A Wrinkle in Time & Contemporary Freaks and Geeks

It was so strange to read A Wrinkle in Time this year, after first reading it when I was in Grade Four. I also remember really enjoying it when I was in the fourth grade.

One theme that really stuck out to me in this book was the idea of being "othered". I noticed how what we define as a "freak" is not so clear-cut. To be specific, Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace are all "othered" in different ways, both in their families and at school. For example, Calvin is an athlete and is well-known and liked at school, but he does not feel like he ever really fit in with any of his friends: "'But you're good at basketball and things', Meg protested. 'You're good in school. Everybody likes you.' 'For all the most unimportant reasons,' Calvin said" (L'Engle 52). Furthermore, Calvin states that he feels like Meg's home is more of a home to him than his own, and says that his family doesn't give a "hoot" about him (L'Engle 47).

In addition, Meg refers to herself as a "delinquent"(8), a "monster"(10), and states, "I hate being an oddball" (L'Engle 17). Meg feels out of place both at school and at home, for she constantly compares herself to Charles Wallace, the twins, and her mother. In addition, Meg and Charles Wallace are seen as the oddballs in the family when compared to the twins: "...and when cracks were made about anybody in the Murry family, they weren't made about Sandy or Dennys" (L'Engle 11). And although Meg and Charles Wallace are "othered" at school and within their family, they represent very different degrees of "otherness": Mrs. Murry states to Mrs. Whatsit, 'None of us is quite up to Charles'" (L'Engle 24).

Thus, Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace are all "othered" in very different ways, thus suggesting how the concept of what a "freak" is is not black and white.

This brings me to my last point about contemporary freaks and geeks. My friend recently bought me the DVD series Freaks and Geeks for my birthday and I think it is one of the greatest shows! I think that the writers on the show did such a good job of grasping how the concept of what defines a "freak" is not so clear-cut. For example, in one episode, Sam tells his parents that Lindsey is hanging out with "freaks"; in another episode, Sam is telling Lindsey how he is tired of being called a "geek" and she responds with, "Maybe you are a geek". I find it funny how they both "other" each other and place one another into different categories, even when they don't like being placed within these categories themselves. In addition, there is one episode where Sam and his friends are arguing over which of the them is the biggest geek. It is a hilarious scene, but it really gets to the point about how even within these categories of "freaks" and "geeks", people still tend to make even further distinctions, i.e. who is the bigger freak/geek?

Never Let Me Go

I just finished reading Never Let Me Go, and I have to say that it has left me with a very sad and somewhat empty feeling, like the story is somehow unresolved, or should have ended differently. I think I feel this way because of the characters' life purposes that have already been set out for them, and how the characters cannot change what is in store for them.

When I first began reading the book, I was unsure how I would even come to relate with the characters, knowing that they were clones. Like many people in the book, such as Madame and Miss Emily, who have to fight everyday to keep themselves from letting their fears of these clones get the best of them, as well as the general population who views the clones to be inhuman, I wondered if these characters would seem inhuman to me. But as I read more of the book, and became more intrigued with the story, I realize just how good of a job Ishiguro did at making readers connect with these characters, to the point that I found myself no longer differentiating them as "clones", but seeing them as fully human. I think that in this way, Ishiguro challenges the boundaries of how a reader perceives the idea of cloning: although I have trouble understanding the idea of cloning and disagree with it, I found myself feeling for the characters and identifying with many of their experiences. In this way, Ishiguro is perhaps suggesting that there may be no real difference between a clone and a "normal" human being, in terms of what makes someone "human".

What I continually find my mind drifting towards is how the clones had no choice about their future: they attend training, become carers, become donors, and then complete. For the characters, there is nothing else for them. I think that this theme becomes most clear when Tommy refers to him and Kathy as two people in a river: "I keep thinking about this river somewhere, with the water moving really fast. And these two people in the water, trying to hold each other, holding on as hard as they can, but in the end it's just too much. The current's too strong. They've got to let go, drift apart. That's how I think it is with us. It's a shame, Kath, because we've loved each other our whole lives. But in the end, we can't stay together forever" (p. 259). I find this passage so heartbreaking, to think about how Tommy and Kathy can be in love, but can never fully act on it; they don't get to be together, get married, have a family, even grow old together - and aren't these among many of the future desires couples have when they are in love?(Yes, this might just be the romantic in me speaking).

In addition to being unable to fully share a life with the one they love (one that isn't cut short by donations and completing), the characters are also unable to experience life outside of their predetermined purpose. For these characters, for Kathy and Ruth, and Tommy, they know that once they become donors, they will die. To me, it seems like such an incomplete life - to never get to do or see the things you dream of, like Ruth's dream to work in an office. I think that what really drives this idea of predetermined purpose home, is how there is no possible way in which the clones can defer their training and donations. Miss Emily describes this rumor as simply a hope, something to dream about and be encouraged by, but is nonetheless something that can never happen for the clones. As a result, the clones are constrained and trapped within their purpose, and to me, I think this is the saddest part of the whole book - I often found myself hoping that Kathy and Tommy would get their referral and the book would end there. But I guess the book would not have had the same effect on me if it had.

Freaks, Geeks, and the Circus

As I was reading the article "One of Us": Tod Browning's Freaks by Joan Hawkins, I thought a lot about how the themes that Hawkins identifies as central to Freaks, are present in both Geek Love and Night at the Circus. The main themes that I immediately could connect to the two novels are constraints, the born vs. created debate, and gender difference.

In the article, Hawkins describes the scene where the circus freaks seek revenge: "...its overt sense of menace derives from the fact that the freaks can not be contained" (p. 269). In Geek Love and Nights at the Circus, it seems that in the end, the characters still remained confined rather than breaking through that which constrains them: we do not really find out the effect that all of Oly's hard work and determination to keep Miranda's tail actually had on Miranda (and if the Binewksi name and tradition will be carried on); as for Fevvers, despite her uncomfortableness at the very notion of a woman desiring for a man to save her and her blatant opposition to marriage, Fevvers ends up needing to be saved by Walser in the end in order to feel whole and vibrant, and does in fact marry him.

Hawkins states that after the revenge scene, Cleo undergoes a final transformation into the chicken-woman, suggesting that Cleo is "constructed, not born, as a freak" (p. 270). First of all, it is interesting to note that the chicken/egg symbolism appears in both Geek Love (through Chick and what his name represents) and Nights at the Circus (through Fevvers having hatched from an egg, and recurring egg symbolism throughout the novel), these references highlighting the debate of whether a true freak is indeed born, or created. It is also interesting to think that Cleo is turned into a chicken-woman: half bird, half woman, just like Fevvers.

Lastly, Hawkins comments that the movie Freaks represents an obsession with both physical difference, and gender difference. Although the gender arguments being made through Freaks appear to be slightly different than those in Geek Love and Nights at the Circus (based on the article, Freaks seems to put more of an emphasis on strong females feminizing male characters and on sexual ambiguity), it is still interesting to note that the theme comes up in all three texts.

Although I have not yet seen the movie, and can probably make a stronger argument once I have, I find it very interesting to see these themes coming up in many of the texts we have been studying. In addition, based on the article, I am both looking forward to seeing the film in class tomorrow, and a little nervous...

Nights at the Circus

There is so much I want to say about Nights at the Circus, that I am having some trouble deciding where to begin, and what I want the focus of this blog entry to be.

To begin, one of the themes throughout the book that continually captured my attention, and really made me think, was the recurring theme of religious references. To be specific, Angela Carter (1984) makes references to Jesus Christ and his disciples, to Babylon, and references a common Bible verse:

1) Buffo the clown is continuously compared to Jesus Christ: in the text, Carter’s referral to Buffo as "Buffo the Great, the Clown of Clowns" (Carter 135) can be compared to Jesus Christ, who is often referred to as the "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; Revelation 19:16). Carter also states that Buffo takes up "Christ's place" (Carter 135) at the table of clowns, referring to the seat in which Jesus traditionally is depicted sitting among his disciples, for example, in "The Last Supper". The text also states, "A last touch of grace passed over him; indeed, was he not the very Christ, presiding at the white board, at supper, with his disciples?" (Carter 206). In addition, the text states, "Tumultuous resurrection of the clown...Buffo who was dead is now alive again" (Carter 137), referring to the Christian belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected on the third day. Furthermore, Carter refers to the night before Buffo ceremoniously “died”, i.e. went crazy ("And from the coffin of your madness there is no escape" (Carter 209)), as "Buffo's Last Supper" (Carter 209), which is another religious allusion to Jesus Christ, for the night before Jesus was crucified, traditionally known as Holy Thursday, is also commonly known as Jesus' last supper with his disciples. As Buffo is compared to Christ, so too are the clowns of whom he is the leader, compared to the disciples: "The rocking-horse rhythm of the train lulled them into a state of passive acquiescence, for their Christ to rise again" (Carter 235).

2) Carter makes reference to Babylon, a city referred to many times throughout the Bible: "...as by the water of Babylon they sit down and weep..." (Carter 276). To provide some evidence of the significance of the city of Babylon in the Bible, a search of the word “Babylon” on www.biblegateway.com reveals that Babylon is mentioned 310 times in the Bible, referring both to its historical relevance (e.g. Genesis 10, Joshua 7, 2 Kings 25), as well as to prophetical references regarding the apocalypse (e.g. Revelation 14, 16, 17, 18).

3) In the scene in which the Escapee, Fevvers and the other survivors of the train wreck are debating whether to eat Sybil the pig, Fevvers narrates the scene, stating, “Fond as I was of the little pig, not a bite had passed my lips since my interrupted breakfast and greater love hath no pig, that it should lay down its life…” (Carter 293). Upon reading this sentence, I was immediately reminded of the Bible verse that states, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13), which refers to the Christian belief that Jesus was sacrificed and crucified to save humanity from sin.

Although these religious references immediately caught my eye, I am still struggling with what these references mean. What does it mean when Angela Carter continually compares Buffo the crazy clown, who we last read was taken away in a straight jacket and never to return, to Jesus Christ? In addition, what does Carter mean to suggest when she compares the potential sacrifice of Sybil to the fundamental Christian belief in Jesus Christ as a sacrifice? Are these references meant solely to comment negatively on the Christian faith? Or is Carter attempting to suggest something else by these references?

Another theme that I found recurring throughout the book was the idea of the feminine hero, who, although liberated in the sense that she can save herself in some situations (and even come to the aid of male characters who require her help), she still needs a male to fulfill her end goal, and even in some cases, for her to be able to find value in herself. To be specific, I saw this theme come up in Fevvers and Walser’s relationship, as well as in the story of Olga and Vera and the other women who escaped from the female asylum. In the scene where Olga and Vera find Walser in the abandoned train wreck and help him regain consciousness, the text states, “ ‘I hate to leave the poor thing,’ she [Olga] said to Vera. ‘He is a man, even if he has lost his wits,’ replied Vera. ‘We can do without him’” (Carter 263). I find it odd that although Vera comments that they can do without men, it is only a short while later when we are introduced to the Escapee, who states that he came across the women who escaped from the asylum, that we read about how they required his help: “These women had planned to found a female Utopia in the taiga and asked a favour of the Escapee; that he should deliver `em up a pint or two of sperm…so they could use it, when they got settled, to impregnate such of them as were child-bearing age and so ensure the survival of this little republic of free women” (Carter 284). Thus, although Vera states earlier that they can do without men, a man is the only one who can actually ensure the survival of their Utopian republic of free women, through the Escapee and the donation of his sperm; in other words, these women require his help in order to “survive”, and carry on their legacy.

In discussing this same theme in Fevvers and Walser’s relationship, Fevvers states how it is uncharacteristic of her to desire that a man save her from trouble: “I was overcome with emotion when I heard all this. I forgot myself so far as to cry out: ‘My young man will come and save us!’” (Carter 285). Once again, Fevvers’ comments here do not align with her later actions, as she is dismayed when her looks begin to fade: “…all the same, she felt as though her heart was breaking when she looked in the mirror and saw her brilliant colors withering away”(Carter 323). In regards to Fevvers’ fading vibrancy, Carter also mentions how Fevvers’ dark roots are beginning to show, and that she is no longer blonde. In addition, she is later referred to as “The Feathered Frump” (Carter 328), which is a significant shift from once being called “The Cockney Venus”. Shortly after, when Fevvers is about to be reunited with Walser, the text states, “And surely he was here; one of the wooden houses must shelter the young American. And she would see, once again, the wonder in the eyes of the beloved and become whole. Already she felt more blonde” (Carter 338). Thus, the very thought of her reunion with Walser is what begins to restore Fevvers’ vibrancy (her “blondeness”), and it is also what will make her whole.

I may be totally off on this next part, but I am attempting to put some of the pieces together and make some inferences as to what Carter may have been suggesting through these characters. Perhaps through the example of Fevvers and the women who escaped from the asylum, Carter is critiquing how women can be liberated and posses enormous potential and strength of mind, but perhaps Carter is also suggesting that society does not yet accept the view that a woman can survive, feel whole, or find value in herself apart from a man. Furthermore, perhaps Carter is suggesting that the liberation of women is constantly a work in progress, always a journey, with the hope of arriving and achieving that end goal of total liberation: as Liz states, “But as for you, Sophie, you seem to have adopted the motto: to travel hopefully is better than to arrive” (Carter 331).

Geek Love: Books III and IV

Since last Thursday in class, I have thought a lot about how we perceive those that we consider to be different from ourselves. Furthermore, I am constantly thinking about what constitutes someone/something being “normal” versus what is “abnormal”; I do not think these are terms that can really ever be defined, or that should be.

As I began to look over Books III and IV of Geek Love, I came across some interesting quotes that seem to tie into last week’s discussion quite well:“Always remember,” my father used to say, “how much leverage you’ve got on the norms just in your physical presence” (Dunn 151). Olympia comments here whether or not her physical characteristics that she perceives set her apart from “normal” people, will work on Miss Lick when she needs it to. Olympia questions herself here, stating that Miss Lick is most likely immune to this “leverage” to which Al Binewski refers. Miss Lick’s response, however, does not differ from the greeting that Olympia has grown accustomed to: “She [Miss Lick] comes through the door and it starts – her double-take stare reassures me instantly. She is not immune. There is the standard civilized greeting, ignoring the obvious” (Dunn 151). This last quote reminds me of the question posed last class: when we see someone who we perceive to be different from ourselves, are we more inclined to look away from them, so as not to give any impression that we may be staring, or do we do as Miss Lick does, and “ignore the obvious”?

In Books III and IV, both Oly and Arty comment on how they are treated differently by others as a result of their physical appearance. Olympia states,“People talk easily to me. They think a bald albino hunchback dwarf can’t hide anything. My worst is all out in the open. It makes it necessary for people to tell you about themselves. They begin out of simple courtesy. Just being visible is my biggest confession, so they try to set me at ease by revealing our equality, by dragging out their own less-apparent deformities…They go too far because I am one listener who is in no position to judge or find fault” (Dunn 156). Similarly, Arty says to McGurk, “You figured it wrong. The whole thing…You’ve got yourself a little old disability there, so you took pleasure in feeling sorry for me. Well. You figured wrong” (Dunn 169). While some individuals try to find themselves on equal ground with others who they perceive to be different, by highlighting “their own less-apparent deformities” (as in Olympia’s case), other individuals feel sorry for the person they perceive to be different (as in Arty’s case). What is most interesting here is the fact that both Arty and Oly do not perceive their differences as something to be viewed as “normal” or “ordinary” (which people attempt to do by revealing their equality with individuals such as Oly and Arty), or as something to be pitied; rather, throughout Geek Love, both Arty and Oly emphasize how their differences make them unique and special, described by Oly as individual “masterpieces” (Dunn 282). It is this viewpoint – that differences make one unique and special – that allow for the formation of the Arturan Cult, and later, Miss Lick’s special projects.

As I revisited Books III and IV of Geek Love, I began to think about the differences between Arturism/the Arturan Cult, and Miss Lick’s projects to help liberate women from exploitation by men. Miss Lick comments that Arturism was the precedent for her projects. Arturism sought to bring people P.I.P. (Peace, Isolation, Purity) through reaching complete progress (i.e. becoming reduced to only a head and torso)(Dunn 227-229). In Geek Love, Arturism is referred to as “Arturo the Aqua Man’s life-defying invitation to ultimate sanctity” (Dunn 196), which suggests that those involved in the cult will reach levels of sacredness, holiness, or godliness (definition from www.dictionary.com).

To compare to Miss Lick’s own cult following that precedes the Arturan cult, Miss Lick attempts to help pretty women shed the traits that make them desirable to men (i.e. their attractive physical appearance), enabling them to use their talents and intelligence to become powerful (Dunn 162). Miss Lick states: “What fools might consider a handicap is actually an enormous gift” (Dunn 162).

Perhaps what differs most between Arty and Miss Lick in regards to their cult followings, is that Miss Lick appears to believe in her cause more than Arty does; I think that it is quite plausible to suggest that Miss Lick believes that she is truly helping these women achieve great accomplishments in their lives, whereas it is noted that Arty does not even believe what he preaches himself. To be specific, Norval Sanderson writes in his journal, “He [Arty] is constantly informing me that he takes none of it seriously” (Dunn 229).

I guess this leaves me with a lot to think about for next time. That is all for now.