INFORMATION TO USERS While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example: • Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed. • Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages. • Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. 8710040 Raphael, Linda Schermer REFRACTED DISCOURSE IN AUSTEN, ELIOT, JAMES, DREISER AND WOOLF: THE REPRESENTATION OF DOUBLE CONSCIOUSNESS IN NARRATIVE The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1987 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Mi 48106 Copyright 1987 by Raphael, Linda Schermer All Rights Reserved REFRACTED DISCOURSE IN AUSTEN, ELIOl, JAMES, DREISER AND NOOLF: THE REPRESENTATION OF DOUBLE CONSCIOUSNESS IN NARRATIVE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Linda Schermer Raphael, B.Sc., M.A. The Ohio State University 1987 Reading Committee: Approved by James P. Phelan Steven S. Fink lames P. Phelan, Advisor Julian H. Markels Department of English Copyr1 qht Linda Schermer Raphael 1987 DEDICATION To my mother, Martha Schermer, and in memory of my father, Ted Schermer 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to acknowledge my appreciation to members of The English Department of The Ohio State University. James Phelan, my advisor, provided the critical reading, interest and support which makes the writing of a dissertation a true scholarly endeavor. In addition, his own scholarship has stimulated my work. Steven Fink and Julian Markels contributed thoughtful responses to my work, which enabled me to gain a greater perspective on it. Arnold Shapiro’s instruction and interest during the years of my graduate studies have been a source of support. Martha Garland Davis, of the History Department, read sections of this work and offered advice and support in a number of significant ways. Mike Szczepanik’s patient willingness to help has made the final stages of my dissertation possible. Without the support of my husband, Marc, my graduate studies would not have been possible, and without my children, Steven, Michael, Paula, Todd, and Cara, they would not have been as meaningful. iii VITA June 20, 1943 Born - New Orleans, Loui si ana 1965 B.Sc., Education and English, The Ohio State Uni versi ty 1979 M.A., History, The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: The Novel, P r o f e s s o r James Phelan 19th-Century British Literature, Professor Arnold Shapiro Textual Criticism, Professor John Gabel American Literature, Professor Steven Fink 1 v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION . .............................................. li ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................... lii VITA ........................................................... iv INTRODUCTION................................................. 1 CHAPTER PAGE I. PERSUASION ......................................... II. MIDDLEMARCH ......................................... III. THE WINGS OF THE DOVE ............................ IV. SISTER CARRIE ...................................... V. MRS. DALLOWAY ...................................... CONCLUSION ................................................... NOTES ........................................................ BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................ v INTRODUCTION Dorrit Cohn claims that the discourse on narrative discourse is still in Babel, and while theorists have done impressive work on narrative during the past few decades, her conclusion does apply at least to the theories on free indirect discourse (FID). Although Charles Bally1 studied FID as early as 1912, and Mikhail Bakhtin2 included analyses of it as integral parts of his theory in the 1930's, these theorists and others who have followed them have failed to come to a consensus on a definition or a theory of the functions of FID. Not surprisingly, the term FID seems now to have outlived its usefulness in the broad manner in which it has been employed. Once the more limited interests of linguistics gave way to the far-reaching implications of stylisic studies of the technique, theorists have had to provide their own definitions for the phenomenon. All such definitions respond to the intentions of the particular study, of course, but in some cases the term might even undergo redefinitions as it is applied to individual texts within the same study. 1 2 While the reasons for studying the technique vary, most theorists who are interested in style describe it as a covert narrative method for refracting different voices. Whether the use of the technique raises questions about voice because appropriate grammatical markers fail to signal the speaker, or whether it creates a dialectic between two or more voices, it has the potential for communicating ideas, emotions and values efficiently and, more important, mimetically. My term "refracted discourse" seems broad enough to cover all instances in which a covert voice or voices carry different messages from those their superficial meaning would suggest. The work of Bakhtin informs my project significantly, while the phrase "refracted discourse" relates most closely to his notions about the various ways in which language creates and sustains dialogic relationships within the novel. In The Dialogic Imagination. Bakhtin introduces the idea that several "languages" may be evident in a novel, and that none of these may reflect, by itself, the values of the author. Instead the author’s beliefs are refracted through the language of another: this may be the narrator’s articulation of the “common point of view" at one time; 3 it may be the language of a character at another; and it is finally the combination of these two. Bakhtin coins many useful phrases, such as "character zones" and "pseudo-objective underpinnings," which by their very names offer sufficient stimulation for one to become interested in the role of particular narrative techniques in the development of double-voiced discourse.3 Yet, to commit myself to his term would suggest that I embrace all his theories relating to double voice and that I also limit myself to them, neither of which I intend. Fascination with the notion of double-voices only begins to explain why a study of refracted discourse in five novels would be worthwhile. Although the question "who is speaking?" is central to an intelligent reading of any sort of literature, identifying the qualities of the narrator (such as his reliability, based on intelligence, tone, etc.) and establishing a relationship with him do not fully answer recurring questions about voice. As Gerard Genette’s inquiries into the distinctions between voice and vision suggest, the various possibilites for fluid relationships between these two involve both linguistic and stylistic analyses.4 On the one hand, competent readers 4 generally demonstrate through their agreement on meaning that they make the necessary distinction intuitively or subconsciously. On the other hand, without a conscious analysis of double-voices, we cannot reconstruct the multitude of nuances which Bakhtin claims result from the dialogic nature of the novel. In fact, it has been my experience that a close analysis of refracted discourse yields extended meanings which readers finds intuitively accurate, but which they had not considered in their full complexity. What most interests me, then, is this question: How have writers.-Jised refracted discourse as parts of larger narrative communications? Putting the question this way allows me to remain open to a wide variety of uses— and consequences— of refracted discourse, while also considering it as only one strategy among many. Among the uses I will examine are the representation of character, the manipulation of sympathy, for characters and events, the "embedded" disclosure of societal beliefs, and the creation of irony. Before discussing my specific method for exploring these questions, I will summarize some important work which has been done in related areas in order to make clear what this technique is and why I am concerned with 5 defining a broader category. The following brief summary of Brian McHale's "Free Indirect Discourse: A Survey of Recent Accounts"5 helps to clarify what I mean by "refracted discourse," particularly because the breadth of McHale’s study takes into account much more than a strict linguistic definition of the term would offer. In addition, I include material from some of the sources he uses which augment his analysis and seem especially relevant