Literary Theory

1. Literary Theory Class Three

2. Gérard Genette 傑哈．簡奈特

3. Gérard Genette • Narrative Discourse. 1972. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Itaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1980. • Narrative Discourse Revisited. 1983. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Itaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1988. • 【辭格 III】,廖素珊、楊恩祖譯, 時報出版, 2003

4. Genette (1) – Mode 語式 (Barry 231-32)

5. Genette (1) – Mode 語式

6. Genette (2) – Focalization 聚焦 (viewpoint or perspective)

7. Genette (2) –Focalization 聚焦 (viewpoint or perspective)

8. Genette (3) –Voice 語態

9. Genette (4) –Order 次序

10. Genette (5) –Story Levels層次

11. Genette (6) –Speech (七等生 【我愛黑眼珠】 )

12. Free Indirect Discourse • FID = narrated monologue; pensée avec • FID is often taken to contain mixed within it markers of two voices (a narrator’s and a character’s).

13. Free Indirect Discourse • Definition:“the technique for rendering a character’s thought in his own idiom while maintaining the third-person reference and the basic tense of narration” (Cohn 100).

14. Free Indirect Discourse • FID is often marked by such contextual features: (1) general markers of colloquialism (such as ejaculations, lexical fillers); (2) more specific markers of a group or class to which a character belongs; (3) a character’s personal idiom; (4) markers of social-role relationships (Prince 35-36).

15. Example #1 • Direct discourse: Tom said, “Gosh, I am tired.” (2) Indirect discourse: Tom said that he was tired. (3) Free indirect discourse: Gosh, he was tired. (Fludernik 74)

16. Example #2 • She [Lily] started up and looked forth on the passing streets. Gerty!—they were nearing Gerty’s corner. If only she could reach there before this laboring anguish burst from her breast to her lips—if only she could feel the hold of Gerty’s arms while she shook in the ague-fit of fear that was coming upon her! (The House of Mirth I, xiii; Wharton 1962: 173) (quoted in Fludernik 78)

17. Example #3 The trader was not shocked nor amazed . . . . He had seen Death many times . . . and so he only swore that the gal was a baggage, and that he was devilish unlucky, and that, if things went on in this way, he should not make a cent on the trip. (Uncle Tom’s Cabin, xii; Stowe 1981: 130) (quoted in Fludernik 116)

18. Recommended References on Free Indirect Discourse • http://osf1.gmu.edu/~dkaufman/narrative.htm • http://www.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/ShortStory/Mansfield-Woolf.htm • http://www.literaryencyclopedia.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=444

19. Jacques Derrida

20. 太初有道 (Word/Logos), 道與神同在, 道就是神. . . . 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間. (約一. ㄧ與一四) • 約翰或熊恩(Shaun)或崔斯坦 (Tristan) 會這樣說: 太初有明信片, 開頭寫了目的地卻沒寫地址, 下場是無從投遞. 任何符號、記號、或特點裏, . . . . 早已都沒有目的地. 有的是距離的製造, 是郵件. (德希達 《明信片》) Payne, Michael. 《閱讀理論》. 李奭學譯. 書林. 2005. 頁171-72.

21. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” (1966)

22. Structure

23. Centered Structure • All notions of structure have a centre. It is a sign –“the transcendental signifier” -- that will give meaning to all others.

24. Logocentrism 理體中心理論 • This desire for a center is called “logocentrism”. • Western though has developed innumerable terms which operate as centering principles: God, the Idea, the World spirit, the Self, and so on. (Eagleton 131)

25. Center = Presence = Logos • “Logos” (Greek for ‘word’) is a term which in the New Testament carries the greatest possible concentration of presence: “In the beginning was the Word.” Being the origin of all things, the ‘Word’ underwrites the full presence of the world . . . . (Selden 88)

26. Centers in Literary Texts • Typical concepts of centre in literary criticism, for instance, would include the author, the historical context, the reader, the ideology of a political economy, each of which provide a ground outside the text for limiting interpretation. • http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htm

27. The center rests upon a paradox. • “The center is, paradoxically, within the structure and outside it. The center is at the center of the totality, and yet, since the center does not belong to the totality (is not part of the totality), the totality has its center elsewhere. The center is not the center.”

28. Food for Thought • Give concrete examples to support Derrida’s claim that the definition of structure is contradictory, namely that the center is both inside and outside a structure.

29. 有一句話 鄧禹平 當你童年 小辮雙雙， 情竇之門未開放， 有一句話 想說； 我卻不能講。 當你青春 玉立婷婷， 美眸閃動愛與光， 有一句話 想說； 我卻不敢講。 當你已婚 笑態盈盈， 心靈關着情之窗， 不必說了——埋葬吧 埋葬。

30. 車站留言陳克華 阿美阿草 我先搭11:37的南下了 我並不恨你 如果颱風明天到達 來電：(00)7127ㄓ998ψ 父留。孩子記得我 先生下再說 錢，不要等我了 我家不在台北，Echo：ECHO 欠你的 工作已找著 很久很久以後，本質 和現象衝突 得很厲害 祝快回家 三隻母雞和甘藍菜 都好你最真誠的愛匆此 再還你。 (孟樊 〈當代新詩理論〉 頁二五七)

31. Différance 衍異

32. Roots in Structuralism • "In language there are only differences" (Saussure, Course in General Linguistics). • The distinctive doctrine of structuralism: “the belief that the individual units of any system have meaning only by virtue of their relations to one another”(Eagleton, Literary Theory, 94).

33. Not binary opposition but différance • Derrida points out that a binary opposition is algebraic (a=~b, a equals not-b), and that two terms can't exist without reference to the other--light (as presence) is defined as the absence of darkness, goodness the absence of evil, etc. . . . • http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1997derridaA.html

34. Not binary opposition but différance • Deconstruction wants to erase the boundaries (the slash) between oppositions, hence to show that the values and order implied by the opposition are . . . not rigid. • http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1997derridaA.html

35. Différance 衍異 (1) It means to differ: to be separate from; to discriminate (2) It wishes to defer: to delay; to postpone

36. Différance The one, take note, implies spatiality (difference) while the other implies temporality (deferral). http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htm

37. Différance • Différance is what prevents the sign from being a full presence. • “When we cannot make present a thing, take hold of it, show it, we use a sign; we signify a deferred presence, something absent” (Gras 279).

38. 雨聲說些什麼 余光中 一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？ 樓上的燈問窗外的樹 窗外的燈問巷口的車 一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？ 巷口的車問遠方的路 遠方的路問上游的橋 一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？ 上游的橋問小時的傘 小時的傘問濕了的鞋 一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？ 濕了的鞋問亂叫的蛙 亂叫的蛙問四周的霧 都說些什麼呢，一夜的雨聲？ 四週的霧問樓上的燈 樓上的燈問燈下的人 燈下的人抬起頭來說 怎麼還沒有停啊： 從傳說落到了現在 從霏霏落到了湃湃 從簷漏落到了江海 問你啊，蠢蠢的青苔 一夜的雨聲說些什麼呢？

39. A is a supplément 添補to B (1) A = writing B = God, Truth, love . . . . • A is added to B. • A substitutes for B. • A is a superfluous addition to B. • A makes up for the absence of B. • A usurps the place of B.

40. A is a supplément to B (2) • A makes up for B’s deficiency. • A corrupts the purity of B. • A is necessary so that B can be restored. • A is an accident alienating B from itself. • A is that without which B would be lost.

41. A is a supplément to B (3) • A is that through which B is lost. • A is a danger to B. • A is a remedy to B. • A’s fallacious charm seduces one away from B. • A can never satisfy the desire of B. • A protects against direct encounter with B. (Johnson 45)

42. 像盧梭一樣，索緒爾所看重的也是原本(the original) 與自然。就語言觀之，這原本與自然的是話語，而書寫卻開始篡奪所以為原本者，抬高了遺忘的地位：要忘卻的是本源初態。書寫雖假惺惺說可輔助記憶，時則卻在人為造作、次等與添補等性格幫兇下和活生生的記憶作對，甚或「轉移」之… • 「書寫就是遺忘。」此乃因其身為中介的身分使然，也因理體亦因之而已剝離自身有以致之。沒有書寫，「理體」就不會魂遊象外。書寫是「自然」與「原始」的掩飾，也是把意義立即呈現給理體的體內魂的偽裝。書寫加諸靈魂的暴力名曰「無意識」(unconsciousness) 。 • Payne, Michael. 《閱讀理論》. 李奭學譯. 書林. 2005. 頁189-90.

43. An Example: Identity • The deconstructionist wants to show that the notion of identity, which seems so basic, so "present," actually depends upon the notion of difference. Identity is only comprehensible in terms of difference, just as difference can only be understood in terms of identity. • http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/sep/17/17092005ft.htm

44. An Example: Identity • Identity can be considered as an essential and integrated unity (my identity involves my name, my status, my hair colour and the number of my fingers, among many other things). The idea of a unity broken into differences is one possible traditional idea. • http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htm

45. An Example: Identity • Another one would be the idea of an identity that could be contrasted to other identities as its differences (and for which it too would be different). I am different from my colleagues, my students, my family and friends and my enemies. • http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deconstruction.htm

46. An Example: Identity • What was thought to be foundational (identity) is itself dependent upon the concept it was privileged over (difference). The conclusion that neither term is foundational, but that both are mutually dependent upon each other, is precisely the conclusion that Derrida wants us to reach. • http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/sep/17/17092005ft.htm

47. Deconstruction as a Critical Approach: 3 Stages (Barry 74-76)

48. The Verbal Stage • Close Reading • Identify contradictions or paradoxes. • The polarity of common binary oppositions (like male and female, day and night, light and dark) is reversed. And then the second term, rather than the first, is shown to be ‘privileged’ and regarded as the more desirable. (Barry 74)

49. The Verbal Stage • Here's the basic method of deconstruction: find a binary opposition. Show how each term, rather than being polar opposite of its paired term, is actually part of it. Then the structure or opposition which kept them apart collapses . . . . Ultimately, you can't tell which is which, and the idea of binary opposites loses meaning, or is put into "play“.http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1997derridaA.html

50. The Textual Stage • Look for shifts or breaks in the continuity of the text (shifts in focus, shifts in time, or tone, or point of view, or attitude, or pace, or vocabulary); these shifts reveal instabilities of attitude, and hence the lack of a fixed and unified position. • Omissions are important here, that is, when a text doesn’t tell us things we would like to be told. (Barry 75)