Right when I started reading Angela Carter's Nights at the Circus, I loved it. I could not stop reading it. I thought the story and the characters were magical, and I felt like I was part of their world when reading it, which is the effect all of my favourite novels seem to have on me. While I was reading it there were some interesting things I found that made me think deeper than just the plot of the novel. Unfortunately, on the day that I read most of the book, I didn't have a pen or pencil on me, so I ended up bending pages all over the book so I could remember where to flip back later to find these interesting parts.

I found pages 139-142 interesting. These pages have a lot of description and dialogue regarding the clowns.

"The clown my be the source of mirth, but- who shall make the clown laugh?" pg. 140

"we posses one privilege, one rare privilege, that makes our outcast and disregarded state something wonderful, something precious. We can invent our own faces! We make ourselves." -pg.141

The clowns are portrayed in a freaky way. The way they dance around in a creepy, off beat way, how the associate with one another...The fact that they are largely disgruntled, emotionally complex people, who perform in degrading, humiliating ways reflects on the nature and complexity of everyone, at least in some circumstances.

When looking at the clowns, you could say that they act or perform in a certain way to make light of themselves, and to in a sense, please people. The quote from page 140 shows that the clowns job is to please others, to make them laugh. The clown degrades him/herself, disregarding his/her own nature, in an attempt to please others. They are performing. As we talked about in class, this book is largely based on performance, and the clowns are not an exception. Take the quote from page 141, in spite of the mockery of their lives, they can invent their stage faces. They can re-arrange their identity and cover their faces from the world with a mask. The painted face can hide their true emotions, and distract from their misery. They can pretend they are someone who they are not, to please others and escape from their true selves.

This idea of performance and masking true identity, can parallel femininity and the 19th century's restriction of women from the public sphere, and restriction within the private sphere. This brings about the question is the mask and performance empowering, or is it degrading? Is covering up who you are to please other and to fit in to your benefit or your detriment? How much of women's lives in this time were based upon masks and performance?

Women from this time in history were oppressed into their sphere and expected to be hype feminine, and like the clowns, they most likely put on a false facade to please others, and to mask their true identity and feelings. Perhaps a women of this time was naturally athletic or extremely intelligent, but they were told from a young age that these where masculine traits and women were meant to be delicate and subservient, so they hid them behind fancy dresses and the roles of a homemaker. This hypothetical situation can parallel the experience of a clown, because it shows that women often have/had to hide their true selves to fit into the cultural norms and the please those around them.

This idea of performance and masking one's true self is also true in today's world. From women's studies classes I've taken in the past, I've seen that women are still oppressed in the workforce and in public life. Women often try to fit into a man's shoes, thinking that if they act more like a man, they'll get the job, or the promotion. But by trying to act more masculine are they really putting up a mask? Why is femininity not accepted as a means to getting a job/promotion? Is this type of performance (like the clowns) empowering or degrading?

I look forward to discussing the clowns meaning more in class on Tuesday!

Good night.

When I first started reading Geek Love, I really didn't like it. I could not get into to story, and I found the characters too 'out there' to be interesting, but the further I got into the book and the more I started thinking about it, the more my opinion changed.

Ideas about morals and ethics are questioned in relation to the 'formation' of the children. I found this aspect of Geek Love very interesting, especially as we discussed it in class. The children were created as a means to an end. They were an extension of their fathers business, and it is clear that they were treated as such. This can be seen through how Lil discarded the babies that were not deformed enough, and at the end of the novel, after everything explodes, when Lil gets on her husbands dead body, takes her pants off and starts telling him that they can start again, that they can create a whole new freak show. Now... although Lil was messed up from all the meds and chemicals that entered her body, and this could explain her erratic behaviour, it is interesting to see this scene as showing Lil's lack of appreciation for family and life...I think it shows what was always most important to Lil, the circus.

Lil is an interesting character. She is a mother, but does not seem to have any real motherly instincts. She poisoned her body during pregnancy, discarded many of her babies when she found they weren't freakish enough... and with Chick for example, she openly expressed that she loved him, but she didn't like him. I think Lil questions what it means to be a mother, and what motherhood is. Her character challenges American notions of what family is, and reveals the ugly side of human behavior and family.

Through the discussion of the representation of the female freak in class, I started thinking more about Ms. Lick's character. Ms. Lick could be seen as feminist, in that she has the ultimate goal of helping females achieve success in their lives; but the way in which she achieves this seem to defy feminism, and enforce patriarchy. Ms.Lick mutilates female body's, with everything from acid, breast removal, genital mutilation, loss of limbs etc. Essentially she strips these women of anything remotely feminine, in an effort to change them into successful human beings. In doing this, Ms.Lick is expressing the opinion that the female body cannot be used in an empowering way, and that it only causes negativity. She is suggesting that a woman's natural body, and natural beauty take away from a woman's ability to find joy and success in the world. She turns women into sexless, genderless, beings, whose only real focus in life can be academics and work.

A woman empowering herself does not mean she loses her femininity to become more like a man, it means she embraces her womanhood and challenges herself in whichever way she see fits. Feminism is all about individuality and for Ms. Lick to display that a woman can only be successful if she sheds her gender, shows a lack of respect and understanding for what women can achieve in society. Ms. Lick denies some women the chance to have children, and through mutilation a hard time having relationships with others. Ms. Lick created her own personal ideal for what a woman should do to find success, and preyed on weaker women to satisfy her ideal. She did not consider the individuality of women, and she clearly did not have faith in women's ability to find happiness and success in themselves. This could be because she herself was a female freak, or any other number of factors...

I think that Ms. Lick's role in the novel gives insight into society's view of femininity, what constitutes female success, and what can hinder the success of females in the workplace and public/private life.

So in a nutshell, Ms. Licks view of females both defends and challenges the cultural views of women in society.