The Grotesque System of Liberation in British Modernism (1922-1932) Matthew Eh Nningsen Marquette University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Saving the Grotesque: The Grotesque System of Liberation in British Modernism (1922-1932) Matthew eH nningsen Marquette University Recommended Citation Henningsen, Matthew, "Saving the Grotesque: The Grotesque System of Liberation in British Modernism (1922-1932)" (2015). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 511. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/511 SAVING THE GROTESQUE: THE GROTESQUE SYSTEM OF LIBERATION IN BRITISH MODERNISM (1922-1932) by Matthew Henningsen, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2015 ABSTRACT SAVING THE GROTESQUE: THE GROTESQUE SYSTEM OF LIBERATION IN BRITISH MODERNISM (1922-1932) Matthew Henningsen, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2015 This dissertation re-situates the grotesque in a critical tradition that emphasizes its function as a liberating force, rather than its traditional role as an arouser of terror and amusement. I then apply the grotesque liberation to the High Modern literary environment of Britain in order to reveal the grotesque dimensions of this period. To accomplish these goals of re-situating the grotesque, and applying the grotesque to High Modernism, I create a so-called “Grotesque System of Liberation.” This system consists of three stages (the Symbolic, Real, and Non-Symbolic Symbolic) that trace a specific text’s progress from a state of illusory stability and security, to a state of grotesque destabilization, to a final state of grotesque freedom and liberation. I analyze the grotesque system in High Modern texts by T.S. Eliot (The Waste Land), D.H. Lawrence (esp. “The Ship of Death”), and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World), and aid this analysis with the application of a series of textual markers and linguistic features to these works. Such textual markers and linguistic features help reveal the specific stages of the grotesque system at work in a text. My dissertation ultimately accomplishes two important tasks. It posits a new understanding of the grotesque as a force for liberation from illusory sources of control and power. By examining this new understanding of the grotesque in British High Modernism, it also reveals the grotesqueness of this literary period, or its use of the grotesque as a device for sustaining a state of liberating division and incompleteness. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Matthew Henningsen, B.A., M.A. Thanks must primarily go to Dr. John Boly, my director. His patience and guidance were invaluable resources. Also my committee members, Dr. John Su and Dr. Leah Flack – thank you for your advice and input. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………..i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION: TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROTESQUE SYSTEM OF LIBERATION..…………………………................1 Part I “Both Ridiculous and Terrifying:” Friedrich Schlegel and the Spread of the Emotive Grotesque Tradition...………………………….....1 Part II The Anti-Schlegelian Grotesque Tradition: From Ancient Rome to the “Betweenness” of High Modernism……...………………………….11 Part III Jacques Lacan and the Grotesque System of Liberation...………56 Part IV Establishing the Anti-Schlegelian Grotesqueness of T.S. Eliot, D.H. Lawrence, and Aldous Huxley……..………………………………62 II. “THESE FRAGMENTS I HAVE SHORED AGAINST MY RUINS:” T.S. ELIOT’S TEMPORAL GROTESQUE SYSTEM OF LIBERATION IN THE WASTE LAND…………………………………………………………..72 III. “OH BUILD YOUR SHIP OF DEATH:” A VOYAGE THROUGH D.H. LAWRENCE’S CONTRADICTORY GROTESQUE SYSTEM OF LIBERATION…………………………………………………………………..120 IV. EATING CIVILIZATION: ALDOUS HUXLEY’S SCIENTIFIC GROTESQUE SYSTEM OF LIBERATION IN BRAVE NEW WORLD……...162 V. “HYBRID, TRANSGRESSIVE AND ALWAYS IN MOTION:” FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE ANTI-SCHLEGELIAN GROTESQUE….………...203 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………..226 1 Introduction Towards an Understanding of the Grotesque System of Liberation Now the slave is a freeman, now all the rigid, hostile barriers, which necessity, caprice, or ‘impudent fashion’ have established between human beings, break asunder. Now, hearing this gospel of universal harmony, each person feels himself to be not simply united, reconciled or merged with his neighbor, but quite literally one with him, as if the veil of maya had been torn apart, so that mere shreds of it flutter before the mysterious primordial unity. - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy (1872) I. “Both Ridiculous and Terrifying:” Friedrich Schlegel and the Spread of the Emotive Grotesque Tradition To properly understand the grotesque requires a revision of its standard critical history. This standard history begins with Friedrich Schlegel’s codifying definition for the grotesque in 1798. Writing in the first volume of his Athenäum, Schlegel believes that “grotesqueness is constituted by a clashing contrast between form and content, the unstable mixture of heterogeneous elements, the explosive force of the paradoxical, which is both ridiculous and terrifying” (Kayser 53). This first, codifying definition unleashes a grotesque tradition that foolishly neglects the liberating power of the grotesque. That is, rather than Schlegel’s emotive definition, which views the grotesque as an arouser of comedy and terror, the grotesque, first and foremost, involves a process that culminates in liberation. This anti-Schlegelian grotesque follows the sustained conflict between two incompatible elements. One opponent waves the banner proclaiming security, stability, and order. The army devoted to this side of the grotesque conflict remains zealously loyal due to the comfort derived from assurances of continual security and stability. The opposing army in the grotesque conflict rages against this supposedly secure order. It therefore undermines stability with destabilizing surges of 2 passionate irrationality, and with wild charges impelled by ungovernable impulses and desires. These destabilizing forces of the grotesque believe that such disruption serves a liberating function. The grotesque army of destabilization frees their stability-entranced opponents from the illusion of continual order and stability. While the army of stability desperately tries to save their coveted illusion of security from their destabilizing opponents, such attempts ultimately fail. Devoid of the comforting illusion of stability, individuals freed by the grotesque conflict must bear the heavy weight of their liberation. To remain grotesquely free from an illusion-enslaved existence, these individuals must suffer, or live permanently torn between the lost and illusory comfort of stability, and the destabilizing forces of the grotesque conflict. John Ruskin, discussed throughout this study, remarks on this liberating imperfection, or freedom from totalizing sources of stability, when he writes, in Modern Painters (1856), “it seems not only permissible, but even desirable, that the art by which the grotesque is expressed should be more or less imperfect” (138). Imperfect grotesque art frees individuals from false states of security, stability, and perfection, and, as discussed, in turn creates a suffering-based state of liberation that stands as the crowning achievement of the anti-Schlegelian grotesque. Unfortunately, Friedrich Schlegel’s 1798 definition above disregards the grotesque as a liberating force, and sets the stage for over 2 centuries of misguided investigations of the grotesque. Schlegel serves as the progenitor of this misguided grotesque tradition when he asserts that the grotesque conflict, while indeed involving “the unstable mixture of heterogeneous elements,” produces a situation “which is both ridiculous and terrifying.” Schlegel, that is, correctly starts the grotesque battle between two “heterogeneous elements,” or between the “heterogeneous” armies of stability and 3 instability, but goes wrong when he writes that this grotesque battle results in a “ridiculous and terrifying” outcome. The Schlegelian grotesque here indelibly binds itself to comedy and terror. Two “heterogeneous elements” wage a grotesque war that ends, according to Schlegel, with a laugh, and a feeling of terror. Such an outcome imparts an anticlimactic aspect to the grotesque. The grotesque, rather than acting as a liberator of the illusion-enslaved, merely arouses a fleeting smile and a fleeting feeling of terror. Schlegel robs the grotesque of its liberating power. He instead makes it emotive, or an arouser of transitory feelings. In consequence, Schlegel spawns a misguided critical tradition over the next 2 centuries. During this time, critics of the grotesque continue to ignore the grotesque’s function as a liberator of the illusion-enslaved. These critics in fact write with a type of Schlegelian tunnel vision. They cannot see the grotesque as a liberator because their attention remains preoccupied by the emotive products of the grotesque. Within the nineteenth century, John Ruskin exemplifies this tunnel vision Schlegelian critic by demanding that the comedy and terror aroused by the grotesque be referred to as, the “sportive grotesque” and the “terrible grotesque.” However, Ruskin’s other ideas, especially his writings on the work of art in the Industrial Age, link him to the anti- Schlegelian grotesque tradition (see the discussion of Ruskin later, in Part II, for more information on his unique position in the history of the grotesque). In his 1874 work, The Stones