Don't Cry 4/4/12

This story and interview were interesting, particularly having read "Secretary," a short story mentioned in the interview. "Mirrorball" was very different from "Secretary." The latter was sad and rather disturbing the whole way through, while the former, though sad, resolved itself. Interestingly, "Secretary" seemed far more transgressive than "Mirrorball." Its atmosphere is far more similar to the other works we've read, though "Mirrorball" is a bit odd too. I suppose "Mirrorball" was most like Nights at the Circus - transgressive-ish in a fantastic, magical sort of way.

The interview was interesting as well - it allowed me to see her literal voice and compare it to the voices of her works. It also touched on topics important and relevant to her, which were also interesting in light of her works. It was fascinating to hear about her novels, with which I am unfamiliar, because they sound so different from the two stories I've read, and yet, in keeping with her voice and style and her experiences that the interview touches upon.

Guts 3/28/12

I don't know where or why, but I had read Guts before. It surprised me, actually, that the piece was familiar because, while I like Palahniuk and his voice and style, I think I've only read Invisible Monsters and Lullaby. He's not one of those authors where I've read every single thing he's ever written.

Guts is interesting. It's raw, for lack of a better term. Or maybe that's the perfect term. I have to say, it's a little unclear to me what exactly about it supposedly makes people faint. Sure, it's grotesque and a bit gorey, but it's far from the most disturbing or shocking thing I've ever seen or read.

Palahniuk's style is wonderful. At least in the works of his I've read, his voice always sounds like a brilliant teenager. The combination of this with his frequently taboo subjects creates an interesting feeling within his works, like a kid telling you something a kid shouldn't know. When writing essays, Palahniuk's voice still maintains a fictional quality, like he's telling you a story but it isn't a story. It has this casual feel but you still have to take him seriously.

It's very easy to relate Palahniuk to the British transgressive works we've read. The topics are similar, as is the style in which he writes them.

Nights at the Circus 3/26/12

The Spectacle of Her Gluttony shed light on something I hadn't put much thought to while reading the novel, but looking back on it, the themes of eating and appetite are very present. Seeing the emphasis on appetite is even more fascinating upon learning that Carter herself struggled with anorexia. There is constant reference in the novel to food and hunger and eating, as well as to Fevvers' significant size. There is one moment in the novel where Fevvers is "off her food," which comes as a surprise to the reader.

One of the most interesting things about the novel was how the smaller the places they went to got, the more the circus disintegrated. In London, there doesn't seem to be much wrong at all. The whole circus company is there and well. but as the story progresses to St. Petersburg and Siberia, the circus begins rapidly losing members of its company, from clowns to tigers to elephants to dogs. The significance of the animals is fascinating as well - they have thoughts and feelings in an almost human-like way. The female tiger is so jealous of her mate dancing with Mignon that she attacks. With Sybil the pig, it is at times easy to forget she isn't human. The elephants work to put the fire out with their trunks. The animals are almost as human as the humans. Throughout the whole novel, there is a strange lack of separation between animals and humans. Fevvers is half human and half bird, which ties the animals and the humans together. The animals are quite human-like, while the humans, at times, become quite animalistic, like Walser after he loses his memory.

Nights at the Circus 3/21/12

The juxtaposition between art and cheap commercialism in both Nights and Money hinges around prostitution. The art in Money is the movie, the books, and the real relationships. The cheap commercialism is the prostitution, the deception, and the money. In Nights, the art is Fevvers, her presentation of her life, and the Circus. The cheap commercialism here is the "prostitution" (though she is the "virgin whore"), and Gain, the money, though there is a far lesser focus on it in Nights than in Money. In Nights, it's more about image and respect than money itself. The prostitution is the line between the art and the commercialism in both situations. The prostitution is both part of the art and the means for the money. In Money, sex is a controversial topic amongst the actors in the movie. Vron sees her work as art. There are sex tapes, sexual performances, and sexual publications. The sex fuels the movie, which in turn, should create money (though this is thwarted by Fielding). Self also loses money to prostitution. In Nights, Fevvers' body and abilities are her art. She is paid for them, but never touched, thus making her the "virgin whore." Like Vron and many others in Money, her body is her art and also her means of money, though in a slightly different way. The contrast and similarities between art and cheap commercialism in these books is interestingly similar despite the stories being quite different.

Nights at the Circus 3/19/12

The allusions to Shakespeare in the London section of Nights at the Circus are many and varied. Though not all are direct, they bring Shakespeare to the reader's mind. They begin on page 33: "'Midsummer,' said Lizzie. 'Either Midsummer's Night, or else very early on Midsummer Morning.'" This is, of course, reminiscent of A Midsummer Night's Dream, both because of the word choice and because the time between the time periods stated (night and morning) is the time most closely associated with dreams. Shakespeare's story is about fairies, which is also reminiscent of Nights at the Circus, because of Fevvers' fairy-like qualities and the magical aspects of the stories. Four pages later, on page 37, Fevvers' sword is referred to as "her wand, like Prospero's." this brings Shakespeare's The Tempest in as well, again relating to Nights because of its magical content. The audience is reminded of The Tempest again on page 43, where Fevvers' voice is referred to as "a voice made for shouting about the tempest." The language here seems deliberate - another word, such as "storm" could have been used. On page 53, Fevvers directly mentions Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and how they wept at it. On 62, she says, "Then the old hag herself comes tottering down the cellar like Lady MacBeth," which is, of course, a reference to MacBeth. On page 70, she says, "like Hamlet, I would think: 'What a wonderful piece of work is man!'" The character Christian Rosencreutz brings to mind Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of Hamlet, but is more similar to 17th century founder of the Rosicrucian Order, Christian Rosenkreuz. Shakespeare obviously carries some importance both to the novel and to Carter.

There are also many allusions that are reminiscent of familiar fairy tales, namely Snow White and Cinderella (with the clocks at midnight).

Money 3/7/12

The end of the story - with everyone actually using Self's money - was fairly surprising. Amis portrayed Fielding the entire book as someone trustworthy and fairly likable. Even Self had "probably been deeply in love with Fielding from the moment [they] met" (301). It was only mildly suspicious that he kept encouraging Self to spend money. But Fielding was an actor, an artist. "They were all actors," says Martin Amis the character (332). Even the actors were actors, funnily enough. Maybe the Shakespeare throughout was hinting at this. Many events were certainly dramatic and theatrical enough. But even looking back, I don't feel it was all that obvious. Perhaps reading it again, I'd see clues I missed.

The Shakespeare bits were interesting in and of themselves. I particularly found it fascinating that Barry Self owns the Shakespeare. He's like Claudius (of Hamlet) - the not the father father figure. He, as we later learn, is not John Self's father, but has acted as if he were (once again, with the acting). Like Claudius, he is manipulative. He owes Self money, but manages to avoid paying him (through manipulation). In a way, Self himself is like Hamlet - a sad, sometimes mad person who has been tricked. However, he does not get his revenge, but nor does he die.

In terms of how acting relates to the themes of Money - acting gets you money. Some just do it differently than others.

Money 3/5/12

"Amis uses the 'four distinct voices' of Self's internal dialogue (money, pornography, aging and weather, thought and fascination) to encapsulate both the enticements and the destructive effects of his character's immersion within a commodified and consumerist culture" (Begley 86).

This sentence immediately stood out from the article to me. First, the specification of Self's "voices" is interesting. These things - money, pornography, aging and weather, thought and fascination - are certainly interests of his, particularly money and pornography, but to call them voices is different. However, it makes sense. His voice does differ as he talks about these different things, and they all make up different parts of his personality. When he talks about money, he gets repetitive, as if to emphasize its importance. There is an energy when he talks about money that isn't otherwise present. When talking about pornography, he assumes almost a business-like tone. This is perhaps due to his troubles in this area - it almost becomes a chore. Aging and weather are almost just passing thoughts, but strangely consuming passing thoughts. References to him being "middle aged" are frequent, and he quite often talks about the weather as well. Thought and fascination are often sad topics for Self - he doesn't like not knowing.

The second part of the sentence, "...to encapsulate both the enticements and the destructive effects of his character's immersion within a commodified and consumerist culture" is extremely accurate. These voices are, quite successfully, used to demonstrate both the enticements and the consequences of these enticements. They show Self's downward progression, as well as just how important material things and pleasure are to him.