Circus thoughts, and Food.

The second half of Nights… remains consistent with the first in that it is also high allusive.  Carter’s allusions, which pervade every scene in the novel, refer to biblical passages, contemporary folklore, song and dance, and even pop culture.  These allusions complicate on a literary level a story that is already complicated in and of itself.  The plot is not strictly linear as Carter continuously refers back to the lives of certain characters.  These not so brief expository passages in Nights…, as when we learn the stories of The Princess, Mignon, etc, are not meant to interrupt the narrative.  On the contrary, the experiences of these protagonists inform the present story, and give us insight as to what Carter’s intensions are.  For example, the Princess’s and Mignons exploitation as women forces the reader to consider Fevvers’ own exploitation as a female character, or, conversely, her exploitation of men. 

The apes escape (legally) from the circus, Buffo the clown goes crazy and literally summersaults out of the circus, the Strong Man is revealed as weak, The Princess and Mignon fall in love, yet all this disorder – both productive and tragic – does not stop the inevitable from happening: all those members of the circus were to become trapped in route to Siberia, a train crash that leaves its members in a state of existential limbo.  The Princess and Mignon progress so much in the novel and emerge, like Fevvers, as powerful female characters, yet all three of these women are left helpless in the Russian wilderness.  Neither of the three, like the rest in the caravan, are able to transcend the life threatening situation they are in.  Does Carter purposefully undermine their progress?  What was the point of the novel if, after Mignon and the Princess find solace from the hectic world and their mutual love for each other, they are left to die, wandering in the icy dessert? 

I have a lot of thoughts that need further exploration, but I want to address the critical essay assigned for this class.  Abigail Dennis, in “The Spectacle of her Gluttony,” addresses the novels ambivalence.  The novel contains within it individual stories that introduce whole new sets of ideas and interpretations.  It is complex and highly metaphoric and allusive, and for this reason I would agree that Carters’ intentions are HIGHLY ambivalent.  I enjoyed trying to deconstruct the metaphors and to decipherer their meanings within the larger context of the story, but at times I found it difficult to grasp what Carter was trying to do.  I, however, am not sure I agree with Dennis’ interpretation Carter’s use of food, eating, and appetite, or her “literary food ethos.” (119)  Excessive eating certainly feeds into the Bahktian notion of the grotesque body, and Fevvers certainly indulges herself in ways that we are not used to seeing women portrayed (especially when we consider the archetypal Victorian female character), but is her overeating political? Dennis says:

The animalistic, carnal relish with which she attacks her food signifies an earthy sexuality, and her blatant disregard for feminine niceties, from basic etiquette to the Victorian habit of pretending that one does not, in fact, engage in the act of eating… (121)

…but should we understand her eating habits as a central detail of the story?  This added layer is fun to entertain, and knowing that Carter herself suffered with eating disorders throughout her life certainly adds credibility to the argument, but food/eating as playing a major function in the novel is something I am unsure I am willing to buy into.