A Wrinkle in Time

Before reading A Wrinkle in Time for the second time, I was aware of the supposed Christian imagery, analogies, etc. Because of this knowledge, I had a tendency to relate a lot of the things within the novel to the Christian religion. I think it is difficult to discuss this novel without the thought of religion versus science or perhaps religion incorporating science.

I hate to discuss the Christian element in this novel seeing as we just did in class, but unfortunately I can't seem to get it out of my head! One part that really stood out to me was when Aunt Beast says "We look not at the things which are what you would call seen. For the things which are seen are temporal. But the things which are not seen are eternal" (L'Engle 205). To me, this was describing the body and the soul. The body and the soul are a constant topic in religion. What happens to both after we pass away? I saw this section as a commentary on the body's limitations in terms of time. The soul, on the other hand, is the thing unseen in people. It is the element that is eternal. The idea of the eternal soul relates back to Christianity. This quote also touches upon an obvious theme in the novel: time. Can the soul be seen as a wrinkle in time? I may be way out there on that idea, but I was thinking perhaps the idea of the eternal soul challenges the idea of time itself.

On a different, but still religious, note I was wondering if anyone thought about the naming of Calvin. Did anyone relate this to John Calvin at all? I know, I know... I seem to be hunting for the religious undertones at this point.

Never Let Me Go

Ever since reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, I've had this frustration with characters who try to play 'God' in novels. Because of this frustration, I found it difficult in class to think of good arguments for cloning. Just as in Frankenstein, I find the act of playing 'God' often as selfish and usually destructive. Yes, there are benefits to playing 'God' in the case of Never Let Me Go. The people that create clones of themselves are more likely to prolong their life. However, they are prolonging something that is inevitable. I'm all for maximizes your time on Earth. But people need to think of the human costs when doing this. Ah, but here is the problem right? Are these clones "human"? Or are they just medical machines for the purpose of prolonging life for the wealthy? (I'm assuming the wealthy because cloning must be an expense procedure and therefore restricted to those who can afford it)

In Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein doesn't thoroughly think of the repercussions of creating his monster. He doesn't realize the impact it will have on the people in his surroundings nor does he think of the impact on the monster. I feel this is a similar case in Never Let Me Go. The people cloning these clone children don't take the clones lives into account. I realize they tried their best to give these clone kids a "normal" life. But they are still brought to the world for a single purpose: give away their organs. It was incredibly frustrating for me to read this novel and see the brainwashing of the kids at Hailsham. It's a subtle brainwashing, but brainwashing nonetheless. On page 39 Miss Emily talks to the students and two regular phrases were brought up: "unworthy of privilege" and "misuse of opportunity". I find it ironic that these kids are "misusing" opportunity. They are misusing opportunities, but not in the sense Miss Emily is talking about. Hailsham is more lenient and I do think these kids could have left if they wanted to. Unfortunately, they are so oblivious to anything other than their Hailsham life. I could rant and rant about the mistreatment of human (or "human" depending on what you define a clone as) rights in this novel so I'll stop now. With all this being said, this was my favourite book of the course thus far!

Nights at the Circus: the Countess as the Ultimate Paradox?

When I first read Nights At The Circus, I didn't think twice about the randomness of the story with the Countess, murderesses and the panopticon. I didn't try to relate it back to the story, or think about the purpose of it. I just thought of it as another escapade of strong-headed women escaping another confinement (as Fevvers does quite often throughout the novel). When we started discussing this section of the novel in class on Tuesday, it made so much more sense. The fact that it was a trope for the text was pretty enlightening. It blends so many of the ideas of the novel into one chapter: the idea of watching and being watched, appetite, bondage of the body, etc. What really interested me was the Countess' role in the whole ordeal.

I think of the Countess as a perfect paradox. She is a free woman, yet she is bound to her institution. Her job is regarded as "her own incarceration" (251). She is physically free - she can go and do as she pleases. Yet, her mind is imprisoned by the idea of her panopticon. She cannot not think about her so-called brilliant idea to get murderesses to repent. She is just as much a prisoner as her prisoner. In terms of her merciless mercy, she is a walking paradox. Angela Carter said it best on page 251. "This merciless woman nevertheless believed herself to be the embodiment of mercy". Not only did she think she was the embodiment of mercy, the Countess thought herself to be a crusader against justice. Why? Because justice, or at least institutions representing justice, are merciless (the courts, the prison). Another seeming contradiction in the Countess life is her loneliness. She seems to be incredibly lonely and yet she is surrounded by people. And I cannot talk of her as a paradox without mentioning the fact that she herself is a murderess! She looks upon the murderesses with disdain. The Countess thinks they should repent for killing their husbands. The funny thing is, the women in the panopticon probably had good reason for killing their husbands; for example, abuse. Why did the Countess kill her husband? Because she was bored. Bored!

This contradicting nature of the Countess further supports the idea that the incident with the panopticon is a trope for the text. The text is filled with dualities, contradictions and paradoxes. For example, the question of whether Fevvers is a man or woman or the question of whether she is fact or fiction? The idea of the clowns being the most depressed performers at the circus is a contradiction as well. I find Angela Carter brilliant for creating a story within a story that reflects the main action so well.

On a different note, I was curious if anyone had thoughts on the fact that Walser was transformed into a chicken. This seems to be a pretty obvious link to Fevvers because they are both, in a sense, half-bird half-human. I'm sure there are more underlying reasons and links. I found it interesting how different the effect of being "half-bird" had on Fevvers and Walser. The fact that Fevvers was half-Swan made her rise above as a performer. She is looked at in awe by the audience. Walser, as a half-chicken, is looked at in amusement. He is belittled while Fevvers is clearly aggrandized. This amusement may just be because of Walser's association with the clowns. This instance would further prove that clowns really are on the bottom rung of the circus hierarchy.

Nights at the Circus: Mysteries and the Flesh

I just finished reading Nights at the Circus and my final feelings of the novel were not what I had originally anticipated. The first section of the novel and even most of the second section kept me enthralled. I really enjoyed reading the backgrounds on each character connected with Colonel Kearney’s circus. As soon as the train crashed, however, I was slightly put off. It became a completely different story and different feel than the beginning. The beginning was filled with obscure history that posed the universal question Angela Carter wants the reader to contemplate: Are these histories “fact or fiction?” Yes, the third section had obscure histories; but, as I said, they had a different feel to me. I completely believed the histories about the run-away murderesses, the Escapee, and the Siberian tribes. The histories prior had an air of mystery. I feel the third section fell short in its mysteriousness.

Perhaps the reason I felt this way is because Fevvers was not focused on as much as she was before. Her history is the real mystery. Her history tied into other character’s histories, creating an air of mystery and almost disbelief around these other characters. This air of mystery is obviously intensified because we are viewing these characters from Walser’s eyes. He appears to be the king of skepticism. Once he gets amnesia the whole mystery of the novel lacked. Also, the fact that Fevvers became a narrator in the third section took away from her own mysteriousness. The reader had a chance to view life from Fevver’s perspective. Prior, I was constantly wondering what she was thinking. Is she telling Walser the truth? Does she admire Walser? Even the mysteriousness of Lizzie was gone and her tricks with time were less captivating to me.

“The Colonel doffs his billy-cock hat with delighted glee as Fevvers, looking not in the least like India-rubber but very much flesh for the Prince of Wales, that connoisseur, stumps past.” (175)

Now that I’ve expressed my opinion of the narrative I can discuss what I found confusing within the text. I saw a constant use of the word “flesh” from the beginning of the novel to the very end. I kept asking why Angela Carter used this specific word constantly. When we discussed the grotesque body versus the classical body in class today, I interpreted the author’s constant use of “flesh” as a way of highlighting Fevver’s humanness and her 'grotesque body'. She has qualities pertaining to the classical body but all of those qualities are from Fevver’s own creation (the dyeing of her wings, for example). Perhaps the author is stating that she is a human being after all. Putting aside all of her performances, Fevvers is still a human being with flesh. She is not as mythical as everyone would like to believe.

Could the use of ‘flesh’ also pertain to the subjugation of Fevver’s body? It seems as though she has control over her body, but at the same time she is constantly limited with her unique physical features. Her body seems to be all she has in life. It controls where she goes and what she does. It completely defines who she is, whether it’s being Cupid in Ma Nelson’s house, the Angel in Madame Schreck’s museum of women monsters or part of Colonel Kearney’s circus. Her best weapon is her body but it is also her enemy. She is extremely limited. Though she is more than a body, to most people she is only a body, simply a piece of unique flesh.

Geek Love: Need Need Need

“The dumb little fuck was supposed to be so goddamn sensitive, how come he couldn’t figure it out? All he had to do to make me like him was need me.” (Dunn 94)

When I read this quote in Geek Love (stated by Oly about Chick) it really jumped out at me. I feel it sums up Oly’s character quite well. There is a constant “needing” in the novel. Arty’s ‘need’ to be the best performer in the family and bring in the most money. The Binewski parent’s ‘need’ to create the perfect freak/geek children. Chick’s ‘need’ to please and protect everyone around him. The list goes on and on. I'm going to focus on Oly’s ‘need’ to have people need her.

In our last class, we discussed the hierarchy within the Freaks. I think Oly’s obsession with being needed originates because of this hierarchy of differences and the fact that she is at the bottom rung of the hierarchy. She makes up for her low "freak" status by making sure she is useful to the Binewski family. The fact that she was not odd enough to be rewarded with her own carnival show really impacted Oly’s dynamic with her family. She is in a constant struggle with herself to prove her own worth. This is shown with her almost slave-like labor for Arty and her original dislike for Chick because he did not need her. Even in the story with Miranda and Crystal Lil, Oly’s need to be needed is expressed. Miranda needs Oly for money with rent and to win an art contest. Could this have been a motive for her agreement to pose for Miranda? Also, Crystal Lil needs Oly to watch over her by taking out the garbage and other such tasks. Oly was continually questioning her worth to the Binewski family. The fact that she was needed at times, even for the menial work, allowed Oly to believe she was climbing the Freak hierarchy.

Oly’s need to be needed puts her into a role of caretaker. This could be the cause of the children’s lack of a caretaker in their parents. The Binewski parents are more concerned and preoccupied with creating perfectly deformed children and building their carnival empire to be the mother and father their children need. They both take on the role of detached creators rather than loving father and mother. Yes, there are times when their parenting abilities come to the forefront, but it does not happen as often as it should. Both Al and Lily progressively, albeit unintentionally, distance themselves from their own children as the book develops. Clearly Oly's lack of originality in the "freak" department greatly contributed to her dependency on being needed. However, maybe her parents' action, or lack thereof, was a factor. Perhaps Oly’s need for more conventional parents helped construct her need for people needing her. Need need need!