Nights at the Circus

The most prominent motif in the novel is the recurring conflict between paired (or binary) opposites, which are contrasted and emphasized with juxtapositions throughout the narrative. Each part is structured by its own governing juxtaposition, which figures into its characterization, setting, and thematic arc. These juxtapositions between binaries help convey the narrative’s broader themes; each apposes two things seemingly in conflict with each other, emblematic of the paradoxical nature of these themes.

Part 1 is characterized by a juxtaposition between vulgarity and refinement. This is evident in the setting and in the characters of Fevvers and Lizzie. Fevvers’s dressing room is cluttered with high-quality clothing—”elaborately intimate garments, wormy with ribbons, carious with lace” (9); however, these clothes are carelessly strewn about, creating an atmosphere of “exquisitely feminine squalor” (9). Both Lizzie and Fevvers speak with Cockney accents, a stereotypical trait of lower-class or poorly educated people. However, both women are intelligent and educated despite their accents, making frequent allusions to works of art and culture, or philosophical and intellectual ideas. Ultimately, this subversion informs the theme of the paradoxical nature of the illusion in truth: Both women come from what would be considered a base background, a brothel, and Fevvers does not hide her sensual nature or the reality of her accent; however, both women feed into the stereotype, maintaining the illusion to disguise their intellectualism and self-reliance in an age of female subjugation. This illusion allows them to control the perceptions of the observer, thereby giving them power within societal constraints.

In Part 2, the juxtaposition of vulgarity and sophistication takes a supporting role to the larger juxtaposition of chaos and order. This binary is evident in Walser’s encounters with the animals, such as the Professor and the dancing tigers, but it is most evident in the clowns’ role in Part 2. All the beasts at the circus are kept under strict, often cruel, control because the humans fear their beastly nature—the chaos of the animal instinct. However, there are two occasions when Walser looks into the eyes of these beasts, first with the Professor and then with his tiger dancing partner, and recognizes a knowledge or awareness that changes his perceptions of distinction between beast and man. When he has this moment with the Professor, it challenges his conception of human versus animal nature: “Walser never forgot this first, intimate exchange with one of these beings whose life ran parallel to his […] It was like the clearing of a haze” (108). Additionally, the clowns are keepers of chaos and order; there is a controlled chaos in their burlesque humor, and Buffo the Great speaks of the clown persona as something that is constructed from this chaos and grants the clowns selfhood and humanity; without their clown faces, they revert to nothingness (122). Ultimately, the juxtaposition of chaos and order signifies the theme of humanity’s complex nature and the paradox of perceived “beastliness” belying a greater apprehension of humanity.

The binary between observer and witness governs Part 3. The women’s prison in Part 3 exemplifies this juxtaposition: The inmates there are subjected to the Countess’s round-the-clock observations, but the Countess is merely projecting her own guilt and sense of justice onto them, turning them into performers of her own crimes. The inmates’ rebellion comes about as a result of the relationship that develops between the guards and the inmates; the narrator speaks of this development as the guards being “subverted to the inmates’ humanity” (217) and says that they become “an army of lovers” (217). By witnessing each other’s humanity, the inmates and guards help each other regain and exercise their individual identities and senses of self, to overcome the Countess’s oppressive projections.

Additionally, both the protagonists undergo a deconstruction of identity in Part 3—Fevvers because she has all the tools of her illusion and has been removed from the performance that she has come to define herself by, and Walser because he has lost all his memories and his sense of self. Lizzie tells Fevvers that she can define herself (190), and the Shaman encourages Walser to develop his own identity as a shaman through the snippets of returning memories; however, this conflict for both characters is only resolved when they reunite at the end of the novel, constituting an act of witness that allows them to regain their senses of self. They are not constrained by the expectations of the observer but witness each other in their own self-definitions and validate these distinct identities. This juxtaposition between observer and true witness culminates in the thematic paradox of the observer’s role as both constrainer and illuminator in constructing identity.