The moment we've all been waiting for, the exploration of the Funhouse. Please try to keep up.
It
is impossible to dispute the fact that Barth's Lost in the
Funhouse is an incredible example of
a Metafictional text. The story itself, despite being only twenty
five pages long is a spiral of frame-stories, frame-breaking and
self-reflexive comments not only regarding the characters and their
apparent self awareness, but also in terms of the writing of the
story itself. At many times one questions whether Barth was simple
playing with the reader when constructing this story in a 'Funhouse'
style which truly lends itself to the title.
The
story wastes no time in displaying its metafictional tendencies as we
are greeted almost instantly with a break in the narrative on the
first page as it flits rather quickly from simple narrated events to
what could be classed as authorial side notes informing the readers
of why certain techniques are being used. “The
occasion of their visit is Independence Day, the most important
secular holiday of the United States of America. A
single straight underline is the manuscript mark for italic type,
which in turn...” Lost in the Funhouse, page 1, 1968). There are
many reasons as to why Barth may have chosen to include these 'side
notes' within his story ranging from simply informing the reader of
the writing process, to shattering the falsehood of the imagined
'reality' of the text.
Personally
it seems like Barth chooses to use these frequent breaks in story to
blur the lines of what is 'real' within the story rather than to
inform people the 'proper' techniques of writing a story. At times it
can be seen as a quirky and playful way of writing in which it gives
a little bit of extra depth to the story, but there are other times
when this technique is arguably over used to the point where huge
sections of this twenty five page story have absolutely no relation
to the events. For example, page 77 is primarily occupied with the
intrusive voice describing how a text should start and end. “The
function of the beginning of a story is to introduce the principal
characters...(Lost in the Funhouse, 1968). While I find this over
excessive use of intrusion counter-productive and somewhat irritating
at times. It is easy to understand the reasons behind this technique
however as it this section makes reference to Barth's style of
writing and he even seems to criticise it at points such as 'so far
there's been no real dialogue, very little sensory detail, and
nothing in the way of a theme' (page 77). There are a number of
occasions where the intrusive voice appears to have some form of
criticism regarding the way the text has been written which at times
creates the impression that the actual story of Ambrose's adventure
on that day was a pre-existing piece of work which had then been read
by an external overseer who added in their comments regarding the
text itself, almost like a first draft being sent for checking and
modification. Due to the confusing style of this story it is very
difficult to even keep track of who is who and saying what within the
text which once again lends itself very successfully to the
'Funhouse' style.
Patricia
Waugh argues that “John Bath's characters who – as much In the
style of Sartre as in that of Sterne – die, 'telling themselves
stories in the dark,' (lost in the funhouse, 1968 pg 95) desperately
attempting to construct identities which can only dissolve into
metalingual mutterings. (Waugh, 1984, page 8. I find this concept
particularly interesting due to the fact that as I have previous
stated, the is no clear identity for anyone within the story. While
some may argue that characters such as Ambrose, Peter, Magda and
Uncle Karl have their identities, when we actually pay close
attention to them, all the characters except for Ambrose only appear
as occupants of Ambrose's day, they have no history unless it is
linked with Ambrose, making their existence even more questionable
and also suggesting that they, like Ambrose at certain points, have
no real control over their lives.(“What
he'd really felt throughout was an odd detachment, as though someone
else were Master.”) (Page 84)
However,
the only character with a remotely 'complete' or 'real' identity is
Ambrose, who at the best of times seems to be rather unsure of who
he. “You think you're yourself, but there are other persons inside
you...Ambrose watches them disagree, Ambrose watches him watch”
(page85). Ambrose himself seems to spend more time speculating
throughout the story about what he could have done or what he may
well become than he does actually existing in the 'present tense' of
the story. We learn more from what he hopes to be rather than what he
already is, leading us back to Waugh's statement about characters
'attempting to construct identities'. “He saw once again, more
clearly than ever, how readily he deceived himself into supposing he
was a person.” (page 93)
It
appears that not only is Ambrose unsure of Ambrose, the narrator and
intrusive voice; assuming they are indeed two separate entities, are
also questioning the 'reality' of Ambrose. “is
there even such a person as Ambrose? Or is he a fragment of the
author's imagination?” (page 88). This in one of the numerous
examples of Frame-Breaking within the story as the intrusive voice is
drawing attention to the fact that there is an author involved
somewhere in this story and that these events are not real by any
stretch. But as earlier stated, Goffman argues that “The real it
isn't may not itself be very real” (Frame analysis, 1974, page
560). The idea that the thing we are attempting to view as 'real'
does not necessarily have to be very real in general plays a huge
part in the understanding of this story. While it is hard for us to
grasp a true sense of the reality of Ambrose and his expedition to
and through the funhouse due to the constant interruptions and the
self-consciousness of the story, we need only view the narrative
regarding Ambrose as a base 'reality' in which we define the
differences from the other points such as the intrusive voice or the
uses of speculating around his future. If we do not think too hard on
the actuality of the world of Ambrose and just accept it as what it
is, it makes the concept of the story much easier to follow and to
evaluate.
By
now it is clear that 'frame-Breaking' is possibly the most prominent
feature of this text as it happens on almost every page but in
different ways. It is not merely limited to the intrusive voice
commenting on the way things are written or the lack of progress in
the narrative, it also appears in the sections where it seems Ambrose
has taken over the narrative and is telling himself or the reader
stories about his future. “The operator's daughter...crouched just
behind the partition and transcribed his every word.” (page 96).
While this may just be Ambrose speculating on events to pass the
time, I believe that this is actually a subtle hint to the reader
that perhaps the narrator is the girl in this instance, peeking in on
the life of Ambrose and transcribing it all for the world to read
about. If this is true then it once again lends itself to the
multiple realities hinted at so many times through the text. As of
yet it appears we have at least 5 'realities' within the Funhouse:
- Ambrose's reality of his day out with his family
- Ambrose's stories around his past and future
- The onlooking girl through the partition
- The intrusive voice
- The writer of the text itself
There
may well be more that I have overlooked but I believe that these are
the most important if we choose to investigate the use of 'Frames'
within this story. I also believe that the funhouse in which the
story takes its name is actually a metaphor for the narrative
construct of Barth's writing, making the building Ambrose is lost in,
a metaphor for literature in general, suggesting perhaps that Barth
is Ambrose? Occasionally stumbling around the 'Funhouse' attempting
to make some sense of his situation, struggling to succeed in the
completion of his task?
So
here we are, having successfully navigated the funhouse we have
reached the other side in hopefully one piece. The heavy use of
Metafictional techniques throughout the story can make it a daunting
text to read despite its size. However hopefully this short analysis
has helped us to understand the text a little better. While it can be
confusing to see such blatant use of intrusion and disruption, I
assure you it is all for a purpose and it creates a spectacular tale
with far more depth and intrigue than anyone would expect upon first
glance. The multiple frames, broken or otherwise, give the story an
almost Twilight Zone feel leaving us as readers unsure as to what we
just witnessed and if we were more of a part of it than we realised.
Perhaps we are just part of someone else's narrative being told in
their dark corn of a funhouse while they desperately try to construct
and maintain their sanity. Just remember, never go into a funhouse
alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment