CONCLUSION: SPOOKY KIDS & LITTLE MONSTERS: DISSEMINATING THE FREAK SHOW Since the apex of his fame, tenacious rumors have followed Manson around: such as one that claims he played Paul Pfeiffer on The Wonder Years; or another alleging that he had his lower ribs removed so that he could perform fellatio on himself. Lady Gaga has been the subject of similar rumors, most notably that she is actually a man or a hermaphro- dite. Ann Torrusio says that “[t]he perverse desire for the public to label Gaga as abnormal or malformed is not unlike the rumors that circulated about Marilyn Monroe having six toes on one foot … It is as if an ogling public feels compelled to conjure up freakish physical attributes to stars they fnd especially compelling, perhaps in an attempt to categorize them as ‘not like us’” (162). More so, I believe such rumors, in regard to celebrities like Monroe, Manson, and Gaga, speak to the viewing public’s need for authentication. In other words, people seek both a confrma- tion of and an explanation for an otherwise unexplainable freakishness. Manson and Gaga make viewers uneasy in their assumed freakishness, thus we look for ways to freak them more permanently and authentically. In other words, the viewer wants to make the freak of culture a freak of nature. Here, the spectator helps to create a projection of freakish- ness that is not otherwise visible or tangible. In the cases of Manson and Gaga, this image-forming has been widespread and has had a fairly sig- nifcant impact on the way the viewing public, and non-fans in particular, read the two stars. The viewers’ interaction with the creation of freakish- ness is signifcant as it suggests a direct interplay that has not yet been overtly present in the representations of freakishness I have explored. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 167 J.L. Williams, Media, Performative Identity, and the New American Freak Show, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-66462-0 168 CONCLUSION … Manson and Gaga have created a perpetual freakishness that is made new again and again. For both, there is no difference between their cre- ated identity and their behind-the-scenes personas. Elizabeth Barfoot Christian suggests that Gaga is the personifcation of “Baudrillard’s the- ory of simulacra and simulation, where the image has replaced the origi- nal,” a notion that holds true for Manson as well (Turner qt. Christian 190). Both have made statements that suggest that they are simultane- ously always and never performing, such as Manson’s statement that “I’m completely unlike a lot of other performers … because they tell everyone their performance is ‘just a show’ … It’s not just a show for me. It’s my life. I live my art” (Wiedorhorn qt. Manson), and Gaga’s claim that she isn’t a “character or a persona” but that she is “always Lady Gaga,” someone whose “art is not a mask [but] is her life” (Murfett qt. Gaga and Turner qt. Strauss 191). On the other hand, both also speak to the idea that their identities are lies. Manson has said that he chose the stage name Marilyn Manson, “the fakest stage name of all,” because “it is to say that this is what show business is, fake.” He explains, “Marilyn Monroe wasn’t even her real name, Charles Manson isn’t his real name, and now, I’m taking that to be my real name, but what’s real? You can’t fnd the truth [so] you just pick the lie you like the best” (Marilyn Manson Wiki). Similarly, Gaga has said that she wants to “fght so hard for [the idea of being Gaga] every day that the lie becomes the truth” (Turner qt. Gaga 190–191). The meaning of such intentional, perpetual performativity must be understood as a “visible construction, a loaded choice” that “directs attention to itself [and] gives itself to be read” (Hebdige 101). That such spectacle is obviously inauthentic to some degree is, according to Hebdige, essential in its defnition as subcultural and subversive. Such culturally coded performances must be fabricated, they must “display their own codes … or at least demonstrate that codes are there to be used and abused” (101–102). It is clear that these codes have been received and internalized by the viewer. This is not only seen in fans’ devout dedication to the artists, but also in their appropriations of the artists’ imagery, and their self-prescribed labels as Little Monsters, Spooky Kids, and freaks. Manson and Gaga have had a signifcant give and take with their fans in other ways as well. Manson and his fans have a huge presence on the internet to this day, though Manson’s online presence has declined since the 1990s. At the height of his fame, Manson had an enormous amount CONCLUSION … 169 of direct contact with his fans including personally written newsletters, journals, and blogs, webcasts, podcasts, and fan conferences. Gaga has an even more signifcant interaction with her fans, championing causes that are important to her fan base such as LGBTQ causes and AIDS relief; creating a social networking website for her “super fans,” littlemonsters. com, on which Gaga herself often posts; giving her manager’s personal email address to her Little Monsters; and taking suggestions from fans on everything from Gaga’s hair color and costuming to set lists and con- cert lighting (Pearson). She has also developed her own foundation, called the Born This Way Foundation, whose mission is to create “a safe community that helps connect young people with the skills and opportu- nities they need to build a kinder, braver world” (“Our Mission”). One of the foundations newest features includes the Born This Way bus in which her fans can receive professional mental health counseling at her concerts. Both artists’ fans have renamed themselves in homage to their idols (Manson’s Spooky Kids and Gaga’s Little Monsters1 ) and both Manson and Gaga fans are known for appropriating similar ways of dress- ing themselves (see Fig. A.1). It is the interaction between performer and viewer as well as the blur- ring of the authentic and inauthentic freak identity that allows fans to connect so strongly with these artists and others like them. That Manson and Gaga are not born freaks allows them a normalcy that cannot be completely hidden with costumes, imitations of disability, or even the self-label of freak. Buying into freak culture, rather than being born into it, is a choice for many that allows them to mark themselves as separate from society as well as simultaneously buy into a society that accepts them. Freakishness is commodifed, then, but it is also disseminated. Because Manson and Gaga bridge the gap between authentic and inau- thentic, mainstream and fringe, freak and norm, comedic and tragic, per- formance and real life, and, most importantly, perhaps, performer and viewer, they underscore Bakhtin’s notion that carnival—and by extension the freak show—makes no distinction between performers and viewers. As Bakhtin attests: “Carnival is not a spectacle seen by the people; they live in it, and everyone participates because its very idea embraces all the people. While carnival lasts, there is no other life outside it” (7). 1 It is unclear how predominantly the label of Spooky Kids still persists in the Manson fan base though it seems to have declined in popularity since the mid-1990s. 170 CONCLUSION … Fig. A.1 16-year-old Manson fan and author of this book (1998) Thus, if the entertainment we consume attempts to appropriate the cultural work of the freak show—as the horror, reality television, doc- umentary, pornography, music culture, and live performances that I’ve explored do—then carnival is everlasting and ever-present, and if we are perpetually in carnival then we are also continually apart from and CONCLUSION … 171 a part of carnival. The freak has never stopped looking back, despite the distances media have put between the freak and viewer, but the power behind that look has been shifting. It could be said that the freak, once powerless, now has a tremendous power over the viewing public who continue to look and see themselves refected back more than ever. FILMOGRAPHY The Bone Collector, 1999. Candyman, 1992. Dracula , 1931. The Elephant Man, 1980. Flesh and Blood, 2007. Freaks, 1932. Friday the Thirteenth, 1980. Frankenstein , 1931. The Funhouse, 1981. The Horse Whisperer, 1998. The Hunchback of Notre Dame , 1923. The Man Without a Face, 1993. The Miracle Worker. 1962. The Mummy , 1932. Murderball, 2005. My Left Foot, 1989. The Phantom of the Opera , 1925. The Pride of the Yankees. 1942. Psycho , 1960. Rosemary's Baby, 1968. Sick: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan Supermasochist, 1997. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 173 J.L. Williams, Media, Performative Identity, and the New American Freak Show, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-66462-0 174 FILMOGRAPHY Sideshow: Alive on the Inside!, 1996. Snuff, 1976 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, 1974. Tiptoes. 2003. REFERENCES A Brief History of the Carte de Visite. n.d. 17 February 2012. http://www.pho- tographymuseum.com/histsw.htm. Accordino, Michael, Robert L. Hewes and Jeanmarie Crimoli. “Public Perceptions of People with Disabilities.” Psychology of Disability. Ed. Joseph F. Stano. Linn Creek: Aspen Professional Services, 2009. Adams, Rachel. Sideshow U.S.A. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Adams, Tiphany (@tiphanyadams). “I choose to take on my own challenges… DAILY! #SWEAT http://instagr.am/p/RS3nmjneDT/.” Twitter.com. 27 October 2012, 12:53 p.m.