What is ‘body modification’? … and what does it matter?

Hold on to something, this one is going to jump around a bit…

A lot of the feedback on my last offering (‘Body Modification’?) gave me a sense of preaching to the converted. That is, of those who commented, the majority thought the points I was looking at were ones they agreed with and found to be rather obvious. While it is nice to know that others share something of my view, I can’t help but be dogged by a certain uneasiness. If it is true that many modified people will agree that body modification is something everyone does and includes things like haircuts and possibly even clothing then why isn’t that reflected in their words and behavior?

It reminds of the problem with evolutionary theory. Many people will accept and recite back evolution when questioned as to the nature of the human animal but they do not reflect this position in how they actually behave. It is simply a ‘fact’ that they have learned to give in response to certain promptings but it is certainly not what they base their actual decisions upon. People who purportedly believe in evolution hardly ever react to and judge human behavior on the grounds that human beings are a domesticated primate group. If they did so, then much of our moral and social quibbling would be absolutely absurd. There is a clear gap between what many people say they think and how they actually behave on this issue and it shows up in much the same way for modified people talking about modification.

“The difference between people without tattoos and people with tattoos is that people with tattoos don’t mind if you have tattoos or not.”

I have seen variations of the above in many a shop, on t-shirts, and quoted by people complaining about the fact that the ‘un-modified’ often discriminate against or look down upon them. However, I often see behavior which goes directly against it — people with tattoos or other mods being very judgmental and pejoratively discriminating against those without. This is not only the case for people without what is popularly referred to as body modification but also for those with ‘taboo’ mods like facial tattooing or amputations. While I find it unfortunate and potentially damaging that people who choose certain methods of body modification (like tattoos or piercings) would further divide themselves from people do not, rather than try and show those others that what they do in getting tattooed or pierced is simply another means in a process we all engage in, it seems even worse to me that they should want to divide amongst themselves those with acceptable and unacceptable tattoos, and so on. For anyone doing so and then claiming to understand body modification as a more general term I would like to hold up the mirror of logic so that they can clearly see it shatter with their reflection.

This does lead to another interesting trail of thought, and one that Shannon suggested investigating as part of following up the piece: the differences between atypical and mainstream modification and how the line is drawn. Quite clearly this is a question of relative cultural and social values as it can be seen that what is the norm in one part of the world and a given subset of a population can vary widely and be plainly contradictory with another. For example, in many African cultures scarification would not be atypical while in the US it is still anything but mainstream and while tattooing might still be considered atypical in the US for the culture as a whole, in many subsets (like the often cited bikers and rock musicians) it is very much part of their mainstream, if not obligatory. To push it back to a broader context, we could ask why is it that I am allowed, and often expected, to cut and style my hair but I am frowned upon for doing so in certain ways (such as a Mohawk)?

As a side note, if you want to really see how something like hair style can affect your life try wearing a moustache in the style that was chosen by Hitler (and was very common in its day). I wore such a moustache for a few months years ago and was almost universally reviled for it, receiving harsh and negative reactions the likes of which my facial tattooing has never even approached. All for a small patch of hair that was representative of nothing symbolic but just a silly experimentation to see how it looked. (When people would call me nasty names I would rebuke them for not appreciating my homage to Charlie Chaplin‘s genius — this generally just confused and further incited them).

To really address why some modifications are accepted and others are less accepted or even taboo would require an indepth examination of the relevant culture or society. I am certainly not going to attempt a full deconstruction of Western civilization and its views on the body here — others have attempted and I think pointed to a great many salient points and influences. I do think though that what you see in terms of a given group’s attitudes towards hair, dress, tattoos, elective surgery, and so on is something of an admission that body modification is a universal and as such rather than be denied, it can hopefully be directed for the good and interests of the group. We then see the typical problem arising on the macro scale that the group is simply too large and diverse in many cases to reach fundamental decisions (for example, an ear piercing on a man in an urban area of the US will have little effect but I still know and see many regions in which it draws negative attention).

Another jump: mainstream versus atypical puts me in mind of another term: extreme. What is extreme body modification? Most of the treatments I have seen before propose that there are two grounds on which a modification can be extreme: technical difficulty and social reaction. Personally, I think the former can be almost completely discounted. The technical difficulty of a modification (now speaking in the popular sense) is negilible and for the most part only exists because of how the industry is structured. I do not mean to deflate anyone but the most complicated procedures being performed by modification artists (such as implants, genital splitting, urethral relocations, and minor amputations) are incredibly basic compared to what is done on a routine daily basis by the medical community. It is the social component that makes something truly extreme in my opinion primarily because it is a social stigma held by those most qualified (doctors and surgeons) which prevents us from attaining the true outer limits of what is possible in terms of modifying our bodies.

Given the possibility that what is extreme is socially derived it will then be quite relative. As has been pointed out before, for a given pair of individuals it may well be a more extreme act for one to simply dye their hair than it would be for the other to tattoo their face. I had a friend from a very traditional Japanese family in college who was nearly disowned for coloring her hair red whereas I received a primarily positive response from my family when I tattooed my face. And what about facial tattooing?

Recently on IAM, Shannon predicted and described facial tattooing as the next “trend”. I have to agree that I have seen and been approached by people considering it a lot more in the past couple years but I would emphasize the caveat that it’s going to be a certain type that really becomes predominant (remember what I said above about groups attempting to direct modification for their own good and interests).

I think you will see people who have always been a bit further along (full body suits, heavy facial piercing, etc) realizing that in today’s world they aren’t really taking that much of a risk by moving into facial tattooing — If you already have large stretched or many multiple facial piercings the general public’s reaction if you add a facial tattoo probably won’t change that much. The ones that I think are interesting from the standpoint of cultural change are those that are less heavy (full black or green, heh) designs — ones that work up the neck or along the hairline and are more decorative than transformative of a person’s appearance. All that said though, a couple things about facial tattooing (inspired in part by Cora’s column on things to consider for those considering the incredible transformation she is undergoing):

1. It will change your life. The degree will vary but it will change and you will not be able to predict a lot of it.
2. Make sure your life is at a relatively stable point. Getting your face tattooed is not an answer or a fix to anything. It is going to make your life less certain (see above) and that’s not something you need to introduce if things are already at all shaky.
3. Make sure you want it and get what you want. Seems obvious I know, but it is amazing what people overlook or skimp on.
4. Tell people you care about beforehand and examine their response. They will be your support and can help you a lot. Sometimes people are amazed that I have such a good relationship with my family but as I often say (and mean it every time) I couldn’t do what I have done without them.
5. Try it out first. Use makeup or whatever to simulate it — not just for a minute but for days or longer. Put the design up and look at it everyday because once it’s there you will have to see it everyday.

In a perfect world, I would suggest these (and more) before any mod but I’m not silly enough to think that’s going to happen…

Erik Sprague because the world NEEDS freaks… Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more? Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published June 26th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

‘Body Modification’?

Interviewer: So why do people get tattoos?

Me: There are probably at least as many reasons as there

   are tattoos.

Interviewer: Yes, but generally why?

Me: Because people modify their bodies.

Interviewer: Some people.

Me: All people.

Interviewer: Not everyone gets pierced or tattooed.

Me: They all do something; haircuts, make up… even clothing
   changes the way in which your body looks and moves

Interviewer: But those things aren’t permanent.

Me: So temporary body modification isn’t body modification?

   That doesn’t make much sense…

The above is paraphrased but pretty accurate and has actually occurred more than a few times. It is probably a good example of me trying to be a smart-ass; it is also what brings me to this:

The term ‘body modification’ has popularly come to refer to a loosely grouped set of practices — tattooing, piercing, branding, scarification — and it is usually with this pop meaning in mind that the common question “Why do people modify their bodies?” is asked. The problem here is that the question being asked is significantly different than the question that is very likely intended: “Why do people modify their bodies with tattoos, piercings, and so on?”

The former is a general question about the human experience and motivation while the latter is one that develops out of the first and looks only to particular methodologies. By analogy, to ask the former is as if to ask, “Why do people compete?”, and the latter, “Why do people race cars?” Part of the reason I think that people are often mystified by why someone would modify their body is because they have gotten tied up in the idea that this one particular usage is the pure definition of what is body modification. So then, what is body modification if not just these or similar procedures?

Most of the discussions I have encountered concerning what does and does not count as body modification have born a great resemblance to the debates which occupied a large portion of my academic career over whether or not something was art. In the case of debates over art, it can often be shown that what is actually being argued is not whether or not something is art but rather whether or not something is good or bad art. Obviously, according to most theories of art, whether or not a piece is possessed of any great talent or merit is not what determines if it is art. That is to say, even though it may suck, even though you hate it — it is still art.

In the case of body modification I have found that what is often at stake is not really whether or not something is or isn’t body modification but rather whether or not it is the sort of body modification that is of concern to the parties engaged in the debate. For instance, is hair dyeing body modification? In that it is an alteration of the body it would seem that hair dyeing is body modification on its face. However, since it is not permanent and because it falls (depending on the color) well within acceptable practices many people will claim that it is not body modification. Much of these debates focused upon what other terms would be assumed to be built into or implied in their use of the term body modification. On a practical level this is often expected and quite essential. It is common to use a specified definition for purposes of certain discussions (BME is a fine example of this in its motivation and choice of what it considers body modification for content inclusion) but that definition should not be mistaken for or masqueraded as exclusive or complete.

Body modification as it is commonly used today is a fairly recent introduction to our language and seems to have emerged mainly from the communities that practice it as described. And it is within these communities that I have been able to find the most common adoption of the term and debate over its definition. The other place in which I was most readily able to find the term applied was in anthropology — where it is often used in a very broad fashion.

Anthropologically speaking, the term is taken at nearly face value. It is applied in most any case where the body of a person is in some way altered — from hair styles and body painting to skull shaping. The interesting (and important) thing about this is that taken in this way there is no record of any human culture or society without practice(s) of body modification. And it is for precisely this reason that I support some of the broadest possible interpretations of what is body modification.

I do this because it helps to break down the artificial barrier between the modified and the un-modified. I am fond of pointing out that we are all individuals whether we like it or not. By our very nature we are different from one another but there are also many shared qualities. In embracing our own unique stature I think that it is important that we do not needlessly create the perception of even more difference. If body modification is something we all engage in, in one form or another, then there are no un-modified people.

From this point, we may find a better way for those who do not choose certain forms of modification to understand the motivations of those who do. If the person who shaves, manicures, and is possibly considering a nose-job learns to see tattooing or tongue splitting as simply an alternative example of the same general behavior (modifying the body) that they themselves engage in, it may become less mystifying to them. In fact, body modification taken as part of the overall effort to intentionally create the image that others perceive when they apprehend you — especially in an effort to better express one’s self — is something that I think most people would readily accept as the sanest and most rationale thing in which a person can engage.

Erik Sprague because the world NEEDS freaks… Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more? Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published June 10th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

By Way of Introduction

According to custom, something like this would have been my first installment for Through the Modified Looking Glass, wherein I explain my choice of column title, plans for future subject matter, and background. The problem with that is that I have always felt such pieces tend to be cop-outs which avoid a true effort. And while I try to maintain a familiarity and respect for custom, I quite often find myself circumventing it. So, as a sort of additional piece for this month I will do the classic ‘intro’.

First, why ‘Through the Modified Looking Glass’? The reference is, mostly, obvious — if not cliché. I am, as it happens, a Lewis Carroll fan but the greater motivation behind my choice is the use of the looking glass reference by another tattooed sideshow aficionado and performer: Mike Wilson. In his interview that appeared in Modern Primitives, Wilson describes the idea of becoming heavily tattooed:

"...signifying a possible way of going through the looking glass for me to achieve a whole other frame of reference, and to elicit experiences beyond the 'normal'... presenting yourself as a signal beacon drawing things to happen to you."

 

I shared with Mike some similar influences — surrealism and circus sideshow history so it’s not surprising that we also held some similar views. In fact, this was as close to some of my own ideas and inspirations for my transformation project as I had ever seen expressed by another. I only first saw the interview in 1995 and through my own carelessness for not taking advantage of opportunities I missed my chances to meet Mike in person before his untimely death. I have since come to know some of his friends and colleagues from Coney Island and the title of this column is in part an homage as well as an expression of that shared notion. I like to think too, that Mike as a performer realized one of my own personal joys of the stage and being a tattooed man – taking others through the glass for awhile just by being part of their day.

That is the story, for what it’s worth, of the title. But what do I actually intend do to do with this pulpit? Well, as evidenced by the first installment, The [Modified] Body Politic, some subjects will choose me and simply demand to be addressed. In the absence of such ready made topics in the future I hope to address and give an accounting of the land I find through this modified looking glass and that others may report discovering through their experiences with me. I will also attempt to put some use to the formal training I have had as a philosopher by examining concepts and terms like ‘body modification’. I would also suggest to anyone who has a topic they would like to see here that they contact me via my IAM page or email. And of course, feedback is always welcome.

Now then, you may be asking ‘So, who the hell are you anyway?’ Well, my given name is Erik Michael Sprague but I am far better known these days as The Lizardman. I was born on Fort Campbell, KY in 1972. My mother is an elementary school teacher and my father works both as a high school teacher and a mountain warfare instructor for the military. Growing up, they always encouraged me and told me I could do whatever I wanted — I took them seriously. And so, using the tools they provided me with in my upbringing and thanks to the support of them, my younger sister, and many dear friends I did what I wanted: I became a performance artist. A professional freak. Along the way I have worked a myriad of jobs (lifeguard, farmhand, karate instructor, warehouse crew, bartender, college instructor, and many more) and picked up a degree in philosophy (I abandoned my doctoral thesis to devote my time fully to myself as an artist). Currently, I live with my girlfriend, Meghan, in Austin, TX with one snake and three ferrets when I am not traveling the world speaking and performing. My modifications, rituals, and experiments are documented here on BME as well as on my own pages. Ultimately, I hope that through this column I will find another way to express and develop ideas and to make a contribution that others will find in some way worthwhile.

Erik Sprague   because the world NEEDS freaks… Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more? Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published May 24th, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Tweed, Ontario, Canada.

After his earlier well-received guest column, I’m very happy to announce that Erik Sprague, better known as the Lizardman, has joined the monthly column staff of BME. Here’s to enjoying this first column, and many more to follow, BME.com The [Modified] Body Politic

There is currently pending (it has passed the house and is awaiting review in the senate) in the Illinois state legislature a bill that would effectively ban tongue splitting as a procedure. A lot of people might assume that my interest in such legislation derives from my own experience with tongue splitting but, in fact, what I find compelling about this issue are the far more sinister aspects I perceive — namely, the legislation of prejudice and the use of the media’s body modification obsession to promote personal political agendas. In my view, what is at stake here is not really tongue splitting but something far more fundamental: freedom of expression. However, to provide some background on the subject I will provide a brief accounting of my history with the procedure before addressing what I think are really the core issues.

In 1997 I sought out an oral surgeon and was able to convince him to perform on me a tongue bifurcation using an argon biopsy laser. This was one of the first tongue splittings in modern record (two other individuals using different methods appearing at about the same) and almost certainly the first using the biopsy laser. I immediately began to share my experience and the success of the procedure with the world at large through online resources like BME, SPC, and my own website. I also publicized it through my own live appearances and shows. Soon, a number of people had contacted me and even stayed with me in order to have their tongues split by the same surgeon. Within a year, the procedure had gone from rumor and myth to being one of the more popular “heavy mods” (keeping in mind that popular in this context still means probably less than 3000 people worldwide today – six years later!) A little more than 2 years later I appeared in Time magazine and on Ripley’s Believe It or Not! Tongue splitting was now entering into millions of homes and my touring meant more and more press for the procedure. This was a double edged sword, because as it certainly made more people who might have desired the procedure aware that it existed and was a possibility – it was also just a matter of time before some of those who said “ewww!” when they saw a forked tongue initiated a backlash.

It happened first in Michigan when a piece of legislation was introduced to ban tongue splitting there. That ban was narrowly defeated. Now, in Illinois we have Rep. David Miller who has authored the following (taken from the Illinois General Assembly Website):

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Prohibits a person other than a licensed physician or dentist from performing tongue splitting. Provides that a physician or dentist authorized to perform tongue splitting may perform tongue splitting on an individual only if there is a therapeutic or clinical basis for performing the procedure on that individual. Makes a first offense a Class A misdemeanor and a second or subsequent offense a Class 4 felony.

Mr. Miller is a practicing dentist who after seeing an article in which I was pictured (so I am told and was reported in early stories covering the bill) brought one of my images into session along with his draft, obviously playing to shock value. He also came armed with a number of alleged facts, many of which I have spent a great deal of time in interviews about the bill having to correct.

Mr. Miller asserts that his bill is addressing a health care issue — unqualified, unlicensed practitioners performing a dangerous procedure (tongue splitting). This is perhaps where Miller has done himself a bit of a favor compared to his equally bigoted colleagues in Michigan who described tongue splitting as ‘gross’ and ‘unnatural’. In Michigan this resulted in the legislature being very quickly identified for what it was — an attempt by a group of politicians to legislate into law their own opinions. That bill was defeated mainly because it would have restricted a freedom of expression without grounds. Miller has obscured this by saying that he simply wants to make sure that the unqualified are not performing the procedure but that doesn’t make a lot of sense given the text of his bill. First, if that were the case then he really should better acquaint himself with the section of Illinois law that he is attempting to amend because it already contains provisions against practicing medicine and surgery without a license that more than adequately restrict tongue splitting to the realm of the medical professional. Second and more importantly, if he only wants to see people using qualified personnel then why include the latter portion of the bill which precludes even the qualified surgeon from performing the procedure without a “therapeutic or clinical basis”. This language is sure to be interpreted by doctors and their lawyers as effectively banning them from the procedure. Tongue splitting is a purely elective procedure. It falls in the same general arena as a rhinoplasty, breast augmentations, liposuction, and the like. It is here that Miller reveals his bias. He does not seek for any of these other, far riskier, elective operations to be justified on a clinical basis.

So, just what is David Miller seeking to do? He is, I think quite plainly, attempting to make his opinions into law. And in doing so, he does not seem to care that he is infringing upon one the most basic and respected of our freedoms: Freedom of Expression. While the expression he opposes today is tongue splitting, it could just as easily be something else like breast implants, dancing, hair dye, or wearing a blue shirt — from a purely logical standpoint any one of these would be just as good as tongue splitting for the form of his argument. He has shown no basis whatsoever as to why tongue splitting should be singled out for restriction. What he has shown is that by exploiting visceral reactions and making unsubstantiated allegations that one can very nearly pass one’s prejudices into law (though I hardly think this qualifies as a major revelation in politics). But given that this law would be very hard to enforce since only the stupidest people would advertise their violation of it and that it would be easily circumvented by going outside Illinois, I have to wonder if there isn’t possibly something more to this…

Miller and his bill have been receiving a great deal of press lately and this is the lifeblood of modern politics. While Miller has certainly not impressed me in my debates with him or his statements to the press, he is certainly no fool. He has to have realized that the defeat of a similar bill in another state would weigh against his chances for success. But I think he has also realized that body modification is currently very popular with the media — at least in terms of ‘eye candy’ and “heavy mods” like tongue splitting especially so. While the agencies behind them may not support or endorse body modifications the cameras will always gravitate to them. By putting out modification related legislation this otherwise unnoticeable politician has garnered himself national and even international press. As a community, if we are to be such, we can only hope and try our best so that he does not profit such exploitation by confronting his efforts and exposing his motives.

Erik Sprague because the world NEEDS freaks… Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more? Copyright © 2003 BMEZINE.COM. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published May 15th, 2003 by BMEZINE.COM in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

2003: The Lizardman’s Year in Review If you believe the past can’t be changed, you haven’t read a celebrity’s autobiography. – Sam Ewing

Hey! Here comes the bandwagon — let’s jump on and do a year in review piece!

Actually I hopped on two years ago when I started doing these for my site: www.thelizardman.com. But now that I am primarily writing for BME, why not share the love?

It’s a well documented fact that I am not a fan of the New Year revelry, resolutions, or other calendar related phenomena but I do think there is value in a regular accounting of the past; taking stock as it were.
Also, it provides a good chance for historical summary and reference. As my art professors used to say, ‘Document! Document! Document!’ So, here it is for the events of 2003 — one more document.

January

The year began with an unusual busy streak for me. The holidays and then the remainder of winter don’t often result in many events that clamor for freaks. But come New Year I was on the cover of XBM and traveling a good part of the month. Before hitting the road I attended the Austin Tattoo Revival and finally met Larry the Leopard (who would take part in my Emos show and later put on a wrestling match with me).

My first event for the year was AM-JAM. It was here that I met Spider Webb and got my X tattoo. After AM-JAM I returned to Austin to perform at Emos along with TSD and USS Friendship. From there it was on to the Super Bowl of Ink in Ohio. I wrapped up the month with an appearance at the Palace of Variety in Times Square, NYC.

This was also the month when I wrote what became my BME guest column, About Records, that laid the foundation for my regular column Through the Modified Looking Glass.

February

This month began with some very good news as I was able to announce that I would be the MC for the 2003 Jagermeister Music Tour. From there it only got better as I went to the UK with Shannon, Marty, and Jill to spend a week with Patrick Bartholomew filming for the BME Movie.

This was also the month that I appeared on the local FOX affiliate for a piece on tongue splitting. That small piece foreshadowed what would become the 2003 media frenzy on ‘the tongue splitting fad’ and resulting legislation attempts across the country.

March

Shortly after returning from the UK, I hit the road on the Jagermeister Music Tour.

April

Most of this month was spent on the road with Jagermeister. However, once the tour wrapped up, I dragged myself back to Austin for my pro-wrestling debut versus Larry the Leopard with special guest referee Joe Lifto (still waiting for an airdate). And, a small personal triumph, Lizardman merchandise went online.

May

This was the month of my life that was nearly stolen by one dumb legislator in Illinois. Most of my time and effort, and that of many other people familiar here on BME, was taken up by addressing, interviewing, and de-bunking for stories on tongue splitting. Personally, I had the pleasure (?) of debating the Illinois tongue splitting ban author (David Miller) on a couple of occasions. The man makes Diamond Joe Quimby (from The Simpsons) look like an upstanding, well-informed public servant.

May also saw the debut of my regular BME column — addressing, of course, tongue splitting legislation.

When not pre-occupied by tongue splitting I developed a new act: The Blockhead Blowgun. A historical first, I managed to accurately shoot darts out of my nose.

June

Highs and Lows.

I celebrated my 31^st birthday this month. For the third consecutive year I appeared for Sobe at the KROQ Weenie Roast in LA and made my live Canadian debut at a press conference for Klondike Days in Edmonton.

Dervish passed away.

This was also the month that I made my IAM page my primary online journal. And perhaps in a reactionary move from the previous month’s activities or the Texas legislature introduction of tongue splitting specific codes; I used a scalpel to cut my tongue split a bit deeper.

July

What a wonderful month.

We got a new addition: Ginsu. I spent over a week in Puerto Rico, followed by a week in Edmonton. I finally got my feet tattooed.

August

I was honored this month — twice.

First, I got to take part in the Mayhem 8 man mobile crane suspension. Suspension is a lot more engineering than many people realize; it is understandably easy to focus on the physical when you see hooks through skin. This creation was a triumph and I was lucky enough to get to go along on the ride.

Second, I once again attended and got to be a featured a performer at the 2nd Annual Sideshow Gathering. This event is amazing not only for who is there and the content of their shows, but simply for existing. Franco and his crew work tirelessly to make it happen and bring everyone in. I received a standing ovation that still chokes me up a bit when I think about it.

September

Went to Cleveland for the Gravity Games to make an appearance for Sobe. Otherwise it was a slow month.

October

For the third year running I returned to Orlando to be part of Universal Studios Halloween Horror Nights. On the way from Austin to Orlando, I stopped off in New Orleans to meet Harry Anderson and check out his new store space; Sideshow.

November

The Universal Studios gig lasted into the first week of November and was shortly followed by the 2nd Annual Pen-NY Body Arts Festival.

After 7 weeks on the road I returned to Austin. But, one week after getting home I was off again. Meghan and I went to Vegas on a week’s vacation and while we were there we got married! And, when we got back we got ourselves a wedding present: Houdini.

December

I’m still working on figuring out why Xmas doesn’t equal sideshow in more people’s minds (a fat man and elves — sounds like freaks to me) but it was nice to relax more or less with my new wife. I did spend a good chunk of time this month working sorting out copyright settlements and chasing down people who were inappropriately using my image. My parents visited Texas for the first time and came to see us and the ferrets for Xmas. A pleasant end to a very pleasant year.

2004 plans?

Well, I have big hopes and plans for myself and my show for the coming year. As for this column, there are a number of interviews coming and I am currently researching and working on some historical and opinion pieces regarding the connection between history of body modification and the sideshow. As long you are reading, I will be rambling…

Erik Sprague

because the world NEEDS freaks…

Former doctoral candidate and philosophy degree holder Erik Sprague, the Lizardman (iam), is known around the world for his amazing transformation from man to lizard as well as his modern sideshow performance art. Need I say more?

Copyright © 2003 BMEzine.com LLC. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published January 1st, 2003 by BMEzine.com LLC in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.