Page 56 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 56
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
had he been given an opportunity to write about Barnes’ novel that ap-
peared a year later.
Who are ‘we’ in the phrase ‘our tragedy’? It is necessary to return to
Kermode’s book: namely, questions it poses are the questions of everyday
life and its relationship with the grand narratives, with the deep struc-
tures that mark it, and among which the dominant vision is the one of the
apocalypse. Something similar was done by Barnes, but with ironic, per-
haps even sarcastic overtones. For decades, Webster accused Veronica of
being unable to accept other people’s feelings and develop emotions, but
that applies more to him. Barnes’ unreliable narrator is obscure to him-
self, which also affects the reader, especially the one who wants to enjoy
the coherence of fiction. Psychologically speaking, Tony resembles exact-
ly the kind of people he is afraid of, those who have only their own needs
56 in mind. After all, he himself says that the official version of his relation-
ship with Veronica was just the one he needed at the time. Barnes exam-
ines the peripeteia, an unexpected change in the plot, in order to force the
readers to alter their expectations. As it seems, the narrator changes our
expectations more than Veronica, because when we make up the fiction
we encounter ourselves: at one moment, the thing X is taken for granted,
X just looks inevitable to us. At some other point, X is no longer X, and in
fact, it never was X! But the fact that Tony Webster self-critically admits
that his knowledge of life is limited still does not mean that he does not
attempt to give meaning to the end, or the ends of life and narrative, de-
spite the feelings and opinions of other people.
The question of the end is related to the question of the meaning of
life, as Kermode assures us at the beginning of his book: “It is not expect-
ed of critics as it is of poets that they should help us to make sense of our
lives; they are bound only to attempt the lesser feat of making sense of the
ways we try to make sense of our lives” (Kermode 2000, 3). How to know
the right form of life in relation to the perspective of time? Are we liv-
ing in accordance with the pattern or in line with the facts, or is a good
part of the facts already a matter of patterns and kinds that we produce as
members of the knowledge society? How can we reconcile ourselves with
the world we live in?
There is a necessary relation between the fictions by which we order our
world and the increasing complexity of what we take to be the ‘real’ history
of that world (Kermode 2000, 67),
records Kermode, followed by Barnes. We live in a consumer society that
celebrates freedom and choices based on desire. The case of Tony Webster
had he been given an opportunity to write about Barnes’ novel that ap-
peared a year later.
Who are ‘we’ in the phrase ‘our tragedy’? It is necessary to return to
Kermode’s book: namely, questions it poses are the questions of everyday
life and its relationship with the grand narratives, with the deep struc-
tures that mark it, and among which the dominant vision is the one of the
apocalypse. Something similar was done by Barnes, but with ironic, per-
haps even sarcastic overtones. For decades, Webster accused Veronica of
being unable to accept other people’s feelings and develop emotions, but
that applies more to him. Barnes’ unreliable narrator is obscure to him-
self, which also affects the reader, especially the one who wants to enjoy
the coherence of fiction. Psychologically speaking, Tony resembles exact-
ly the kind of people he is afraid of, those who have only their own needs
56 in mind. After all, he himself says that the official version of his relation-
ship with Veronica was just the one he needed at the time. Barnes exam-
ines the peripeteia, an unexpected change in the plot, in order to force the
readers to alter their expectations. As it seems, the narrator changes our
expectations more than Veronica, because when we make up the fiction
we encounter ourselves: at one moment, the thing X is taken for granted,
X just looks inevitable to us. At some other point, X is no longer X, and in
fact, it never was X! But the fact that Tony Webster self-critically admits
that his knowledge of life is limited still does not mean that he does not
attempt to give meaning to the end, or the ends of life and narrative, de-
spite the feelings and opinions of other people.
The question of the end is related to the question of the meaning of
life, as Kermode assures us at the beginning of his book: “It is not expect-
ed of critics as it is of poets that they should help us to make sense of our
lives; they are bound only to attempt the lesser feat of making sense of the
ways we try to make sense of our lives” (Kermode 2000, 3). How to know
the right form of life in relation to the perspective of time? Are we liv-
ing in accordance with the pattern or in line with the facts, or is a good
part of the facts already a matter of patterns and kinds that we produce as
members of the knowledge society? How can we reconcile ourselves with
the world we live in?
There is a necessary relation between the fictions by which we order our
world and the increasing complexity of what we take to be the ‘real’ history
of that world (Kermode 2000, 67),
records Kermode, followed by Barnes. We live in a consumer society that
celebrates freedom and choices based on desire. The case of Tony Webster
