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.