非)私人心灵》:福克纳的《声与怒》为何是失败之作?

Daniel Schwartz
{"title":"非)私人心灵》:福克纳的《声与怒》为何是失败之作?","authors":"Daniel Schwartz","doi":"10.1353/pan.2024.a916700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury attempts to represent first-person experience in a radical fashion. In what I call (paradoxically) “free indirect discourse in the first person,” Faulkner ostensibly presents both thought thought and thought below the level of awareness together in one stream of text. The Quentin section in particular relies on an idealistic picture of language as meaningful in itself, apart from any intersubjective context or significant use, as though we could bypass communication and look inside Quentin’s head, finding not the brain but the “exact language” of his conscious life. I consider this temptation by way of Wittgenstein’s critique of the privacy of the mental. Wittgenstein’s aim, I argue, is not to deny or demote interiority, but rather to impugn a certain picture of how “the inner” must look — a realm composed of private objects to which the “I” alone has access. I thus suggest that we think of Quentin as an experiment, an appeal. Faulkner tries to reveal a mind in the brutal fullness of its suffering without forcing that mind to address us: to tell us that they suffer. I contend that this appeal fails, and in failing reveals the manner in which the (not-so-private) mind is essentially embedded in a shared, intersubjective world.","PeriodicalId":516166,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"51 6","pages":"71 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The (Not-So-)Private Mind: Why Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury Is and Is Not a Failure\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Schwartz\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pan.2024.a916700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury attempts to represent first-person experience in a radical fashion. In what I call (paradoxically) “free indirect discourse in the first person,” Faulkner ostensibly presents both thought thought and thought below the level of awareness together in one stream of text. The Quentin section in particular relies on an idealistic picture of language as meaningful in itself, apart from any intersubjective context or significant use, as though we could bypass communication and look inside Quentin’s head, finding not the brain but the “exact language” of his conscious life. I consider this temptation by way of Wittgenstein’s critique of the privacy of the mental. Wittgenstein’s aim, I argue, is not to deny or demote interiority, but rather to impugn a certain picture of how “the inner” must look — a realm composed of private objects to which the “I” alone has access. I thus suggest that we think of Quentin as an experiment, an appeal. Faulkner tries to reveal a mind in the brutal fullness of its suffering without forcing that mind to address us: to tell us that they suffer. I contend that this appeal fails, and in failing reveals the manner in which the (not-so-private) mind is essentially embedded in a shared, intersubjective world.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"volume\":\"51 6\",\"pages\":\"71 - 93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2024.a916700\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2024.a916700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:福克纳的《声与怒》试图以一种激进的方式表现第一人称的体验。在我称之为(自相矛盾的)"第一人称的自由间接话语 "中,福克纳表面上将思想和意识层面以下的思想合二为一地呈现在一个文本流中。特别是昆汀部分,它依赖于一种理想主义的语言图景,即语言本身是有意义的,脱离了任何主体间的语境或重要用途,就好像我们可以绕过交流,进入昆汀的大脑,找到的不是大脑,而是他有意识生活的 "精确语言"。我通过维特根斯坦对精神隐私的批判来考虑这种诱惑。我认为,维特根斯坦的目的并不是要否认或贬低内在性,而是要指责 "内在 "必须是什么样子的某种图景--一个由私人对象组成、只有 "我 "才能进入的领域。因此,我建议我们将《昆廷》视为一种实验,一种呼吁。福克纳试图揭示一个心灵在残酷的苦难中的全貌,但又不强迫这个心灵向我们诉说:告诉我们他们在受苦。我认为,这种呼吁失败了,而在失败中揭示了(并不那么私密的)心灵本质上是如何嵌入一个共同的、主体间的世界的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The (Not-So-)Private Mind: Why Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury Is and Is Not a Failure
Abstract:Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury attempts to represent first-person experience in a radical fashion. In what I call (paradoxically) “free indirect discourse in the first person,” Faulkner ostensibly presents both thought thought and thought below the level of awareness together in one stream of text. The Quentin section in particular relies on an idealistic picture of language as meaningful in itself, apart from any intersubjective context or significant use, as though we could bypass communication and look inside Quentin’s head, finding not the brain but the “exact language” of his conscious life. I consider this temptation by way of Wittgenstein’s critique of the privacy of the mental. Wittgenstein’s aim, I argue, is not to deny or demote interiority, but rather to impugn a certain picture of how “the inner” must look — a realm composed of private objects to which the “I” alone has access. I thus suggest that we think of Quentin as an experiment, an appeal. Faulkner tries to reveal a mind in the brutal fullness of its suffering without forcing that mind to address us: to tell us that they suffer. I contend that this appeal fails, and in failing reveals the manner in which the (not-so-private) mind is essentially embedded in a shared, intersubjective world.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Creativity — Narrativity — Fictionality: A Critical Genealogy Toni Morrison and the Natural World: An Ecology of Color by Anissa Janine Wardi (review) Dispersing the Devil’s Stench: Shifting Perceptions of Sulfuric Miasma in Early Modern English Literatures The Mirror and the Icon: A Theological Perspective on Nabokov’s Pale Fire Creative Work Ethic and Autofiction: Sheila Heti’s How Should a Person Be?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1