A harsh image of Sarty's father is presented in the line, "he [Sarty] followed the stiff black coat, the wiry figure walking a little stiffly from where a Confederate provost's man's musket ball had taken him in the heel on a stolen horse thirty years ago" (2177).
“Through its aporetic structure,” writes Alex Segal, absolute secrecy “displaces the use of (conditional) secrecy to attain power and is thereby tied to democracy” (190).
The aporia of the inviolable secret, which connotes the gap between the actually communicated and the intended but inexpressible communication, separates a writer from his work.
Sarty's inner turmoil centers around his sense of loyalty to his father and his own conflict with knowing his father's actions are wrong. Upon hearing the hiss of someone accusing his father of burning barns, Sarty feels "the old fierce pull of blood" and is blindly thrust into a fight, only to be physically jerked back by his father's hand and his cold voice ordering him to get in the wagon.
Through Faulkner's use of stream-of-consciousness narration, the reader is aware of Sarty's thoughts. Harris as "his father's enemy (our enemy he thought in that despair, ourn, mine and hisn both! As the Snopes' family leaves town, Sarty consoles himself with the hope that this will be the last time his father commits the act that he cannot bring himself to even think of : "Maybe he's done satisfied now, now that he has" (2177).
Conversely, suppose that X did not want your name or your title; suppose that, for one reason or another, X broke free from it and chose himself another name, working a kind of repeated severance from the originary severance; then your narcissism, doubly injured, will find itself all the more enriched precisely on account of this: that which bears, has borne, will bear your name seems sufficiently free, powerful, creative, and autonomous to live alone and radically to do without you and your name.
Barn Burning Short Story Text Educational Psychology Topics For A Research Paper
(12–13) Literature can survive without authorship—indeed, the unattributed work of logographers (or ghost writers) and the secrecy of anonymous authors (attributed to “anon”) instantiate the durability of autonomous texts—but although the author can disappear into the inviolable privacy of literary ownership, the greater the autonomy of a text, the greater the possibility of intentionality behind that break from creative purpose.Unscrupulous literature, whether perfunctorily penned or knowingly produced, can spread unethical or politically fallacious messages through the accepted protocols of semiotics and the traditional meanings of (Saussurean) signs.Thus, the Derridean focus on authorial intention, as Segal insists, “no more consigns literary interpretation to unbridled subjectivism and pure arbitrariness than it severs literature from ethical or political accountability” (206 n5)., secrecy ties the destiny of literature “to a certain noncensure, to the space of democratic freedom (freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc.)” (28).From this perspective, as Derrida contends in “Before the Law” (1991), the literary domain “is not only that of an instituted At the other extreme, authorship is a responsible activity; the propositional nature of a work is an authorial duty.When all hypotheses are permitted, groundless and ad infinitum, about the meaning of a text, or the final intentions of an author, whose person is no more represented than nonrepresented by a character or by a narrator, by a poetic friend or fictional sentence, which detaches itself from its presumed source and thus remains ], when there is no longer even any sense in making decisions about some secret behind the surface of a textual manifestation (and it is this situation which I would call text or trace), when it is the call [The absolute secret, like an unbreakable code, encourages endless hypotheses of impassioned interpretation.Literary worth is the open secret of absolute secrecy allied to and against which the revealable (or conditional) secret inscribes a marked contrast.The relationship between what is inviolable and what is revealable has political ramifications for Derrida.Absolute secrecy arises from a reserve of unfathomable information, while conditional secrecy depends on a store of potential knowledge.An author cannot decrypt the absolute mysteries of his texts anymore than a reader of those texts can.Hence, as Nils Clausson observes, one of the consequences of poststructuralist theories of language and textuality has been to render problematical the commonsense idea that the author’s intentions are a wholly reliable guide either to recovering the true meaning of a text, what the writer supposedly put there, or to correcting misinterpretations of a text, readings wrongly read into a text by errant or arrant readers.