I SEE, HE SAYS, PERHAPS, ON TIME: VISION, VOICE, HYPOTHETICAL NARRATION, AND TEMPORALITY IN WILLIAM FAULKNER’S FICTION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By David S. FitzSimmons, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor James Phelan, Adviser Professor Jared Gardner ______________________ Adviser Professor Jessica Prinz Department of English Copyright by David S. FitzSimmons 2003 ABSTRACT This study examines four narrative techniques in William Faulkner’s fiction in order to accomplish two things: 1) see what applying contemporary narrative theory to Faulkner can tell us about his narratives; and 2) see how examining Faulkner’s narratives can cause us to revise or extend concepts in narrative theory. In other words, the study establishes a recursive relationship between Faulkner’s fiction and narrative theory, one in which each subject matter can illuminate the other. The four narrative techniques examined include shifts in focalization, shifts in voice, hypothetical narration, and representations of time. Each chapter examines background theory, gives examples of the technique, offers explication of the technique, and analyzes the technique’s effects. The first chapter takes “Barn Burning” as its main example and looks at how to identify shifts in focalization (vision), develops a model of layers of focalization, and investigates their effects. Chapter two focuses on As I Lay Dying and “Old Man” and examines narrative voice, works at defining voice, distinguishes conventional markers of narrative voice from voice features, and explores the effect of narrative voice. The first two chapters in combination work to define the boundary between vision and voice. The third chapter looks at hypothetical narration. Of the three epistemic modes of narration, it is the ii uncertain form, and Faulkner makes extensive and innovative use of it particularly in my main example here, Absalom, Absalom!. The fourth chapter returns to “Barn Burning” and Absalom, Absalom! and examines Faulkner’s portrayal of time. The effect of Faulkner’s techniques suggest a temporal understanding similar to that of Henri Bergson: time is non-linear, more experiential than scientific. The conclusion suggests how the four techniques taken together contribute to an understanding of Faulkner’s quite Platonic epistemology: perfect knowledge is ultimately unattainable, yet humanity continues to strive toward it. iii To Olivia. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank, first of all, my family, especially my loving, patient, and supportive wife, Olivia. In addition, the encouragement of my mother, Judy, my father, Mick, and my two brothers, Jim and Tom, helped keep me going. Secondly, I am grateful to my adviser, James Phelan, for his careful reading of numerous drafts, thoughtful advice, and continual support. In addition I would like to thank my other dissertation committee members, Jared Gardner and Jessica Prinz, for their suggestions and encouragement. Others who helped me along the way include Thomas Cooley and Walter Davis, both of whose ideas continue to guide my efforts even after their retirements. Thank you also to The Ohio State University for generous financial support. Finally, I would like to thank God for the many blessings that made this dissertation possible, especially for the faith that this project would honor and serve Him. v VITA September 17, 1969………………………….Born—Mansfield, Ohio 1992-1994..………………………….….……English Teacher, Saint Peter’s High School, Mansfield, Ohio 1994-1998……………………………………Adjunct Instructor, North Central Technical College, Mansfield, Ohio 1995-1998……………………………………Writing Lab Assistant, North Central Technical College, Mansfield, Ohio 1998-2001……………………………………Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University 2000………………………………………….M.A. English, The Ohio State University 2001 - present.…………….…………………Lecturer, The Ohio State University—Mansfield 2002-2003……………………………………Adjunct Instructor, Ashland University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English Specializations: American Literature Narrative Theory vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...ii Dedication...……………………………………………………...……………………iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………….…..v Vita………………………………………………………………………………...…..vi List of Figures…………………………………………………………...………………..…viii Introduction………………………………………………...…………………………..1 Chapters: 1. Shifts in focalization………………………………………………...………………7 2. Shifts in voice…………………………………………………………..…………..70 3. Hypothetical narration ……………………………………………………………137 4. Portrayal of time…..……………..………………………………………………..187 Conclusion…………………………………………...……..……………….….…...251 List of References………………………………………...………………………....257 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Focalizers in William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning”……..……………….……46 2 Layers of Focalization in “Barn Burning”…………..…………………….….47 3 Comparison of Focalizers per Layer: Typical Narrative and “Barn Burning...56 4 L4 Focalizers in “Barn Burning”………………….…………….....…………67 5 Chapter Data from As I Lay Dying………………………………………....…95 6 Pages per Character in As I Lay Dying …………….………...……………....96 7 Chapters in Order of Appearance for Characters in As I Lay Dying…………96 8 Time Relationships for Hypothetical Narration…………....………………..154 9 Times in “Barn Burning”……….….….….……..…….….…..…….……….200 10 Times of Perception in “Barn Burning”……………………………...…...…203 11 Time, Layers, and Focalization in “Barn Burning”………………….……...210 12 Voices and Time in “Barn Burning”………………………...………………211 13 Tacks (Kx) in Chapter Six of Absalom, Absalom!..........................................231 viii INTRODUCTION This study has as its center a two-part question: how does implementing the tools of contemporary narrative theory help us understand in new ways Faulkner’s fiction, particularly his innovative techniques, and how does reading Faulkner’s fiction, paying particular attention to these techniques, help us improve or broaden the reach of contemporary narrative theory? That is, I investigate (a) how a study of Faulkner using narratological tools can help us understand new things about Faulkner and (b) how a study of narratology using Faulkner’s narratives can help us revise and extend contemporary narratology. Consider the questions raised by this small sample of Faulkner’s unusual techniques: · In the short story “Barn Burning,” while a heterodiegetic narrator tells the story of young Sartoris Snopes and his conflict with his pyromaniacal father, focalization in this short story shifts to the boy 246 times. We should ask, why Faulkner did not chose simply to tell the story from the boy’s perspective? Why utilize a heterodiegetic narrator and then depend so largely upon the perceptions of a character? · In As I Lay Dying, the novel seems to be “told” (sc. voiced) by 15 different characters over 59 chapters, yet several characters—most notably Darl—seem to 1 speak in ways that exceed what we would expect from their ages, education, and cultural background. We should ask, whose voice it is that speaks in these unusual chapters. In the “Darl” chapters, for example, is this his voice, or is some other agent speaking? · In Absalom, Absalom! characters and the narrator often prefer not to merely state the story facts. Often they mitigate what happened, using terms such as “perhaps,” “maybe,” and “possibly” to predicate story details. We should ask, what advantages and disadvantages might there be to not telling a story with certainty? · In “Old Man,” Faulkner often inserts the word “now” into past tense narration, changes verb forms, disregarding rules of tense, and has multiple narrators at different times tell the central story but conflates the tellings in a way that they seem contemporaneous. We should ask, what do these anomalies suggest about Faulkner’s view of time? Such questions propel this study forward. These and numerous others will be addressed in the chapters that follow. As I answer these questions, this study contributes both to work on Faulkner and to work on narrative theory. Much has been written, of course, about Faulkner, but surprisingly little of it has been written from a narratological perspective. Although, as the subsequent chapters will show, Faulknerians sometimes employ terms of narrative theory, these critics are far less concerned with the detailed workings of Faulkner’s techniques than with offering thematic readings of his novels. Consequently, the first thing I do in each of these chapters is to situate my narratological investigations in relation to previous research by both Faulknerians and narrative theorists. 2 Concomitant with analyzing Faulkner’s narratives in terms of previously defined ideas is revising narrative theories in light of Faulkner’s practice. That is, rather than simply applying current theory to Faulkner, I examine how well a given application fits with Faulkner’s practice. Faulkner’s narratives strive to exceed readers’—and theoreticians’—comfort zones. Consequently, I often challenge or modify tenets of contemporary narratology. As noted above, the give and take between Faulkner’s fiction and narrative theory is the recursive modus operandi toward which this study strives. My study, like virtually any examination of Faulkner’s narrative techniques, is not comprehensive. The four chapters of this dissertation examine just four of the multiple techniques of Faulkner’s fiction. I have chosen these four because they are especially telling