A Wrinkle in Time

A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle forced me to activate a part of my imagination that (sadly) has not been used in quite some time. As a full-time university student going into my forth year in social sciences, it is not uncommon for me to read hundreds upon hundreds of concrete, factual textbooks void of all imagination. Contrastingly, when I first started reading the novel, I was surprised at how quickly the novel drew me in and triggered my imagination skills. I was relieved to discover that my mind was not a dry wasteland of useless facts and I could still engage in abstract thinking about the impossible while reading children's books like A Wrinkle in Time.

Meg was an interesting choice for a heroine to me. As a reader, I initially thought that Charles Wallace would be the one to save them in the end. But, the underdog (Meg) is the one who saves the day (and Charles Wallace). The concept of fitting in and the story of the underdog rising above his/her obstacles is a common theme in children's literature. We can relate to the underdog heros/heroines because most of us are not extraordinary; however, there is a point in our lives where we hope that we are more than ordinary. I think that readers can relate to a heroine like Meg because she feels ugly, plain and hates herself. Who hasn't felt like that as a pre-teen?? The novel capitalizes on every child's dream of being something more and fulfilling a destiny greater than themselves.

Another reason we can relate to the heroine in the novel is because Meg used a "gift" that we all possess to defeat IT: Love. The use of Love in the novel is something that reinforces the novel as being part of children's literature because it was almost too easy in the end to defeat IT. I think that in an adult novel, Meg would have used violence or her intellect to conquer IT. However, Meg used the universal concept of Love, which makes the novel to be a feel-good, classic children's novel that we can all relate to. The fact that Love was the choice weapon is empowering for the reader (young or old) who would aspire to do great things like Meg because they too have Love!

An Afterthought on Cloning...

In "Never Let Me Go" by Ishiguro, I thought there was a very powerful scene at the end of the book when Madame told Kathy that she was weeping because of a new world coming rapidly; a good, but harsh world at the same time (Ishiguro, pg 249). Madame was talking about a world where science had progressed so fast that people did not have the time to stop and think about the implications that progressive science would have on society. Specifically, Madame was referring to the effects of cloning on society's morals, ethical concerns and livelihood.

I wonder how clones would be treated if they were allowed to roam freely among us in everyday life. Would they be treated the same, or as second class citizens? Would they receive equal rights compared to "normal" people? On the other hand, would science start to make clones that were "superhuman" and make "non-clones" look insignificant in comparison?

There is also the question of love and acceptance for clones being submerged into society. For example, imagine if a family needed a clone to be able to save the life of the first child. Would not the clone feel that the parents loved him/her (it?) less than the first "normal" child and wouldn't this have serious implications on the clone's psychological beings? It is common knowledge that a child that is "unloved" will have serious psychological damage and this will have effects on how they treat others and in their future relationships. It is also important to note that a child brought into this world (or created in this case) in the absence of love goes against the moral fabric of society. I am not saying that a family clone will be less loved; however, it cannot be ignored that a "saviour child" brought into the world to be willingly flayed open for their family's organ needs is a serious dilemma for the question of parental love.

If the clones were given equal status and love as "normal" children, would not the parents feel bad about killing the clone for their organs? Also, what if the clone was the one who needed an organ transplant in the end? Would the parents be as willing to sacrifice a "normal" child's organs for the clone? I think that this probably would not be the case.

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

I have found the novel to be an easy, yet intriguing read thus far. As I continue to read more of the novel, Ishiguro draws me in more and more by gradually revealing little titbits about the plot and its characters. At first, I was not sure how the characters in the book related to "Freaks and Geeks" at all, but it is becoming clear that the children at Hailsham are indeed freaks down to their very core.

The children at Hailsham boarding school appear to be living in somewhat of an alternate universe, secluded in England from the rest of the world. The only contact they have with the outside world is through the guardians, Madame, and the items brought in for the monthly Sale. It is clear from the get-go that these children are not normal, but special children with a special destiny. The guardians are a constant reminder of their exclusion and difference from "normal" people; however, it is interesting that the children see themselves as "normal". They do not appear to have reservations about donating all their vital organs throughout their lifetime. The children accept this as "normal", as if it was always supposed to be this way.

Even after Miss Lucy's outburst at the pavilion, the children were not surprised at what she had to say. As Miss Lucy put it, they had been "told but not told". I think Miss Lucy's outburst was meant to "shatter the glass", so to speak, about the children's pre-determined destinies as organ donors. I think she meant to break the illusion that they could lead some sort of "normal" life like the rest of society. The children were freaks; they had to accept their destiny that whatever appeared normal to them was not normal for the rest of society. The sooner they accepted it, the better it would be.

Thus, the children are not freaks by being physiologically different, per se. The children are freaks because of their exclusion and exploitation by others (potentially in the future). They embody a freak status because their existence serves a drastically different purpose for their destiny than that of a "normal" person.

Nights at the Circus by Angela Carter

The way that Carter chooses to portray Fevvers was very unexpected for me. Instead of being the perfectly beautiful and feminine showgirl, Fevvers is described as being larger than life (literally) with everything about her being in excess. For example, Walter comments on her size in Book one as taking up most of the dressing room, going as far as saying that her arms extended accross the room when she yawned. Fevvers' physical largeness is not the only thing in excess; she has a loud booming voice and un-ladylike manners to accompany her somewhat masculine physique.

I think that the way that Carter chooses to portray Fevvers adds to her theoretical narrative about gender being a life-long balancing act. Fevvers certianly goes beyond traditional feminine beauty when, for example, Walser asks himself if she is really a man. Thus, being a woman, her transvestite-like appearance supports Carter's narrative of gender and how the very act/existence of gender is a performane. Fevvers contradicts what the majority would do in her actions and mannerisms. For example, Walser is continually taken aback in Book 1 by her farting and belching, moreso by her non-chelance about these un-ladylike actions. The very fact that Fevvers is manly, yet is a famous swan-like trapeze beauty confronts stereotypical discourses and assumptions surrounding the definition of femininity.

It is interesting how Carter chose to set the narrative on the brink of the turn of the 20th century. During the first few pages of the book, I initially thought the book must be set in the 60's and was suprised to learn it was set in 1899. Moreover, the date the book is set in makes Carter's gender argument stronger becuase it is set in a time of the New Woman emerging, which makes the transcendence of gender boundaries by Fevvers all the more intriguing. The era of the New Woman was in a time of fear by men that the women were becoming more powerful and blamed the fall of men on women. Thus, the subversion of gender roles, with Fevvers being the powerful, masculine-like character, makes the narrative serve a purely political agenda for the message Carter wants to send.

GEEK LOVE

My initial thoughts on "Geek Love" by Katherine Dunn:

I thought it was interesting how the book starts off in Chapter one with the family being portrayed as the "typical" nuclear family. Of course, we soon find out that the Binewskis are anything but "normal" in the everyday use of the word. The parents go along with the traditional gender/family norm, with the father being a big, strong protector who is head of his gang, and the mother being a tall, statuesque woman who is 100% behind her husband's decisions. The "normalcy" of the father and mother is as far as it goes in the Binewski family. The children all have their own deformities, or "gifts" in the Binewski eyes, and this is the thing that is most valued in the family. The more deformed or "gifted" the children are, the more status (and love?) the children receive.

Crystal Lil is a very fascinating character to me. She comes from a wealthy, Bostonian family, yet chooses to join the Fabulon out of her own free will. Lil seems to be totally content to go along with all of Al's decisions, including breeding their own freak show. She does not seem to show any sort of resistance to being drugged up throughout her entire life. It would be very interesting to have more insight into her past to see why she is the way that she is. Could it be that her own mother was also passive and had to support her husband no matter what? Or could it be that Lil is blinded by her love for Al (and being so drugged up) that she sacrifices her morals on the altar of being a "good" wife and mother? Either way, aside from her gradual slip into madness, Lil's character lacks any real character development and remains much the same throughout the book.