→ in order to express these adequately she operates through metaphor (in psychology linked to unconscious intellect) adequate expression of the subterranean movement of the persons psyche. Drama that is seen to exist beneath the friendly surface of the novel is corresponded precisely in this fashion. E. g. Military metaphors when the characters analyse each other’s intentions contrast with the outward politeness – the whole flat business: first of all brother: “qaund elle a reconnu l’ ennemi, un envoyé de l’ennemi venue à l’éclaireur pour etudier le terrain, preparer l’attaque”. Also Alain refers to himself and Gisele as “conquistadores” of the flat, while, at the same time, writing polite letters to aunt. What happens in reality is not necessarily what happens in the novel. Also aunt Bethe’s conversation with the decorators about doorknob. A battle imagined in mind.
Ironic repetition of the metaphor: “franche comme or, bonne comme pain” - aunt Berthe’s self image in the eyes of the other at the beginning. When telling the story of the decorating again, Alain uses “son poids d’or”. He creates a rather different image of his aunt in the mind of the reader, and this word allows us to make a direct comparison between the two perspectives and attempt to elucidate the truth for ourselves. Irony, according to Emer O’ Bernie, exploits the inferential dimention of communication.
→ Reality constantly shifting, unfixed. Point expressly made: “Derieure eux deux seuls le savait, tout etait fluide, immense, sans contours”. There cannot be, therefore, a direct connection between the language and reality it describes Nouveau Roman – doubts the descriptive capacity of the language.
Language often poetic, striving for lyricism- because pronunciation expresses something about the tropism of the person - “sourires, regards, entendues, murmures, plus tard, plus tard, tu va voir”. Young love (Gisele and Alain at the beginning of their courtship) expressed through the gentle sounds and rhyme. Language central to the expression of the tropism.
Since the tropism is fleeting, so too must be the language. Looking at the page- interrupted phrases, no syntax, not following strict grammatical rules Sarraute’s view: real grammar is like Potemkin villages, a façade of this “painted” structures masking what needs to be seen underneath.
Pronunciation – Alains’ anticipation of his father in law’s remarks “ca ne m’étonera-pas-de-toi” allows us to see the emotion (fear, resentment) behind him imagining the dialogue they might have. Language allows us to discern Alain’s attitude to the event.
→ Language essential to Sarraute’s depiction of the tropisms of the characters, we have seen how language is looses conventional framework to allow for the tropism exist within the text. Because the expression is subordinated to the tropism in this fashion, the other aspects of the conventional novel are lost as well. If the expression is unconventional, so too must be the narrators, the plot and the characterisation. But that is not to say that they do not help the language support the weight of the novel, they do. But, being a necessary product of the language used, they can be seen as the columns support the novel’s weight, stemming from the linguistic basement created by Sarraute. The weight of the novel, its subject is the roof resting on top of all of that structure. A structure a bit like that of Acropolis.
So- the weight of the novel’s subject is carried by them in the following ways.
NARRATOR- for the comparisons to exists there must be “polyphonie des voix orchestrée” (Gerda Zeltner)
Also the internal dialogue of the character facilitates this constant re- evaluation of the shifting reality. E.g. Alain’s “family eye” and “intellectual eye” when considering his idol in the shop. Two different perspectives co- exist happily within the same character.
Reality can be considered as “stability of vision”. There isn’t that stability in the novel, thanks to both the multiple narrators and the ever-changing perspectives (the flux and journey of words) within the characters’ internal dialogues e.g. Aunt Berthe’s “metaphysical” according to Boué, explorations at the very start of the novel.
Narrative is a systematic questioning of the narrator and the narration. No narrative privilege, as all, even the “chief” narrator Alain scrutinised by the other characters. Mistrust and fear of being judged wrong. Power games. Mother in Law- Alain – Carrots.
1st person narration= tropism from within. But ultimately it is the instinctive and spontaneous nature of the utterances that allow the narrator to describe their tropism. Since no narrator exists outside the language the two can be considered as one and the same, but, ultimately, it is the language used by the character (but conceived by Sarraute) that enacts the tropism within the reader.
PLOT: revolves around the family relationships (and the internal mini dramas)- obviously conducive to the novel’s development, but, again, largely extinct from the novel (in comparison with the realist works) because the language must express the tropism, and there is no room for the banal commentary on the action that takes place on that depth of the subconscious.
Again ,the progression of the plot that does exist is “led by words”. Their progression, communication, re-evaluation, is what drives the novel. Sensation “matiere pure et non élabore” this is exactly how it is described by Sarraute.
CHARACTERISATION- again, through language. Everyone is a product of someone else’s point of view. Never exist independently of language. Berthe- Alain- Giselle first sequence of the novel. They depend for identity on each other. Dialogue- speaking defines an addresse.
We are made to think about characters, we have “no hold”. “Name is a source of embarrassment for the novelist” (Temps Modernes 1950) e.g. Faulkner’s Sound of Fury. Or Gide’s avoidance of the patronymic. In the Planetarium, we are brought in more closely with the inner world of the tropism.
Gap in interaction versus Shared language.
Juxtaposition of the points of view of the characters heightens their relativity.
Frenzie of construction and deconstruction- exposes the complexity of the sensation.
