Bildungsroman

I've been reading A Wrinkle in Time as a kind of transitional story from childhood to adulthood. I remember being Meg's age and feeling so out of place. I really sympathize with her feelings of being ostracized from her social world. Especially because she gets pulled into such a fantastic world, where she gets to really step into her own awareness of self. But the idea of this alternate reality as formative space is interesting to me. Sure, we all have our designated spaces where we go when we're afraid, nervous, needing a break... But to live so fully in a world where you're needed, where you are challenged, and a place that not a lot of other people have access to, would be undoubtedly formative, but unrealistic. I'm sure there is a label for the development of the protagonist who "steps out of their shell" in an alternate reality. We see it all the time in movies. But I think it really hinders the conscious development of sympathetic readers. Why can't I move through space and time? Wouldn't I have felt more sympathetic in my skin? You see what I mean? It's an irrational jealousy. Maybe this is because I have such a vivid imagination that it's too easy for me to get caught up in a non-reality. And what is reality really? I'm reminded of one of my favorite movies, The Neverending Story. Sebastien has been warned by his father to "keep his feet on the ground." He finds a book in which he becomes the saviour, literally by being written into the story. It's the theory that the reader creates the story. But why is this kind of method not used for outcast kids? Because it's doesn't create functional members of society. Instead, it creates people who remain outcasts because they can't ever return to that original frame of mind once they have experienced something contrary to what they have been told. Really, the problem is not the alternate experience. It's the limits that are defined by the real world that keeps us from being able to extend ourselves into and through our imagination. And the death of imagination means the death of humanity.

I've been thinking a lot about female identity and sexuality. Last week I had a long conversation with a friend about what sexuality was. We came up with several definitions, but mostly, we concluded that sexuality could include any kind of expression; emotional, intellectual... But something tangible. We thought that maybe sexuality in general was just about the tangible, the temporal, but all stemming from human expression. The biological act of sex itself is an expression of pheromones and chemical reactions within the brain that encourage reproduction. Sex is a product of evolution incorporating desire and attraction to attributes that will perpetuate the human race. If we're taking the Freudian angle, every seeming innocuous act is hinged on sexual desire. But what if it's really just about desire? My friend and I seemed to come to the conclusion that sexuality and desire could nearly be interchanged as long as the desire was bodily related.

When I got home, I looked up the term 'sexuality' and it basically means 'the possession of functional and structural traits of sex.' The term sex basically means the biological act of reproduction between species. However, what does it mean to reproduce a species? I think that there are biological events that contribute to the reproduction of species in simple things like music or laughter or eating. The same kinds of chemical reactions occur, brain chemistry changes, and studies have been done to prove that things like laughter and pleasure enhance the human experience by strengthening synapses, developing parts of the brain, and improving the ability to be creative. So the term sexuality really could include anything that perpetuates humanity (generally involving pleasure, but let's face it; sex can be unpleasurable).

What got me thinking was Kathy's exploration of sexuality. She generally plays second fiddle, but regarding sex, she seems to be a forerunner. I was especially intrigued by the scene where she takes the porn stash that Keffer (or is it Keefer...) left behind into the shed. I didn't pick up on it until later, that she is looking for her own face in the magazines because she is aware of how powerful her desire for sex is. I like the metaphor of how she is searching for her own identity in the culture of sex outside of the clone world. The exploration of sex in the clone world is perpetuated by the outside world. I wonder what would have happened if the Guardians hadn't explained sex at all. But the infiltration and obsession with understanding what happens "out there" is also a form of desire and identity building for Tommy. He desires to know what is really going on. And once Miss Lucy tells him that how creative he is doesn't define him, and once he starts to draw his animals for his own artistic satisfaction, he, in a sense, discovers himself.

And yet, as a whole, I feel that the clone culture betrays sexuality. That none of them really desire anything. I also wonder if there is some kind of betrayal of the fact that a new race of humans who don't reproduce biologically could have any kind of attraction to the opposite gender. Perhaps the mutation is too close to it's original time and hasn't had time to evolve. But I can't help thinking that this generation of clones doesn't understand sexuality at all, despite their exploration of it. That they feel no attraction for the opposite sex, and that being "in a couple" is only to prevent disease and satisfy a biological craving.

Fevvers

My rabbit, Vincent Price, has decided to renew his front teeth by very selectively chewing on my power cord to my laptop. Whoops.

As for Carter... The first book within the novel took me nearly a week to finish. Mostly because it was so dull to me. I found the plot didn't pick up at all. More than that, the remainder of the book took me even longer because of the subversive nature of the text that took me into far reaching corners of feminine theory. I am constantly surprised at how the dejected female becomes powerful, but puts herself at risk. With Fevvers, and more recently, Mignon. The story is disturbing and leaves me wondering if the authoress intentioned each of her characters to experience these trials on top. I find I'm torn in trying to establish whether this messages contains any kind of moral trail or whether it's a factual representation of patriarchal institutions.

It's becomes a bit too easy, as a female, to read myself into the text. I guess that's when the author solidifies the success of the story. But it's disturbing none-the-less. An out-of-text carnivaleque experience in which the novel become part of life's meta-narrative, or I become part of a story.

Gender or Deformity?

I've been thinking so much about our discussion last class about whether the novel is more about gender or physical deformity. I found this question to be very apparent throughout the whole novel when I was reading it. I just didn't have a name for the thesis.

The novel is more about gender than it is the freak. Or perhaps gender is supposed to be considered freak-ish. In fact, I think that is where my mind is going. The idea that the body is on display is historically a female position. We are first introduced to this in the novel with the Glass House. It's a comfortable transition to the display of the body and the freak. Each female character projects sexuality in a different way. Olympia is a virgin (as far as we know), Lily is a reproductive machine, the twins are sexually curious and because there are two of them the argument for lesbianism can be made (from a theoretical perspective), Miranda uses her sexuality to make money, Miss Lick is completely absent of female sexuality, and even the Red Heads are promiscuous. Each female character is unique in her deformity or oddity and in the projection of her sexuality. Ultimately, women in this book are individualized through their physical appearance AND their sexuality. But throughout the novel the only male deformities we see are in Arty, the Bag Man, and McGurk. I'll get to Chick in a minute. These men are also sexualized, but in a more dominating way. Except perhaps McGurk, but his deformity is less "freaky." Chick does not have a physical deformity and his sexuality is not projected at all. Instead, I think he is a kind of transcended freak. He has moved beyond the physical realm all together into a purely mental arena. However, he is tied to the physical realm because his gift can only be seen via the manipulation of atoms and particles that make up the physical dimension.

Back to the gender issue... Because the book is based around the freak, it would make more sense for sexuality and gender to be the subversive message within a larger context that is more disturbing to either draw the reader in to the realities of gender issues for those who really know how to stomach the disturbing, or to contrast the social perspective of the two by putting them on the same plane.

Tweekin' out on Geek Love

According to psychologist, dreaming is attributed to the mind's recollection of the day's events or past memories. Dreaming is just the manner in which the mind recalls and sorts through experiences. I am curious as to what happens when the mind deliberately inserts fiction into the reality of memory recall and results in new memory formation based on events that have never happened in reality. Adding to a-posteriori knowledge, do these fiction-turned-experiential memories affect who we are?

I dreamed I was in Geek Love. This has happened before, where I've dreamt myself into a movie, or novel, or daydream, or fantasy... But always as myself; either a better version, or a past version. In this dream, I was unrecognizable. I was very small, with very long fingers and toes, and if I held my breath long enough I could see other people's thoughts. Now, I am not particularly tall, and I do have rather spindly fingers and toes. But what I find extremely intriguing is that I find myself trying to read other people's minds. Suddenly, new thought patterns are forming, experimentation is imminent, and the perception of myself has altered just enough based on a memory rooted in a non-reality. Fascinating.

Beyond this rhetoric of self-development, Geek Love has been one of the best books I have read in a long time. Dysfunctional enough to be relatable, elusive enough to turn the page, gruesome enough to be seductive and to top it all off, well-written. I couldn't have asked for a better warm up to this course. And with a subconscious reaction as mentioned above, I am finding it difficult to pin down my conscious reactions without a longing to be behind a display case.

More to follow. After a good night's sleep.