Andre, you are my nemesis.
Barth – “Lost in the Funhouse”
The Assignment: Show how it operates as metafiction
The significant way Barth experiments with familiar narrative conventions to comment on the story-writing process.
How do-
-structure
-point of view
-style
operate as vehicles for what Barth wants to communicate about the world?
Do they comment on or critique aspects of contemporary culture?
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Define terms – metafiction (fiction about fiction), postmodernism (a reworking or subversion of past conventions)
B. Present major arguments
C. State thesis – In writing a story about the writing of a story, Barth has created a classic work of metafiction.
II. Definition and defiance of convention – Barth defines many of the conventions of storytelling and then immediately proceeds to defy them.
A. Calls attention to conventions
B. Subversion of Plot Convention – Abandons traditional narrative structure and chronology for a disjointed collage of experiences.
C. Subversion of Authorial Convention – Confusion of the author/protagonist distinction
III. The Funhouse as metaphor – The funhouse as a place of fun or fear & confusion is a metaphor which functions on at least two important levels.
A. Metaphor for story-writing
B. Metaphor for story-reading
C. Metaphor for adolescence and sexuality
V. Conclusion – restate thesis and concluding remarks
Introductory paragraph should stress the view of the world (confused, chaotic, disjointed) Barth is trying to present. The techniques he employs all contribute to the confusion inherent in life, sex, and story-writing. Each technique he employs is a subversion of traditional writing convention that contributes to the confusion inherent in life, sex, and story-writing.
One of the more unusual techniques used by Barth is the way in which he continually refers to the conventions of traditional storytelling. Often he calls attention to a technique or method of writing only to defy or abandon it immediately afterward. The first example of this occurs at the beginning of the story when he explains the proper use of italics. He notes that, in a work of fiction, italics are used to represent “outside, intrusive, artificial voices,” and stresses that they “should be used sparingly” (Barth 72). This is the first “should” of the story and it’s one that he completely disregards. There are five italicized words or phrases in the first paragraph (Barth 72), six in the second paragraph (Barth 73), and they are seen repeatedly throughout the rest of the story. Barth mentions physical description as “one of several standard methods of characterization” (Barth 73) but defies this method in the very next physical description by cutting himself off mid-sentence (Barth 74). At one point in the story, Barth expresses distaste for a sentence he has written, complaining that “everything was wrong from the outset” (Barth 88), and yet rather than editing the line, he leaves it as it is. Barth continually reminds the reader that this is a story and it should follow standard writing conventions. Occasionally Barth adheres to these conventions, but often he casually disregards them.
An important convention Barth addresses is that of narrative structure. He explains the basics of Freitag’s Triangle and cautions that while it is not “an absolute necessity,” “one ought not to forsake it” (Barth 95). This standard formula for narrative structure and chronology is completely abandoned by Barth in Lost in the Funhouse. Not only does a create a plot that ignores basic linear chronology, he creates a plot that defies all attempts at cohesive synthesis. This is seen most clearly at the end of the story as Ambrose imagines the various endings of his story, his day, and even his life (Barth 95, 96). So disorienting is this disregard for conventional plot structure that it is difficult to know for certain how the story even ends. The reader is told that “the family is going home” (Barth 97) which is tempting to believe is the actual ending, but by this point in the story there are no certainties about anything. Barth frequently comments on the slow progress of the story. Near the end of the story, Barth admits that most of the story to this point “is exposition that should’ve been done earlier” (Barth 94). Shortly after this he notes that “a long time ago we should have passed the apex of Freitag’s Triangle” (Barth 96). In acknowledging these “shoulds” Barth is calling the reader’s attention to the fact that he has willingly disregarded these plot conventions.
One of the most significant conventions abandoned by Barth is the traditional role of the author. Whereas in the past, the author has been clearly separated from the text itself, Barth intentionally dissolves this barrier. Whether he is lamenting the fact that he will “never be an author” (Barth 86), brainstorming the possible endings for his story (Barth 87), considering the proper age to make his characters (Barth 94), or changing “in mock” to “in feigned” (Barth 82) mid-sentence, Barth is continually stepping into the frame of the story. He even goes so far as to offer reasons for not writing a lost-in-the-funhouse story, asking whether there is “anything more tiresome, in fiction, than the problems of sensitive adolescents” (Barth 91, 92). In the next line Barth tells the reader that “it’s all to long and rambling, as if the author.” (Barth 92), suggesting that he finds himself to be the problem with his own story. This lack of distinction between the author and his text brings with it the breakdown of the fact/fiction barrier.
Barth doesn’t simply wish make his presence known to the reader; he carries this technique even further by intentionally blurring the line between between author and protagonist. Barth questions whether or not there is “really such a person as Ambrose, or is he the figment of the author’s imagination?” (Barth 88), a passage which causes the reader to question those same boundaries. Similarly, Ambrose later sees that he has “deceeived himself into supposing that he was a person.” (Barth 93). This lack of distinction between author and protagonist is highlighted by lines such as “he lost himself in the reflection” (Barth 94), a line written by Barth, from the perspective of Ambrose, in italics which suggest an “outside, intrusive, or artificial voice” (Barth 72). This paradox is somewhat explained, in a manner appropriately postmodern, several pages earlier by the line, “you think you’re yourself, but there are other persons in you” (Barth 85). In one confusing passage there is a paragraph of dialog begun by Ambrose telling Magda not to worry, that they “can manage it somehow” (Barth 90). The paragraph, still within the same dialog quotes, is completed by Barth explaining that “no character in a work of fiction can make a speech this long” (Barth 90). The most blatant disregard for the author/protagonist distinction comes about as an abrupt shift in perspective. What begins as Barth’s third-person description of the characters’ swimming options ends with a first person decision that “we would do the latter” (Barth79). This line is repeated two more times, as if to stress the significance of this identity confusion.
These techniques and subversions alone would simply be chaotic pastiche of experimental style were they not all connected by and contributing toward a deeper level of meaning. As Barth himself admits (Barth 94), his use of metaphor isn’t subtle, but it is effective and carefully crafted to reflect several different levels of meaning contained within Lost in the Funhouse.
somewhere:
This serves as a constant reminder to the reader that this is a story, written by an author who carefully selects particular techniques for specific desired effects. The apparent effect intended by this technique is to
miscellaneous gobbledygook:
what barth seems to want to communicate is that the world is a confusing, overwhelming, illogical place. the funhouse is a perfect metaphor for that surreal sort of confusion. a story, like a life experience, is a disjointed series of sensations and events that can’t be properly adapted to the story diagram model. he does this by pointing out all the shoulds of story writing, adhering to some, breaking others. the conventions he violates/subverts are:
-authorial perspective
-plot structure, narrative cohesion
argument ideas
non-linearity & freitag’s triangle
authorial intrusion (insertion, or inclusion might be better terms)
-author/narrator/protagonist confusion
metaphor as overarching principle
-this saves the story from being simply “experimental fiction”
-so, metaphor for what? sex, life, fiction? all three? explore 1?
-if it’s a metaphor for fiction, is it writing or reading? both, sure, but which to discuss.. both?
passages:
blah blah
don’t bother copying, just check your notes, jackass
Comments