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.