use it to hurt men. It’s a projection. It’s something that men think will happen because historically, men have used sexuality as a weapon against women. Mothers are feared for a different reason: As [women] get older and start to accumulate more power within the world, [they’re viewed as] ugly, formidable, and castrating.

Most men and women have been under the authority of a woman at [some] point. We all fear our mothers’ anger, and adults can be really terrifying to children. But even when they’re not, that sense of growing up under the control of or the authority of a woman who’s much bigger than you, can make decisions [for you], and is more competent than you, gets transmuted into an overall sense of, “What’s going to happen to me if a woman has economic power? What’s going to happen if a woman [becomes] president? What’s going to happen to me if, once again, there’s a woman who’s so much bigger than I am, and I can’t do anything about it?”

CR : It’s the same with the topic of periods. It took me until I was I diagnosed with endometriosis in my mid-20s to realize there’s power in making people uncomfortable. A school administrator was giving me a hard time about missing classes after I’d had surgery, so I scanned full-color pictures of my surgery and sent them to her. I was like, “Here you go. You wanted more information. Here it is.” There’s power in that attitude.

SD : When you go back to really old texts, it’s literally elderly cis men who are perplexed, puzzled, and terrified by the fact that not all bodies are cis men bodies. I want to be really careful because a lot of women’s bodies bleed, but it doesn’t mean that men’s bodies don’t bleed. Some women have never menstruated in their lives. The idea [was] “women’s bodies” were innately monstrous, [and] that they were, [as] Aristotle said, “mutilated men.” These are bodies that have failed to be male, that are not quite human, [and] that just don’t work right. It’s not a figurative thing. It’s not like I’m having fun metaphor time with the idea that women are monsters. Lots of men have literally believed that we were.


CR : I want to talk about the section in your book that focuses on the power of being able to get pregnant. I’ve had a lot of conversations about my ability to have kids, so that looming weight really resonates with me. We use fertility, socially and institutionally, as a means of defining women. And it’s not just cis women; these conversations are used to otherize trans women too.

SD : It was really interesting to discover how much [of] our medical system is set up around penalizing and controlling these bodies, and it’s not only pregnant and childbearing bodies. [Some of the] witches [who were] burned were midwives who knew how to administer birth control. It wasn’t until about 100 years ago [that] you [went] to the doctor to have a baby. [Back then], you went to a midwife. And in America, a midwife would usually be a Black woman. When white males took over, maternal mortality rates went up.

The part where cis men get to pick who has the baby, keep that person in a house, keep them in a monogamous relationship, and keep them under control is [an artificial system]. The part where cis men are in charge of reproduction, in charge as doctors in the operating room, [in charge] as fathers giving their names to the family line, [and in charge] as the lawmakers, judges, and authorities determining whether or not they think rape is a big enough deal [is] an artificial system.

It’s dangerous to [assume] a super-optimistic “sex is power” or “reproduction is power” attitude. I don’t want to define myself purely that way. But there’s a really profound subversive power in women’s reproductive agency, and we have lived in a society that’s built around controlling, shaming, demeaning, hurting, raping, and killing [women] for so long that we’ve lost sight of the fact that there are powerful things about being able to make a person.

CR : And these patriarchal confines apply not only to reproduction but to sexuality, and they set women up for punishment. There’s this idea that women are temptresses, and then they become victims of violence. It circles back completely to the idea that “she was asking for it.”

SD : It continually loops around on itself. Sex is supposed to be something that’s put out there so you can get into a heterosexual relationship and get married. But if you put it out there and somebody decides to shit on it, then that’s your fault. Why were you at that party? Why were you dressed up? Why did you look that way if you didn’t want his attention?

CR : Every time there’s some major scandal about a politician or a celebrity having an affair, there’s always this shaming of the other woman. That never sits right with me.

SD : [There is this idea that] this is how cishetero reproduction has always worked. The idea is that men are supposed to be free to sleep with women because that’s how you continue your family line. Women must not be free to sleep with men. Women must be kept in one specific relationship that we know they’re in. Because otherwise, outside of raising a newborn baby and saying, “Maybe I see a little bit of red in his hair,” you don’t really know who the father is. Patrilineal arrangements are awkward, weird, and socially constructed in [such] a tenuous way that you really have to be in control of another person’s sexuality and body in order to be absolutely sure that things are working as intended.




CR : This also ties into the way that mothers are forbidden from being sexual beings. Once you’ve had a baby, you’ve graduated from the phase of sexy temptress, and now you’re the castrating mother. It made me think about how a mother is her daughter’s eyes into the world; that relationship influences the next generation living in this weird paradigm.

SD : [That’s] when all that stuff starts to meld together. The book is split into daughters, wives, and mothers, and [I’m] really specific [about how I] split all of those things up. The child who’s supposed to be under our protection and the child who’s afforded a degree of humanity before she grows up and becomes a woman has to be kept separate from the sexual woman—the seductress—or the wife—the woman who’s there for us to look at through that [sexualized] lens. [The wife] has to be split off from the mother who’s simultaneously really sentimentalized and really devalued and feared. When you start to Frankenstein all those bits together, you get someone who has sexual agency, sexual pleasure, reproductive agency, [and] who, despite what children she has and when, has control over that process. When you start to forge all those things together, you [have] an image of a self-determined person whose life is not guided by patriarchy, who cannot be held down, who will not be split off in fragments of herself, and [who will not be] turned into a subject or a second-class person by these very limiting goals.

When you manage to undo your own fragmentation, you [develop] an image of your own humanity [and] your own agency—what decisions you might make if you weren’t making the decisions you’re “supposed” to make as a woman.

CR : You write about the ways in which women engage with true crime and horror as an escape of sorts. But it’s also a somewhat safe manifestation of the things that we have always been taught to fear.

SD : It’s purifying for some reason. There’s a lot of evidence [that shows] women watch horror way more than men. Women read and watch true crime way more than men. It’s not that women are murdered more than men; men will get in bar fights and kill each other pretty often. But women are living in a culture that constantly subjects them to violence for the [sake] of violence. There’s also an idea that you don’t talk about it because you will be blamed. You will be told that you are being oversensitive or paranoid, or you will just have it written off in this way that’s really invalidating and destabilizing. [The] first worst thing is to have the crime happen. The second worst thing is to say it has and no one cares.

The opposite of what we used to think [about] the demographics is true: Women are the ones who see these movies about serial killers. It has always been the case that women go to these really dark places, from gothic literature [to] true crime.

CR : It’s a weird dichotomy: We shield girls and young women from so much because the world is so predatory. Yet true crime can be empowering because it validates all of those little twinges in the back of your head. There’s a dark comfort in realizing we’re not loopy.

SD : I’m glad you [used the word] “validating” because women have to ignore and downplay the extent of the violence in [our] lives and the extent of the violence around [us] for so much of [our] lives. When you go to horror, it’s not even always an escalation. It’s a place where you don’t have to pretend that your life isn’t scary.


CR : That brings me to infamous serial killers, including Ed Gein and Edmund Kemper, whose  mothers are given this looming, consequential role in their violence and their brutality. You make the point that these men can be radicalized elsewhere; they have abusive fathers who they learn from or a fascination with Nazis. It’s akin to what we see in online communities like Reddit. That was such an important way to counter this narrative of the “bad mom” causing men to turn to crime.

SD : We love to blame mothers; it’s easy to blame a mother. But the patriarchy that’s all around you is constantly sending [the] message that violence is good, purifying, [and] righteous. [Patriarchy] is constantly telling [men] that women need to be controlled, kept in line, and taken down to size through violence. Cruelty and violence are what power is, and women in particular need to be subdued and put in line through sexual and other forms of gendered violence.

When a guy murders and rapes a bunch of coeds, lures women into his car to rape and kill them, or decapitates them like Edmund Kemper, why would you [pinpoint] one person to be mad at when you’ve got a whole society telling him that he’s not that far out of line? It only takes this one guy [who’s] willing to take the joke a little too far, and you’ve got an Ed Gein. He wasn’t distinct from his father’s violence. He saw his father constantly beating up his mother, [so] when he got a little older and got to a place where he felt powerless, he knew [exactly] what to do. When we blame mothers, we’re ultimately victim blaming.

CR : These patriarchal confines set us up to fail. The rules aren’t written down anywhere, so if you don’t follow them it might be really tough. But if you do follow them, you’re screwed anyway, so why bother?




SD : That’s the thing. You can’t [live in] a way that allows you to evade punishment, and you [still won’t be] safe. Look at Laci Peterson. This was a woman who fulfilled every bourgeois domestic ideal, and everyone loved her. She did everything right, and her husband [still] got up one day and decided to throw her in the river. You can warp your life into being what other people need you to be—and it still is not going to protect you. If you’re going to be targeted no matter what they do; they’re not going to like what you say no matter how you say it because you’re talking; they’re coming at you; [and] this is a war, then why not charge? Why not be what they’re afraid of? Why not be the monster?

Be the Monster :  Sady Doyle Draws a Macabre Road Map of Female Monstrosity. By Caroline Reilly. Bitch Media, August 13, 2019.









When we think of horror stories, both fictional and true crime, the assumption is that the draw is violence and a fascination with it. While that's no doubt true, author Sady Doyle argues, in her new book "Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers: Monstrosity, Patriarchy, and the Fear of Female Power," that the terror is also about gender. Stories about monsters transmit and reinforce fears about women's bodies, women's resistance, and, worst of all, women having power.

But horror isn't wholly sexist. Monster stories are also where women have long gone to explore their own desires to rebel against the patriarchy or to discuss forbidden topics, such as the ubiquity of male violence. Doyle spoke with Salon about the power of monster stories, both to oppress and empower women.



AM : 
So this book is about monster stories, which range from classic fairytales and myths to modern-day horror stories and even true crime stories. These stories, you argue, are often and possibly primarily about deeply gendered concerns, almost always touching on anxieties about a woman's place in the patriarchal society. Why do you think that is?

SD : It goes down to the concept of "otherness." One of the fundamental patriarchal myths is not that women are a different kind of human to a cisgender man, but women are something fundamentally less than or different than human men.

And of course, there's all sorts of other othernesses that you can have. Cis people other trans people. White people other people of color all the time. But in some of these really ancient texts, like Aristotle, he was fundamentally concerned and horrified at the fact that not all humans are perfect reproductions of their father's bodies. The presence of any difference whatsoever freaks him out.

I think it was Aquinas, who opens the book, who says that, "Were it not for some power that wanted the feminine sex to exist, the birth of a woman would be an accident of nature, like that of other monsters." The idea of women as misbegotten and defective is there.

Horror is a genre that's all about bodies. It really is just about bodies in the sense of corpses, bodies in the sense of sexuality. Horror is a place where we go with really intense, obsessive concerns about what a body should look like and how it should behave and what makes a body human or inhuman.

So, when we tell monster stories, more often than not, we are returning to those same fundamental concerns about what makes sex safe and appropriate or deviant and scary. What makes a body beautiful or ugly, human or inhuman? So it's absolutely not surprising that we would end up with a bunch of horror movies that somehow seem to mimic these ancient texts about the terror of period blood and how it would give dogs rabies and kill men who touched it.

AM : You have the book broken into categories of daughters, wives, and mothers. In the first section, daughters, you start off with stories about poltergeists and demonic possessions, most notably "The Exorcist." What is the kind of common thread between poltergeist stories and demonic stories?



SD : They both center on a terror of what I'm going to go ahead and call, for our purposes, female puberty. Poltergeists are, in case any of your readers don't know this, they are the ghosts that can throw things around. And in ghost hunting communities, these are thought to be not dead people, but pieces of rage that have somehow gotten so powerful, they have detached from someone's body. It's just that your anger is so big, it's gotten outside of your body and is now wrecking your house.

In ghost hunting lore, in paranormal lore, over and over again, they stress that you are never more likely to have a poltergeist than when you're around a very young girl who's having her first period. There are even some of these books that I've read that are like, "Sometimes there's a poltergeist in an adult person's house, but that's also a woman on the rag." That's what poltergeists are: they're period spirits. And they attend on young and teenage girls in the lore pretty exclusively.

Demon possession has not always been so gendered. The case that "The Exorcist" was based on is called the Roland Doe exorcism, and it was a little boy who stabbed a priest with one of his bedsprings in the middle of the exorcism. And I think William Peter Blatty heard that and thought, "Ooh, that's good."

But when he sat down to make it spooky, he immediately made that a story about a 12-year-old girl. The movie so intensely focuses on her body and all of the things that her body can do, all of the terrible changes her body is undergoing.

They show her masturbating. They show a 12-year-old girl's bloody vagina in that movie, and it's strongly implied that either that crucifix is sharp or that she's just on her period. I still can't believe this is in the movie. Every time I look at it, I'm like, "I don't know how they got that in the movie." One of the biggest shock shots in the movie is a young girl who bleeds.

Those exorcism cases are often about our idea of young women as being suddenly filled up with a new power. The second they step forward into adult womanhood, they stop being children who are under our protection, children who are sweet, who are good, who are safe, and they become these foul-mouthed, cursing, masturbating women, who might potentially get angry and throw a lamp across the room with their minds. We are so scared of girls growing up, of girls obtaining adult power that we've made endless horror stories of it.

AM : Not all stories that make the girl a dehumanized object of terror and disgust. "Carrie" is a very different kind of version of "The Exorcist" story. Carrie is a sympathetic character, I would argue, even if she gets killed in the end.





SD : Well,  she's almost victimized by the amount of power she has, you know? And "Carrie" is  a dance between her and her mother for who's going to be the victim of the movie and the villain of the movie. Carrie is young, she's just gotten her first period. She's backwards. She's viciously, viciously abused by her mother, who is this female misogynist who believes that women's bodies and sexuality are inherently evil.

For most of this, Mom is the bad guy, right? Mom is the woman who has power in a way that is threatening to us because she's an adult, and she's older, and she has authority. The strange thing, for this woman who's a misogynist, is that she doesn't actually interact with any men at all throughout the movie. She doesn't have a husband. She doesn't ever want to have sex with men. For as religious as she's portrayed as being, she doesn't go to church. She doesn't have a pastor or a priest or a male authority figure. She seems to have written her own Bible. She's like, "Let us pray," and then it's just a whole bunch of stuff that is not in any religious texts. She seems to have formed her own religion of which she is the pope, and its only ceremony is locking your daughter in like a prayer closet with a creepy Jesus that's clearly handmade.

Margaret is a vision of female power that's very threatening, and Carrie is a vision of a young girl who's starting to step into adulthood and into power and who experiences that, for most of the movie, as something overwhelming and horrifying and frightening. She gets her period, and she thinks she's dying. She learns she can move things with her mind, and it's not a fun realization for her for most of the movie.

But then eventually, there's this symbolic menarche of her being drenched in pig's blood. She realizes that, if she has powers, she can do what power does, which is make life real hard for everybody who's made life hard for her.

Stephen King has even compared her to a school shooter, like a Columbine guy. For all that it's his book, I don't know that I would agree with that reading. But I think eventually we're meant to see that Carrie's power takes over, and then it voids her of humanity, much the same way that the demon voids Regan of humanity in "The Exorcist" until she's cured.

AM : I was tickled to read that you like "My Favorite Murder." I'm also a fan. True crime mostly has female fans, and we're all expected to feel ashamed for how much interest we have in these gruesome, true-life stories about serial killers and other kinds of murderers. You're a little more sympathetic to women's desire for these stories, so tell me, why do women love stories about true crime so much?

SD : It's such a heavily-feminized genre, and the reaction is so often that it's just like, "Oh, you're some wine mom watching Lifetime movies. You don't have any real problems, and you're just trying to vicariously suck up someone else's pain to get you through the boring day."

I would argue is no, women are really drawn to stories about violence, not just true crime. Women are the primary audience for slashers and torture porn movies, evidently. Women are drawn to this, because our lives are very violent, because we really do live with an epidemic of sexualized and gendered violence that we are trained to fear every moment of our lives.

You walk with your keys between your fingers at night. You make sure that you're not outside of the house at a certain hour. You make sure that, if you go to a party, you have a buddy who's going to keep their eye on your drink. You make sure of all these little things, and at the end of the day, you can still find out that Matt Lauer has a magic button in his office that he can use to lock you in his office to sexually assault you. At the end of the day, still there's going to be a nice, handsome blond guy who wants you to help him with a car problem, and whoops, it's Ted Bundy, and now you're dead.

The ubiquity of that violence and the fact that we have very few socially approved ways of talking about it, ways of thinking about it, is really stifling for a lot of women.

We have more now. We have online feminist communities, and we have social media, and that's made more truth-telling possible. But, for a long time, one of the only ways you could  process the amount of fear that you were living with every day was to go to these really spectacular stories of sexual violence and sexual terror.

If your husband is starting to scare you, if that relationship is going dark, it might actually make a lot of sense for you to be obsessively concerned with what happened to Laci Peterson, whose husband killed her.

You might be not sucking up someone else's pain like a vampire. You might be trying to work through what's the worst-case outcome of my situation. Women do that. We get really concerned with the amount of violence in the world, and if we had no external validation, we would feel crazy and alone all the time.



AM : The Laci Peterson/Scott Peterson case held this huge fascination over people in the early 2000s, and less than a decade later, "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn came out.  Flynn denies that it was inspired by the Peterson case....

SD : Well ...

AM : You draw some extremely interesting parallels where it's a retelling of the story, except that the wife lives, and she's actually setting the husband up to be framed for her murder. Women love this book. Why did they go nuts for it?

SD : It's a turning of the tables, isn't it? Amy's rage is so unsanitized in that book. She said some stuff, even, that you might characterize as misogynist, but that kind of adds to it. She is, we're supposed to believe, a sociopath, but she is also a highly educated woman who has worked her whole life to make something of her life, and she married this frat boy who dragged her out to the middle of nowhere and started cheating on her.

The level of just pure raw rage in this woman, that despite everything she's done to build a life, she still winds up stuck in this confined female role of being some guy's bitchy, dragged-down wife in the middle of the Midwest, it's very real. And she's really real about how much she wants to kill him for trapping her in this role.

Just as these movies and stories can provide a venue for us to talk about how we feel victimized, they can also provide a way for us to walk backward into our own scary parts.

For me, it's not "Gone Girl." It's a movie called "Audition," where it's this woman who's a ballerina, and she's been viciously abused by her ballet teacher.  This sexist dude sets up a fake audition so he can harass a well-meaning actress into being his girlfriend. He picks the wrong woman to be his girlfriend because the second he starts stepping out on her, she's lopping his limbs off.  But I absolutely love that movie because I think that Asami tries to tell him five times, "I've had a rough life," and he's like, "Whatever, let's eat chicken." He doesn't listen.



These movies can provide us with safe places to play out our rage. You're not thinking about framing your husband for murder and sending him to death row. You're just sitting on the beach, reading a book, but maybe he should've been a little bit nicer to you that day. You're kind of creating a safe place for your anger to play out where it doesn't have to wreak havoc on your life.



AM : I appreciated the part in the book where you write about the female audiences for slasher flicks, and how the underestimated part of the appeal of slasher flicks is the way that the final girl at the end kills the monster who's been killing women.

SD : That's what stories do. They allow you to find multiple identification points, right? Because we all want to be the final girl. Women read true crime, especially if there's one woman who figures out a way to survive, because they want to know how to be that woman.

Women are specifically drawn to stories about serial killers because it's a codified way of talking about sexual violence and sexual assault generally. If we accept that, then we also have to accept that most of the girls in that movie aren't the final girl. The rates are pretty high of women being either sexually assaulted. There are epidemic forms of violence everywhere. The more marginalized your identity is, the more likely you're going to fall into them.

We are way more likely to be Rose McGowan getting her head crushed in a garage door than we are to be like Neve Campbell who triumphs over her abusive boyfriend in the end. We are all more likely to be the girl who doesn't make it. And telling her story matters just as much as telling the story of the girl who got away.
There's the girl you want to be and the girl you are. We use stories to process our emotions. It's important to tell both those girls' stories so that you can really feel every inch of fear or grief or horror that you may feel.


AM : Speaking of serial killers, both real and fictional, you have a really interesting piece in this book about the mothers of serial killers. Ed Gein's mother has been blamed for him becoming this body-mutilating serial killer. "Psycho," "Friday the 13th," there's all these fictional versions of Ed Gein's mother. People want to blame the mother when a man does violence like serial killing. Is there any actual reason to believe that mothers cause serial killers?


SD : There's so much that causes a serial killer that's not that person's mother, and the stories that we come up with to say why somebody is a product of their mother, they can be so silly. There are some cases where, yes, someone was viciously abused as a kid.

There's this reality show called "Murderers and their Mothers," and I think I watched a whole season. And one of them was just like, "Daniel Bartlam killed his mother reenacting a scene from a soap opera. How could she have caused this? Could it be that she let him watch horror movies?"

What? What teenage boy has not seen a horror movie? They're not all stabbing their mothers to death.

But we want to believe that it's the moms. We want to believe that there's some simple  pattern that you can follow that's going to result in a perfect child, and the reason we want to do that is because moms are easy people to blame. Moms are victims, and we love blaming victims.

What is often the case is that these men are just representing a more of an elevated version of the violence against women that they grew up with. There's a whole society that glorifies violence towards women. There's a whole society that tells men that women are there to be conquered and taken and penetrated and consumed and tossed aside.

I talk about Ed Gein because he's so often blamed on his mother, the idea that he had an abnormally close relationship with his mother, and therefore he killed. But he was a schizophrenic guy who viewed his mother as his only safe person. He only started killing people after she was dead. He decompensated radically because he was very isolated out there on that farm. He had no other family members. But when he decompensated, he became violent.



And what was never, ever mentioned in this telling, never mentioned, never dwelled on, is that his father beat his mother routinely in front of him. His father beat him routinely.

We have created this whole mythology around Ed Gein where it's just like, "Oh, well, maybe he wanted to be a woman or maybe he just loved his mother too much, and he hated all other women because they weren't his mother."

The idea that he just grew up in a really misogynist environment and, when he felt powerless, went out and did some more misogynist things to get his power back, that's not as seductive to us because that puts the blame on us. That suggests that we are creating our monsters, that our society, that our patriarchy is creating violence, and we don't want that. We want violence to be an exception rather than the rule.

AM : I want to talk about witches. People are talking about witches again. Hillary Clinton was accused of being into witchcraft by the Pizzagaters. Covens of witches are hexing Donald Trump publicly, and every time they do this, the religious right loses their goddamn mind. What is the appeal of witches?


SD : A little while ago, they were mad at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They thought she was one of the witches hexing Brett Kavanaugh, which if so, more power to her. It's a very common thing that, when you see a woman with power in the public or political sphere, people will be like, "Oh my god, she's going to blight my crops!"

I love witches. I put them in the back of the book as the key transformative figures because witches have a power that is above and beyond. Witches are people who knowingly go to the outskirts of their society. They knowingly take a look at the narratives and the culture and the values of patriarchy, of the world they live in, and they take a look at all of that, and they say, "Well, no thank you."

So often, in a witchcraft story, the way a woman will become a witch is she has to recite the Lord's Prayer backwards, or she has to sign her name in a book. There's a lot about words, and there's a lot about what book are you in, what story are you in. The idea of taking the most sacred words of your culture and reciting them backwards so that you are casting yourself out of that story into a new one, I love that.

Witches are linked to midwives. A lot of midwives and women who were able to prescribe birth control were killed for being witches. Witches are linked to the exercise of political power, not only because feminists, for some reason, have always loved to dress up as witches or claim to be witches, but because the idea of a woman exercising power over you inevitably calls up the idea of the witch, of the woman who is able to enrich herself or utilize her dark influence. The woman who is wise, the woman who knows things that nobody else knows and can do things nobody else can do.

Add caption


We are so unused to women having any public or legitimate power whatsoever that the very exercise of power in a woman seems illegitimate. It seems supernatural. It's like, "I can't understand how she's winning this election. It can't be that more people are voting for her. Is it this?"

I love witches because they are not just monsters. A monster is born a monster. A woman decides to be a witch, and she does that by wandering out beyond her world into forbidden places, into places you're not supposed to look at. She goes out there, and she finds out things you're not supposed to know, and that means she can come back with the power to heal her world. And that's why I love them.



"We all want to be the final girl": Sady Doyle on true crime, slasher films and surviving patriarchy. By Amanda Marcotte. Salon, August 27, 2019. 



Another interview :

Alone in the Dark: Sady Doyle on Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers. By Matt Zoller Seitz.  Roger Ebert.com. August 27, 2019.



reviews

The Book: Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers . Dangerous Characterss , August 2019.

Book Review: Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers. London Horror Society , August 19, 2019