A Wrinkle in Time is a novel, though designed for children, is one which brings up one of probably the most questioned and wondered about idea of all times. Time travel has been the thought in the back of peoples minds, and many philosophers and scientists ponder its possibility. The way that A Wrinkle in Time explains the "tesseract" is one which allows the reader to believe that it is real and possible. The diagram with the ant walking across the folded string (pg. 86) is very similar to the idea of the explanation of black holes in astronomy, and this comparison made the adult-has-taken-astronomy version of myself believe along with the childlike-wants-to-believe-in-magic version. That is what was so special about this book. It appeals to children, but also to adults who simply want to get lost in this amazing world portrayed in the book. Not only does it make other fictional planets seem spectacular, but it make our own Earth seem like a more advanced and spectacular place as well.
I read this book extremely quickly do to its large font and child friendly language; yet I was not bored. Often childrens' books are written in a way that is far too simple for adults to be entertained by, but that was not the case with this book. There was something magical and intriguing about it and I fell in love with all the characters. No, it was not a realistic book: even the sections that are supposed to represent a "typical" family and there day to day lives were unrealistic, but that was not something that mattered.

Cloning can be argued strongly for and equally strongly against, and the reason it is such a controversial topic is due to the moral implications. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro brought the idea of cloning to the surface as it's plot revolves around clones themselves. This novel got me thinking about many different concepts revolving cloning. I think one of the main issues in Never Let Me Go was that the clones were treated as clones with a specific purpose rather than people with free will, when really, they are people. Identical twins are essentially clones of each other, though there personalities are often completely opposite. Personality cannot be cloned, so even if the clone looks as sound like the "original", or as stated in Never Let Me Go, the "possible", they are still their own person. Even identical twins, raised in the same family, experiencing the same events in life, still have different personalities because though personality is shaped by experience, the same event can be experienced differently by different people.

When it comes to cloning, I personally believe that it is not morally "wrong", so long that the clone is treated as their own person, and not as a clone "created" for a specific purpose. There is research being done with regards to cloning one parent so that a couple may have a child that is at least biologically related to one of them. Children often look quite similar to one parent, and since personality cannot be cloned, this is not much different than having a child by traditional means.

I found Never Let Me Go an easy read due to the way it is written in such an easy to relate manner, and reminds me of a friend telling their story. Not only was it this writing fashion that made this novel to easy to get through, but because I found the topic so interesting, I seemed to be whipping through the pages and only afterward would notice how much of it I had completed. Speaking of "completed", something I found notable in Never Let Me Go was the fact that Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy talked about people they knew that had "completed" after their second donation. "...I heard about Chrissie. I heard she completed during her second donation" (pg. 205). In this context, "completed", for them, means "died". I found this extremely interesting. Their view on life is that after they give their four donations, and will thereby pass away, they have completed what they were created to do.

When Walser first puts on his clown makeup, he does not recognize himself. He transforms into someone else; someone who is one of the lowest in the circus hierarchy. Buffo states that without his "Buffo-face" he is no one at all, an empty shell (Carter 142). The clowns are never spoken of without their face paint on, as if without it they do not exist. When they wake up, before they slather the goop all over their faces, there is no one really there. The clowns only exist with their makeup on, and as Buffo stated, without it there is nothing but a vacancy (Carter 142). I found it interesting that this is the idea Carter portrays, and it is a representation of how the other characters mask themselves in different ways. The Strong Man masks his true self with the vibe that he is nothing but muscle, no thoughts or emotions, and Fevvers masks herself with a "freak" coating, enhancing her irregularity. Who would Fevvers be without her wings? The clowns without their masks? The strong man without his muscles? No one at all.

In reading Nights at the Circus, I felt as though I was absorbed by the pages, sucked into the plot itself, being encapsulated within the magically world of the characters. The entire book was the epitome of the carnivalesque, with obscure ideas, language, and an inexplicable effect which made it come to life. I found this book a bit of a difficult read in that I had to re-trace my steps and re-read some parts, trying to wrap my mind around the content and rich vocabulary. This book also brought up contrasting effects of both normalizing "freakishness" and also enhancing the defect. The carnival factor brought emphasize to Fevvers deformity as she was put on display as magical and unusual, while the aspect of norm falling for freak and vice versa seemed to normalize her and bring her back to a level in which one could relate.

"Only a bird in a gilded cage..." was a line which appeared frequently in this novel, so I decided I would look up the official definition of gilded. The first of the two definitions was 'covered or highlighted in gold', and the second was 'having a pleasant or showing appearance the conceals something of little worth'. I found this interesting that this quote was one which Fevvers 'foster mother' Lizzie said to her often. Does she mean that Fevvers is of little worth? More likely she is simply stating that Fevvers is a normal girl, covered up with a mask of the phenomenal; a bird in a cage dressed in gold to make that relatively normal bird seem magnificent, or a freak.

The idea of the carnivalesque can be argued for and against in Katherine Dunn's Geek Love, but I think that it is evident partially through Baktin's idea of the inversion of social hierarchy or role reversal. In Geek Love, the "norms" are the freaks, and the "freaks" are the norms. The Binewski family, especially Arty, views those without deformities as the outsiders and freaks, something which in a typical society is reversed. Chick, the most physically normal of all the children is regarded as the lowest in the hierarchical chain, and spends most of his time with fellow norm outsider Dr. Phyllis, a physically normal woman. In a typical family where the children are "normal", a deformed child may be excluded and felt to be the outsider, but in the Binewski family, this is the exact opposite. This aspect is carvinalesque within itself and contributes to the theory that people will gravitate to that which they know and that which is most similar to themselves. As human beings we are often fearful or uncomfortable towards the unknown, and the Binewski children are rarely amongst the norms (except for their parents, though arguably Al and Lil are not completely mentally normal, proven through their practices and actions), so they feel discomfort and avoidance towards the norms, and tend to stick within the family or workers in the carnival. I found this interesting that whether people are "normal" or "freaks", the human brain operates the same, gravitating to that which we know, seeing ourselves and those like us to be normal and those different to be unusual.