Carter decides to separate the portrayal of sex from the expression and ideology of romance in favour of a more sensual approach. This is clearly visible in the animal stories of The Bloody Chamber, especially in the ‘wolf’ tales. In ‘The Company of Wolves’, we see the ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ figure adopt an entirely unfamiliar approach in her dealings with the wolf (actually a huntsman/werewolf in a twist which allows the male figure to simultaneously occupy the position of the hunter and the hunted) when she refuses to be sexually dominated by him. There seems to be a choice for her between rape and death, and rather than resign herself to either passive fate, she adopts a more active position, laughing at the wolf’s assumption that he would eat her when she knows she is ‘nobody’s meat’. Standing stripped bare to her ‘untouched integument of flesh’ before a badly disguised carnivore, a wolf in shirt sleeves, she becomes the dominant figure, unbuttoning his collar, placing his ‘fearful head on her lap’ and picking and consuming the fleas from his fur. This exchange suggests that women should be free to experience sex.
Carter illustrates that when women are in control of their fate, they are no longer the victims. The girl, after engaging the huntsman in instinctive and vaguely repulsive actions of intimacy, lies ‘between the paws of the tender wolf’, now a figure of protection and comfort rather than a fierce beast waiting to consume her. The girl refuses, as Carter refuses, the position of woman as victim and remains defiant and without fear: ‘since her fear did her no good, she ceased to be afraid’. She gives herself over to the wolf, arguably as an act of pessimistic rationality in order to survive (an action which, illustrates the intelligence and strength of the trapped female), but it is portrayed as an action which expresses her sexual curiosity and desire for the animal; a sexual interest which is present in some traditional formulations of the tale. When the girl surrenders herself to the beast, she emphasises the traditional feminine role as the inferior sex as she is now under a male’s control. Her desire for the beast and sexual curiosity has led her to conform to traditional feminine roles.
Although Carter tries to go against the stereotypical weak, vulnerable woman again, she fails in doing so as the protagonist of her story ‘The Lady of the House of Love’ eventually dies in the process. While the protagonist, the countess, is a female, it is the male character that is considered as the hero as he sets free her inner human self when he kisses her. Carter says, “He finds her dead in her boudoir, hunched over her Tarot cards with a single rose. Now that she is dead, she finally looks imperfect and therefore human.” The countess had always longed to be human and be able to experience human feelings. Carter states, “Despite her power, the Countess abhors her life of living death. She wishes to be human”. Central to the Countess's torment is desire in the absence of sex. Because the Countess is the undead, she is void of sexual desire because her sole lust is for blood. The narrator tells us, "However hard she tries to think of any other, she only knows one kind of consummation" The Countess's lack of sexuality is never more obvious than when she is luring the soldier into her bedchamber. He assumes that she is making a sexual advance uses the word "prey" to tease him, when she really intends to murder him and make him her literal prey. So unable is the Countess to understand sexual desire that she dies before she can lose her virginity. Hence, she leaves the rose-representing her vagina and the desire she longs to experience-for the soldier. She laments, "And I leave you as a souvenir the dark, fanged rose I plucked from between my thighs, like a flower laid on a grave. On a grave" Carter invokes the idea of ‘vagina dentata’ by describing the rose's thorns as fangs. Just as she was able to kill but not kiss with her mouth, the Countess was unable to experience pleasure from her "thorned" vagina. Jeff Vandermeer, a Bloody Chamber critic, says “her characters are forever escaping, socially, mentally, or physically, the traps laid by men. If she deals with established stereotypes in The Bloody Chamber rather than fully-fleshed out characters, then this is because fairy tales clothe themselves in stereotypes and archetypes.” The countess can be considered as one of these characters as she attempts to escape her physical/sexual trap. However, her lack of sexuality is not caused by a man but rather resolved by him. The rose is dead like the Countess and her chance to experience love and sexual fulfilment. By doing this, Carter has deprived the countess of her feminine characteristics and qualities. The countess’ eventual death suggests that she could be seen as a stereotypically gothic feminine because even though she is beautiful, it is a man that has determined her faith. By doing this, Carter has conformed to traditional masculine and feminine roles as the countess’ inner female is rescued by a male. While the She is a powerful woman herself, she still required the help from a male in order to be set free In addition, thousands of roses bloom above places in the ground where the Countess's victims are buried. They are not only numerous but illogically decadent, beautiful, and fragrant, echoing the Countess's physical perfection. Being symbols of femininity and sex, they mock the Countess's sexless existence within the mansion that is her prison. Only when she is dead can her palace truly be "The House of Love," full of light and potential.
In contrast, rather than making a male figure the more dominant character, Mary Shelley includes female characters that are of great importance in the plot of Frankenstein. Mrs. Margaret Saville, Elizabeth Lavenza, and Justine Moritz are in different class positions. Shelly does not give us the information about the education of Mrs. Margaret Saville, and her occupation, but we can suppose that she, like Robert Walton, is self educated. We can also suppose that her life as well as the life of her brother "has been passed in ease and luxury" Elizabeth Lavenza receives the same education as Victor Frankenstein. Their "studies are never forced... Perhaps they don't read so many books, or learn languages so quickly...; but what [they learn is] impressed the more deeply on their memories". Justine Moritz, in contrast to Mrs. Margaret Saville, and Elizabeth Lavenza, "learns the duties of a servant; a condition which, in our fortunate country (Switzerland), does not include the idea of ignorance, and sacrifice of the dignity of a human being". Like Justine Moritz the monster is also born to be a servant but the servant of his creator: the monster describes himself as "(Frankenstein's) creature and ... will be even mild and docile to his natural lord and King, if (Frankenstein) wilt also performs his part, the which thou owest me". Therefore, there is a new link between female and male characters, which shows that they are closely connected to each other, and it helps the reader to follow the author's thought and understand the main idea of the work. Due to this, it shows that Shelley has, to an extent, gone against the traditional masculine and feminine roles as there does not seem to be a more dominant male over a female and also the females in the novel do not appear emotional and helpless.
Shelley began writing ‘Frankenstein’ in the company of what has been called ‘her male coterie’, including her lover Percy Shelley, Lord Byron and his physician John Polidori. It has been suggested that the influence of this group, and particularly that of Shelley and Byron, affected her portrayal of male characters in the novel. As Ann Campbell writes “The characters and plot of Frankenstein reflect Shelley’s conflicted feelings about the masculine circle which surrounded her.” Shelley conforms to traditional masculine and feminine roles through the suppression of Elizabeth Lavenza. She is suppressed as she is forced to take on the care-giver role, against her will; she dedicates herself to her uncle and brothers. Shelley has conformed to the traditional feminine role as it was women that were seen as the care-givers and guardians. Certainly the male characters in ‘Frankenstein’ are more developed that those of the females. Elizabeth Fay, a Frankenstein critic has suggested that the female characters are ‘idealised figures’ in much of Shelley’s work, particularly in the descriptions of Caroline and Elizabeth, the two mother figures in the novel.
In 1823, a critic from ‘Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine’ confirmed that the society at the time was male dominated. After reading Frankenstein he was shocked to find that the author of the book was in fact a woman. He states, “we most undoubtedly said to ourselves, for a man it was excellent, but for a woman it is wonderful… we certainly did not suspect to be the work of a female hand” This suggests that women were seen as the inferior sex, who were expected to take on roles such as housewives rather than authors. Mary Shelley’s work was greatly influenced by her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, and her feminist ideas, though in Frankenstein she chooses not to show the absolute strength of women. Frankenstein is not a blatantly feminist novel, but rather an ironic portrayal of women, for she shows them instead as strong, exhibiting to the audience how things should be. A critic has argued that:
‘Victor Frankenstein is compulsively self-destructive, driven by forces he cannot recognise to create a son by his own efforts and without the troublesome involvement of a woman, upon which, he is horrified and rejects the creature totally, thereby turning the son into the very monster whose existence he has always denied in himself.’ It is possible to support this view to some extent, as Victor’s feminine qualities conflict with his identity as a man. Shelley was concerned with the issue of gender, as in her novel ‘The Last Man’ she created an essentially genderless character, Lionel Verney, and discussed how he only acknowledged his gender when he viewed himself in a mirror. His reflection told him that he was an English gentleman, but without this empirical perception he had no such identity. Elizabeth Fay writes of him that he is a ‘feminised ideal’, ‘combining masculine and feminine traits in such a way as to confute traditional notions of gender’.
Coleridge illustrates stereotypical gender role in part I of Christabel. Sir Leoline is in a position of authority and plays the role of the patriarch. In response to Geraldine’s inconvenience, Christabel says “may you command the service of Sir Leoline; And gladly our stout chivalry Will he send forth and friends withal to guide and guard you safe and free” This implies that Sir Leoline has the power and authority to ease Geraldine of her problem. However, the problem with his role is that he is very passive as a leader. He is ill and asleep when Geraldine first enters the castle. This scene proves to be very important in the poem. The narrator states; “All our household are at rest, the hall is silent as the Cell; Sir Leoline is weak in health, and may not Awaketh be, But we will move as if in stealth”. Simone de Beauvoir, a Cristabel critic, says “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute—she is the Other. This sums up why the self is such an important issue for feminism. To be the Other is to be the non-subject, the non-person, the non-agent—in short, the mere body”. At this point in the text, Sir Leoline is defined as the Self. He is a male in power, and this is often how the Self is defined in terms of feminist thought. Similarly, Geraldine is playing the lesser role of the ‘Other’. She is female and lacks the power that the Self possesses. The problem regarding gender roles in the text is that from this point, these roles become complex. As Geraldine is able to grasp more and more power away from the baron, the roles become harder to define. He starts to lose his control, and with it his confidence. This is why it seems as though the lines defining the Self and the Other have crossed. It is hard to determine which character fits which role. Is Sir Leoline still the self simply because he is male, or is he defined as the Other because he has lost his power? Likewise, is Geraldine the Other because she is female or does her description change because she has obtained power? These questions do not seem to have a concrete answer from the text alone.
In conclusion; while Carter, Shelley and Coleridge do not necessarily reinforce the traditional feminine and masculine roles, they conform to them in their works. In Frankenstein, there is a close link between men and women in the novel. If we break it, the novel will lose its meaning. The characters of Mrs. Margaret Saville, Elizabeth Lavenza, Justine Moritz, and the characters of Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the fiend supplement each other. If we take one of them away, Frankenstein's plot will be different. Shelley uses the same methods to create the male and female characters, and makes women even more positive, selfless, and purer, than men. The presence of women adds romanticism to the novel, without which Frankenstein loses its spirit. Mrs. Margaret Saville, Elizabeth Lavenza, and Justin Moritz act independently, and in the most difficult moments of their lives they encourage the men, and take care of them forgetting about themselves. So, both the female and the male characters in Frankenstein are important, and we cannot manage without them. In bloody chamber, Carter conforms to the traditional feminine and masculine stereotypes with the character of the heroine and the Marquis, whilst also going against these stereotypes through the character of the mother, the hero of the story. Similarly, Coleridge also conforms to these stereotypes through the characters of Christabel and the Baron, whilst going against the stereotypes by using the omnipotent character of Geraldine.