"Experience is never limited and it is never complete, it is an immense sensibility,
a kind of huge spider-web of the finest silken threads suspended in the chamber of
consciousness, catching every air-borne particle in its tissue."
~Consciousness and the Novel, p51,
quoting Henry James
But none hath yet by Demonstration found
The way, by which to Square a Circle round:
For while the Brain is round, no Square will be,
While Thoughts divide, no Figures will agree.
The way, by which to Square a Circle round:
For while the Brain is round, no Square will be,
While Thoughts divide, no Figures will agree.
~Cavendish, "The Circle of the Brain cannot be Squared"
The sections of Lodge's Consciousness and the Novel we were assigned this week discuss how consciousness has been presented in a few different literary areas. First in the rise of the novel: the autobiographical nature of Defoe, Richardson's epistolary first-person, and the omniscient third-person of Fielding. Pros and cons of each style are discussed, and then a blend of the two: the "free indirect" style used by Jane Austen. Lodge then moves on to Henry James, Virginia Woolf, and James Joyce, with the last described as coming "as close to representing the phenomenon of consciousness as any writer has ever done in the history of literature" (p.56) Lodge concludes with a discussion on postmodern novelists and writing styles, contrasting earlier authors who focus on internal dialogue, such as Virginia Woolf, and those who focus on external dialogue almost to the exclusion of all else, such as Evelyn Waugh.
One of the first things that struck me about this reading was Lodge's comparison of the experience of reading a novel to that of individual consciousness. With the advent of the printing press, books became more readily available, and "exactly the same story could be experienced privately, silently, by discrete individuals" (p.40). This experience, notes Lodge, mimics the "silent privacy of the individual consciousness" (p.40). I've been an avid novel reader all my life, but this connection still surprised me. After this revelation, it only makes sense that novel writers would try to represent personal consciousness.
Though many authors have come close to representing consciousness, and Lodge suggests that Joyce came the closest, one still gets the sense that consciousness can never be fully captured. The above quote from Henry James expresses this quite succinctly, comparing consciousness and experience to an ephemeral spiderweb, without limits and always growing. I thought that this quote paired nicely with with the Margaret Cavendish poem we also had to read for this week: "The Circle of the Brain cannot be Squared." Even the title of this work expresses the feeling that the consciousness and the brain cannot be fully understood, however scientists and philosophers might try to analyze and divide it.
These two quotes make for an interesting contrast with our readings for Descartes from this week. Descartes says that we can know our minds better than the world around us because the only reason we know the world around us exists is through our minds-- the classic "cogito ergo sum" definition of man. My question for Descartes about his definition would be yes we know our mind exists, but how much do we actually know about it, apart from the fact that it exists and perceives? I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on him though, considering the concept of consciousness was new when he was doing his work. I eagerly look forward to delving deeper into novels and the mind!
One of the first things that struck me about this reading was Lodge's comparison of the experience of reading a novel to that of individual consciousness. With the advent of the printing press, books became more readily available, and "exactly the same story could be experienced privately, silently, by discrete individuals" (p.40). This experience, notes Lodge, mimics the "silent privacy of the individual consciousness" (p.40). I've been an avid novel reader all my life, but this connection still surprised me. After this revelation, it only makes sense that novel writers would try to represent personal consciousness.
Though many authors have come close to representing consciousness, and Lodge suggests that Joyce came the closest, one still gets the sense that consciousness can never be fully captured. The above quote from Henry James expresses this quite succinctly, comparing consciousness and experience to an ephemeral spiderweb, without limits and always growing. I thought that this quote paired nicely with with the Margaret Cavendish poem we also had to read for this week: "The Circle of the Brain cannot be Squared." Even the title of this work expresses the feeling that the consciousness and the brain cannot be fully understood, however scientists and philosophers might try to analyze and divide it.
These two quotes make for an interesting contrast with our readings for Descartes from this week. Descartes says that we can know our minds better than the world around us because the only reason we know the world around us exists is through our minds-- the classic "cogito ergo sum" definition of man. My question for Descartes about his definition would be yes we know our mind exists, but how much do we actually know about it, apart from the fact that it exists and perceives? I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on him though, considering the concept of consciousness was new when he was doing his work. I eagerly look forward to delving deeper into novels and the mind!
Hi Emily,
ReplyDeleteAn excellent opening blog. You do a great job delving into relationship between the novel and consciousness described by Lodge, as well as into the deeper metaphors of mind and brain articulated by Cavendish, Lodge, and James.
I especially enjoyed your pairing of Cavendish and James, and the way you brought them together around the difficulty of fully representing the conscious mind. It also had me thinking of new questions: What links—and separates—the metaphors at play in each author’s resistance to pinning down thought? (i.e. Cavendish’s mind as circle vs. James’ mind as “spider-web of…silken threads in the chamber of consciousness”). How does each writer's choice evoke a sense of consciousness' ultimate inaccessibility?
Your note about the privacy of reading seemed spot-on as well. I’d be interested to hear more about the parallels you see between silent reading and silent thought down the road—does it matter what one’s reading to make this work? Poetry, novels, personal memoirs, adventure thrillers? Or is the key for mirroring consciousness the fact of silent reading itself?
A few final questions, to circle back, about the sense Cavendish conveys re: a “consciousness that can never fully be captured.” Since this idea is expressed from the first in her title, how does our sense of it change over the poem’s course; where do we start and finish? Other questions that popped up: what is it about these two shapes (circle/square) that works for Cavendish, and why do circles work to connote infinity and extension while the square conveys mathematical precision and boundaries? What is it about that spider-web metaphor in James, for example, that gives us the sense of limitlessness you so aptly note?