Medium vs. Message: a Poststructuralist Approach to Select Novels of William Faulkner

2617 Words11 Pages
Medium vs. Message: A Poststructuralist Linguistic Approach to the Select Novels of William Faulkner One theme that continually reappears in the Faulknerian canon is that of language and the power that language may or may not possess. Language is analyzed and reanalyzed through the experiences and thought-lives of an entire cast of characters. The poststructuralist dilemma expressing the alienation of signifier from the signified is one of main questions posed: can language ever truly comment on anything outside of language? Does the word ever transcend the realm of language and affect the external world? Faulkner’s fiction tackles these questions and provides multiple answers simultaneously, which exemplifies just how complex this subject matter can be. His fictional works reject conventional dichotomies such as “white/black”, rich/poor”, “male/female”, “master/slave” etc. as a social and linguistic deception, and discovers a reality where people merge across social boundaries. The poststructuralist discourses on language often remind us that oppositions are fixed by rhetorical strategies of antithesis or omission: that opposites not only are independent but often merge with each other. Faulkner counters the rhetorical figures of language with literary devices of his own. He employs a style that unites or reverses apparent opposites and his plots more often than not refuse to tie up the narrative threads and resist conventional endings. An analysis of Faulkner’s narrative discourse from this angle shows that the novelist’s linguistic and stylistic innovations profoundly impact both the content and form of his major novels thereby foregrounding their linguistic medium. The twin concepts of medium and message are widely debated in poststructuralist discourse. While structuralism upholds the importance of “structure”, “text” and “reader”, poststructuralism
Open Document