Blog for LIT330, Fragments of Rationality: Modern and Postmodern Literature and Theory, Fall 2010, Chester College of New England, Instructor Dr. Monica O'Brien
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Prompt #3
How does Faulkner manipulate the form of "the novel" to express some of the ideas about truth that Derrida talks about is his lecture, "Structure, Sign and Play..."? How would you describe "truth" as a concept in As I Lay Dying?
Faulkner manipulates the form of the novel by changing the basic structure of the traditional form of writing. It lacks any kind of structure at all and also what we have referred to as the "center" that we find in most novels. This novel displays truth I believe because it illustrates the characters thoughts and desires seperately and in their own heads rather then relating to eachother. This brings truth because that is the way that real people think and where people hold their true desires (within themselves). No matter how close you get to another person you still remain alone in your own head and Faulkner does a great job of showing that by seperating the characters into their own sections and showing their true thoughts. Even though they are seperated and shown by themselves they show Derrida's concept of creating your own "texts" off of other people's "texts" because even though they are isolated their desires and thoughts all come from interactions and expeirences with eachother. Because the structure is lacking in this way it twists the readers perception of actual truth and lets them expeirence subconcious desires and thoughts through language with inturn makes me feel more connected and close to the characters over-all.
To go along with what you explained Jodie, Faulkner’s choice to have chapters told from varying perspectives also changes the basic ideal of the traditional novel. By changing perspectives, and character relation to situations occurring, Faulkner alters the point of view in which the reader (or audience) has to interpret and understand what is happening. By doing this, Faulkner is not necessarily making it harder to read, but harder to justify looking at the novel in one way. As reader’s, while going through the text of As I Lay Dying, we must constantly be alert of what changes may come with the next chapter. The idea of truth through spoken, or internal words (when considering each chapter part of a character’s unconscious/inner musings) is very strong throughout the novel.
Jodie described the relation of texts to thoughts and structural contents in a way I can better understand the idea. I once thought of texts only as the individual essences of one character, not relating to one another to try and create a “twisted” structure.
"Truth" within Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying" is a hard thing to describe. I would have to point though at the ulterior motives of each of the characters (of course except Darl) for lugging Addie so far. The "truth" is buried within each of their perspectives, how they interrelate and overlap. Even in the chapters told from "outsiders'" points of view. These intermixed "truths" and tainted perspectives give rise to a whole new branch of commonality. It is like a giant van-diagram. The reader believes everything within the individual circles due to the nature of the narrative, but the reader holds dear what overlaps and correlates between characters. Ultimately the reader discovers that the "truth" is that tiny bit in the absolute center where ever circle overlaps. However, I think in "As I Lay Dying" the absolute center is too small to distinguish (see arguments in midterm paper and presentation). Addie is the center but not the center. Faulkner plays with the margins and experiments with freeplay. The confines of the novel (that center where "truth" is found) are limitless. Because the center is so small that it is impossible to distinguish, Faulkner stresses the importance of the margins. The things that would fall to the wayside if not for the fact that the reader could not easily interpret what the center was. So much has to go into interpreting the center/"truth" of the novel that the margins cannot be ignored, and freeplay is allowed to reign. It basically reverses the center/margin stereotypes.
To expand on Emmet's idea, not only does Faulkner stress the importance of the margins (the other characters' experiences) by shrinking the center (a point somewhere to the left of Addie Bundren's coffin, I think :>), he makes the margins the central play of the novel. He wrote a novel of margins, to remove any obvious center for us to cling to. Which brings up another idea I had recently: what if the reader is the center? Isn't it true that in anything we read, we understand it by making our own connections with the characters or events presented? Is it possible not only that a writer _could_ write a novel with the intention that the reader be the center, but that perhaps all writers do? Aren't we writing to try and stir emotion, spur to action? We do so by writing about basic human experience, making characters relatable to the reader's experience. Can this focus be construed as centralizing the reader's experience (even though this experience cannot be the center of the novel since it is not written in the novel) and marginalizing the characters' stories as actually written in the novel? I think this is how all authors operate, but it's only strict postmodernists who keep this idea in mind when producing their novels. The rest of us do it without thinking about it, and as such it's less obvious as when you look at something like As I Lay Dying, or Molloy.
Faulkner manipulates the form of the novel by changing the basic structure of the traditional form of writing. It lacks any kind of structure at all and also what we have referred to as the "center" that we find in most novels. This novel displays truth I believe because it illustrates the characters thoughts and desires seperately and in their own heads rather then relating to eachother. This brings truth because that is the way that real people think and where people hold their true desires (within themselves). No matter how close you get to another person you still remain alone in your own head and Faulkner does a great job of showing that by seperating the characters into their own sections and showing their true thoughts. Even though they are seperated and shown by themselves they show Derrida's concept of creating your own "texts" off of other people's "texts" because even though they are isolated their desires and thoughts all come from interactions and expeirences with eachother. Because the structure is lacking in this way it twists the readers perception of actual truth and lets them expeirence subconcious desires and thoughts through language with inturn makes me feel more connected and close to the characters over-all.
ReplyDelete-Jodie DePietro
To go along with what you explained Jodie, Faulkner’s choice to have chapters told from varying perspectives also changes the basic ideal of the traditional novel. By changing perspectives, and character relation to situations occurring, Faulkner alters the point of view in which the reader (or audience) has to interpret and understand what is happening. By doing this, Faulkner is not necessarily making it harder to read, but harder to justify looking at the novel in one way. As reader’s, while going through the text of As I Lay Dying, we must constantly be alert of what changes may come with the next chapter. The idea of truth through spoken, or internal words (when considering each chapter part of a character’s unconscious/inner musings) is very strong throughout the novel.
ReplyDeleteJodie described the relation of texts to thoughts and structural contents in a way I can better understand the idea. I once thought of texts only as the individual essences of one character, not relating to one another to try and create a “twisted” structure.
"Truth" within Faulkner's "As I Lay Dying" is a hard thing to describe. I would have to point though at the ulterior motives of each of the characters (of course except Darl) for lugging Addie so far. The "truth" is buried within each of their perspectives, how they interrelate and overlap. Even in the chapters told from "outsiders'" points of view. These intermixed "truths" and tainted perspectives give rise to a whole new branch of commonality. It is like a giant van-diagram. The reader believes everything within the individual circles due to the nature of the narrative, but the reader holds dear what overlaps and correlates between characters. Ultimately the reader discovers that the "truth" is that tiny bit in the absolute center where ever circle overlaps. However, I think in "As I Lay Dying" the absolute center is too small to distinguish (see arguments in midterm paper and presentation). Addie is the center but not the center. Faulkner plays with the margins and experiments with freeplay. The confines of the novel (that center where "truth" is found) are limitless. Because the center is so small that it is impossible to distinguish, Faulkner stresses the importance of the margins. The things that would fall to the wayside if not for the fact that the reader could not easily interpret what the center was. So much has to go into interpreting the center/"truth" of the novel that the margins cannot be ignored, and freeplay is allowed to reign. It basically reverses the center/margin stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteTo expand on Emmet's idea, not only does Faulkner stress the importance of the margins (the other characters' experiences) by shrinking the center (a point somewhere to the left of Addie Bundren's coffin, I think :>), he makes the margins the central play of the novel. He wrote a novel of margins, to remove any obvious center for us to cling to.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings up another idea I had recently: what if the reader is the center?
Isn't it true that in anything we read, we understand it by making our own connections with the characters or events presented? Is it possible not only that a writer _could_ write a novel with the intention that the reader be the center, but that perhaps all writers do? Aren't we writing to try and stir emotion, spur to action? We do so by writing about basic human experience, making characters relatable to the reader's experience. Can this focus be construed as centralizing the reader's experience (even though this experience cannot be the center of the novel since it is not written in the novel) and marginalizing the characters' stories as actually written in the novel? I think this is how all authors operate, but it's only strict postmodernists who keep this idea in mind when producing their novels. The rest of us do it without thinking about it, and as such it's less obvious as when you look at something like As I Lay Dying, or Molloy.
Chelsea