Thoughts from A Wrinkle in Time

I have mixed feeling about the book A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'engle. I thought there were some excellent elements to the book but at the same time there were parts of the book that just did not make sense. My favorite part of the novel was the part on the planet Ixchel with the beasts that could not see. I found this part to be fascinating. How do you explain sight to something that has never seen and whose society is not built on the concept of sight? This part emphasized how much of our communication is based on sight and how limiting that can be. It made me wonder how much more rich our lives would be if we did not rely on sight to describe our experiences but on our feelings. I found the part where Meg was trying to explain who Mrs. W's were through their appearance to be especially interesting. It made me realize how much we, as humans, define ourselves by appearance and what we see. Once again, I think the world would be much more different if we focused on who each other was on the inside rather than our outward appearance. Friends of my family who are from England often advocated school uniforms for that reason. They said that wearing a school uniform equalized everyone and prevented people from focusing on your outward appearance and more on who you actually are. I think that this concept is quite important and advanced and I find it amazing that was brought up in a book that most people read in the third grade. It makes me wish I had read it at a younger age. I wonder if I would have approached life differently because of it or would the important concepts it brings forth been lost on me? It also made me wonder what our definition of freaks would be on a planet without sight. If we could not see someone's deformed or different appearance how would we define freaks? I think people would define freaks based on their approach to life and how they acted rather than on their appearance. However, on a planet without sight would being different really be that important and would be people strive as hard to be freaky?

There were two parts of this book that I really did not enjoy. The first was the romance between Meg and Calvin. I did not really see the point of it except for the fact that it most likely enhanced many young girls misconceptions about relationships and boys. It was extremely unrealistic that the most popular boy in school would like to nerdiest girl almost instantaneously. I understand that this is a children's book and that a little love story makes it more fun to read but I just saw no point to having the love story in the plot. I did not advance it what so ever. Perhaps it would have been useful if it had helped Meg come to her realization that love would defeat IT, but most interestingly Calvin was the only person NOT mentioned in that part (pg 228). Therefore, except for the reason that the love story would atract young girl readers I really think that this whole plot line could have been removed from the book without taking away from the narrative.

I also disliked the ending of the novel. It felt like it lacked a proper denouement and that things were left hanging. I sensed that the author was not really sure how to end the novel so she just ended it quickly and was sloppy about it. The black shadow hanging over earth was not really addressed again and it would have been nice to have something to wrap that up. I suppose the author meant for us to take the message that love will fight evil from Meg defeating IT as a way to defeat the Black Thing. However, with how rushed the ending was I felt like this was a little lost, and I wonder if younger readers would have caught on to that.

Welcome to the Freakshow, Have a Look in the Mirror

This past weekend I went to Elbow Falls to enjoy a day of sun by the river. I had crossed to the opposite side of the river from where the picnic area was and lounged on some rocks that were behind the cliff the falls descended from. About mid afternoon two guys decided to jump off the cliff into the base of the falls. It was a risky move, not one that I really condoned considering the current was strong and the water was not that deep. A few minutes later two girls decided that they, as well, were going to jump. Unlike the two guys before them they stood at the top of the cliff dithering about whether or not to jump. As a result of their indecisiveness a considerable crowd began to gather on the other side of the river where there was a viewing area for the falls. The people in the crowd all had their cameras out and were waiting for these girls to jump off the 8 m high cliff. There were even people who were chanting "Jump! Jump!". I was very disturbed by the whole situation. Here they were, these two girls, in a very dangerous situation. Even though they were likely enjoying the attention from the crowd I found it highly disturbing that the crowd was egging them on, cameras ready, hoping for some sort of exciting disaster. I realized that people like a good show, especially when there is a disaster on the line. But what does that say about people? That we are willing to sacrifice other's welfare for our benefit? In this case it was entertainment, in the book Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro it was organs. In both cases, people seemed to care little that the outcome of their benefit could result in a human being losing their life. I mentioned in one of my earlier postings that I find a person's mental state more disturbing than their outward appearance and I think the situation I just described and Never Let Me Go emphasize this point. People who look normal used to go to Freak shows to reaffirm their normalcy usually on a superficial level. But I think its situations like the one I just described that reaffirm that a lot of people who look normal on a superficial level are really freaks deep down inside. I think the true freaks are not the people who look freaky on the outside but those who are freaky on the inside.

The two girls eventually did jump off the cliff much to the crowd's delight. Both were alright, they just had some minor bruises. I wonder if the people watching on the other side were thinking to themselves "What a couple of freaks. Who would be stupid enough to do that?" while I stood on the other side watching them thinking "What a bunch of freaks, who would be standing there egging them on to do that?"

Judging a Book By its Cover

In previous classes we have discussed that there are two modes in which freaks are presented in: the exotic mode and the aggrandized mode. I have noticed that all of the works we have analyzed so far represent freaks in the aggrandized mode. Dunn, Carter and the movie Freaks emphasize that their freaky characters have the feelings and needs of normal people. By presenting freaks in this they go against popular stereotypes that freaks are lesser and/or evil people. After reading the article on Freaks I realized that I have fallen victim to fearing, or atleast feeling very uncomfortable around those who are freaky. I do not see freaks in the aggrandized mode, I see them in the exotic mode: as lesser. I was forced to ask myself why I feel this way? Whenever I try and find the foundation for my beliefs I go back to my childhood. One huge part of my childhood was Disney movies and fairy tales. After reviewing some of my favourite Disney movies I realized that almost all of the antagonists were either disfigured or very ugly. There's the evil which from Snow White, Ursula from the Little Mermaid, Scar from the Lion King, Jafar from Alladin, Cruella De Ville from 101 Dalmations... and the list goes on. Villains are rarely represented as attractive and normal looking. I do not blame my entire prejudice against freaks solely on Disney movies but I have no doubt that my discomfort with those who are different stems from associating ugliness with evil. Its comforting to know that in recent years there as been a reversal of this trend with movies, such as Shrek, that tell the audience that we should not judge a book by its cover and not assume those who are ugly and disfigured are evil.

It is not a proud thing to admit that I stereotype those who are freaky, but I wonder if it is just as taboo as admitting one is rascist or sexist? Is it more acceptable to stereotype freaks? In several of my grade school classes I was taught that stereotyping can be hurtful and that judging someone based on there appearance is wrong. These lessons were always followed up with examples of not stereotyping people because of race, gender, age, sexuality or disability. But what about someone who, like the twins from Geek Love , are just plain freaky looking? They do not really fall under any category, they're just different. When it comes down to it stereotyping those who are different is wrong but then another grey area comes into play because what is defined as being different? There are two types of different as well, those who are born different and those who make themselves different. I personally think that people do think it is more acceptable to stereotype at least the freaks who choose to be freaks. We have been taught that it is more socially unacceptable to stereotype people who are born a certain way, but in a society where appearance is heavily scutinized people feel more open to stereotype people who altered their appearance to become freaky. A person who get plastic surgery to make themselves look like a cat is not really that different than a woman who gets a boob job and dyes her hair blonde. Both have altered their appearance to images that are susceptible to certain stereotypes and therefore they should accept the consequences of those stereotypes since they chose to become that way. Of course it would be better if people did not stereotype at all, but it almost cannot be helped. We need stereotypes to function, the world would be too complicated without them.

Happy Ending

In Book One of Angela Carter's Nights at the Circus I noticed that all the female characters from Nelson's whore house and Madame Shreck's museum all had happy endings. Every character went on to live life happily or atleast comfortably, none of them were left for dead or taken advantage of.

I was left to wonder why the author purposely chose to give all the female characters from the whore houses happy endings. There are three possible motives that I could think of, all of which may be true. The first is that this was the author's way of indicating that Fevvers is more fiction than fact. Angela Carter is constantly bringing up the theme of whether Fevvers is "fact or fiction" and since in real life situations rarely does everyone end up with happy endings this might be the author's way of helping the reader resolve whether Fevvers narrative is believable. Another possibility, is that Angela Carter was incorporating elements of Magic Realism into the narrative by maintaining the fairy tale happy ending motif. As mentioned, happy endings are not an element experienced in the factual world but are a common element of most Disney fairy tale movies. A final possibility is that this novel has a reaccuring theme of female empowerment and thus to have female characters end up in tragic circumstances would take away from that theme.

I feel like all of these motives are possible because all add to the overall story and the themes the narrative is trying to achieve. It was not accidental that Angela Carter took the time to detail out what happened to every female character after they left contact with Fevvers. I found this to be one of the most noticeable elements of the story because at first I was left wondering why the author was spending so much time talking about characters that were barely even in the story. Nothing is left in a story that does not have a purpose, however, only Angela Carter is the only one who knows the whole purpose. I can only speculate.

Which freak is freakier?

I have found myself dwelling on the quote that was dicussed last class from pg 20 of Katherine Dunn's Geek Love "... a true freak cannot be made. A true freak must be born." In my opinion in order to be a freak one must be shocking and unsettling. Without those elements I would argue that someone who is different is purely just "strange" or "weird" but not a freak. A freak should have something about them that makes people who are normal feel uncomfortable. This opinion is partially based on what I have interpreted from our dicussions in class and from personal experience. I think that a person who chooses to become a freak is much more shocking than a person who is born a freak. A person who is born a freak can have the same shock factor with their outward appearance as someone who has become a freak, but the person who chose to become a freak has an extra shock factor: their mental state. I find that people who choose to become freaks like the Arturans in Geek Love much more unsettling than the born freaks, the Binewski children. The Arturans have chosen to purposefully mutilate their bodies in order to become freaks and the mental state that drove them to do this is much more disturbing than their outward appearance probably ever would be. Therefore, in my opinion, a true freak is someone who makes themselves into a freak. Their outward and inward state is disturbing and unsettling. A born freak is just freaky on the outside but can be a completely normal on the inside. However, a born freak can make themselves into a true freak by accquiring a disturbing mental state. Arty from Geek Love is a perfect example of this.

Even though I think that a true freak must be shocking and unsettling, I wonder if this is the goal of the freak. Are people who choose to become freaks looking to be shocking? Or do they simply pine for a need to be different and go to extreme lengths to do so? Its probably different for every case but I think for the Arturans it was probably more the need to be different and special rather than to be shocking. I think it is this lack of knowledge of this goal that makes them even more disturbing and freakier because it shows lack of self awareness and unattachment from what is perceived as normal. Perhaps to be a true freak one is not aware that they are a freak at all?