FUGUE!!!!!!!!! in THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER....and I'm talking about the emotions :)

Okay hey there guys! So I am a tad late...oops :) Anyways for those of you crazies who are still up stalking the blog site... I have some questions for you that are sure to keep you pondering :) Lolz...just kidding I just wanted to have a funny introduction...even though it's probably only making me laugh at the moment. Anyways let's get down to business...

In Fuller's essay, she expresses the effect that fugue plays in the novel on the setting and the emotions. As seen in Kaare's response, each chapter in part 1 begins with a description of the setting and demonstrates the fugue in the novel.

Fuller writes, "Thus, from the outset of the novel through its concluding treatment of the surviving four character in isolated chapters in part three, McCullers, as Richard Cook suggests, 'preserves the separateness of each person even as she holds them together in a LONELY community of suspicion and misunderstanding'" (Fuller, 2)

I think that the reoccurring theme that corresponds with the fugue expressed in the novel, is a lonesome emotion. It's a pretty direct concept due to the fact that the title of the novel is, 'THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER,' however it's also evident throughout the novel as well. For example,

"The sun felt like a hot piece of iron pressing down on his head. The town seemed more lonesome than any place he had ever known. the stillness of the street gave him a strange feeling. when he had been drunk the place had seemed violent and riotous. And now it was as though everything had come to a sudden, static halt" (McCuller 59).

Basically, I wanted to incorporate Kaare's question in with my blog post. Kaare proposed the question, whether fugue blends the characters together or highlights them.

Instead, I was wondering if the fugue of the lonesomeness in the novel directly affects the dignity of the character expressing their emotions. Do you think that the fugue has a strong influence on not only the character's emotions but also their self-esteem and their dignity?

"Because of the insolence of all the white race he was afraid to lose his dignity in friendliness" (McCuller 85).

Language and Responsibility: The Failure of Discourse in Carson McCuller’s The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

While I really enjoyed the essay and I think it added another dimension to my reading of the text and makes me want to read on faster, I am left a little bit confused as well. It’s a nice essay but I think its going to take me some more time to mull it over in order to feel like I understand it better. Here are my disjointed thoughts and feeling on it as of now:

When Bradshaw is explaining the totalizing tendencies of the characters in the novel, he says: “Each individual, in private visits with Singer, had totalized him to such an extent that it is only possible for them to identify him as an extension of their individual Self” and I’m left wondering if he is suggesting that all people natural tendency to totalize others into understandable levels, or just the characters in this novel who are plagued with loneliness as a result of their isolating totalization of Singer. In other words, is Bradshaw arguing that people who succumb to totalizing another into an extension of the Self are bound to become lonely and isolated? Moreover, how does the concept of the Face fit into Bradshaw’s argument? He says, “For Levinas the face is not a material representation of the Other’s presence; instead it represents integral difference between the Self and the Other which cannot be conceptualized. Rather than identify this difference as physical Levinas suggests this relationship depends upon a recognition of the Face- a deeper, more essential manifestation of the Other’s difference from the Self.” If every Other has a face that demands discourse, is it the Other who is suffering, or the Self? I’m confused..

Apart from all of my confusion, I loved the way the author went into detailed analysis of each character and how his in-depth discussion ended in a conclusion of the “hierarchical relationship” of Singer ‘s dependence on Antonopoulos and the other’s dependence on Singer. But if all of the characters, including Singer, look to totalize someone who cannot respond to them, maybe Bradshaw’s message (or McCullers!) lies in the destructive tendencies influenced by language. If language didn’t exist for Singer to have a one-sided conversation with Antonopoulos, and for the others to have a one-sided conversation with Singer, then maybe their tendency to totalize the Other would lessen and the terrible loneliness would therefore lessen or be gone entirely. So maybe the argument is against language?

And I'm sorry this is a few minutes late, I got a little excited with that last bit

Fugue and Counterpoint--Does contrapuntal writing really have its place in literature?

"The Conventions of Counterpoint and Fugue" conducts a close analysis of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and makes accurate, insightful comparisons between the form of the novel and the form of a standard contrapuntal piece. Fuller leads a relatively basic but, as George pointed out, strong argument, clearly defining what is meant by "counterpoint" and "fugue" in the conventional sense then demonstrating with textual evidence how it applies in the less conventional sense: to literature.

My post about this article may be, perhaps, straying a bit too far from the specifics of Fuller's argument but the more I think about McCuller's use of contrapuntal form in a novel which conveys such deep, abstract feelings, the more skepticism I have for this technique's place in literature. I am not at all arguing that McCullers is unsuccessful or even careless in her choice to use strict musical form in order to embellish the content of her novel. Rather, my skepticism is based off the criticisms that many successors of Bach and Mozart who were practitioners of contrapuntal writing--specifically fugue--suffered from. We know that Beethoven amongst Mozart plays an important role in this novel; Mick is touched greatly by the "Eroica Symphony" and hears Mozart in her head all day and night. What is important to know, however, is that Beethoven (in his third period) was criticized for his usage of contrapuntal writing such as fugue (which is present in the "Eroica Symphony" though he was not criticised for this) and variations on themes (the "Diabelli Variations", specifically) which Mozart was greatly known for doing. By this point in the early 19th century fugue, variation, and other strict contrapuntal techniques were associated with connotations of dry academicism and even amateurism; this was the beginning of the Romantic movement in Europe. During this time the usage of music in literature was not uncommon. The application of musical motifs to characters in various novels and as a re-occurring symbol is a technique commonly used by Goethe, one of the most well-known German Romantics. The idea of combining music and literature was far more abstract in this period and the usage of such strict form as McCullers uses would be contrary to the Romantic style of the time. What I am trying to say is that perhaps McCullers's use of musical form (though I am perfectly aware that she is not a Romantic writer) may work in successfully shaping the content of the novel and embellishing certain parts, though I am led to wonder if such strict musical form depletes the amount of expressionism--an aspect I see as vital considering that the feelings of loneliness and disconnect with the world are imensely abstract, too abstract to shape into the form of a fugue--in the novel.

The Paradox of the Need for Privacy and the Need for Understanding

In the article, the author states “McCullers was only 21 when she wrote this book, but she was too mature to condemn abstractions either, although it is a rather abstract, paradoxical conflict that she is primarily concerned with…”(1). I may be reading too deeply into this but what right does the author have to say this statement? Aren’t the more mature more likely to condemn abstractions? Is it not the human condition to organize whatever we cannot clearly define? Isn’t it the human condition to fear what we do not know? Is it not the “more mature” that are more likely to follow these human conditions and the young to embrace the abstract because they are not yet fully conscious of society and the world around them? How can the author say that McCullers can write this book when she “was only 21” because she was “too mature to condemn abstractions” when I personally believe her age is exactly what allowed her to write this book, not because she was too mature, but rather because, like Mick, her life is not clearly defined, which as a result gives her the ability to write about this paradox she is beginning to realize she lives among? Which brings me to another point that I believe the author misinterprets… He states “The portrait of Mick is complete” when I believe although we have so far witnessed Mick’s life more thoroughly than the rest of the cast of characters she remains somewhat ambiguous to the reader. I’m not sure what makes me say this but that’s why I would like to put it up for discussion.
I know that was long and sort of confusing but basically I have questions on the way the author chooses to word his ideas and would like to see if there are those who disagree or agree with me. I’m not saying that I disagree with what he is saying, the very opposite actually, but I do not agree with the way he chooses to word some of his ideas.
SO first of all, do you believe that the author is right when he states that although she “was only 21 when she wrote this book, she was too mature to condemn abstractions either”? Why and why not? And do you also believe that the author is right to say that “The portrait of Mick is complete”? Although we have not fully read the text I believe that there is this mystery about her that leaves her portrait incomplete… HELP ME because I am thoroughly confusing myself. Thank youu :)

The Paradox of the Need for Privacy and the Need for Understanding

One part of this article that interested me is when Madden brings up monomania. Madden writes, "Copeland, obsessed with the one true purpose, and Blount, obsessed with the gospel of social reform, are both subject to monomania, and it is in this light that we see them" (1). I think that almost all of the characters have some sort of deep rooted obsession. For instance- Mick's monomania is music, Antonapolous' deals with food, and Portia's is similar to Jake's. At first I thought that these obsessions were the cause of the desire for solitude, especially in Mick's case. If Mick was always engrossed in music, it would be difficult for her to spare much time for being with people who did not love it as much as she did. But this is not necessarily true, because the characters do not shut themselves inside the "rooms" of their minds simply to focus on their obsessions. Like all humans, they have a longing for solitude which conflicts with their need for understanding. "More than any of the other characters, Mick needs solitude, privacy." (2). Is it possible that the characters use their monomanias as an excuse to retreat into themselves? Are their obsessions a way to attain privacy without feeling lonely? It seems as though Mick finds comfort in music. Could this be because the music feels so familiar, or because it is an escape, or distraction, from the people around her who don't understand?

The Paradox of the Need for Privacy and the Need for Understanding

After reading and discussing “The Paradox of the Need for Privacy and the Need for Understanding”, I wonder whether a perfect balance of privacy and understanding is ever possible. The article provides various instances of characters from the novel either achieving solely privacy or understanding, and struggling with this imbalance. Madden claims Copeland and Blount “try to subliminate their personal frustrations into public causes and their manner of fighting for these causes further intensifies their neuroses by alienating the very people they wish to convince; this increases their own loneliness, and the poison of narcissism festers in their spirits”.

Because characters such as Copeland and Blount are caught up in their desire for one “true purpose”, they fail to fulfill their need of understanding and compassion by others, in fear others will not understand. People find comfort in talking to Singer, because he does not respond, or disagree. By speaking to Singer, characters attempt to fulfill their need for human understanding, yet do not have to worry about possible rejection or alienation.

Madden proposes that individuals fighting for a cause to be understood are alienated, yet given unintentional privacy by pushing away others. People who conform to society are accepted, but are they truly understood if they change themselves to fit in? The article seems to display a pessimistic view regarding a balance between privacy and understanding, as the author believes it can not be attained.

Fugue and Conterpoint

"While critics in general note the frequent direct references to music in her works, most of them focus on the way music functions as a "minor symbol" and as an "extended correlative" or mirror of theme and character. Few critics, however, have examined music's role as "architectural framework.""

~ Janice Fuller in "The Conventions of Counterpoint and Fugue in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter"

Music is generally thought of as being composed mainly of lyrics and techno beats, but there is much more to musical conventions than what is commonly heard in popular music. Rather, as we have seen in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, musical conventions can be used to send a message, to convey the tone and meaning of a work. In fact, these aspects of music can be as important, or even more important than the words themselves.

As we have seen, though each character in the novel is dealing with loneliness and the "insurmountable isolation of human beings," this theme really comes together with the musical structure of the novel in which each character's voice is intermingled with the rest, echoing the same sentiments and ideals. Their individual problems and concerns are alternately amplified and deafened by those around them.

To what extend do lyrics, that is the words associated with the music (in this case the text of the novel), play a role, and are the conventions behind them more important?

Fugue and Counterpoint

"This book is planned according to a definite and balanced design. The form is contrapuntal throughout. Like a voice in a fugue each one of the main characters is an entirety in himself - but his personality takes on a new richness when contrasted and woven in with the other characters in the book."

-- McCullers (quoted by Fuller in "The Conventions of Fugue and Counterpoint")

It's difficult to doubt the musical influence of McCuller's novel - Mick's greatest weakness is the classical music on the radio; the first character's name is "Singer"; "She started on the same tune and said the same thing over and over..." (McCullers, 50); the list goes on.

Similarly, the presence of counterpoint and fugue is hard to ignore - the book's characters tell their stories in a very similar, repeating manner, much as a musical fugue repeats its components to create a new piece that is harmonically sound.

Take, for example, the fact that each chapter in part I begins with a description of the specific time of day: "On a black sultry night in early summer Biff Brennon stood...(13); "the sun woke Mick early..." (33); "late in the afternoon Jake Blount awoke...(53)". Similarly, in part II, each chapter (thus far) begins with a description of the season - "this summer was different..." (97) and "by October the days were blue and cool" (121)

Still, my question is whether or not these elements of counterpoint and fugue allow each character to "take on new richness" or blend them all into one. On the one hand, the similar yet different manners in which the characters act contrast to highlight each of their differences. Yet, on the other hand, much like a musical fugue, each individual part refrains from being it's own piece and begins to blend together in a conforming manner. Do the characters conform or stand out as a result of McCuller's musical composition?

The Paradox of the Need for Privacy and the Need for Understanding

After reading and analyzing the article "The paradox of the need for privacy and the need for understanding" the question that i was left with was, in human nature, does this paradox change over time?

It is within human nature to desire privacy, individuality and self alienation to an extent, while still wishing to be connected with and accepted by society through mutual understandings from one human being to another. This was the basis of the article, however Madden also included much detail regarding age and growing older. Mick is young (at the point we are at in the novel), however the article reveals that with age she changes. Madden states, "We see her in various situations, reacting variously, exhibiting in her own eccentric way all the characteristics of an adolescent girl trying to achieve womanhood, but fearing to succeed." I feel that this fear of age, yet still desirable growth in age is reflective of the paradox Madden is addressing in his article. Later he says again, "In growing up, he (Bill) has failed her." I felt that Madden was suggesting that as one grows older this paradox deteriorates and becomes less important. Perhaps individuality grows less vital to a person with age? 

I suppose, as I stated before, what i am wondering is if Madden is trying to portray, or indirectly exhibit, that the paradox of the need for privacy and that for understanding shifts, or becomes less powerful, significant or influential over time. 

The Paradox of the Need for Privacy and the Need for Understanding - Does the author refute his own argument?

Today in class we decided collectively that the setence "everyone hungers for human understanding while simultaneously desiring an inviolable privacy'' (1), was most likely the author's thesis in this article. It essentially, as we already said, restated the title and stated what Madden was going to say in the following pages.

As we spoke of paradox we began to discuss this idea that many of the characters go to Singer to talk to - more for their own benefit than Singer's. Madden even says that the Doctor Copeland " was more at peace when he could talk to the uncomprehending deaf-mute, Singer. " (6).

Perhaps it is just me, but it seems like Madden is refuting his own idea. In the beginning Madden said that everyone hungers for human understanding, yet towards the end explains that Copeland prefered it when he talked to someone who didn't understand. Doesn't this evidence seem to contradict his own idea?