Literature, beyond Philosophy and Science

In relation to Elisabeth Bishop’s poems and subjectivity

Bishop breaks the narratives of both the poems “The Fish” and “One Art” to disrupt the presence of the speaker and through this explores an innovative way of elaboration on the question ‘what does “Me” mean.’ Despite being restrained by the surrounding world and intrinsically subject to language, Bishop arranges these literary pieces in a way to situate the “I” in between the subject and object through discarding the direct depiction of herself and her emotions. This essay discusses the mentioned poems in relation to “Me”, and posits that literature and its “other way of thinking” shows how persons are subjected to influential factors such as nature and social.

Every person’s query about the “Me” is a complex idea because by thinking about “Me” a person becomes subject to his or her own query.  This is a longstanding question and has been discussed in various disciplines, particularly in philosophy. Citing from Socrates who has once observed, ‘[t]he unexamined life is not worth living’, Bennett and Royle assert that the question about “Me” which is presumably limited to humans, also defines ‘human being’ in the way it has formed and articulated (151).  The significance of this interpretation is that it underlines the importance of the ways in which the question about “Me” is articulated not merely the question itself. In this respect, whatever knowledge which provides more possibilities in representing this question broadly and distinctively should be considered more valid and critical. According to Bennett and Royle the question about “Me” is “characteristically human” (151), therefore, it should be presented in the literature, which reflects humanity more than any other fields of wisdom.  Literature differs from science and philosophy in that literature is not bounded to mere pieces of evidence such as science, and not limited to specific disciplines of discourse like philosophy. Literature is full of the complexity of human life and provides with an immediacy of acquaintances which are broad, diverse, and unique as human beings. For that literature allows us to say anything. The poem “One Art” aligns a few instances of living experiences in which the existence of the “I” is being examined by the continuation of the very first act of human beings which is “losing”. In fact, we start losing something from the foremost second we come into this world which is that second of time and this act of losing stretches out in the entirety of our life. In Bishop’s point of view “Me” is the disastrous perpetuation of losing things such as “key”, “rivers”, “names”, “cities” and even “a continent”, so it “isn’t hard to master” (178) because it is inevitably the fate of every human being.  Bishop establishes a provocative articulation about the query of “Me” and reflects upon identity by the very wisdom of humanity which is literature.

Every human being is under the influences of either external or internal forces which limit our autonomy and affect the ways in which we perceive the “I” or “Me”. However, a human cannot step out of these forces entirely. Everyone, to some extent, possesses the capabilities to resist a complete subjection. The instance of sailing delivered in the lecture (11/05/2017) is a clear example of this idea given the fact that the sailor is always subject to the wind but he or she has the choice of manipulating the wind and turning its force into positive power for proper manoeuvre and navigation. The influential forces vary from natural forces such as gravity to social factors. Though it also has roots deep in our own self-knowledge as it is quoted in Bennett and Royle’s work, the poststructuralist philosopher Foucault defines the subject as “tied to one’s own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge” (151). However, by the late eighteenth century, human subjectivity had undergone a fundamental change, which was reflected in “European Romanticism in particular through the ‘new emphasis on ‘I’ as a subject who both thinks and feels” (156).  The concurrent characterisation of both thinking and feeling implies a tendency towards a balanced state of being in relation to nature. Since feeling is the process in which human beings grasp external effects and subsequently holds a passive position, on the contrary, humans actively oppose effects through thinking.  Therefore, the main characteristic of the romanticism approach towards subjectivity was the state of “fusion” between subject and object. According to Bennett and Royle “[t]he (impossible) desire for a fusion […] is one of the most striking characteristics of the work of the English romantic poets” (156). This characteristic has been practiced and developed in the mentioned poems by Bishop.  In “The Fish”, there are several stanzas that involve senses: “while his gills were breathing in the terrible oxygen” (50). “rainbow, rainbow, rainbow!” (50) All senses are directed towards a climax in which the speaker overcomes the inevitability of being either subject or object because what he/she fells are only a sudden epiphany through encountering the rainbow at the floor of the old rented boat.

Bishop employs suspense in both poems “The Fish” and “One Art” through breaking the plot of the narratives. Both poems employ the similar approach of descriptive narration which allows the images to follow one another but the ending stanzas suddenly disrupt this smooth flow. In “The Fish” “[a]nd I let the fish go.” (50), and in the “One Art” “though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.” (178) The speaker suddenly steps off talking with the reader and starts telling his or herself. These sudden halts are made possible through a deliberate intervention by the “I” on the self, and because the speaker accosts his or herself the conventional position of subject and object is being disrupted. On the one hand, the “I” has brought in to commence a self-directed imperative and change the flat and linear description of narrative. On the other, it brings the author’s position into a “fusion” in relation to the literary work. It is possible that the author can be considered, in Bennett and Royle’s words, “an ‘I’ before or outside the literary work.” (155). This is the way in which Bishop manipulates the influential factors and resists a complete subjection by stepping outside herself and allowing a fusion between subject and object.

The position of the author may vary in relation to the act of thinking about the “I” and differs from those of philosophers. A close reading of “The Fish” indicates that the author is representing herself through the overall issues that she has with herself; therefore, in this context “I” is the concomitant result of being within nature and not merely “thinking”. In fact, this poem entirely represents the confrontation of the author with herself which subsequently diverts the positions of subject and object. The poem is titled “The Fish” and all the story happens between these two major events which are literally catching and then releasing the fish. From the very first stanza which is “I caught a tremendous fish” (48) to the last one “I let the fish go” (50), the “I” is quite different from that of Descartes.  In Descartes’s view “I think therefore I am” (153). This means that being is the inference of the act of thinking while in this poem the being is practiced rather differently in which “I” is a reference to a subject by the same subject because the whole poem disturbs the “I” with him or herself. However, the story is centred around the fish, but it is nothing more than a pretext. The first few stanzas provide a passive description of the fish. “He didn’t fight. He hadn’t fought at all.” (49). These two stanzas clearly indicate that the fish had come along to a complete submission. Furthermore, the fish carries at least “five old pieces of fish-line […] four […] wire leader […] five big hooks” (49). These are the shreds of evidence that the fish has hooked several times so far. Therefore, it does not make a difference for it to be released or not. In fact, for the fish, the fight is over and whatever is going on entirely relates to the speaker alone. This is the position of the poet who has an issue with herself and thus explores the other ways of representing the “I”. 

In conclusion, the question about “Me” has been a fundamental query throughout the times. However, rather than the question itself, the ways in which it has been explored appear to be more critical. The human characterisation of being able to think and feel has provided us with a choice in how to play around the different influential forces and therefore resist a complete subjection. Literature as a way of thinking has provided Bishop with the means to explore innovative representations of “Me” and develop the state of “fusion” between subject and object. 

References:

  

Bennett, Andrew, and Nicholas Royle. An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, edited by Andrew Bennett, and Nicholas Royle, Taylor and Francis, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=4429796.

Bishop, Elizabeth. “One Art.” Complete Poems, London: Chatto & Windus, (1970). 178. Print.

Bishop, Elizabeth. “The Fish.” Complete Poems, London: Chatto & Windus, (1970). 48-50. Print.

The novel’s innovation

The most significant innovation made by the novel tradition is that it has provided a voice to everyone in literature. As one of the latest contemporary novels, Generation X has also employed and developed this innovation by letting those from the middle class to express their ideas through their own voice. Although there are three main characters in Generation X, the novel is mostly narrated through Andy’s perspective. He is a middle-class man, but the novel makes it possible for him to reflect upon many things in his own deviant view. “You see, when you‘re middle class, you have to live with the fact that history will ignore you”.[1]  From the mainstream society to their own parents the three characters of Generation X complain about everything caused them confusion. “We live small lives on the periphery; we are marginalized”[2]. This is the underdog’s voice and the novel has made it possible that an ordinary and middle-class man achieve such a voice. Therefore, in novel tradition, the representation of individual in literature becomes autonomous, while the other forms such as poetry and essays are rather conservative. Traditionally, poetry considered as the possession of nobility while essays appeared to be more male-dominated form.  

The voice in novel tradition is developed throughout the time in the various manifestation of the novel. The novel becomes a popular form of literature because of its capacity to depict characters within their own voices. The voice is examined at different times in relation to different types of characters. According to MacKay at the time when the novel was not welcomed yet, it was the money that motivated Defoe to write not glory[3].  Defoe was not aware of the fact that his work was going to establish a new genre. The novel “Robinson Crusoe” demonstrates a voice by which the narrator tells the story from a very personal point of view and reflects upon his extraordinary adventures, and expresses his spiritual observations. “I believe for one man, but I was not satisfied still”[4]. Although Crusoe’s voice mostly follows a similar continuity and signifies his own self-awareness, in the contemporary novel such as Orlando different voices through a polyphonic module, are used to make a diverse narration. “I am the guardian of the sleeping fawn; the snow is dear to me; and the moon rising; and the silver sea […] we have no choice left but confess-he was a woman”[5]. This significant innovation within the novel tradition provides a character to reflect upon various experiences including opposite genders and different state of social life, though it still let the novel to keep verisimilitude.

Bibliography

Coupland, Douglas. Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. London: Abacus, 1996.

Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. Victoria 3008, Australia. Penguin Group (Australia), 2010.

MacKay, Marina. “Origins of the Novel.” In The Cambridge Introduction to the Novel 21-33. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011.

Woolf, Virginia. Orlando: A Biography. Vintage Classics. 2004.

---

[1] Coupland, Generation X, 171.

[2] Ibid, 14.

[3] MacKay, Origins of the Novel, 54.

[4] Defoe, Robinson Crusoe, 58.

[5] Woolf, Orlando: A Biography, 85-87

Generation X

Aphorism and its relation to the marginalised people in Generation X

 “USE JETS WHILE YOU STILL CAN”.

This is the graffiti-style aphorism located on page 4, of the novel Generation X by Douglas Coupland. This aphorism is an ironic slogan and also alarms that the western cultures appear to be under the threat of ending because of the clause “while you still can” implies that accessibility of jet is ephemeral. The basic implication of a ‘jet’ is the rapid stream and speed which makes this aphorism to associate directly with the subtitle of the book “Tales for an Accelerated Culture” and through that to the overall theme of the novel. The very first sentence of the book in which this aphorism is also located discloses various details in relation to the narrator particularly his desire to use the jet plane “I spent every penny I then had in the bank to fly across the continent in a 747 jet”[1]. Therefore, this aphorism is connected to the novel from its very outset. The sentence also reveals that the narrator is not a rich person and belongs to the “middle class” as he only affords the flight ticket by all his money. The author coined the neologism of “poverty jet set”[2] to reflect upon other distinctiveness of three characters Andy, Dag and Claire, and correspondingly establishes a relation between the group of people who accomplish cheap travel around the world and the mentioned aphorism. However, this graffiti-style aphorism is located at the lower margin of the page, its highlighted, bold, and capitalised fonts make it highly visible and eye-catching. This vivid contrast together with the sarcastic tone of the slogan turn this aphorism as an attractive blurb of the whole chapter. Although this aphorism along with other marginalia such as images and definitions throughout the whole book may not replace the main text, one can easily acquire the main ideas of the novel by skimming them.

This aphorism also relates to the whole book in the way, it indicates the innovative and contemporary approach to writing the novel. This innovative approach implies that the conventional style of writing novel does not locate marginalised generation into their rightful position or may not have sufficient potential anymore to do so. The novel suggests that the generation who purposefully resists against the harsh realities of the accelerated age of time deserves their specific position in the novel. The author of Generation X places the aphorism at the margin of the book to innovate a new style in writing the novel, as well as to imply the situation of those marginalised in the society. Nevertheless, this innovation has also caused some critical objections to the novel, particularly in relation to its tendency towards ‘Pop Art’[3]. Mentioning the format of the first print of Generation X, Tate criticises that it “resembles a catalogue for a Pop Art retrospective rather than a work of literary fiction”[4]. However, this aphorism and other marginalia sharpen ideas of the novel, make it more innovative, and cause the novel overwhelmingly well received by the readers. Therefore, this aphorism with its quality of alarming irony relates to the novel.

Bibliography

Coupland, Douglas. Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. London: Abacus, 1996.

Tate, Andrew. Douglas Coupland. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. Accessed May 25, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central.

---

[1] Coupland, Generation X, 3.

[2] Ibid, 5.

[3] Tate, Douglas Coupland. Manchester, 11.

[4] Ibid, 11.