Language in City of Glass
In City of Glass language functions are key, particularly those which are related to Professor Stillman’s theory of language, through which he struggles to create a singular universal language. However, a language can never be universal. Though Professor Stillman strives to prove its possibility through the works of Lewis Carroll, both he and Quinn find that it is simply impossible to create such a language, and in the end, like Humpty Dumpty, fall.
Language as a plot is first introduced to the audience with the appearance of Peter Stillman on the scene. His father, a somewhat mad professor, had used his son in a cruel experiment to find the “natural” language of the human species. Later, when Quinn researches the works of Peter Stillman, he finds that the works are obsessed with the origins of languages described both in the Old Testament, and Milton’s Paradise Lost. While reading Stillman’s work, Quinn notes that Adam's original commission in the garden was to create language, which he does by giving everything a name. This process of creating language through giving names is key, because Stillman bases his theories of language on the fact that the world has come to a point where there is no “cement” between signifiers and signified. On page 70 Quinn paraphrases Stillman saying, "A thing and its name were interchangeable. After the fall, this was no longer true. Names became detached from things; words devolved into a collection of arbitrary signs; language had been severed from God. . . ." This interchange between signifiers and signified is illustarted literally through the use of the names standing for true language, which, throughout the course of the novel, become virtually interchangeable.
The overt interchangeability of names, due to their frequent reuse, is more than just a coincidence. The abundance of individual echoes, those of people who are the same, yet not the same, yet have the same “signifier” but are not the same signified individual, makes a point concerning Stillman’s language theories. As noted, names (which stand in for languages) in this novel are insignificant in that they are not attached to anything. Quinn goes by Wilson, Work, Auster, and eventually becomes the character of Don Quixote, and yet he is just one person. Auster is a strange shadow of Quinn with the wife and son and happy life that Quinn tragically lost. Henry Dark and Humpty Dumpty are reflections of Stillman and his use of language. Peter Stillman and Peter Stillman are polar opposites in terms of language, that is, Stillman seeks to create language into a specific universal language while Peter must rely on the interpretive qualities of language in order to communicate at all. Yet, these two go by one name. The fact is that H.D is a repeated set of initials for both Humpty Dumpty and Henry Dark, that Quinn and Auster's son have the same first name, that there are two Peter Stillmans and Peter is also the first name of Quinn's son, only speaks to the fact that the language within the novel, and perhaps without the novel is so arbitrary as a whole, that vastly different people can be called by the same word.
The use of Lewis Carroll’s character Humpty Dumpty serves to open up another door into language theory. Professor Stillman quotes from Through the Looking Glass on page 127:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that’s all.'
Stillman is concerned with the arbitrariness of language, the relativity of what he says is the separation of God from the language of men. He uses this quote by Humpty Dumpty to illustrate language’s mastery over men, rather than men’s mastery over language which is a degree of understanding, and as a call to action to create or make language answer to the needs of men. Lewis Carroll, while his premise is the same as Stillman’s, makes this comment in “The Stage and Spirit of Reverence”:
No word has a meaning inseparable attached to it; a word means what the speaker intends by it, and what the hearer understands by it, and that is all…This thought may serve to lessen the horror of some of the language used by the lower classes, which, it is a comfort to remember, is often a mere collection of unmeaning sounds, so far as the speaker and hearer are concerned. (Carroll/Gardener 213)
The very author of the words which Professor Stillman uses as a prophecy for his work says exactly the opposite (severely undercutting our faith that such a project is possible): that no matter what, a word will always be attached to a meaning derived by the speaker, and interpreted by the hearer. But it is not just in this one instance that Lewis Carroll undercuts Stillman’s theory of language and the possibility that such singularity of thought can exist in intraspecies communication. Carroll’s notorious nonsense poems, which are all structurally sound in grammar, form and word order, mean absolutely nothing to their audience. Because of the words themselves mean absolutely nothing. Yet, to the author, and only the author, meaning can be extracted.
In fact, Peter Stillman reflects the figure of Lewis Carroll in another forum as well: that of language creation. Taking what Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass to a new level, Stillman seeks to create language so that when he chooses words, they mean precisely what he means them to mean. Lewis Carroll also takes language into his own hands, to answer Humpty Dumpty’s question, it is he who is master. Carroll, in his literature goes about creating new words, "portmanteau words" which “unfold” into a precise meaning a singularity of thought, which is lacking in the modern vernacular. His new words have a very precise and specific meaning. In Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty explains the idea of portmanteau words saying, to a poor, confused Alice, “You see, it’s like a portmanteau, there are two meanings packed up into one word” (Carroll/Gardner 215). Carroll comments on the use of frumious (from “Jabberwocky”):
For instance, take the words
'fuming' and 'furious.' Make up your mind that you will say both words,
but leave it unsettled which you will say first. Now open your mouth and
speak. If your thoughts incline ever so little toward “furious”, you
will say “furious-fuming”; if they turn by even a hair’s breadth toward
'furious,' you will say “furious-fuming” but if you have that rarest of
gifts, a perfect balanced mind, you will say 'frumious.' (Boldrini,
Nocentini, Ricci 48)
Though the word "frumious" means absolutely nothing until one has heard the author’s definition, to the author, this word, and others (such as "bandersnatch," "chortle" and "galumph") have a very specific and defined meaning. Again, the doubling effect of words can be drawn out and related back to the issue of names in City of Glass. Though these portmanteau words have a very specific meaning, folded in on each other, they are still an amalgam of more than one word. And Carroll also points at a very small population who can employ their use, the balanced-minded. In fact, the inaccessibility to Humpty Dumpty’s “mastery” of language is summed up in one statement by sweet Alice: “of all the unsatisfactory people I have ever met…” (Carroll 137), which is then interrupted by Humpty’s falling off the wall. Prior to his fall Humpty Dumpty even complains that all people look alike, and that he should not recognize Alice were she to come by again. Stillman, by naming his son Peter, practices this sentiment which literally undercuts his own work by proving that there is no such thing as one signifier for one signified object. Immediately after making this statement, Humpty falls: he has made the point that with his view of language, he can no longer interface with the existing world, for, once he falls, no one can “put him back together again."
Stillman and Quinn also experience a fall. Immediately after revealing his purpose and theory to Quinn (just as Humpty Dumpty has related his theory to Alice), Stillman “falls," that is, jumps off a bridge. Stillman’s theory on language presents one important problem, that same problem of Humpty Dumpty, an inability to interface with the world. Stillman, one might theorize, attained his purity of language, and perhaps came to be the master over it. But, for a language to transmit one specific meaning with no shade of gray is for a language to be singular. And if a language is singular, that defeats the purposes of communication. For, if Stillman attained his perfect mastery over language, then he, like Humpty, could no longer interface with the existing world. In effect, he would disappear. Quinn, though, plays Alice. She revels in her use of “unsatisfactory” as a long word, celebrates her use of language. Quinn does also. Taking his red notebook in hand, he creates and celebrates his language, defining himself through the world around him, and the world around him through himself. In exactly the opposite motion, Quinn also disappears, having run out of time to make up for years of non-communication, when his language ends, he disappears.
As Quinn walked away from his final meeting with Stillman, he held a black umbrella. Walking through the torrent, he eventually is soaked, as his umbrella does not function as it should. “So much for functions, he says to himself, so much for the meaning of words” (Auster 139). Though Quinn has a faulty umbrella, it is still an umbrella. Even though Stillman may say:
Consider a word that refers to a
thing—‘umbrella,’ for example. When I say the word ‘umbrella’ you see
the object in your mind. You see a kind of stick…which, when opened,
will protect you from the rain. This last detail is important. Not only
is an umbrella a thing, it is a thing that performs a function—in other
words, expressed the will of man. (Auster 122)
Quinn comes to realize the reality of the issue: language cannot be singular. The ability to create language is founded on the individual, but must be read through the relationship of that individual to the world. A singularity of thought can be achieved only by one person, and when there is only one person involved, language cannot exist. Whatever may exist is not language.
Copyright 2003. Essay used
with author's permission.
This essay may not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of the author.
This essay may not be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of the author.
|
Email Questions and Comments |