One aspect of The Country of the Pointed Firs that makes it such and thought-provoking
and challenging read is that it has neither a central narrative nor a true main
character; it’s a collection of somewhat banal sketches held together by a
common setting and narrator. With a few exceptions, each sketch could be its
own self-contained “story-island”; their interconnectedness only becomes
apparent when read quite carefully and in proper sequence. By structuring her
novel as a collection of loosely connected sketches, Jewett asks us to see individuals
as networks. We journey along with the narrator as she discovers that the most
remote “islands,” whether literal or metaphorical, are actually simultaneously
parts and wholes, autonomous and dependent.
In forcing her narrator and readers
to experience this type of community in network, the novel dovetails nicely with
Bruno Latour’s talk on “Actor-Network Theory.” Latour’s talk presents a social theory
for understanding objects a part of networks. For Latour, networks are defined
by an awareness of the “vast deployment of a [substance’s] attributes” which transform it into “what it needs to subsist through a complex ecology of
tributaries, allies, accomplices, and helpers” (5). He argues that the digital
age is changing the way we conceptualize identity; we are moving away from a
sense of self defined in terms of what one is, towards an identity defined by
what one has: “friends, relations, profiles” (7). Jewett’s sketches aren’t
profiles in the modern sense but like their Internet counterparts, they are
quite numerous, contradictory and limited in scope.
To illustrate this point, I’d like
to turn your attention to the story of Poor Joanna, a sort of “nun or
hermit-person,” legendary for her self-inflicted solitude (52). Joanna’s life story
spans the length of three short chapters. The first two tell her tale in the
form of a conversation between Mrs. Todd and her old friend Mrs. Fosdick while
the third follows the narrator on a pilgrimage to Joanna’s former home and
final resting place on Shell-heap Island. The reader’s awareness of Joanna as
network is constructed by these three “profiles” (sketches), the last of which
most fully transforms her from the solitary center of a cautionary tale into a
“complex ecology,” a being that is
because it has.
While looking out at the mainland
from Shell-heap Island “as Joanna must have watched it many a day,” the
narrator hears “a sound of distant voices; gay voices and laughter from a
pleasure-boat that was going seaward full of boys and girls”(65). With its
abrupt intrusion upon Joanna’s so called “shrine of solitude,” the pleasure
boat seems to mark the end of the narrator’s romantic fantasy; this final
“profile” paints a picture of a woman who merely choses to live alone, not a
woman doomed to a life so remote that it seems to exist in a time apart. That
brand of solitude, the passage seems to remind us, is the stuff of medieval
legend not America at the turn of the century. These laughing passengers are
just a particularly far-removed faction of the “allies, accomplices, and
helpers” that constitute Joanna’s identity.
Like The Web, The Country of the Pointed Firs coerces participants/readers to see
the individual and the network, the sketch and the novel, at the same time. In
order to comprehend the novel as a sort of community manifesto, we have to pay
close attention to the details. We, like the narrator have to incorporate
ourselves into the web she’s created, to get to know each minor, idiosyncratic
character like a friend. Jewett challenges us to hold many contradictory
truths, miring us in her surprisingly vast network, which like any web can actually
be quite attaching.
Word Count: 612
2 comments:
I'm really curious about your claim that Jewett's "story-islands" are simultaneously parts and wholes, and that she challenges easy or conventional reading practices. It seems to me that this claim might sit at odds with Latour's argument, or that it might at least call up some possible objections. I'd say that Latour suggests (at least intermittently) that the distinction between part and whole is actually an illusion, one of those discontinuities caused by a lack of data, even though he still relies on this heuristic while he makes his argument. He also suggests, like you, that the simultaneity of part and whole is equivalent to the elimination of part and whole completely--but maybe one way of reading Jewett against, rather than in tandem with, Latour is by arguing that her story-islands reveal the tension between these two conceptions of the part/whole distinction and the network model. Perhaps (if I'm extending your reading productively) Jewett gestures toward the ways in which smooth continuity is not always desirable as a reading of data?
Aaron,
Thanks for this comment! This is really helpful.
Post a Comment