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...