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.