Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This is an "open-ended" comment, Gillespie states (p. 53), which leaves to the reader
"the choice of identifying the source of the voice". And he proposes three alternatives:
a) the narrator, b) Stephen, c) Stephen's friend, Cranly. He also claims that it is exactly
this "indeterminacy" of the passage that activates the reader and makes P "infinitely
more complex" than SH.
But Cranly, for all his surprise value, is out as a candidate. He cannot make this
comment, any comment, actually, because he is not present at the moment. Stephen
could phantasize such a response from Cranly, but that is an entirely different reading,
one Gillespie [End of p. 839] does not consider. Then too, what we know of Cranly at
this stage is that his habitual reaction to Stephen's communications is one of "listening
silence"; just a few lines earlier it is Cranly's "listlessness" that strikes Stephen.
Stephen, of course, is an obvious candidate for the voice that confronts us here. So
one would have expected a substantial argument that the text really "invites and
sustains" other readings, let alone "equally valid" ones. From the context we know
that the poem semi-automatically composes itself from stimuli to which Stephen has
just been subjected. The next sentence after the passage in question reads "The word
now shone in his brain". This really ties it up from both ends of the passage: "the
word" is "ivy", "his" refers to Stephen, "now" to the result of Stephen's reflections.
That leaves, or rather, does not leave, the narrator-oriented reading. If the narrator is a
source, Gillespie notes, relentlessly exploring all avenues, "the passage becomes
ironic". But nothing whatever works for this reading. Certainly not the idea of an
explicit narrator-bound (F)ID. The contextual clues, as shown, all point to Stephen.
Stephen is eating his own words, and that is nothing to be ironic about. The narrator
does not think the poem is good, does he?
Let us see what we have learned by exploring a final example, my own:
a heavy bird flying low through the grey light (P, 22).
"A heavy bird" obviously invites various readings. Perhaps it is an owl, because of the
dusk; it is a likely symbol of erudition. Or an albatross, a sea-bird reminiscent of
ancient mariners. An eagle, a gull, and a goose and their numerous associations must
surely also be allowed into the range of possibilities. What's that? A football? Come
now, you've got to draw the line somewhere!
Notes
[1] Michael Patrick Gillespie, Reading the Book of Himself (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University Press, 1989).
[2] Brian McHale, "Free Indirect Discourse: A Survey of Recent Accounts," PTL:
Journal For Descriptive Poetics and the Theory of Literature 3 (1978): 249-287.
[3] Charles Bally, "Le style indirect libre en francais moderne," GermanischRomanische Monatsschrift 4 (1912): 549-556.
[4] Ann Banfield, Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the
Language of Fiction (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982); Brian McHale,
"Unspeakbale Sentences, Unnatural Acts: Linguistics and Poetics Revisited," Poetics
Today 4.1 (1983): 17-45.