Quentin uses elaborate words to convey his choppy thoughts, and hints at large, complicated world situations. He views situations at a complex and compulsive level. When he reflects, he is reflecting inward, placing all of the importance of a situation upon himself. He blames himself for his sister's impurity, and that he couldn't help free her from the situation (no matter what drastic measures—ie. incest!) Benjy, however, thinks very simply, and reacts outwardly. His thoughts are placed on his surroundings. He touches, smells, and feels. He notices what people do and say, and records it in his mind. Unlike Quentin, when Benjy is upset with Caddie, he openly cries (as he does about many things, granted) to express his feelings. It's immediate and child-like the way that he responds to emotional turmoil, but he does not self-reflect or self-blame.
But this dichotomy is represented, as previously mentioned, through similar styles of narration. With this, Faulkner is trying to point out that neither one of these approaches to life is really any different than the other. Although Benjy is mentally ill, he experiences things unselfishly and really takes in the wonders of the world without the constraint of time and obsession. Quentin is shown to be somewhat cursed with intelligence. Rather than enjoying simple smells, images, and moments in his life, he's forced to analyze and blame himself and others for events that he desires control over. Life is lost in moments of a ticking watch—which he slams against his drawer and breaks, symbolizing his resentment toward his unrelenting mind.
Faulkner could be trying to point out that the supposed "fool" (Benjy) is not a fool at all because he actually enjoys moments of life, and the real fool is the person who is affected too much by his own mind. He could also be aiming to show that the modern person is forced to live within one of these realms—think and drive yourself to commit suicide (or something like suicide) or don't think and be judged as a fool. It also could be neither one of these, just a narration of two people dealing with the same situation in different ways. With this amount of juxtaposition, though, it's difficult to believe the latter option.
Benjy’s narrative demonstrates the fragmentation of time and memory. He clearly cannot understand the present as it is, nor formulate what is going on around him without retrieving memories from the past. It is for this reason that I suggest, within the theme of fragmentation within the mind, Benjy plays the role of a person whose mind functions like a fractured watch, which can be wound back and forth.
ReplyDeleteQuentin’s sections reiterates clocks, obviously suggesting the role of time, but it is implied in a different manor. While Benjy is bound to time and cannot conceive of a present moment without reverting to those of the past, Quentin, in a way, does not care for it at all. For example, when he goes to the watch shop and neglects to fix the watch he shattered earlier that morning. Faulkner places this scenario here to perhaps suggest what I am arguing. Remember, at this shop Quentin does not want to know the time at all, he wants to erase it if anything—particularly what has happened with Caddy’s love life. Instead he retreats into his mind, like Benjy, and constructs fantasies that he wishes had or will occur. As for Quentin, his narrative is in some ways more fragmented than Benjy’s. I felt this suggested Quentin’s “disability” (I use this word because its relativity to Benjy; a correlation I am arguing is present) is distinguishing reality from fantasy; this I deduct from the symbolism in structure of Quentin’s narrative since his memories, which are fantasies mostly, come right in the middle of the line. Faulkner employs Quentin’s recollections by way of continuous enjambment within in the text, not indenting the italicized segments as he did in Benjy’s narrative. I was troubled at first, actually I felt tricked by Quentin, never really sure if his statements were factual or fantasy. It is important to note that the fractured essence of these sections are descending right from the characters minds, actually their subconscious, since they are entirely unaware of the flaws they harbor.
Time and memory, playing a major role throughout this novel, are telltale signs of the symbol and theme of the subconscious. Within the subconscious of the characters are repressed thoughts, fantasies, shame, painful realities, or nothing at all—nearly all Freudian. Even more obvious is the existence of a repressed sexual desire, this appearing between Quentin and Caddie mostly, however it appears in several other scenarios. I loosely extend my analysis thus far to Jason’s narrative. Time and memory function different here, and the subconscious is no longer inside the body. Rather, his actions and desires are not hidden within the subconscious so much as they are from the people around him. Obvious examples of the aforementioned would be his embezzlement of Caddie’s money. The sexual realm of the subconscious, which, as I said, in Jason’s case is not a literal subconscious but the secrets hidden from others, is demonstrated by his repetitive and hidden encounter with prostitutes. Though his narrative appears less fragmented on the surface, by the type I mean, his character demonstrates the theme I suggest is present in Benjy and Quentin’s narrative yet it extends outside of the mind and becomes more like a living representation of the behavior that results from the fragmented and repressed (or secretive) condition of the characters.
To continue.....
ReplyDeleteI think the fragmented narrative plays an important role. In hinting at the subconscious and secretive elements of human behavior, Faulkner implies that there are things that these characters are fantastically unaware of, to the point it is rather comedic. They are unaware of themselves, the present, the truth, their vile intentions, fantasies or behavior, and the world around them. All of the aforementioned is hidden from them, disguised as if to play tricks with each characters mind; the appearance is much like the perspective of a child unaware of its surroundings in full. This was Faulkner’s intention after all, to demonstrate “the relationship of the idiot to the world;” the idiot, not only referring to Benjy, but to the minds of children and the presence of innocence.
What does this all mean though? Unfortunately, in concluding my analysis, I may depreciate the intense dissection of the novel I have presented here. The answer is, most likely, as given by Shakespeare; it is “Signifying nothing”.