The+Modern-Day+Sideshow

Back to Day of the Locust

One of the things that makes Harry Greener so interesting is that he is a former vaudeville performer. This adds an interesting layer to the novel. Vaudeville, a circus-like show featuring both human and animal acts, has a certain sideshow quality to it. People are displaying themselves for the entertainment of others, and are making a living doing it. While Harry Greener is a retired performer, he still uses those skills to sell his silver polish door-to-door. When Homer first meets Harry in Chapter 11, he sees this performance: "He assumed a gallant smile and took a few unsteady steps toward the couch, then tripped himself. He examined the carpet indignantly, made believe he had found the object that had tripped him and kicked it away" (277). It is curious that West chooses to put such a character in his novel. Circus sideshows, and even vaudeville to a certain extent, were all forms of human exploitation. People who were labeled as 'freaks' made a living by showing themselves and their horrendous deformities to the world, who would pay to see such things. While it is true that many of them probably could not have made a living like anyone else of that time due to their deformities, there is something very corrupt and exploitative about an institution that displays human beings for the entertainment of others. By putting such a character in his novel, West could be examining this type of exploitation. And by showing its effects in a real human's life, he forces the reader to examine it too. Are we OK with this? Can we agree with the display of people for profit, after we see how that manifests itself in a real person's life?

West also chooses to put Abe Kusich in his novel, who is a very strange character. He is a dwarf, but seems in every other way to be a normal man. When he first appears he is yelling with a woman; we later find out that he is a gambler and knows very much about cock fighting. So what are we to make of Abe Kusich? What are we to make of the fact that he is little? Does that matter? The other characters in the book seem to be very entertained by him, especially when he gets himself in a bit of a rage. After the cock fight, Abe wants to dance with Faye but Earle won't let him cut in. "They tried to start again, but Abe wouldn't let them. He had his hands between them and was trying frantically to pull them apart. When that wouldn't work, he kicked Earle sharply in the shins. Earle kicked back and his boot landed in the little man's stomach, knocking him flat on his back. Everyone laughed" (363). Everyone laughed; am I supposed to laugh at this? I am not sure. It is kind of a sad scene. Abe seems to be merely trying to assert his masculinity, but no one takes him seriously because of his physical size. I am still not sure what to make of this, but it is interesting that West decided to put Abe in the novel, and portray him as such.

Just because the circus sideshow and vaudeville don't still exist today in their original form, it seems they have recently made a comeback, wearing a bit of a different face. There are a host of shows on television today that do quite nearly what the sideshow and vaudeville acts did near the time of the novel: they show people that are different or have deformities, in order that the rest of the nation can watch them for entertainment. While many of these shows claim to help these people, it seems their popularity comes from audiences more interested in seeing a 900-pound person than seeing how that person can start to have a normal life again. Because let's face it, normal is boring. We want to see weird, different, freakish. And today, TV provides that. What is the difference, though, between seeing this sort of thing on TV and seeing it face to face, like one would have at the sideshow? What difference does it make having to look someone in the face and acknowledge the fact that you are there to watch them for entertainment, versus seeing them on TV? Who is responsible for what you see at the sideshow, and who is responsible for what you see on TV? Additionally, how is reading about something in a book different from watching it on TV? Which provides for self-reflection of what is going on and how you are contributing to it? And how do these TV shows really help the people they are displaying? Don't most of them just end up ruining the lives of the people they are broadcasting? Do they really come out of the experience better off than when they started? These are all questions to consider, especially when blamelessly tuning into the exploitative shows that litter the screen today: =The Midget= media type="youtube" key="EfNF4UgdOLU" height="340" width="560" media type="youtube" key="gUz_WRJ9a40" height="344" width="425"

=The Fat Man= media type="youtube" key="N57d3i7ggas" height="344" width="425"

=The Tattooed Man= media type="youtube" key="0ZB1WK04wf4" height="344" width="425"media type="youtube" key="lTpEtSc4Er8" height="344" width="425"

=The Strong Man= media type="youtube" key="1S-buWkp9V8" height="344" width="425"

=The Overly-Fertile Woman= media type="youtube" key="HSPzI8OFCMc" height="340" width="560" media type="youtube" key="y9Xi4VqfH2g" height="344" width="425"

At least the sideshow was honest about what it was, but seeing some of these shows should make us sick. How much better are they than a sideshow? After all, many of the sideshow performers knew that what they were doing was one of the only honest ways to make a living, but these "reality" shows really just end up ruining the lives of everyone they display. I have the feeling West would be nauseated to see such shows...