Postmodernism has a tentative relationship with language. I hesitate to say it is looked on as a necessary evil, because this is too cliche and does not appropriately convey the complicated nature of the relationship. However, postmodernism teaches to be wary of language's role in our world - perhaps it even is our world. This recent - and the biblical - trepidation towards language is a central theme in Ben Marcus's new novel The Flame Alphabet (Knopf © 2012 $25.95).
In the novel language is a deadly disease that rots the body and turns the mouth into a snarl. Only children seem to be immune to this pandemic. Their free use of language slowly harming, and giving them power over, the adults of society.
On its most basic level the novel is a story about what happens in a post-apocalyptic world when language is the apocalypse. As you can imagine large swaths of the novel pass by with minimal dialogue. It seems often a loophole has to be invented for direct communication. One of the most interesting aspects of this story is the way the characters, and we as readers, come to adjust to the lack of verbal communication. Even with its sparse dialogue the book moves at a quick pace and is never bogged down with overly expository passages.
The characters are one of the weaker points of the story. They are mostly caricatures: A mom who loves her daughter more than anything, a father trying to save his family, a daughter who hates the world, and a devil that does not seem very evil, are some of the primary players. Although this use of caricatures may be purposeful, these uses of the 'everyman' characters in post-apocalyptic fiction is an unfortunate trope in this reviewers opinion. Despite the lack of depth to these characters they are still entertaining enough to move the plot forward.
The novel is almost meant to be inferred rather than understood. It is a parable about the overuse and abuse of language. There is no understanding as a result of our failures to define clearly the speech we are using. Marcus handles this concept well. Four chapters into the novel he spells it out to us in a great paragraph:
"... It troubled us that our common sense has so little medical traction. There were doctors, and there were armchair doctors, and then there were people like us, crawling in the mud, deploying childish diagnostics, hoping that through sheer tone of voice, through the posturing of authority, we would exact some definitive change of reality. Perhaps we thought the world we lived in could be hacked into pleasing shapes simply by what we said. Maybe we still believed that."
This seems to challenge the postmodern paradigm of language. It seems to say that although we think we can alter the world with language, and our bold assertions, we have so far been unable to prove it. Perhaps language does not shape the world around us as much as bring death to it. Perhaps our mindless talk is the ruination of the world. Perhaps language makes us feel like gods. As Marcus says, "we make language in our own image and the language repulses us."
The book suggests that it is our playful useless banter, our postmodern need to speak endlessly on topics to no greater understanding is dangerous. "Child's Play" is deadly. There is no innocence in our play with language and we must recognize our impact. Language is killing us. Shut up and listen, because only by studying the byproduct of our speech can we be cured.
The book is worth checking out, but based on what I have seen Marcus accomplish in his debut short story collection Age of Wire and String I have to admit I was expecting more. However, it is obviously unfair to level critique against a book that is trying to do something in a different way than its predecessors.
If you are interested Knopf produced a video trailer for the novel, a cool concept in itself (See below). Also, please comment and let me know what you think, give me advice, or just say hello.
Love the blog already! Can't wait to read more of your analyses in the future.
ReplyDelete