tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3354814281006350164.post6212751620263648992..comments2023-03-23T21:44:30.265-04:00Comments on ENG L371 Critical Practices: "Equipment for Living" (in uncertain times): Indiana Jones and the Raiders of Discourse in the Noveltgrabanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16913401531606867135noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3354814281006350164.post-7954719957638953212011-10-10T17:31:21.787-04:002011-10-10T17:31:21.787-04:00James, your metaphor is interesting -- in fact, I ...James, your metaphor is interesting -- in fact, I would love to see the clip, to get a better sense of the clarity that Jones has at the very moment he realizes the precise location of his treasure. In a way, that metaphor calls up Lockeian notions that the "treasure" (in this case, the singular unified meaning) is somewhere outside of the discourse, and it is only a matter of time and circumstance before Jones finds it. While his staff may lend their voices (or messages) to the search, ultimately, everything has to line up precisely for Jones to see where the sun makes its point. Do you think that is what Bakhtin is after? Another way of asking that is, How much do you think Bakhtin's "heteroglossia" is about the interpretation or negotiation of meaning, and how much do you think it is about the embeddedness of speech?<br /><br />Since his overall aim seems to be positing the novel as discourse (or, more likely, verbal discourse as a social phenomenon) (259), I imagine heteroglossia helps him to justify what he sees as a "diversity of social speech types" in a single work (262). No doubt Bakhtin has much to say on the interpretability of a literary work, but in this essay I get the sense he wants me (and all of us) to believe a more fundamental principle first: that the novel contains a plurality of voices and it is worthwhile considering the explicit or implicit disputes between them (Bedford Glossary 224). <br /><br />In the middle of his essay, he makes an argument that seems almost (Kenneth) Burkean: <br /><br />Every socially significant verbal performance has the ability--sometimes for a long period of time, and for a wide circle of persons--to infect with its own intention certain aspects of language that had been affected by its semantic and expressive impulse, imposing on them specific semantic nuances and specific axiological overtones; thus, it can create slogan-words, curse-words, praise-words, and so forth. (290)<br /><br />In my own words, I think this is a statement about the possibility of various sociological languages co-existing, powerful enough to influence each other but only sometimes actually doing so, and yet their co-existence really means they intersect with one another. In short, languages "do not exclude each other, but rather intersect with each other" (291), and this is where Bakhtin might differ from Derrida in some respects. <br /><br />I'd say, if it is still confusing, focus on his discussion of "double-voiced discourse" (324-326), where two characters (or narrators) in the novel are being served at the same time, perhaps speaking as one person but in fact expressing two different intentions. That "refracted" intention makes me think Bakhtin sees this as somewhat of an oppressive act, i.e., that the embedded dialogue will always allow one voice to be heard a bit more clearly than the other. For example, in Dickens’ Little Dorrit, the narrator interjects with a slight commentary that parodies the language of ceremonial speeches, and yet all he is conveying are the details of Mr. Merdle’s mundane day (Bakhtin 303). While it is his voice speaking, it is the other voice as communicated through the parody that we “hear” (or read) more dominantly.<br /><br />If the examples that Bakhtin analyzed from Little Dorrit don’t show enough of what you are hoping to see, you might think back to Scott McCloud's essay today, as we watched him take on and off his mask and presume he knew what we were going to question or how we were going to object. In those moments, he double-voiced, so to speak. Another example I can pull off the top of my head is a short story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman called "If I Were A Man," in which the main character, Mollie Mathewson, inhabits the psyche of her husband Gerald, and vice-versa, resulting in a more enlightened social commentary for both of them. I'll be curious to know what you think.<br /><br />Link to Gilman's short story: http://chss.montclair.edu/~landwebj/ww/gilman.htmtgrabanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16913401531606867135noreply@blogger.com