Modernist literature is characterised by a questioning of the content and form of art as it moves away from traditional literary techniques. Art is also understood to be autonomous, that is, not dependent on representing reality. Two other pertinent schools of literary theory are structuralism and post-structuralism. Both begin with the premise that the individual components of any language system only have meaning in relation with other components of the system.
This is often understood in terms of words only having meaning in relation to other word use; but it also can be understood in terms of the content of the story being secondary to its form. Thus, for example, the self-reflexivity of a story can become key to understanding its meaning.
Under the influence of this theory, rather than being metaphorical where words or phrases represent something other than their literal meanings , realist writing became characterized by the metonymic — which means words or phrases here act as a shorthand for wider meanings.
Post-structuralism took this process one step further. In post-structuralism, signs are understood to be part of a relative construction where a single meaning cannot be identified, since the meaning of signs is constantly shifting in relation to the signs surrounding and contextualizing them. The meaning of a text also becomes fluid rather than fixed.
The implications for fiction of understanding language as an unstable means of communication became something of an obsession for the twentieth and twenty-first century literary communities. Like much of what fiction investigates, we can come to understand fiction itself to be a farce: it appears to be centred in reality, but we are often left wondering if real knowledge is possible in any respect.
Modernists and postmodernists alike have considered the unpredictable and mystifying features which have characterized our lives since the s in terms of the fragility and contingency of a secular reality, stripped of its religious dimension.
The crises which they endure are smattered with random circumstances, and their pathetic attempts to gain insight point to a loss of control, typified by ineffective language.
An absence of metaphor means an increased use of indefinite articles, demonstrative narration, and repetition of the same words and phrases renders them functionless without the context in which they were originally found.
Constantly questioning, the characters in his stories rarely obtain answers; meaning evades them through a postmodern crisis of language.
Renowned for an undemonstrative narrative voice and the simplicity of his colloquial language, Carver unpretentiously captures the hopelessness of modern living.
Hemingway, like Carver, typically illustrates characters trying to reconnect to life. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Email Address. Search for:. As he says in a memoir: Then he died. I love Carver but I do not want to be him and write from that smoky place. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Follow the tracks…. Facebook Twitter Instagram. Subscribe to Shaun Belcher writes.. Instagram Now playing. Again these incidents may be important as they not only highlight to the reader R. Carver continues to explore the conflict internal that R.
What is also interesting about the incident with the woman whereby R. Though it would be normal for a teenage boy to fantasize about an older woman it is also possible that by introducing R. The incident of R. This idea of resolution between both boys is explored twice. Firstly they agree to carry the fish on a stick, each holding an end of the stick, however R. Also both boys finally resolve the matter of who will take what part of the fish with R.
When R. What is interesting about them arguing is that they are not arguing about where R. In an effort to defuse the situation R. Rather than being happy R. What happens next is surprising because for the first time in the story the reader sees common agreement between R. There is a sense of irony in both of R. The ending of the story is interesting as it is while R. It may also be important that Carver has R. At no stage in the story does it appear that either of R.
I am currently reading will you please be quiet and I seem to be looking to your page a lot for explanations, I am both annoyed at myself for being easily perplexed by carvers stories and also happy that someone has given this a good deal of thought to understand the story. The fight between his parents could have been for any number of reasons, highlighting the infidelity angle is a bit of an extrapolation. I feel that R goes to his parents room quite often not only for curiosity but also to remind himself of the intimacy that they once had and probably still might, which might be the reason he strives hard to resolve their fights.
Thanks for the comment Santosh. You make some valid points. Most teenage boys would follow the same pattern as R. You are also right that the fight between the parents could be based on any number of things. The reason I suggested infidelity is because when I wrote the post I was researching an article that related to the story and infidelity seemed to fit in with the direction I was taking the post.
With regard to R. I like your suggestion that he is reminding himself of the intimacy that his parents have or might of had and he may long for the same intimacy. Something that is noticeable when he takes the lift from the woman and imagines himself sleeping with her.
0コメント