Dialect
A while ago, we discussed Vardaman's narration and how it's difficult to understand him thoroughly. Mr. Mitchell mentioned that entire essays were written deciphering his words, so I figured, why not try some of that right now?
On page 53, Vardaman starts off by comparing the now-dead Addie to the now-dead fish he brought home. He says that it's now cut up into pieces of "not-fish", with his hands stained with "not-blood". By calling the fish's remains "not-fish", Vardaman seems to be trying to wrap his head around the fact that once a living thing dies, it stops behaving like its former self; once the fish is killed and cut up, it no longer behaves like a living fish, and Vardaman seems to think it's no longer a fish at all.
He then says "she is getting so far ahead I cannot catch her." His shift from referring to the fish as "it" to "she" shows that he is confusing the fish with Addie, or simply trying to compare the two to understand death. Vardaman saying that he "cannot catch her" shows that he is beginning to understand that he won't ever see Addie alive again.
A few lines later, he speaks about how he hears Addie on her bed, and feels the floor shake when "he walks on it that came and did it." It's fairly obvious that this "he" is Peabody (remember, he's a bit fat), who Vardaman believes is to blame for Addie's death. He proceeds to take his anger out on Peabody's horses.
On page 53, Vardaman starts off by comparing the now-dead Addie to the now-dead fish he brought home. He says that it's now cut up into pieces of "not-fish", with his hands stained with "not-blood". By calling the fish's remains "not-fish", Vardaman seems to be trying to wrap his head around the fact that once a living thing dies, it stops behaving like its former self; once the fish is killed and cut up, it no longer behaves like a living fish, and Vardaman seems to think it's no longer a fish at all.
He then says "she is getting so far ahead I cannot catch her." His shift from referring to the fish as "it" to "she" shows that he is confusing the fish with Addie, or simply trying to compare the two to understand death. Vardaman saying that he "cannot catch her" shows that he is beginning to understand that he won't ever see Addie alive again.
A few lines later, he speaks about how he hears Addie on her bed, and feels the floor shake when "he walks on it that came and did it." It's fairly obvious that this "he" is Peabody (remember, he's a bit fat), who Vardaman believes is to blame for Addie's death. He proceeds to take his anger out on Peabody's horses.
I don't think its dialect, but the lack of education around the Bundren farm. Everyone in the family talks weird (including Cash and Darl, who are in their late twenties).
ReplyDeleteVardaman is definitely a very confused character. He is a little boy and none of his family has taken the time to explain the concept of death to him. I would also be very confused. It makes sense to me that he is using the death of a fish to equate to the death of his mom, as that as the only form of understanding death that he has. Poor Vardaman :(
ReplyDeleteVardaman actually makes me cry. His narration is expertly written to believably portray the confusion of a young boy struggling with what death means. And the more confusing it is, the more sympathetic I am to him - death is confusing and scary and it makes my heart hurt to see someone so young grappling with it. I kind of wrote my blogpost on confusing narration but neglected to mention Vardaman - he is a potent example of how the confusing narration can actually cause sympathy. Nice post.
ReplyDeleteI wish the Bundrens had put a little more effort into explaining things to Vardaman. He's having a lot of trouble comprehending the meaning of death and ends up using the fish as his primary source. It also seems to me like Darl might be similar to Vardaman. He contemplates death with his "is" and "was" philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAlso another comparison between Darl and Vardaman is at the end, when Darl has gone psycho, he says "Darl is our brother" which is a parallel to Vardaman constantly identifying his brothers. Vardaman will probably go crazy next.
DeleteVardaman is really hard to sift through, though so much important information is delivered through off-hand comments that Vardaman makes. It's super frustrating but I kind of love it. It forces us to listen closely to a kid that nobody else is listening to. Reading his narration you realize just hot much of a kid he really is. You talk a lot about how he uses vague pronouns and this reminded me of how children really don't understand that other people have separate consciousness. It's almost like he expects everyone else to have the exact same information and experiences and it made me contemplate just how young Vardaman is. It's so sad he has to be collateral in this family and nobody even cares. Cool post!
ReplyDeleteVardaman from a literary stand point might have been one of my favorite characters. Like you, and Mitchell said, his early narrative is hard to understand. But I think that is exactly the point, Vardaman is eleven, and the brain of the child, the way in which they think, is much different from even us. We just don't notice this shift ourselves because it is either so gradual, or occurs so quickly that we can't comprehend it. Which is also what happens with Vardaman as a narrator as he comes to grips with what death is, and the unfairness that underlies the adult world, and we see it in his narration as he grows to become much clearer in his "dialect."
ReplyDeleteNice post! Something I thought was interesting while reading this is the similarity between Vardaman thinking about "fish" and "not-fish", and Darl's confusing section about "is" and "was". Although Darl does it perhaps a bit more eloquently, we get to see both characters grappling with the thought of death and what it means that their mom has passed away. I do feel really bad for Vardaman especially though, because he is so young to be going through this and won't get to grow up with his mom around.
ReplyDelete