NATHALIE SARRAUTE: Reactions” That We Sense Inside Us--Those TROPISMS and the Inner Movements Called “Tropisms” by 1 Sarraute--Become Perceptible

NATHALIE SARRAUTE: reactions” that we sense inside us--those TROPISMS AND THE inner movements called “tropisms” by 1 Sarraute--become perceptible. Briefly, the DRAMA OF LOGOS prelinguistic impulses, which are the basic emotions underlying everyday human Nipaporn Tirasait2 interrelationships, become the key concept of all her short, intense plays under the form of “logodrama.” Abstract Introduction Nathalie Sarraute created a new style of writing, renouncing the accepted literary Nathalie Sarraute (1900-1999), a French forms by discarding conventional ideas novelist, essayist, and playwright, is one of about plot, chronology, and the most interesting female writers of the characterization. Research in this area 20th century. Her works, well known in has consistently shown that, in Sarraute, France, have now been translated into language is at the heart of her drama. more than 30 languages all over the world. However, this essay emphasizes that she Sarraute has been one of the strongest played with the power of words and creative influences on the New Novel or silences to make us hear far beyond the Nouveau Roman movement. In the history social surface of discourse and grasp what of modern French Literature, she is classed is really going on in the minds of the as one of the leading theorists, along with interlocutors. Against the structural Noble prize winners Claude Simon, Alain linguistics of her time, Sarraute Robbe-Grillet, and Michel Butor. But her concentrated on every phoneme, every “interpersonal tropisms” were strongly syllable of a word or an expression, criticized by Robbe-Grillet. For him, the testing and retesting it from all angles myth of interior movements, as a until those extremely rapid “invisible substance of literature, made her work old- fashioned and based on classical psychology. Ideologically, for this 1 This paper is partly based on my doctoral “nouveau romancier,” whose La Jalousie dissertation in French, entitled “Ecriture (Jealousy, 1957) is a very well-known théâtrale de Nathalie Sarraute,” presented at example of the genre, language can be, at The Graduate School of Chulalongkorn one and the same time, both the form and University in 2005. The study is an attempt to understand the theme of Nathalie Sarraute’s the substance of literature. For Sarraute, plays. I am grateful to my thesis director: on the other hand, language is an all-too- Associate Professor Dr. Kachitra human means of communication to which Bhangananda, and my co-director: Assistant we only partly or imperfectly accede. Professor Dr. Walaya Rukapan, whose What interests her is that which remains suggestions greatly improved my work. And ensconced beneath the linguistic surface: most importantly, I would like to thank the not-yet-verbalized sensations or Assistant Professor Dr. Paniti Hoonswaeng feelings. and Dr. Stephen Coote for their valuable and helpful comments. In this paper, I explicate the essential 2 Lecturer, French Section, Department of Western Languages, Faculty of Humanities, elements of her theatre by analyzing three Naresuan University, Phisanulok, Thailand. aspects common to her six plays:

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

dramatized tropisms, the drama of logos, entirely objective quality. Furthermore, and the roles of interlocutors without according to her beliefs, literature is not a identity. scientific matter emphasizing facts and information. So, it seemed absurd to her The dramatized tropisms to attempt to describe the external world according to the concept of mimesis that A series of brief passages in Nathalie influenced contemporary authors. Jean- Sarraute’s first work, Tropisms (1939),3 Paul Sartre, for example, a great writer and shows that inexpressible human critic of Sarraute’s time, held that a true experiences exist and that these literature reflected the real world and 5 indefinable movements slip through us on aimed to change human life. He admired the frontiers of consciousness. They hide literary works that represented the actual behind our gestures, beneath the words we condition of the world in general and, in speak, but they are the origins of our particular, the struggle of individuals to actions, discourse, and the feelings we define themselves through their manifest.4 responsibilities. In one of her interviews, Sarraute confirmed that she was not Her tropisms also imply that in reality we interested in this kind of Sartrean do not all see the same things or feel the existentialism, especially not in his theory same way. Thus perception is not an of political and social engagement:

[. . .] what I write has absolutely 3 In the Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27 nothing to do with social or (1966: 156), tropism refers to the involuntary political events, whatever they tendency of an organism to react to an external might be. No more than in the stimulus, as a sunflower, for example, turns work of Proust. It’s totally toward light. In biology, it is an involuntary movement of an organism or of its parts in removed from that. [. . .] This is not response to some external stimulus such as littérature engage. light or chemical agents. The ability to react to (Halicks 1980: 13) 6 environmental influences is a basic and universal characteristic of living organisms. Her writings show how to go beyond the The type of reaction elicited by any given baseline of so-called realism. Against the stimulus is generally adaptive, in that it tends positivist mode of empirical investigation to further the welfare of and perpetuate the and documentary that coincides with the individual. A human hand brought into rise of realism or naturalism, her entire contact with a hot stove immediately and involuntarily moves away from the harmful oeuvre can be labeled sentimental, playing influence. The shoot of a green plant will turn on feeling or on the audience’s emotions toward light, which is the source of the energy involved in its food-manufacturing processes. 5 In his theoretical works, such as Qu’est-ce

4 que la littérature? (What Is Literature? 1948), «Ce sont des mouvements indéfinissables, Sartre investigated the roles of literature and qui glissent très rapidement aux limites de argued that its contemporary function was to notre conscience; ils sont à l’origine de nos change the world. gestes, de nos paroles, des sentiments que nous 6Cf: http://www.Wooster.edu/artfuldodge/inter manifestons» (Sarraute 1996:1553). All translations in this paper, when not otherwise views/sarraute.htm [March 10, 2006]. stated, are mine.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

rather than on reason. These qualities According to her, the writer, as an artist, become the unifying thread throughout her “creates a new world which comes to work, where essential questions that probe enlarge known reality and extends the the frontiers of little-understood field further from the visible one” phenomena are presented. (Sarraute 1996: 1619). But the playwright did not tell about interior adventures. She Traditional writers, especially writers of brought them alive through the interaction the late 19th and the early 20th century such between the two poles of the “linguistic as Honoré Balzac7, Emile Zola, and Mark interpersonages,”8 until the stage of the Twain whose works were termed conflict could be skillfully exaggerated. It “realistic” and who took as their subject was not by chance that she chose and put matter the real world (people, places, and in the high-speed negative tropisms. things), believed that an objective picture Although Sarraute asserted that the of the world could be completely tropismic reaction could be attraction or represented with words and typically used repulsion, only negative tropisms were devices such as plot, characters, and emphasized in her plays to better description to accomplish their task. On dramatize the world of her the other hand, Sarraute abandoned these interpersonages. The stage requires conventional notions and called into conflict and violence. question the traditional modes of literary realism. She took tropisms seriously as Here follows her justification in a manifest her subject matter. Thus the literary point of 1990: of view comes from inside the human mind and from sensibility. What was I prefer to take them when there is represented in her plays was the fleeting a state of conflict; that bubbles and powerful emotions with which one more. Otherwise, all is calm. I reacts to other human beings. Sarraute choose the moment when made us enter the preconsciousness of something does not go, something each “character” and taught us to very light, hardly sensitive. I look understand that truth was intersubjective. then at what occurs when one So, in her works, binary oppositions like observes it with a magnifying objective/subjective have little or no glass. meaning. (Rykner 2002:194)

Sarraute poised her microscope to observe To let us sense the inner vibrations, and examine these tropisms, which were Sarraute privileged the dynamic plays with hidden in a back corner of the spirit. the mechanism of dialogue and, in particular, with small facts about language: imperceptible silences, the light 7 In her interview, Sarraute underlined that the lie, the abnormal pronunciation or work of Balzac was great for his time but his ridiculous intonation, banal expressions. psychological way of creating the realistic The “characters” feel tiny vibration characters was too simple for our 20th-century world, where many studies have shown that human beings can not be easily described 8 For more details, see Pavis (2002 b). using simplified psychological forms (see Rykner 2002 : 183).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

crossing in them. In fact, no words or and approach tropisms just by listening to definitions can describe what they feel. It the intelligent conversations in her plays: is about something deeper, more essential. Nathalie Sarraute wasn’t In a word, these intersubjective interested in either the social experiences constitute the entire reality in relationships or physical each of her plays. And the new aesthetics appearances of her characters. of truth, especially of human inner reality They are spokesmen or, even through the linguistic world, is remarkably better, speakers bearing words. focused. In her plays, only negative Their faces don’t count. They are tropisms are dramatized. With no contained entirely within their dramatis personae, no stage directions, no spoken words, which reveal and actions, her plays portray inner self and denounce them, and make them interior truths that depend on how each fleetingly transparent. Just listen “character” is reacting to the outside to them. They are dialogues for world, including other selves. These the blind. [. . .] Nathalie Sarraute quasi-emotions, called the tropisms, sticks to the word. Words are the become central to Sarraute’s art in the be all and end all here, ricocheting form of Language Theatre. off the stagnant waters and stirring up their depths. [. . . ] They betray The drama of logos us and ultimately reveal who we are. Nathalie Sarraute (1996: 1712) announced (Marcabru 1999: 1)10 that in all of her plays, action was absent and replaced by the flux or reflux of The “logodrama” of Sarraute often results 9 language. Rykner has proposed calling when certain words are mispronounced, her theatrical work the “drama of logos” or such as a suffix -ism in her play Isma “logodrama” (1988: 44). The speakers in (1970). A group of friends feel each of her plays repeat certain words or embarrassed at hearing a couple wrongly phrases along with variants thereof so pronounce every word ending in ism as often that they become odd and unsettling. isma: Structuralisma, Syndicalisma, etc. It seems that the interlocutors are not cognizant of the contents of the strange Elle, incited: Isma. Isma. Ma. Ma and often hurtful discourse that they . . . Capitalisma. habitually engage in. Syndicalisma. Structuralisma. His Marcabru has underlined that Sarraute’s way of pronouncing drama of logos is a “theatre for the blind” isma . . . The rising because we can understand her plays, feel ending . . . That gets under my skin. . . Deeper . . . Always deeper. Up to the 9 Professor Arnaud Rykner, University of Toulouse, is a specialist in Nathalie Sarraute’s 10 oeuvre. For further details, see http://w3.univ- Cf: http://entractes.sacd.fr/en/n_archieves/att/ tlse2.fr/lla/equipe/fiches/ryknr.html. hommages.php[March 15, 2006]. The original French text appeared in Le Figaro (Marcabru 1999).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

heart . . . Like a between fact and fiction. Finally, he tries poison . . . Isma . . . to understand the simply anodyne lie that Isma . . . we meet everywhere in our daily lives. His friend Jacques explains how to reject H. 2: Oh goodness. I have to stop preconceived notions of the “real” you. That is all obvious . . . because, for him, there is no objective or It’s Meaningless . . . inherent meaning. Some lines of this fragmentary conversation in Le Mensonge Elle: What is? can question our habitual ways of H. 2: This way of pronouncing the perceiving “reality”: words ending in -ism, that strikes you , doesn’t it? Pierre : The facts. The truth. It is there. Elle: Yes. Isma . . . At the end of Jacques : First of all, begin by the words . . . not calling that the (Sarraute 1996: 1440) truth. Change its name. It is a name, as Therefore, the end of every word -ism soon as we pronounce pronounced as -isma “is like the tail of a it, it imprints itself scorpion. It pricks us... it pours out its indelibly. We hold fast venom in us.” to that as if our life depended on it . . . We In Le Mensonge (The Falsehood, 1996), consider it inescapable the fragments of dramatic dialogue . . . It is necessary to between the interlocutors show that change that . . . Call language is not a kind of undistorting that the falsehood . . . mirror of, or perfectly transparent window (Sarraute 1996: 1411) to, the “real.” Realism, in the simplified sense of a one-to-one relationship between In others of her plays, certain ways to the signifier and the thing it represents, is stress some expressions are discussed. In questioned. In our daily conversation, we Pour un oui ou pour un non (Just for always deceive ourselves into believing Nothing,1993), two intimate friends reach that language can be the right instrument the point of complete noncommunication for bringing about our ideologically because of the fatal pause between the constructed sense of the fact or the “real.” phrases: “C’est biiiien . . . ça . . .”- But, in fact, it seems that we never fully (“That’s… goooood . . .”) : offer up the world in all its complexity, its irreducible plenitude. Its verisimilitude is H. 2: Well . . . You said to me an effect achieved through the deployment sometime ago . . . You said of certain literary and ideological to me . . . when I boasted of conventions which have been invested my success . . . I can’t with a kind of truth value. Pierre, the remember which one . . . protagonist of Le Mensonge, cannot stand yes . . . derisorily . . . when it when he hears someone telling a lie. He I told you about it . . . you becomes quite nervous when Simone said to me : “That’s . . . good slides between true and false memories, . . .”

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

H. 1: Say again, please . . . I can’t In fact, she began this kind of theme in understand. 1964, with her first play, Le Silence, where a “character” feels embarrassed, keeps H. 2: You said to me: “That’s . . . silent, and lets his friend talk about the good . . .” Just with this beauty of poetry. In her plays, silence is a stress . . . this accent [. . . ] dynamic way of saying something beyond words.10 Jean-Pierre, “le silencieux”, who H. 1: Well, then I said to you: says nothing during the friendly “That’s good?” conversation in Le Silence, becomes the center of discussion and “the real poet”: H. 2: Not completely so . . . there “One who says word does not agree. You was a bigger interval don’t like translating [. . .] As I admire between “That’s” and you. You are a poet. The real one . . . A “good”: “That’s . . . poet, it’s you . . .” goooood.” An accent put on (Sarraute 1996: 1389). “good” . . . a drawing out: “goooood . . .” and a pause So, talking or keeping silent, all of these after “that’s” . . . It is not linguistic trespassings, provoke or reveal unimportant. tropisms. From her first play, Le Silence, (Sarraute 1996: 1499) to the last one, Pour un oui ou pour un non, each of her dramatic works gives the So what is important in our daily discourse small irritations of the language games and is not only what we say but how we say it. antagonisms of a lifetime the airing that Pour un oui ou pour un non also leaves us most long intimate relationships require at recognizing how much swerving there is one time or another. And the discussion is between what we would like to say and typically focused on the ways in which what, fatally and unwillingly, we end up certain words, phrases, and tones of voice pronouncing. can truly hurt the interlocutors. With no series of events, no dramatic actions, In C’est beau (It’s Beautiful, 1975),11 through fragments of dialogue in absurd Sarraute played successfully with the situations, her “logodrama” aims for a value cliché. When one says: “It’s greater understanding, both in detail and in beautiful” before a great artistic work, one scope, about the inner world, sensations, just estimates the unutterable pleasure of or all about the interpersonal tropisms. art. According to Sarraute, it seems absurd to transmit aesthetic experience in On stage, two people, or two groups-- common terms. That’s why the maybe they are parents and son, maybe protagonist in this play comes to this they are friends--are talking. But the conclusion: “It is this expression “It’s important thing is not only what they are beautiful” that demolishes everything in saying but how they try to communicate me. . . It is sufficient that we just stick it their incommunicable feelings. In on anything and immediately everything addition, the drama underneath the takes a sight. . .” (Sarraute 1996: 1467). dialogue on stage reveals little by little a secret unknown zone of sensations. Often the actors speak words which would 11 For more details, see Pavis (2000).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

normally remain unspoken. And her plays a disaster. It’s lucky he didn’t show that the words are always know it existed. accompanied by, or derive from, (Halicks 1980: 41) sensations or feelings. Sometimes, it is the tone in which it is said that makes people In her entire oeuvre, she avoided the all- look to the depths of their self. Language too-predictable psychological analysis and is here depicted as emerging into sidestepped the pitfalls of discourse. preconsciousness. Consequently, what her “characters” experience is something that happens However, Sarraute is very far removed inside, in the midst of happening, the ebb from the classic categories of psychology. and flow of the psyche existing at a She did not agree with Freud and Lacan.12 prelinguistic level during human So her works always show that interaction. Therefore, one never knows psychoanalysis is too simple to explicate how to analyze these nameless fragments and analyze our inner worlds.13 The of inner reality at the moment that one common practice of analyzing one’s experiences them. Moreover, the feelings is, for Sarraute, something very “characters” in her plays are not individual out-of-date. And she believed that there modes of consciousness and thinking that existed the involuntary movement of our use words as an instrument; rather, they emotions before we recognized them as become the instrument of language for emotions or as thoughts. What interested examining the limits of discourse. So, her Sarraute was a mental universe where plays are often called avant-garde because psychological terms were not introduced. they encompass a number of new forms of literary endeavor which get rid of According to one of her interviews, traditional, psychologically “realistic” psychoanalysis is not only unnecessary for characters. creating literary works, but also harmful: Roles of interlocutors without

identity I don’t admire Freud as much as some people do. [. . . ] There was Nathalie Sarraute considered a human much more in Hamlet, which he being to be, not a “person,” but rather a studied, than in all that he put in it. “vessel of psychic states.” And, in all of So I think, of course, he took his her works, it is necessary to destroy the substance from literature, but it’s traditional concept of identity. This is not the writers who have to take because all our inner worlds are, for her, their substance from Freud. the same. Imagine Shakespeare being aware of the Oedipal complex when he I have no feeling of having an wrote Hamlet. It would have been identity. Looking at myself from the outside, I know [what the ‘je’ is]. I am ‘me,’ ‘je’ . . . whatever 12 See Lassalle (2002: 65) and Rykner (2002: 184). you want to call it. . . . But on the 13 Cf. certain passages of her literary works inside . . . there is no more ‘je’ . . . where psychoanalysis is ironically questioned I cannot see myself. . . . I cannot (Sarraute 1996: 47-48, 343, 1434, 1456-9). imagine for a single instant what

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

you see of me. It’s simply impossible. . . . We see something compact inside ourselves- something with qualities and defects, with character traits that form a ‘personality.’ Looking at ourselves from the outside, we usually find this ‘something’ to be likeable, pleasant. Yet if we place ourselves where I do [in my writings] . . . , we are in fact such immensities, and there are so many things going on, that-seen from the inside-there is no identity whatsoever. (Benmussa 1987)14

With no personal identity, the “characters” in her plays incarnate a kind of universal interlocutor who we can meet anywhere in any possible world. In order to explain the roles of the actors in a fiction, A. J. Greimas15 (1966), inspired by the structural linguistics, studied Lithuanian folktales and proposed that the key structures were functions and characters: Destinateur (Sender), Destinataire (Receiver), Objet (Object), Sujet (Subject), Adjuvant (Supporter), Opposant (Opponent). His scheme, which is described as “actantial,” because it focuses on the actions of persons and the narrative functions, has been variously presented through diagram. The one contained in figure 1 comes from an analysis by Pavis (2002a: 3).

14 For more details, see Taylor (2000).

15 Algirdas Julius Greimas was born 1917 in Tula, Russia and died 1992 in Paris. He was a Lithuanian linguist who contributed to the theory of semiotics and also researched Lithuan mythology. He originated the semiotic square. Cf.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Algirdas_Julien_Greimas (March 23, 2007).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

Sender Receiver

Object

Subject

Supporter Opponent

Figure 1: The actantial model of Greimas

Rykner (1988: 46) has established a new According to Rykner, the protagonists of model to be used as a guide for analyzing Sarraute should be divided in two poles: the logodrama of Nathalie Sarraute. His the carrier (porteur) and the hunter model, shown in figure 2, is more (chasseur) of tropisms. The carrier of appropriate and more interesting than the tropisms is the “character” who feels these former model created by Greimas. As we tiny indescribable vibrations. The hunter have said, in Sarraute’s plays, action, plot, of tropisms questions the normal usage of and story are absolutely absent. Her discourse and tries to understand these “characters” are only speakers, speakers inexpressible inner movements. The without an identity who seem minor “characters” (actants secondaires) appropriately to be called interlocutors, are also divided in two groups: the or,: more precisely, “inter-actants” ones supporters (adjuvants) who defend the who do nothing but talking during an carrier of tropisms, and the opponents interaction. So, to analyze her plays (opposants), who help the hunter of following Greimas’s actantial model is tropisms make this war of words on the absurd. carrier.

Carrier

Secondary characters Hunter Secondary characters (Supporters) (Opponents)

Figure 2: A new actantial model of Sarraute’s logodrama, proposed by Rykner

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

This new model implies that Sarraute’s Secondly, on the supportater–opponent logodrama is the hunting of tropisms. By axis, the secondary interpersonages of applying this model, we can understand Sarraute’s theatre are also regarded as more easily the roles of all speakers in her interactants, in a circle of friendly or plays. The actantial model of Rykner family conversation. They can also seems more justifiable than that of facilitate and/or hinder the carrier. It Greimas. I consider this diagram, appears necessary to add more dynamic suggested by Rykner, as the essential base. and dialectical bonds between Sarraute’s However, although Rykner’s model is interpersonages. I propose a different very interesting and creative, it seems to model for her microscopic drama below. be based on a traditional concept of actions and characters. How can one Our new diagram underlines the trajectory understand the real theme of these “non- of interaction, or, more precisely, action action” plays of Sarraute? I allow myself parlée ‘speech act’ (after Pavis 2002:11), two remarks here. Firstly, this diagram between the various “characters.” The still remains on the actantial level. Thus, hunter--carrier axis of tropisms is thus at the diagram does not adapt with dynamic the heart of the logodrama. And the interaction between the two poles of these supporter-- opponent axis, comprising the interpersonages. Although the carrier does secondary interpersonages, including the not speak or almost does not, “he” cannot collective voices, is put on scene to enrich not communicate. And “he” is still the the polyphonic dialogue. principal interactant instigating the logodrama. Moreover, the dialectical exchanges between the two equals are essential. Without this interactive aspect, the transmissibility of tropisms cannot be clearly explained.

Carrier of Tropisms

Secondly,Supporters on the supporter-opponent Hunteraxis, of Tropisms Opponents the secondary interpersonnages of Figure 3: An interactantial model of Sarraute’s plays

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

The hunter of tropisms is one who hunter is hypersensitive because he can encourages, then impels, the carrier to feel waves of invisible tropisms coming speak. In general, the hunter wants from the carrier but cannot stand this everyone to understand, classify, prelinguistic universe. He begins his categorize, fix, and name the inexpressible impossible mission. emotions that hide behind the small linguistic facts: silence, the too obvious He seeks, detects, unearths, and names the lie, the irritating pronunciation or underground vibration of the carrier and intonation, etc. But the tropism carrier then of himself. The hunter also seems to cannot express everything nor explain it. gain something through his interaction Faced with an indefinable universe, “he” with tropisms. That is because tropisms prefers to remain silent. are contagious.

I draw two arrows from the secondary Then, the arrow which passes from the “characters” on the sides to the carrier of axis of the carrier towards the hunter tropisms in order to emphasize that seems necessary for us. Firstly, it is the Sarraute’s drama of logos is a kind of carrier who transmits, with or without closed-in-itself conversation in a linguistic intention, tropisms to the hunter. The world that does not require the external hunter tries to decipher the negligible world. tremors through the surface indices: dumbness, the obvious lie, ridiculous I also draw an arrow from the carrier to the intonation, etc. But there is something that hunter of tropisms in order to underline cannot be deciphered. This unknown or that there is an intersubjectivity or an inexpressible universe threatens the hunter interrelation between the interlocutors in of tropisms. The two poles are catalyzed, this hunt for underground vibrations. In and the two roles could be changed. I this new diagram, there is a bond between place the arrow there to emphasize this the secondary interpersonages and the possibility and to indicate that a carrier. So, on the supporter–opponent transmission of these imperceptible axis, it seems essential to add two arrows tropisms occurs. Lastly, this arrow going up towards the carrier of tropisms to symbolizes that there is, at the last, one improve the circle of the closed other tropismic fable before stage. conversation in this intimate microcosm. Consequently, the diagram forms a Using this interactantial diagram, we can pyramid, which symbolically announces understand and analyze the roles of all the simultaneously both the interactive play of interlocutors in Sarraute’s logodrama more the interactants and the enigma of this precisely. In theory, one could say that the myth of interiority. logodrama lays particular emphasis on mechanisms of the polyphonic dialogue. On the hunter--carrier axis, one identifies And it is the sayings that determine the two interactant protagonists. The carrier of roles of these two groups of protagonists, tropisms grasps what is really going on in or two groups of antagonists. The principal the inner world, but he does not know how interactants represent in fact two to express. Thus, he engenders differentiated tendencies. embarrassment, fear, anxiety, and agony in the other interpersonages. In contrast, the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

The tabular presentation (Figure4) enables All the Chatterers in each of her first five one to see that in the first five plays of plays may thus be regarded as hunters of Sarraute, there is no change of roles tropisms. On the other hand, all the between the hunter and the carrier of silencers are carriers of tropisms. tropisms. These plays share a common Accordingly, the following “characters” macrostructure. In each of them, the hunter 16 of tropisms is very talkative, e.g. H. 1 of may be identified as the protagonists: The Silence, while the carrier of tropism, Jean-Pierre in The Silence, F. in Over like Jean-Pierre, says almost nothing. There, the Dubuit in Isma,and the son in It’s Beautiful.

Sarraute’s Principal interactants Secondary interactants plays Carrier of tropisms Hunter of tropisms

LE SILENCE Jean-Pierre H. 1 F. 1, F. 2, F. 3, F. 4, H. 2, (The Silence) Background noise, VOICES, VARIOUS VOICES

LE MENSONGE Simone JACQUES, JEANNE, (The Falsehood) (Madeleine) Pierre JULIETTE, LUCIE, ROBERT, VINCENT, YVONNE, CHORUS, VARIOUS VOICES, VOICES

ISMA (les Dubuit) Elle et lui F. 1, F. 2, F. 3, H. 1, H. 2, H. 3, Background noise, VOICES

VOICES, VOICES OF C’EST BEAU le fils Elle et lui M. DURANTON, VOICES OF (It’s Beautiful) MME DURANTON, VOICES OF THE DURANTON AND OF OTHERS, VARIOUS VOICES ELLE EST LA F. H. 2 F., H. 1, H. 3 (Over There)

POUR UN OUI OU POUR UN NON H. 2/H.1 H. 1/ H. 2 F., H. 3, EUX (Just for Nothing)

Figure 4: Roles of the interactants in the six plays of Sarraute

16 See the organization of Sarraute’s dialogue in Tirasait (2004: 158, 159, 161, 162, and 164.)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

In The Falsehood, Simone, who plays the H. 2: [. . .] Yes, for me, you see. . . role of the liar, is the cause of all the the life is there . . . But what madness in the play. The liar thus plays do you want? the role of the carrier of tropisms. I also place Madeleine’s name in brackets to H. 1: “the life is . . . simple and indicate that she is missing on stage but is quiet there . . .” “the life is . regarded as the carrier of tropisms because . . simple and quiet there . . her overly obvious lie evokes but .” It is from Verlaine, isn’t negligible tremors among other characters. it? From the very first lines of this play, Pierre, the hunter, feels constrained and H. 2: Yes, it is from Verlaine . . . threatened. The other characters are also But why? irritated (Sarraute 1996: 1403). H. 1: From Verlaine. It is that. In the same way, in Isma, the Dubuit are never present on stage. But their H. 2: I did not think of Verlaine ... pronunciation, in Isma, irritates Lui and I only said: the life is there, Elle enormously. They, then, play the role that’s all [ . . .] of the carrier of tropisms. As for the secondary interactants, the other characters H. 1: Good. Let’s admit. You had and the voices are there to enrich the not thought of it, but you will polyphony in Sarraute’s dialogue. Thus, I recognize that with the small wall, place them in the same secondary position the roof, and the sky over the roof as Rykner, without specifying their role as . . . one was there into full . . . either supporter or opponent. Often, the (Sarraute 1996: 1509-1510). secondary interactants help the hunter

simplify, classify, and name the unknown vibrations. Sometimes, they help both the Although H. 2 insists that he does not hunter and the carrier reach the quote the words of Verlaine, H. 1 can commonplaces for compromising. benefit from this occasion to criticize “his” friend by showing that H. 2 must However, in her last play, Just for Nothing use stereotypes just as others do. In (1993), the two poles seem this way, H. 2 loses his position as poet interchangeable. And the organization of and achieves the role of hunter by the interpersonages is differentiated. At classifying and naming things. the beginning of the play, H. 1 goes to see H. 2 in order to ask why H. 2 tries to H. 1: Eh well, I know. Everyone distance “himself” from H. 1. So one may knows it. On one side, the say that H. 1 starts in the role of the hunter camp where I am, where of tropisms. But by the end, “he” has people fight, where they give become the carrier. On the other hand H. all their forces . . . they 2, the carrier, who is afraid of fixed form; create the life around them . and hates stereotypes, no longer knows . . not that which you how to express the negligible emotion and contemplate by the window, also uses the commonplace. “He” finally but the “true one”, that becomes the hunter of tropisms

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

which all live. And in this type is regarded as the whole of addition . . . eh well . . . counterparts which escape from the logical projection of the action and which can be H. 2: Eh well? structured in a melodic way, such as a chorus or the song of several voices. At H. 1: Eh well . . . the level of the characters, it corresponds to a community which is not carried any H. 2: Eh well? more by the stake of individual confrontation. In It’s Beautiful, for H. 1: No . . . example, we find that there is a mixture between the anonymous voices and the H. 2: Yes. I will say it for you . . . named voices. The anonymous voices are Eh well, on the other side there to give the public opinion or a there are the “failures”. comment on a subject. When the father (Sarraute 1996: 1512) does not understand the behavior of his son, for example, the voice announces that

everyone, at his age, act like him. H. 2, who refuses conformism, is finally attracted by a common label to identify LUI: [. . .] he does not like it . . ., people who live outside of the fixed He is interested in the comic standards. And this banal word once again strips. . . in the television . . . gives occasion for H. 1 to attack H. 2. Thus, one could say that in the last play, VOICE: Ah what do you want? It the two roles alternate. is of his time . . . it is normal, he is like everyone . . . One can also see that Sarraute’s plays (Sarraute 1996: 1461) present a new style of chorus, a kind of polyphony.17 I note that the interest of the Contrary to the anonymous voices, the polyphonic organization of different named voices, like the speech of our close voices in her logodrama does not, as in the relations, present a less impassive conventional or ancient Greek drama, prospect, and the council seems more serve the purpose of telling the story or sympathetic. acting as a kind of prologue or epilogue. Often in her plays, these mysterious voices VOICE OF THE DURANTON: talk with the “characters.” Ah my poor friend, you are there . . . To ask for assistance . . . to go It seems that the polyphony in Sarraute is to consult healers, the bonesetters one of her means of avoiding a kind of . . . to put questions to Aunt monologue and underlining the interaction Melanie . . . of discourse. For her, there is always (Sarraute 1996: 1464) interpersonal interaction during tropismic communication.18 Generally, polyphony of The voices of these invisible characters are not regarded as the spokespersons of the

17 For more details, see Tirasait (2004: 40-44). 18 See explication of polyphonic roles in Tirasait (2004: 30-42).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

author of tropism. Because they mainly plurality, the hybridization, and the announce the ideas of the community. The dynamic assembly of the multiple voices. voices and the background noise of The Silence, for example, criticize the Generally, in Sarraute’s writing, the characters. But the comments given by discourse of the characters is circular, and these voices are sometimes debatable, ambiguous. In deconstructing the because one does not see clearly if these exchanges between her interpersonages, voices are criticizing H. 1, who describes the ambiguity becomes the true interest of the beautiful landscape poetically, or Jean- her logodrama. In The Silence, for Pierre, the silencer, who listens to the example, instead of composing and description without anything to say configuring directly the image of her (Sarraute 1996: 1384). protagonist Jean-Pierre in the list of characters, Sarraute presents contradictory From time to time, these anonymous qualities through the sayings of others. voices answer the questions of the So, we cannot be sure if Jean-Pierre, who characters and speak with them. One does remains silent during the friendly not know who these voices are nor where conversation, is good or bad. The they come from. Normally, they come secondary interpersonages seek possible from beyond the stage. One hears the causes and give labels to better explain the voices without ever seeing the speakers. behavior of the silencer: the carrier of Thus, they take the form of a mysterious tropisms. But his image is truly intervention. contradictory.19

H.1: [. . .] Oh, forgiveness . . . You Generally, the characters of Sarraute are heard? not only constructed but “deconstructed” Various voices: -No-No, nothing . during the dialogue. Sarraute never . . -Heard what? provided textual clues about any of the characters’ personalities. All of this H.1: A whistle . . .There was a confirms that, for her, identity is always whistle . . . I heard . . . indefinable. Moreover, the real roles of (Sarraute 1996: 1388) her characters are as speakers. So their sayings are more important than their It seems these voices play the part of physical appearances and actions on stage. collective characters who give the general opinion of the community. This small In each of her plays, the mechanism of fragment of the dialogue shows that H. 1 is tropism often starts before the “characters” the only one who hears Jean-Pierre’s appear on stage. In The Silence, the whistle or the only one who believes that opening scene jumps in medias res, with he whistled. The other characters and the the encouragement of F.1 (Sarraute 1996: voices do not hear anything. It should also 1403). “She” wishes that H. 1 would be noted that it is the dramatic author who continue to describe the beautiful distributes the turns of word among the landscape using common terms. Thus characters, to organize the whole of the dialogue. From this point of view, one clearly finds the taste for the polyphony of 19 See this game of polyphonic discourse in her Sarraute, the taste for the mixture, the play and the image of God/Satan in Tirasait (2004: 133).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

before the stage action, tropism is already better cataloguing and for naming what the there. One can imagine that, while H. 1 is Dubuit have done. talking about what “he” admires during “his” journey, Jean-Pierre, the carrier of LUI : Denigration? De-ni-gra-tion. tropisms, who is one of his listeners, feels Yes, it is that: denigration. a tiny uneasiness. When he hears H.1 try It was denigration, which to tell of the beautiful landscape, or, more we do there. You could clearly, of his aesthetic experience, which have also said: scandal seems to him unrepeatable, he can feel the mongering. Or cancans. But negligible inner tremor. The silencer does you chose denigration. I not seek to catalogue nor to name. He understand... To tell the prefers to keep silent, to pass the truth, I expected it. You underground movement, and to let the also, you, isn’t this storyteller speak. His silence is almost expected? We expected imperceptible because the others listen both it. Already since a attentively to H.1 and discuss things with moment . . . “him.” But, on stage, H.1 cannot continue (Sarraute 1996: 1423) “his” story any more. “He” feels something hiding behind Jean-Pierre’s The phenomena of tropisms are mute facade. “He” along with the others perceptible on stage. It appears in the points out that Jean-Pierre is not saying form of linguistic conflict between the two any words. So, the investigation of poles of the interpersonages. But before tropisms starts abruptly. Nobody they appear on stage, there is the tropism understands this silence or of the Dubuit which is still irrelatable--that H. 1’s excessive reaction. And no one is, it cannot be told. The ridiculous understands either how or why this small termination in Isma is the symptom of nothingness threatens H. 1. their inner vibrations. One could imagine or feel the story of tropisms in the Dubuit. In The Falsehood, one can feel the tropism They are also hypersensitive. They feel of Madeleine who is never on stage. One some small discomfort when they hear does not know why she says the overly terms ending in -ism that mark the obvious lie which obstructs and irritates ideologies or well-established theories of her friends. On stage, this tropismic fable, each century. One never knows the secret which always opens in medias res, begins reasons that push them to pronounce them with the search for this insignificant lie. It with the abnormal termination -isma. is Pierre who first detects Madeleine’s tiny lie. After ten pages, Simone begins her In It’s Beautiful, the dialogue starts own lie. She says that during the war, she abruptly with Lui’s question about was in Seine-et-Oise (Sarraute 1996: aesthetic judgment. But before he arrives 1409). But one of her friends tries to on stage, one can imagine the tropism of convince others that she was not there. the son. He prefers listening to music, So, a silly logodrama begins again. admiring its beauty without criticism or value judgment. For him, the sounds of In the same way, Isma starts “without tail, music are everything and sufficient to nor head,” with the complaint of Lui evoke aesthetic feelings. Because of this, relating to research on word-labels for he is threatened and plunged into

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

unrepeatable vibrations when his parents, H. 2: My God! As of only one wrongly translating his silence, think that blow, all reappears . . . just he hates music and try to find common with that, these quotation words to explain Beauty to him. marks . . .

In Over There, the truth in F.’s head is H. 1: Which quotation marks? never told on stage. This tropismic fable of the carrier remains aesthetically H. 2: Those which you always intractable. The play begins in medias res place around these words, with the chattering of H. 2 with one of when you pronounce them “his” friends. H. 2 feels unhappy when in front of me . . . “Poetry.” “he” sees that F. is in “her” office nearby. “Poetic.” This distance, this So, “she” can hear “his” statements. irony . . . this contempt . . . Moreover, H. 2 feels that “she” is against (Sarraute 1996: 1510) “him.” “He” cannot continue “his” conversation and goes to talk with F. On stage, there is a war of words between “He” tries to impel “her” to tell the truth two buddies. The hunter of tropisms is about “her” ideas. In the scene, F.’s someone who is wounded with a sharp dumbness threatens H. 2, but H. 2’s edge while decoding, by deciphering the chattering distresses F. small facts of the speech which seem unimportant during such a friendly In Sarraute’s last play, Just for Nothing, conversation. He seeks to be released. He the logodrama starts in medias res, as well. raises questions, gives examples, and On stage, H. 1 seeks to understand the seeks an effective means to make the distance of H. 2; all seems explained. carrier of tropisms speak. However, the “He” tries to talk about “his” memory of a carrier remains quiet. Before the play on tiny discomfort when “he” hears H. 1’s stage, the tropisms of H. 1 are still abnormal pronunciation “C’est biiien . . . nondescript. H.1 asserts that he feels ça.” This linguistic fact seems to “him” a something, and he suffers a tiny agony pain-killer. Then, other insignificant ones because of H.2’s distance. This tropismic are discussed throughout the plays. H. 1 vibration is hidden in his inner self. One reproaches H. 2 for using “les clichés,” could thus say that other tropismic fables stereotypes, and commonplaces.20 H. 2 which occur before the action on the stage can also find a reason for blaming H. 1 are true tropisms in the logodrama of because H.1’s quotation could signal Sarraute. These imaginary fables, which ironic distance and scorn. still maintain abstraction and its inexpressible aspect, are not told on stage. H. 1: But let us see, in the “poetic True tropisms play in one’s head, one’s one,” “poetry.” dreams, or one’s imagination.

20 See also the analysis of roles of H. 1 and H. 2 in Tirasait (2004: 232-233).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access Nathalie Sarraute: Tropisms and the Drama of Logos

Conclusion modern psychoanalysis and the sciences share in the interpretation and Nathalie Sarraute’s logodrama presents us transformation of relations between man with a new mode of writing that liberates and the world, Sarraute refused the the traditional dramatic arts. Ever a authoritative speech of the specialists. pioneer,21 Sarraute not only experimented Thus, Sarraute’s interpersonages are with literary forms, styles, and substances relatively identifiable in the field of but also touched upon problems wholly tropisms: the carrier or the hunter of engaging the empirical “realistic” mode of tropisms, without returning to the socio- perceptions. She explored the substrate of cultural reference of the time. The interior selfhood, the residue of a primordial state and prelinguistic tremors in the writing of preceding any word. tropisms are thus possible in all languages and cultures. The logodrama of Sarraute subsidizes the interaction and sets all the dramatic form With regard to her reflexions on the bond in crises: the crisis of the plot, the crisis of between speech and the inexpressible, the action, the crisis of the character, and many critics compare the writings of the crisis of the dialogue. With neither Sarraute with that of great thinkers, and to plot nor action, it is through the effect of clarify her writings, they often quote the the speech that the dramatic action forms thought of Husserl (Rykner 2000:138-139) and establishes the conflict on stage. At and Bergson (Rykner 2002:30) or the the level of appearance, the characters are philosophy of Merleau-Ponty about the simply in touch with the others in mind of use of common language (Boué 1997: a friendly and family conversation. But at 165-167; and Gosselin-Noat 2000: 149- the level of tropisms, something annoying, 150). One can say that, in the logodrama threatening, and frightening begins to of Sarraute, the polyphonic dialogue occur, either because certain words were questions all generally accepted ideas and pronounced or because they remain in well-established values and that the silence. interior and imperceptible vibrations which become the live substance of the Furthermore, the human intersubjectivity literary works are, indeed, at the center of underlying in her works remains a the controversies of metaphysics, controversy of our time. On this basis, epistemology, and ethics. In fact, her Sarraute is considered not only a drama of logos reminds us of Kant’s playwright; she is called a poet, an proposition: keeping silent before the essayist, a critic, and a true philosopher “Noumena,” and of Wittgenstein’s famous (Piatier 1983: 24). She is revered as a comment on the indescribable in his philosopher of language who questions the Tractatus (1969): “What we cannot speak ability of language to record the inner about, we must pass over in silence.” Or experience of an ever-elusive self. vice versa, these historical controversies in Against the current of the times, when philosophy make us realize the importance of Sarraute’s microscopic drama. Therefore, it is preferable to study her 21 Tropismes, started in 1932, was first works more deeply in the philosophical published in 1939. dimension in order to decipher her writing of mysterious tropisms.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 10.2, 2007

References Rykner, A. 1988. Théâtre du Nouveau Roman. Paris: José Corti. Benmussa, S. 1987. Nathalie Sarraute: Qui êtes-vous? Lyon, France: La Rykner, A. 2000. Paroles perdues : Manufacture. Représentation et faillite du langage. Paris: José Corti. Boué, R. 1997. Nathalie Sarraute:,La Sensation en quête de parole. Paris: Rykner, A. 2002. Nathalie Sarraute. L'Harmattan. Paris: Seuil.

Encyclopedia Americana, Vol.27. 1966. Sarraute, Nathalie. 1996. Oeuvres New York: Americana Corporation. complètes. Paris: Gallimard.

Gosselin-Noat. 2000. In Foutrier, P. Sartre, J.-P. 1948. Qu’est-ce que la (éd.) Nathalie Sarraute: éthiques du littérature? Paris: Gallimard. tropisme; acte du colloque. Paris: L'Harmattan. Tirasait, Nipaporn. Ecriture théâtrale de Nathalie Sarraute. 2004. Doctoral Lassalle, J. 2002. Nathalie Sarraute ou dissertation. Faculty of Arts. l’obscur commencement. In Chulalongkorn University. Bangkok, Conférences. 43-65. Paris: BnF. (à Thailand. l’occasion de la soirée d’hommage consacrée à Nathalie Sarraute à la BnF, Verdrager, P. 2001. Le Sens critique: La 2001, dans le cadre des conférences sur Réception de Nathalie Sarraute les femmes écrivains au XXème par la presse. Paris: L’Harmattan. siècle.) Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1969. Tractatus Marcabru, Pierre 1999, Octobre 23-24. Logico-Philosophicus. London: Nathalie Sarraute, un théâtre pour Routledge and Kegan. aveugles. Le Figaro P.8. http://www.centerforbookculture.org/conte Pavis, P. 2000. Du silence dans les xt/no3/taylor.html [March 23, 2007]. structures: sur quelques écritures dramatiques contemporaines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algirdas_Julie Protée28.2: 25-34. n_Greimas [March 23, 2007].

Pavis, P. 2002a. Dictionnaire du théâtre. http://entractes.sacd.fr/en/n_archieves/att/h Paris: Armand Colin. ommages.php[March 15, 2006].

Pavis, P. 2002b. Le théâtre http://w.3univtlse2.fr/lla/equipe/fiches/ryk contemporain: Analyse des textes de ner.htm [March 23, 2007]. Sarraute à Vinaver. Paris: Nathan. http://www.Wooster.edu/artfuldodge/inter Piatier, J. 1983. La Dame des tropismes. views/sarraute.htm [March 10, 2006]. Magazine Littéraire 196: 22-24.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 01:15:55AM via free access