A Wrinkle in Time

I havn't read a children's book in ages, and Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time helped me dust off my childhood imagination. I have been consumed with science-type classes for the past three years, and I forgot how nice it feel to let my mind wonder about in a fictional world. The fact that I read the book surrounded by kids at an outdoor pool reminded me of the fact that as a child anything seemed like it could be true. That magic, mind control, and time travel exist, but it isn't publicly known. And, although much of it goes against what I believe today, I found myself enthralled in A Wrinkle in Time.

I think most people see themself as somewhat of a misfit when they look back on their childhood, and that what makes Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin so relateable. I was a different kind of outcast from Meg, but an outcast nonetheless. Meg had untameable hair, braces, and a nack for math...I hit puberty an abnormally young age. What Meg and I had in common is the feeling of being 'othered'.

No matter how outcasted someone is, the feeling of being needed changes their self-perception. The 'need-factor' has been a reoccurent theme in all the novels we have read this semester, though under different circumstances. In Geek Love, we saw Olympias yearning to be needed, whereas in Never Let Me Go, the clones are needed for their bodies. In A Wrinkle in Time, when Meg is told by Mrs. Which that she possesses something unique, and that only she can save Charles Wallace from the hold of IT, Meg gains a sense of importance because she is needed.

Why is the sense of being needed so essential to us? Where does the satisfaction in it come from?

Since I put down the Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro one particular scene from the novel keeps crossing my thoughts. The scene itself is not essential to the story, but there is something unsettling about it. On page 70, Kathy talks about Miss Lucy’s English class that led to the discussion about World War Two. While talking about the prison camps “one of the boys asked if the fences around the camps had been electrified, and then someone else had said how strange it must have been, living in a place like that, where you could commit suicide anytime you liked just by touching a fence.” (p. 70-71). The scene ends with everyone imitating being electrocuted by the fence with fits of laughter.

Miss Lucy’s bewilderment shows for only a moment, but she carries on pretending there is nothing wrong with the students’ amusement. It is Miss Lucy’s reaction that confuses me the most because I am certain that my teachers would not have reacted in the same manner. My teachers would have explained to us the horror of the situation, and how terribly wrong it is to make a mockery of the holocaust. Miss Lucy, on the other hand, passively comments and allows the students to continue. Miss Lucy’s comment, however passive, carries a mountain of weight. She says “It’s just as well the fences at Hailsham aren’t electrified. You get terrible accident sometimes.” She does not try to give the students understanding because they might, then, understand their own situation. Kathy, however, picks up on the last bit of her comment: “you get terrible accidents sometimes”. She wonders “what accidents? Where?”, but does not wonder if Miss Lucy is implying that Hailsham used to have electrified fences. Miss Lucy’s comment hints at the truth, but allows the contentment of oblivion to be preserved.

Cloning

I was really upset that I had to miss the class discussion on cloning today since I had been thinking about it for two days. I originally thought I would be pro-cloning because I am facinated by how far science has come and I think it is miraculous that cloning is even a possibility. However, after weighing the pros and cons I am finding myself very against cloning.

Cloning could potentially allow for the creation of a super-race by copying the genetics of those who are healthy and intelligent. Burdens on the health care system would be diminished due to a decreased population of genetically predisposed persons. The downside is that less genetic diversity would exist, and a single virus could wipe out the entire population. Incest would be a big problem because reproduction would be coming from a small gene pool. Also, this is somewhat reminiscent of Hitler's mentality which could cause problems of genocide.

As in Never Let Me Go, cloning is useful when in comes to saving lives because their organs are perfect matches to the person they were cloned from. The idea of having the resources to extend ones own life is desireable, but there are obvious moral issues that come with that selfish thought. We see the humanity of the clones in the novel, and the realization that they are living, growing, learning, and developing their own sense of identy only to give the gift of life to someone else is sickening.

It seems the reason behind our interest in cloning is to prove human intelligence. we are having problems with overpopulation as it is, and I do not see the need to make copies of existing humans. Science seems to be serving as proof of our control over life, is our fear of death leading us down an immoral road?

Normally reading a novel means I either enjoy the story or abondon it half way through, but being in this course has forced to think deeply and appreciate the books for their underlying messages. Geek Love and Nights at the Circus were enjoyable, but for two novel that I cannot say I would read again they have had a great impact on my way of thinking.

As a passenger on a drive up to Edmonton I figured the sensible thing to do would be to pick up a magazine. My choice of paper waste was Cosmopolitan; who can resist headlines like "hottest world cup players" and "steamy summer sex"? Its much more interesting than the repeating half brown farm feilds. Yes, I am justifying my choice.

As I flipped through the overly feminine content I started to compare its messages to the messages in Nights at the Circus and Geek Love. Cosmo focus on how to mask your face, how to look like the aggrandized freaks of hollywood, and how to please a man sexually or otherwise. These are all ideas that Carter and Dun criticised. Women have, however, become more open with their sexual prowness. And, although I do enjoy the sexual liberty that women have, I wonder if it perpetuates the idea of women as sex objects.

So, at the pit stop in Red Deer, I picked up a copy of Maxim. Aside from the hypermasculine pages on working out and cars, men were being taught to get what they want. From career moves to the manipulation of women. This proved for me that our society, however libreated it is, has not moved away from its male centered lifestyle. Women are being taught how to look good for men and to please men sexually, and men are focusing on themselves.

As I spread foundation across my cheeks this morning and my skin imperfections faded away, I thought about my role as a female again. And, as I hurriedly curled my eyelashes and smeared mascara on, I realized the nakedness that I feel without make up. I feel judged without it, like I won't fit in. As I finalized my look with lip gloss, I wondered how long I will perpetuate societal ideal of the female body.

Nights at the Circus

Although I do agree with the gerneral concesus that Angela Carter's Nights at the Circus offers many necessary social criticisms, I had an incredibly difficult time getting through it. The over-enthusiastic decriptions and sarcastic tone had me feeling more like I was in a psychiatric home than in a fantasy world.

However, after sifting past the elaborate world of freaks created by Angela Carter I appreciated her critical points on women, postmodernism, freedom, and the construction of identity. Carter first represents gender roles as lifelong performances by detailing the overexaggerated feminine characterists of Fevvers. Fevvers talks to the journalist, Walser, after a performance while removing the layers of gender-representative makeup meant for her act. Walser is given insight into Fevvers life, and in the end Fevvers loves him for appreciating the identity that is her own, and not the role that she represents.

Ma Nelson's whorehouse is decribed as a female sanctuary in which the prostitutes feel empowered. Unfortunately, even these independent women fall victim to social constrictions enforced on monetary terms. Money proves to be a major factor in keeping women dependent on males, an issue slowly gaining recognition accross the globe.

Traditionally, the grotesque aspects of women have been hidden away in unspoken words. Carter makes a point of taking even the most feminine characters, such as Sleeping Beauty, and detailing their bodily functions. By doing so she critics the classical representation of women in society.

Fevvers' identity is a mystery throughout the novel. Although female, she is decribed with notions of both masculinity and feminity. This contrasts the norm of fairytales in which hyper-gender defined identities are used. The fact that Fevvers never reveals the truth to her physical identity is indicative of the constant development of personal identity, and, thus her own confusion over it.

Though I did not enjoy the novel for its story, I do admit Angela Carter wrote a clever political critique that is worthy of its status.

Are you a freak?

Since our class discussions on the novel Geek Love by Katherine Dunn I’ve been pondering the definition of a true freak. Although the novel emphasizes the physical differences of a true freak, it also brings attention to another type of freak:

“[..] There are those who feel their own strangeness and are terrified by it. They struggle toward normalcy. They suffer to exactly that degree that they are unable to appear normal to others, or to convince themselves that their aberration does not exist. These are true freaks, who appear, almost always, conventional and dull.” (Dunn, 282)

Although the characters in the novel are physically unusual, Dunn brings attention to the fact that the freak does not necessarily have to be obvious. I found the physical uniqueness of each of the characters intriguing, but what I found the most freakish about them was their skewed morals.

Arty gets off on overpowering others and capitalizes off an entire clan of aimless misfits. The parents, Al and Crystal Lil, create a freak show family for capital gain. Miss lick, who I found the most disturbing, creates an entire philosophy to justify her deranged need to deform others in an attempt for moral normalcy.

Regardless of our appearance we are all freaks in own way, but the scariest of all freaks is the freak of the mind.