Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Postmodern Reading of Auster’s Leviathan as
an Example of Historiographic Metafiction
Moutman Hameed Mousa
MA, English Literature,
Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
Email- [email protected]
Dr. Nasser Maleki Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
Abstract- History is a narrative written or documented by human beings, and human beings are never free from their
subjective preferences and their political as well as socio-cultural biases. Postmodern historical fiction, especially the
genre of “historiographic metafiction”, highlights this issue more than traditional historical writings by foregrounding the
subjective nature of historiography, at the same time as it reflects the process of writing about history. Those postmodern
novels which can be called “historiographic metafiction” do in fact awaken readers to the nature of historical events and
their truth values. With the fall of grand narratives, no established historical fact maintains its authority against
marginalized historical events and their importance. Paul Auster’s Leviathan is a postmodern novel which can be read
through Linda Hutcheon’s discussion of the characteristics of “historiographic metafiction” since there are counter-
cultural historical facts in this novel that Auster has tried to highlight. Set in the 1980s United States, Leviathan is the
story of a peaceful writer who becomes a bomber against the Republican policies of the era and tries to deliver his
message by exploding the replicas of the Statue of Liberty. By foregrounding the subculture of the leftists and radicals of
the period, Auster has tried to let his readers know about marginalized groups whose voice could not be truthfully heard
in the face of authorities, meanwhile incorporating several postmodern narrative techniques that contribute to his
postmodern historiography as befits the principles of “Historiographic Metafiction”.
Keywords – Auster, historiograpic Metafiction, identity, Leviathan, Postmodernism.
I. INTRODUCTION
When we talk about history, we should know that it is written by occasional witnesses to certain
events or historians (who might be first-hand witnesses or not). This issue already makes it clear that
history is written by individuals with certain subjective viewpoints towards events, viewpoints which are
not immune from personal biases and faulty interpretations of historical events. Moreover, not all people
on earth experience historicizing the events of the past and it is left to those interested in history,
historians, and historiographers to write what has happened to humankind throughout centuries.
Accordingly, many people and their accounts of past events are left untold, buried under certain
historical accounts which mostly present us with the mainstream events in history that live through
books and are retold over and over, sometimes with exaggeration over certain events, in each historical
era. History as such includes merely the “grand narratives”, as Lyotard (1984) puts it now and then in
The Postmodern Condition, based on which (historical) truth is considered as having only one version
according to those traditional hierarchies which have been transmitted generation by generation in the
form of established facts and principles. As Lyotard says,
if a metanarrative implying a philosophy of history is used to legitimate knowledge, questions are raised
concerning the validity of the institutions governing the social bond : these must be legitimated as well.
Thus justice is consigned to the grand narrative in the same way as truth. (1984 p. xxiv)
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 760
mailto:Email-%20%20%[email protected]
It is only in the postmodern world or through postmodern thinking that such “grand narratives” or
“metanarratives” are dismantled to open some space for all the available versions of truth, whether they
are historically documented, orally transmitted or deliberately produced to serve political, religious,
social, cultural, or even economical purposes. To have all the versions or accounts of history available at
hand, to have all the historical gaps told and exposed to public judgment, postmodernism has given rise
to its own historiography to respect all the local/petit/little narratives of events. In Lyotard’s words:
We no longer have recourse to the grand narratives – we can resort neither to the dialectic of Spirit nor
even to the emancipation of humanity as a validation for postmodern scientific discourse. But . . . , the
little narrative remains the quintessential form of imaginative invention. (1984, p. 60)
This view, when compared to literature in general, contributes to what Horsely says,
Many of those currently interested in exploring the affinities between history and literature have argued
that historical narratives do not derive their authority from a ‘reality’ imitated but merely from the
cultural conventions or subjective preferences which determine the nature of the paradigms constructed.
(1991, p. 1)
Subjective historical constructions account for what in postmodernist fiction has led to the creation of
what Linda Hutcheon calls “historiographic metafiction” in which the postmodern writer’s intrusion into
the text is accompanied by a selection of historical events as the writer considers them important in
helping his/her plot. Postmodernist historical fiction mocks official history but not randomly. Many
novels of this kind “rewrite history from the perspective of groups of people that have been excluded
from the making and writing of history”. Oppressed communities or individuals are thus given central
roles in leading a historical era “as the bearers of a new future”. Accordingly, Ishmael Reed’s Mumbo
Jumbo (1972) and E. L. Doctorow’s Ragtime (1974) identify with “American blacks,” Christa Wolf’s
Kassandra (1983) and Gunter Grass’s Der Butt (1977) with women, Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s
Children (1981) with “the first generation of a recently liberated India,” and Thomas Pynchon’s
Gravity’s Rainbow (1973) with the Africans who “suffered severely from German colonial rule”
(Wesseling, 1997, p. 206). Since we can find both metafictionality and historiography in postmodernist
novels, those postmodernist narratives which combine both of these elements are called “historiographic
metafiction”. “Historiographic metafiction” denies the natural ways of differentiating between historical
facts and fictional ones. It refuses the view that the truth of history by challenging historiography and
asserting that “both history and fiction are discourses, human constructs, signifying systems, and both
derive their major claim to truth from that identity.” This kind of fiction includes “the extra textual past”
into to the realm of historiography. It also shows that both history and fiction “construct as they
textualize” the past (Hutcheon 2004, p. 93), hence their contingency.
By employing such devices as “unreliable narrators, multiple frames for the narrative, stylistic
transformations, mixtures of magical and realistic events, and parodies of earlier literary and historical
works,” this sort of postmodern fiction tries to challenge traditional ways of narrativizing history
(Malpas 2005, p. 101). By intruding into the main body of his/her novel, the postmodernist writer
contributes to the metafictional aspect of postmodernist fiction and at the same time allows himself or
herself to talk about and comment on a selection of historical events to deliver a special message to
readers. This message is somehow alienating and defamiliarizing – “the ‘metafictional paradox’ of self-
conscious narratives that demanded of the reader both detachment and involvement” (Hutcheon 2004, p.
ix) – since it is not to follow what “grand narratives” have to say about history but what they refrain
from saying or alter while saying. Hutcheon believes that “historical discourse and its relation to the
literary,” as manifested in its postmodern sense in “historiographic metafiction,” is concerned with:
issues such as those of narrative form, of intertextuality, of strategies of representation, of the role of
language, of the relation between historical fact and experiential event, and, in general, of the
epistemological and ontological consequences of the act of rendering problematic that which was once
taken for granted by historiography – and literature. (2004, p. xii)
By “historiographic metafiction” Hutcheon means “those well-known and popular novels which are both
intensely self-reflexive and yet paradoxically also lay claim to historical events and personages.” In
many of such critical works on postmodernism, “it is narrative – be it in literature, history, or theory –
that has usually been the major focus of attention.” “Historiographic metafiction” includes all three of
these domains: “its theoretical self-awareness of history and fiction as human constructs (historiographic
metafiction) is made the grounds for its rethinking and reworking of the forms and contents of the past”
(2004, p. 5).
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 761
Hutcheon in this regard cites several novels, or “paradoxical works” like García Márquez’s One
Hundred Years of Solitude, Grass’s The Tin Drum, Fowles’s A Maggot and The French Lieutenant’s
Woman, Doctorow’s Loon Lake and Ragtime, Reed’s The Terrible Twos, Kingston’s The Woman
Warrior, Timothy Findley’s Famous Last Words, Rushdie’s Shame and Midnight’s Children, William
Kennedy’s Legs. As Hutcheon says, “the list could go on” (2004, p. xii). This list can also incorporate
Paul Auster’s Leviathan which not only incorporates metafictional elements in its narration but also has
much to say about the history of the United States in the 1980s.
The accumulation of events one upon the other is a key feature in Leviathan – the title alludes to Thomas
Hobbes’s book and “a word taken from the Hebrew leviath” which means “What is joined or tied
together.” These related events gives us Benjamin Sachs at work “on his own to right a perceived
wrong” which is, in his case, “America’s venality and its inability to fully appreciate the impact of
history on the events that follow” (Parini 2003, p. 33). Peter Aaron the narrator, like a third detective
besides the two FBI agents, tries to unveil what had actually caused the explosions and whether Sachs
might have had anything special to contribute to those events. It is in Aaron’s historicizing about Sachs’s
life that another layer of historicizing is surfaced – that of the United States in the 1980s. The present
study is thus an attempt to examine the treatment of a part of the history of the United States, the 1980s,
through a historiographical analysis of Paul Auster’s Leviathan (1992), in the light of Huthcheon’s
postmodern concept of “historiographic metafiction.” In this political novel, Auster has tried to
problematize the representation of the 1980s in the United States in an effort to subvert the reliable and
authentic nature of data passed on as absolute truth down the decades. Benjamin Sachs, the protagonist
of the novel, is an American citizen who goes through a political change of attitude against the
presidency of Reagan in the 1980s by beginning to blow up the replicas of the Statue of Liberty all over
the country. By highlighting Benjamin Sachs’s radicalism, which is linked to American Marxists and
radicals of the era, Auster has tried to show what courses of thought actually lied against the political
mainstream of the era and how American citizens with understanding of their political subjugation really
lived under political corruption. As Auster says,
By the time I wrote Leviathan in 1990 and 1991, we’d had eight years of Reagan and were already two
years into Bush One. Ten years of right-wing leadership. It was terrible – the dismantling of everything
we had fought for in the sixties. (Auster and Siegumfeldt 2017, pp. 167-168)
It is enough to read any biographical record of Reagan to recognize that such criticism against the
Republicans is not overtly mentioned by anyone opposing Regan and his presidency. Auster’s novel can
thus be read an attempt in “historiographic metafiction” since it has many features which make it a good
nominee of the genre.
II.. Literary Review
When we talk about Leviathan, not only postmodernist narrative techniques but also historical issues play significant
roles in the total meaning of the book. Leviathan is full of historical references which have been put alongside the
main plot of the story, as it unfolds within the borders of the United States. Auster seems to be pointing to the fact
that that, in Ibarrola-Armendariz’ words, “the cultural “Other” is doomed to appear always trapped in the
monological and allegedly “transparent and universalistic” historical discourse of Western culture” (2008, p. 26). In
other words, as Arnold Krupat has complained, “the cultural history of America was written pretty exclusively from
the point of view of those who triumphed . . . with the result that the voice of the Other was simply silenced, not to
be heard” (1989, p. 3). As such, in the company of certain postmodernist techniques, the novel seems to have certain
features which make it part of what Hutcheon calls “historiographic metafiction”. Before going to the main
discussion in the following chapters, here are several former studies which have tried to peer into this aspect of the
novel, although they are rather vague in this regard.
Hardy (1999) argues that Leviathan refers to the State (as defined by Hobbes) and its symbol in the United States,
the Statue of Liberty, but also to the Biblical monster that swallowed Jonah. The body of the State is built from the
bodies of the citizens and the initial social contract was originally to protect them. Leviathan, however, proposes that
the contract has failed and the symbol has lost its significance, justifying therefore “an aesthetic form of terrorism”
based on Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience.” The bombs at the center of the novel pervade the theme, vocabulary, and
metaphors of the novel. However, Hardy argues that “the explosive message of Leviathan” must be put into
perspective since the text proves to be “a destabilizing network of secrets, lies, contradictions and errors” (p. 153).
Varvogli (2001) considers Leviathan as a sample of the genre of “historiographic metafiction”. In his view,
Leviathan highlights both Auster’s subjective concerns as the creator of a fictional world and the fact that, following
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 762
Hutcheon’s arguments on “historiographic metafiction,” the past of the USA has been given a chance to be further
analyzed through narrative, even if that is historiographical than fictional (p. 117). Varvogli does not continue his
discussion on the topic anymore.
D’Urso (2006) briefly argues that Peter Aaron’s ability to recount Sachs’s story is in a way that can be seen as
“historiographic metafiction”. D’Urso, in a very brief discussion of a couple of paragraphs, holds that Aaron’s
rewriting of Sachs’s life follows Hutcheon’s formula that “historiographic metafiction” raises questions about the
common-sensical and the natural process in human affairs but it never offers answers except provisional and
contextual ones (p. 70).
Thévenon (2012) explains in detail how Auster’s historical concerns shift as his career unfolds. According to her,
Auster’s earliest writings testify to a strong preoccupation with the author’s own personal history, and his later
works reveal how, as time unfolds, he becomes more and more interested in collective history.
Deshmukh (2014) holds that several critics have dealt with the representation of historical events in Auster’s
writings, of how the personal history of Auster’s characters is influenced by the collective history of the real world.
Deshmukh further argues that “real-world disasters of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are rarely an
inspiration for Auster’s fiction.” For Deshmukh, instead of focusing on “historical time or the collective history of a
society, Auster’s writing is articulated around storytelling,” and consequently, it mostly focuses on “the realities or
the histories within which his characters are born and exist” (p. 132).
Sesnic (2014) argues that the nineties were obliged to search for some alternative modes of conceptualizing the past
that would revise and supplement the extant historiography. Leviathan “works with the processes of memory, both
collective and individual,” while showing how mixed they are with “the questions of identity, individualism, society,
politics, ethics, and art,” as Auster’s “characters-as-writers” self-consciously investigate the meaning of social
covenant “in late twentieth-century, post-Vietnam, and post-Cold War America” (p. 67).
It is thus clear that Leviathan has not been the subject of any deep historiographically metafictional reading and thus
it gives us the opportunity to analyze the novel in more details concerning its metafictional aspects in so far as they
have been historically rendered by Auster.
III. Discussion
When used in contemporary writing, “historiographic metafiction” is mostly significant in the form of detective
story. In metafiction, as Waugh says, “the detective-story plot is useful for exploring readerly expectation” since it
provides “that readerly satisfaction which attaches to the predictable.” Moreover, in detective fiction, the tension is
created “by the presentation of a mystery and heightened by retardation of the correct solution.” The characters are
mostly “functions of the plot,” and as in metafiction, “it foregrounds questions of identity” (Waugh 1984, p. 82).
These features, in so far as they serve solving a mystery, are exactly what we see at work in a work of
“historiographic metafiction.” Understanding that history is full of gaps and that those who have written or write
historical narratives have certain motivations which are mostly hidden from readers can help us investigate historical
narratives regarding their truthfulness. It is as if the readers are invited by writers of “historiographic metafiction” to
participate in rereading certain historical events and find out what is missing in them.
Those “very simple accounts” in which “the relationship of fact to story can at least in some cases be ‘indisputable’”
will not really challenge us with “an understanding of the cultural practices of writing history.” For example, if we
want to know more about such events as “the relationship of American historical writing to beliefs about the Cold
War, or of the left-wing history of dissent and opposition, or whether the Rosenbergs were guilty, or how Kennedy
came to be shot in Texas” (Butler 2002, p. 34), official historical writings have nothing to tell us. Even the media
might have mostly remained silent due to political reasons. However, a postmodern historiographer or even a writer
of “historiographer metafiction” is not bound to anything to hide his/her motivations. The “unwritten (invisible)
history,” although it is less known and scarcely uncovered in books or records, exists “as an obscure alter ego of the
recorded one” and is always there in the history of humankind (Ibarrola-Armendariz 2008, pp. 26-27).
It is in this context of subjugated or silenced historical accounts that Paul Auster’s Leviathan (1992) can be
interpreted. Set in the 1980s United States, Leviathan recounts the story of a leftist/partly communist, although it is
fictional, who represents all those who were against the policies of the Republicans and, above all, Ronald Reagan’s
presidency in that era. By investigating into the private life of Benjamin Sachs and his mentality and social relations,
Auster has tried to let us know what an American citizen, who is against the current policies of his country, might
have had to contribute to the history of his country through his “historiographic metafiction.”
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 763
3.1. REWRITING THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE 1980S
IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT EACH HISTORICAL RECORD IS A REWRITING OF AN HISTORICAL EVENT. IN THIS VIEW, NO
DOCUMENTED RECORDS CAN ABSOLUTELY TELL US WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED ONCE UPON A TIME.
TRADITIONALLY, THE “LINEAR CAUSALITY OF NARRATIVE AND ITS TELEOLOGICAL ORIENTATION TOWARDS
REVELATION AND CLOSURE” WERE SEEN AS PRINCIPLES WHICH STRUCTURED A SET OF RANDOM EVENTS. IN THE
CONTEMPORARY ERA, THE DEVELOPMENT OF “A SELF-CONSCIOUS HISTORIOGRAPHY” WENT ALONG THE
“POSTSTRUCTURALIST CRITIQUE OF NARRATIVE EXPLANATION” (CURRIE 2013, P. 13). ONCE THE BOUNDARIES
BETWEEN HISTORY AND FICTION WERE BLURRED IN POSTMODERN HISTORICAL NARRATIVES, THE “SELF-CONSCIOUS
NOVEL” ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO REWRITING HISTORY. THE “SELF-CONSCIOUS NOVEL” HAS THE POWER TO
INVESTIGATE NOT ONLY “THE CONDITIONS OF ITS OWN PRODUCTION” BUT ALSO THE “IMPLICATIONS OF NARRATIVE
EXPLANATION AND HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION IN GENERAL.” IN THIS REGARD, THE “SELF-CONSCIOUS RE-
ENGAGEMENT” WITH HISTORY IN “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” ACKNOWLEDGES THE POSTMODERN CRITICAL
CONTRIBUTION OF THE NOVEL FORM TO “QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION AND THE PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION
THROUGH WHICH HISTORY BECOMES KNOWABLE” (P. 14). IT IS THUS MEANINGFUL TO SAY THAT “HISTORIOGRAPHIC
METAFICTION” SELF-CONSCIOUSLY REWRITES HISTORY.
WHEN WE SAY “REWRITING” SOMETHING, IT IS NOT TO WRITE SOMETHING NEW. IT IS RATHER WRITING WHAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN IN A NEW FORM. CALINESCU ARGUES THAT “REWRITING WOULD INVOLVE A REFERENCE
OF SOME STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANCE (AS OPPOSED TO A MERE MENTION OR PASSING ALLUSION) TO ONE OR MORE
TEXTS OR, IF WE WANT TO UNDERLINE THE CONNECTION, INTERTEXTS” (1997, P. 245). “HISTORIOGRAPHIC
METAFICTION” IS “OVERTLY AND RESOLUTELY HISTORICAL,” MEANWHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT HISTORY IS NOT
“THE TRANSPARENT RECORD” OF ANY TRUTH (HUTCHEON 2004, P. 129). SUCH FICTION HIGHLIGHTS THE VIEWS OF
HISTORIANS LIKE DOMINICK LACAPRA WHO ARGUE THAT “THE PAST ARRIVES IN THE FORM OF TEXTS AND
TEXTUALIZED REMAINDERS—MEMORIES, REPORTS, PUBLISHED WRITINGS, ARCHIVES, MONUMENTS, AND SO
FORTH” (1985, P. 128). IN THIS WAY, THESE TEXTS “INTERACT” WITH EACH OTHER IN INTRICATE WAYS (HUTCHEON
2004, P. 129), REPEATING OR PARODYING EACH OTHER, THUS REWRITING FORMER DOCUMENTATIONS IN CERTAIN
FORMATS.
SOME OF THE TRADITIONAL STRUCTURES OF HISTORIOGRAPHY CAN SUCCUMB TO THE PRINCIPLES OF REWRITING.
ACCORDING TO CALINESCU, WE CAN REWRITE HISTORY IN THE FORM OF “IMITATION, PARODY, BURLESQUE,
TRANSPOSITION, PASTICHE, ADAPTATION, AND EVEN TRANSLATION.” CRITICAL COMMENTARIES SUCH AS
“DESCRIPTION, SUMMARY, AND SELECTED QUOTATIONS FROM A PRIMARY TEXT” CAN ALSO BE INCLUDED (1997, P.
243). WHILE MOST OF THESE FORMS ACT INDIRECTLY TO REWRITE HISTORY AND ARE INHERENTLY FAR AWAY FROM
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, GIVING QUOTATIONS PLAYS A VERY LARGE AND IMPORTANT ROLE IN POSTMODERN
LITERATURE IN SO FAR AS IT INVOLVES DIRECT WORDS FROM CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE WITNESSED
HISTORICAL EVENTS FIRSTHAND. IN CALINESCU’S WORDS, QUOTATION IN POSTMODERNIST TEXTS, AS THE
“SIMPLEST FORM OF REWRITING”, FACES “A LARGE VARIETY OF MANIPULATIONS” (1997, P. 246). AT THE SAME
TIME, EVEN THOSE SOURCES WHICH CITE QUOTATIONS MAY NOT BE RELIABLE, A FACT WHICH MAKES US DOUBT
MANY HISTORICAL SOURCES OF OUR INFORMATION ABOUT HISTORICAL EVENTS.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 764
LEVIATHAN, AS MARTIN ARGUES, IS “A COMMENTARY ON THE ETHOS OF LATE TWENTIETH-CENTURY AMERICA,”
AND CAN BE CONSIDERED AUSTER’S “MOST OVERTLY POLITICAL WORK.” THROUGH THE CHARACTER OF SACHS,
“AUSTER HIGHLIGHTS THE LACK OF SPIRITUALITY EVIDENT WITHIN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA” AND EMPHASIZES
“INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE”. CAPITALISM HAS DOMINATED AUSTER’S VERSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND “THE
NOTION OF SELFHOOD” HAS BEEN RELEGATED TO MEMORY. THE “REVOLUTIONARY HERITAGE OF THE EARLY
USA,” ONCE CONCERNED WITH “LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY,” HAS BEEN NOW SUBSTITUTED BY “AN
UNQUESTIONING ACCEPTANCE OF APATHY, CORRUPTION AND MATERIALISM” (MARTIN 2007, P. 177). RONALD
REAGAN WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 1981, RAN HIS OFFICE FOR TWO TERMS, AND WAS FOLLOWED BY G.
W. H. BUSH. AS AUSTER SAYS, IN 1991, THESE “TEN YEARS OF RIGHT-WING LEADERSHIP . . . WAS TERRIBLE” SINCE
“EVERYTHING WE HAD FOUGHT FOR IN THE SIXTIES” HAD BEEN THEN DISMANTLED (AUSTER AND SIEGUMFELDT
2017, PP. 167-168). AS MARTIN POINTS OUT, “THE RADICALS OF THE 1960S PROVED TO BE ONLY A PARTIALLY
EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION” (2007, P. 5). IN FACT, “THE COUNTERCULTURE OF THE 1960S” LIED IN SEVERE CONTRAST
TO “THE EMERGENT CONSERVATISM OF AMERICA UNDER REAGAN IN THE 1980S” (COPESTAKE 2010, P. 9). BERMAN
REFERS TO “THE RISE OF CORPORATISM AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE 1980S AND THE
POLICIES ADVOCATED BY RONALD REAGAN’S GOVERNMENT” (QTD. IN MARTIN 2007, P. 108), AND CLAIMS THAT
NEW YORK CITY HAD BECOME “A PLACE WHERE CAPITAL FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD” WAS AT HOME, WHILE
“EVERYBODY WITHOUT CAPITAL” WAS “INCREASINGLY OUT OF PLACE” (BERMAN 1989, P. 21). HOWEVER, ONE
WONDERS TO WHAT EXTENT AUSTER WAS TRYING TO REWRITE THE HISTORY OF THAT ERA IN LEVIATHAN AND
WHAT DID HE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WAS LACKING IN THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OR MEMORIES OF PEOPLE IN
THAT TIME?
THE NOVEL’S “KEY THEMES,” INCLUDING “HISTORY” AND “ILLUSION VERSUS REALITY” (PARINI 2003, P. 34), ARE
OVERT FROM THE BEGINNING SINCE AARON, THE NARRATOR, BEGINS HIS STORY ON JULY 4, 1990, THE
INDEPENDENCE DAY, SEVERAL DAYS AFTER SACHS’S DEATH. SACHS HAS RATHER MADE A MODEL OUT OF HIMSELF
IN AARON’S MIND, BUT HIS LIFE WOULD BE PRESENTED THROUGHOUT THE MEDIA AS A TERRORIST. AARON SAYS
THAT “SACHS WAS DEAD, AND THE ONLY WAY I COULD HELP HIM WAS TO KEEP HIS DEATH TO MYSELF” (AUSTER
1992, P. 3). BY DECIDING TO WRITE ABOUT SACHS, AARON WANTS NOT ONLY TO CLARIFY HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH
HIM FOR THE FBI BUT ALSO TO PRESENT HIM TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS AS HE REALLY WAS – THAT IS, NOT A
TERRORIST BUT AN OPPONENT OF THE CONTEMPORARY POLICIES OF THE TIME.
AARON’S BIOGRAPHICAL NOVEL, JUST LIKE OTHER BIOGRAPHIES, IS FROM THE POINT OF THE VIEW OF THE
BIOGRAPHER. A BIOGRAPHER IS ACTUALLY NARRATING BASED ON THE FACTS HE HAS HEARD OR SEEN FROM HIS
OBJECT OF STUDY, FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBJECTIVELY RENDERED. ANY BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH, JUST LIKE
HISTORY, IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO BLIND SPOTS AND HISTORICAL GAPS AND CAN NEVER COVER ALL THE MOMENTS AND
OPINIONS OF THE PERSON UNDER STUDY. AARON’S BIOGRAPHY IS THEREFORE ANOTHER PIECE OF HISTORY MAKING,
ALTHOUGH IT IS FICTIONAL, AND SHOWS US HOW HISTORICAL RECORDS MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN FROM THE
VIEWPOINTS OF THOSE WHO WERE MORE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH AN EVENT THAN OTHERS.
AARON’S NOVEL IS NOT A GREAT PICTURE OF THE 1980S IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE WE CAN FIND MANY
UNWRITTEN HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE TIME. HOWEVER, EVEN THE DETAILS WITH WHICH HE PRESENTS US CAN
HELP US DISCOVER WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE 1980S THAT WAS AGAINST THE POLITICAL MAINSTREAM. IN THIS
MANNER, THE FBI AGENTS ASK AARON TO TELL THEM THE NAME OF HIS BOOKS, MAYBE THEY CAN FIND CLUES IN
THEM AS THEY SUSPECT AARON AND SACHS’S CLOSE RELATIONSHIP. WHAT THE FBI AGENTS ARE WRITING WILL
UNDOUBTEDLY BECOME HISTORY AND, THEREFORE, WHATEVER THEY WRITE IS BASED ON THEIR OWN
PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT SACHS’S MOTIVATIONS AND LOCAL REPORTS. SO THEY CAN NEVER BE TRUE TO WHAT
REALLY HAPPENED. ON THE CONTRARY, AARON’S BIOGRAPHY, ALTHOUGH IT IS IN THE FORM OF A NOVEL, IS
CLOSER TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 765
AS PARINI ARGUES, “SACHS’S IMMERSION AND PARTICIPATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY LENDS ITSELF TO HIS
PASSION IN (RE)WRITING THAT HISTORY.” IN OTHER WORDS, HIS ONLY PUBLISHED NOVEL, THE NEW COLOSSUS,
“CIRCUMSCRIBES AMERICAN HISTORY FROM 1876 TO 1890 AND, MUCH AS AUSTER’S OWN WORK DOES,
INTERWEAVES REAL HISTORICAL CHARACTERS AND FICTIVE CREATIONS WHO LIVE IN THE MARGINS OF THEIR
SOCIETY.” THE LINK BETWEEN SACHS’S OWN VIEWS ON HISTORY AND AUSTER’S ATTEMPTS AT DISMANTLING THE
“TRADITIONAL” FICTIVE NARRATIVE STRATEGIES ARE CLEAR (2003, P. 34). THE POINT IS THAT THE NEW COLOSSUS
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 1960S, NOTHING TO DO WITH VIETNAM OR THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT WHICH BOTH
AARON AND SACHS SUPPORT; IT IS INSTEAD A HISTORICAL NOVEL, “A METICULOUSLY RESEARCHED BOOK SET IN
AMERICA BETWEEN 1876 AND 1890 AND BASED ON DOCUMENTED, VERIFIABLE FACTS” (AUSTER 1992, P. 37).
SACHS’S “LITERARY UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY AND REALITY” IS GIVEN EXPRESSION IN THIS NOVEL (KELLY
2013, P. 62). IN AARON’S WORDS, IT IS “ONE OF THOSE THINLY VEILED ATTEMPTS TO FICTIONALIZE THE STORY OF
HIS OWN LIFE” (AUSTER 1992, P. 36); IT IS “A PRECOCIOUS MIX OF FACT, FICTION, AND INTERTEXTUALITY (KELLY
2013, P. 62). ALTHOUGH SACHS’S PERSPECTIVE IS DELIVERED TO US THROUGH AARON, AARON HAS TRIED TO BE
CAREFUL “TO REMAIN COMMITTED TO A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LITERATURE AND LIFE, TO SEE THE FORMER AS
MERELY A MEANS TO SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE OF THE LATTER.” HE SOMEHOW POINTS TO “THE POTENTIAL
ENDLESSNESS OF THE LITERARY PROJECT” TO NARRATE EVENTS BY POSING MANY SCENARIOS, AND HOW “LUCKY”
THE WRITER MIGHT BE “TO TESTIFY TO THAT ENDLESSNESS BY NEVER FINISHING HIS BOOK”. IT IS ONLY THROUGH
THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN AUTHORITY, HERE THE FBI, THAT AARON HAS TO DECIDE THE END OF HIS WRITING
PROCESS (KELLY 2013, P. 75), WHETHER THAT END IS SATISFYING ENOUGH OR NOT. IT SHOWS HOW ANY
HISTORICAL RECORD COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BETTER AND MORE COMPREHENSIVELY IF NOT BOUND BY TIME
OR THE HISTORIAN’S CIRCUMSTANCES.
3.2. INTERTEXTUALITY AND PARODY: RADICAL ASPIRATIONS OF THE 1980S
“INTERTEXTUALITY,” MOSTLY DEFINED AS “REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS TEXTS,” HAS COME TO BE CONSIDERED “THE
VERY TRADEMARK OF POSTMODERNISM” (PFISTER 1991, P. 209). POSTMODERN INTERTEXTUALITY, IN A
HISTORICAL SENSE, MANIFESTS THE DESIRE “TO CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN PAST AND PRESENT” AND “TO REWRITE
THE PAST IN A NEW CONTEXT.” MEANWHILE IT IS NOT MEANT “TO ORDER THE PRESENT THROUGH THE PAST” OR TO
MAKE THE PRESENT STRANGE TO THE PAST (ANTIN 1972, PP. 106–14). INTERTEXTUALITY, ESPECIALLY IN THE
POSTMODERN LITERATURE, “DIRECTLY CONFRONTS THE PAST,” WHETHER OF HISTORY OR LITERATURE, TO SHOW
THAT IT “DERIVES” FROM OTHER TEXTS AND DOCUMENTS WHILE REREADING THEM, USING AND ABUSING THEM,
“INSCRIBING THEIR POWERFUL ALLUSIONS AND THEN SUBVERTING THAT POWER THROUGH IRONY”. THE MESSAGE
IS RATHER “THERE ARE ONLY TEXTS, ALREADY WRITTEN ONES” (HUTCHEON 2004, P. 118).
“METAFICTION” AND “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” DEPEND ON INTERTEXTUALITY FOR THEIR SELF-
CONSCIOUSNESS. NARRATIVES WHICH HIGHLIGHT THEIR ARTIFICIALITY BY “OBTRUSIVE REFERENCE TO
TRADITIONAL FORMS OR BORROW THEIR THEMATIC AND STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES FROM OTHER NARRATIVES” FALL
UNDER THIS CATEGORY (CURRIE 2013, P. 4). IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT METAFICTIONALITY ACTS AS AN ALIENATION
EFFECT TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THAT, AS BELSEY ARGUES, WE CAN ONLY “KNOW” (AS OPPOSED TO
“EXPERIENCE”) THE WORLD “THROUGH OUR NARRATIVES (PAST AND PRESENT) OF IT.” THE PRESENT AND THE PAST
ARE “ALWAYS ALREADY IRREMEDIABLY TEXTUALIZED FOR US” (1980, P. 46). ACCORDINGLY, “THE OVERT
INTERTEXTUALITY OF HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION,” SINCE IT REWRITES HISTORY THROUGH THE MANY MEANS
DISCUSSED ABOVE, SERVES AS A TEXTUAL SIGNAL OF SUCH POSTMODERN UNDERSTANDING (HUTCHEON 1989, P. 9).
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 766
WHAT INTERTEXTUALITY DOES IN PRACTICE, ESPECIALLY REGARDING ITS FUNCTION IN POSTMODERNIST FICTION,
IS TO REPLACE THE FORMER “AUTHOR-TEXT RELATIONSHIP” WITH A RELATIONSHIP “BETWEEN READER AND TEXT”,
THAT IS, TO SITUATE “THE LOCUS OF TEXTUAL MEANING WITHIN THE HISTORY OF DISCOURSE ITSELF.” SINCE THIS
OUTLOOK MAKES US UNDERSTAND THAT NO LITERARY WORK CAN ACTUALLY BE TAKEN TO BE “ORIGINAL,”
HUTCHEON SAYS (2004, P. 126), FORMER NARRATIVES AND DISCOURSES BECOME REALLY IMPORTANT IN
UNDERSTANDING ANY TEXT. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS ACT LIKEWISE AND READING THEM AS DISCOURSE AND/OR
NARRATIVE FOLLOWS THE SAME RULES. IN THIS WAY, “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” TELLS US THAT “THERE
ARE ACTUAL HISTORICAL INTERTEXTS . . . MIXED WITH THOSE OF HISTORICAL FICTION” (HUTCHEON 1989, P. 9).
THIS KIND OF FICTION MARKS WITHIN ITSELF “AN INTERNAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN EXTRA TEXTUAL REFERENCE TO
REAL LIFE AND INTERTEXTUAL REFERENCE TO OTHER LITERATURE” TO SIGNIFY “THE ARTIFICIALITY OF THE
FICTIONAL WORLD” AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT OFFERS THE “REALISTIC REFERENTIAL POSSIBILITIES” OF THE
WORLD OF FICTION (CURRIE 2013, P. 4). “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” IS PARTICULARLY “DOUBLED” IN ITS
SIMULTANEOUS DEPLOYMENT OF “HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTERTEXTS.” ACCORDINGLY, “THE ONTOLOGICAL
LINE BETWEEN HISTORICAL PAST AND LITERATURE” IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS SORT OF FICTION TO TELL US THAT
ALTHOUGH THE PAST REALLY EXISTED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR US TO “KNOW” THAT PAST IN THE PRESENT MERELY
“THROUGH ITS TEXTS” WHICH ARE BASICALLY NARRATIVES (HUTCHEON 2004, P. 128)
“HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” NOT ONLY HAS WITHIN ITSELF INTERTEXTS, SINCE IT REWRITES HISTORY, BUT
ALSO PARODIES. PARODY IS “A KIND OF LITERARY MIMICRY WHICH RETAINS THE FORM OR STYLISTIC CHARACTER
OF THE PRIMARY WORK, BUT SUBSTITUTES ALIEN SUBJECT MATTER OR CONTENT” (KIREMIDJIAN 1969, P. 232).
ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS DEALING DIRECTLY WITH HISTORICAL HAPPENINGS, USING PARODIES OF EARLIER WORKS
OF ART OR LITERATURE ALSO HIGHLIGHTS “THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF POSTMODERN NARRATIVE AND
THE PROBLEMS OF HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION” (MALPAS 2005, P. 103). ALTHOUGH “HISTORIOGRAPHIC
METAFICTION” SITUATES ITSELF WITHIN HISTORICAL DISCOURSE, IT REFUSES TO SURRENDER ITS “AUTONOMY AS
FICTION.” AS SUCH, IT IS A SORT OF A “SERIOUSLY IRONIC PARODY” THAT GIVES RISE TO A CONTRADICTION: “THE
INTERTEXTS OF HISTORY AND FICTION TAKE ON PARALLEL STATUS IN THE PARODIC REWORKING OF THE TEXTUAL
PAST OF BOTH THE “WORLD” AND LITERATURE” (HUTCHEON 2004, P. 124). SUCH NOVELS AS GABRIEL GARCIA
MARQUEZ’S ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE (1967), GUNTER GRASS’S THE TIN DRURN, (1959) OR SALMAN
RUSHDIE’S MIDNIGHT’S CHILDREN (1981) MAKE USE OF PARODY “NOT ONLY TO RESTORE HISTORY AND MEMORY
IN THE FACE OF THE DISTORTIONS OF THE “HISTORY OF FORGETTING” (THIHER 1984, P. 202), BUT ALSO TO
QUESTION “THE AUTHORITY OF ANY ACT OF WRITING BY LOCATING THE DISCOURSES OF BOTH HISTORY AND
FICTION WITHIN AN EVER-EXPANDING INTERTEXTUAL NETWORK THAT MOCKS ANY NOTION OF EITHER SINGLE
ORIGIN OR SIMPLE CAUSALITY” (HUTCHEON 1989, P. 12). PARODY HAS ALSO A “CRITICAL FUNCTION” TO DISCOVER
“WHICH FORMS CAN EXPRESS WHICH CONTENTS” AND A “CREATIVE FUNCTION” TO RELEASE THOSE FORMS AND
CONTENTS TO EXPRESS CONTEMPORARY ISSUES (WAUGH 1984, P. 69). BEING CRITICAL OF FORMER DISCOURSE,
EITHER IN FORM OR CONTENT, PARODY BRINGS TO THE FOREGROUND SILENCED OR MARGINALIZED OR MINOR
ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF DISCOURSE. AND BEING CREATIVE, PARODY COMBINES ALL THESE ISSUES
INTO A NEW STRUCTURE FOR THE CONTEMPORARY ERA.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 767
AS IBARROLA-ARMENDARIZ ARGUES, “RE-CONTEXTUALIZED QUOTATIONS, INDIRECT ALLUSIONS, AND PARODIC
TRANSFORMATIONS OF TEXTS OR SPECIFIC GENRES” ARE COMMON IN POSTMODERNIST HISTORICAL FICTION OR
EVEN IN METAFICTION AND “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION,” AND INTERTEXTUALITY MOSTLY REPLACES “THE
TRADITIONAL AUTHOR-TEXT RELATIONSHIP” TO SITUATE THE SOURCE OF “TEXTUAL MEANING” IN THE “VERY
HISTORY OF DISCOURSE” (2008, P. 30). AS AARON SAYS, “RONAL REAGAN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT . . . [IN]
NOVEMBER 1980 . . . IT WAS A BAD TIME IN MY LIFE” (AUSTER 1992, P. 27). AARON’S FIRST MARRIAGE BROKE UP
IN 1978 AND HE WAS IN NEED OF MONEY, WITH A THREE-YEAR-OLD SON TO HANDLE. SACHS’ PERSONAL LIFE
ALSO CHANGES FOR THE WORSE AS HE GRADUALLY FEELS DETACHED FROM HIS WIFE. REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL
AFFAIRS, WHICH ALWAYS HAPPEN, SACHS’S “POSITION BECAME INCREASINGLY MARGINALIZED” IN “THE NEW
AMERICAN ORDER OF THE 1980S.” ACCORDING TO AARON, THE “CLIMATE OF SELFISHNESS AND INTOLERANCE,
OF MORONIC, CHEST-POUNDING AMERICANISM” OF THAT ERA MAKES SACHS AN OUTSIDER DUE TO HIS
“MORALISTIC” VIEWS. AARON CONTINUES THAT “IT WAS BAD ENOUGH THAT THE RIGHT WAS EVERYWHERE IN
THE ASCENDANT, BUT EVEN MORE DISTURBING TO HIM [SACHS] WAS THE COLLAPSE OF ANY EFFECTIVE
OPPOSITION TO IT.” SACHS “CONTINUED TO MAKE A NUISANCE OF HIMSELF, TO SPEAK OUT FOR WHAT HE HAD
ALWAYS BELIEVED IN, BUT FEWER AND FEWER PEOPLE BOTHERED TO LISTEN” (P. 104). THIS WAS ALSO THE TIME
WHEN THE PROPOSED FILM OF THE NEW COLOSSUS WAS DROPPED FROM PRODUCTION, WHICH MADE SACHS FEEL
REALLY DOWN. LATER, “IMMENSE CHANGES OCCURRED INSIDE HIM” TO OPPOSE THE POLICIES OF THE ERA, NOT
THROUGH FICTION BUT DIRECT WORDS TO HIS READERS (P. 105). SACHS’S CHANGE IS BEST MANIFESTED IN HIS
FALL FROM A FIREPLACE ON JULY 4, 1986, WHEN HE IS IN A PARTY. HIS FALL AWAKENS HIM TO HIS MISSION
AGAINST “CAPITALISM” (P. 124); HIS CHANGE LEADS HIM TO A SERIES OF BOMBING ATTACKS AT THE REPLICAS OF
THE STATUE OF LIBERTY TO TELL THE AMERICAN CITIZENS TO “WAKE UP” FROM THEIR IGNORANCE. AARON
THEN CONTINUES THAT THOSE WHO SUPPORTED SACHS “WERE IN THE MINORITY” AND “THEIR NUMBERS WERE BY
NO MEANS SMALL” (P. 216). AUSTER, WHO ONCE SAID THAT HE READ THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO IN THE 1980S
(2005, P. 267), AND WAS ALSO ARRESTED DURING THE TROUBLES AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN 1968 (2005,
174), IS TELLING US HOW THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE ERA WAS. IN FACT, THERE WAS A MINORITY WHOSE
NUMBER WAS NOT FEW AND WHO HAD LEFTIST AND ANARCHIST ASPIRATIONS AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS IN THE
1970S AND 1980S, AS SACHS AND DIMAGGIO SHOW US. DIMAGGIO HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
“CERTAIN FORMS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE” WERE NECESSARY TO SHOW HIS OPPOSITION AND THUS “TERRORISM
HAD ITS PLACE IN THE STRUGGLE” (AUSTER 1992, P. 224). SACHS “WAS IN DEEP TROUBLE” AND TALKED ABOUT
“BOMBS” IN HIS LAST MEETINGS WITH AARON (AUSTER 1992, P. 2). A SUBCULTURE EVEN TAKES PLACE AFTER
THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY BECOMES A BIT POPULAR AMONG HIS FANS. HE BECOMES “THE SUBJECT OF
EDITORIALS AND SERMONS;” HE IS DISCUSSED “ON CALL-IN RADIO SHOWS, CARICATURED IN POLITICAL
CARTOONS, EXCORIATED AS A MENACE TO SOCIETY EXTOLLED AS A MAN OF THE PEOPLE.” SOON “PHANTOM OF
LIBERTY T-SHIRTS AND BUTTONS” ARE ON SALE AND JOKES BEGIN TO CIRCULATE. AARON SAYS THAT SACHS
“WAS MAKING A MARK” (P. 234). BEFORE SACHS’S SUDDEN DEATH, SEVERAL IMPORTANT EVENTS HAPPEN: “THE
BERLIN WALL WAS TORN DOWN, HAVEL [A MAN AGAINST COMMUNISM] BECAME PRESIDENT OF
CZECHOSLOVAKIA, THE COLD WAR SUDDENLY STOPPED [WHICH MANY CONTRIBUTE TO REAGAN’S ATTEMPTS]”
(P. 237). ALL THESE ISSUES WEAKENED COMMUNISM. IT IS AS IF THE WORLDLY ATMOSPHERE ALSO TURNS OUT
AGAINST HIS RADICALISM, ALTHOUGH HIS RADICALISM IS RATHER MORALISTIC THAN REVOLUTIONARY. IF HE
HAD NOT DIED, HE COULD HAVE BECOME SOMEBODY LIKE HAVEL. HAVEL WAS A WRITER WHOSE POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY WAS ONE OF “ANTI-CONSUMERISM, HUMANITARIANISM, ENVIRONMENTALISM, CIVIL ACTIVISM, AND
DIRECT DEMOCRACY” (CRAIN 2012); HE FOUGHT AGAINST COMMUNISM AND PROVED HIS PHILOSOPHY. IN THE
SAME MANNER, ALTHOUGH IN ITS EXTREME FORM, DIMAGGIO USED TO HANG OUT WITH “A BUNCH OF IDIOT
RADICALS” (AUSTER 1992, P. 165). HE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, ALTHOUGH NOT FOR SURE, “WITH A
LEFT-WING ECOLOGY GROUP, A SMALL BAND OF MEN AND WOMEN COMMITTED TO SHUTTING DOWN THE
OPERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, LOGGING COMPANIES, AND OTHER ‘DESPOILERS OF THE EARTH’” (P.
170). THERE WERE EVEN RUMORS THAT HE BELONGED TO PLO OR IRA OR THAT HE WAS A CIA OR FBI SECRET
AGENT (PP. 238-239). LIKEWISE, SACHS IS INITIALLY FOND OF ENVIRONMENTALISM AND AGAINST
INDUSTRIALISM AND CAPITALISM. HIS INITIAL CONCERN COMES FROM READING THOREAU AND HIS CIVIL
DISOBEDIENCE. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE DETAILS “THOREAU’S CONCERNS WITH THE NATURE OF INSTITUTIONAL
POWER.” IN HIS VIEW, THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT “HAS SUPPRESSED RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALITY” AND
“STRIVES TO ACCENTUATE THE VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH MATERIALISM AND MERCANTILISM.” THOREAU
COMMENTS UPON THE PRESENT “INEQUALITIES” IN THE AMERICAN SOCIETY AND BELIEVES THAT “THE
INDIVIDUAL MUST BECOME A COUNTERBALANCE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THIS FLAWED AND NEGATIVE SYSTEM”
(MARTIN 2007, P. 205). SACHS’S CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS MANIFESTED IN HIS NOT GOING TO VIETNAM WAR AND
GETTING IMPRISONED INSTEAD IN “THE FEDERAL PENITENTIARY IN DANBURY, CONNECTICUT” FOR SEVENTEEN
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 768
MONTHS. AARON REVEALS THAT MANY CHOSE TO LEAVE USA FOR “CANADA, SWEDEN, EVEN FRANCE” TO
ESCAPE IMPRISONMENT, WHILE SACHS STAYED AND CHOSE IMPRISONMENT (AUSTER 1992, P. 19). SACHS SAYS, “I
FELT I HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND UP AND TELL THEM WHAT I THOUGHT” (PP. 19-20). IT IS THEN THROUGH
DIMAGGIO THAT SACHS TRIES TO PRACTICE HIS DISOBEDIENCE IN A SEVERE FORM BY EXPLODING THE REPLICAS
OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY. AS THE SYMBOL OF THE USA, THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, AS AARON SAYS, “STANDS
FOR: DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW” (P. 216). THESE ISSUES ARE EXACTLY WHAT SACHS
DOES NOT SEE IN THE ERA AND HIS RADICALISM DERIVES FROM HIS ANGER AT THE FAILURE OF THESE IDEALS. IN
MARTIN’S WORDS,
WHILE PROGRESS AND CONFORMITY ARE LAUDED AS CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NATION’S WELL-
BEING, THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM HAS BEEN GRADUALLY ERODED. DESPITE OUTWARD AMERICAN EXPANSION,
ENCROACHING COMMUNISM WAS VIEWED AS A MAJOR THREAT. THESE ATTACKS UPON THE STATUS QUO WOULD
BECOME EVIDENT IN THE 1960S. THE ADVENT OF THE ‘COUNTERCULTURE’ RESULTED IN WIDESPREAD
RESISTANCE TO THE VIETNAM WAR. (2007, P. 202)
AND NOT ONLY AUSTER HIMSELF BUT ALSO DIMAGGIO AND SACHS RESISTS GOING TO THE VIETNAM WAR.
MARTIN EXPLAINS THAT IN HIS ARTICLES AND ESSAYS SACHS HOLDS THAT THAT HIS COUNTRY “HAS BEEN BUILT
UPON REVOLUTION AND REACTION TO A CORRUPT SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE” AND, THEREFORE, THESE VALUES
WILL CONTINUE EXIST IF THE NATION WANTS TO SURVIVE. THE RIGHT INSISTS THAT “THE CONCEPTS OF
REVOLUTION AND INDIVIDUALITY ARE DETRIMENTAL TO AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT” AND THUS “DISSENTING
VOICES ARE CONSIDERED NEGATIVE INFLUENCES” AGAINST NATIONAL HARMONY. SUPPRESSING THESE
“REACTIONARY, YET ARGUABLY ‘AMERICAN’ VALUES” GUARANTEES THE REINFORCEMENT OF RIGHTIST
PRINCIPLES. THUS, WHILE SACHS LAMENTS THE “LOST SPIRITUALITY” OF HIS COUNTRY, “THE HIERARCHY” OF
THE SYSTEM, “AS REPRESENTED BY FBI AGENTS HARRIS AND WORTHY,” LABEL SACHS AS “A THREAT” (2007, P.
207). ALTHOUGH THE FBI AGENTS NEUTRALIZE SACHS’S ATTEMPTS AND IDEOLOGY, IT IS ONLY AARON THAT
APPEARS TO SUPPORT HIM OR SYMPATHIZE WITH HIM.
AUSTER ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE CONFLICTS IN THE 1980S IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD TO SIGNIFICANTLY
BLUR THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION. “THIS WAS THE 1980, . . . THE KHMER ROUGE ATROCITIES
IN CAMBODIA, THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN” (AUSTER 1992, P. 90). MARTIN ADDS THAT,
THE CONCERTED ATTACKS UPON THE NATIONAL SYMBOL ARE SYMPTOMATIC OF IMMENSE GLOBAL CHANGES.
STUDENT PROTESTS OCCURRED IN TIENANMEN SQUARE IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN 1989, WHILE
EASTERN EUROPE WITNESSED THE COLLAPSE OF COMMUNISM IN 1990 AND 1991. THE PHANTOM BRINGS THE
CONCEPT OF LIBERTY INTO THE PUBLIC ARENA, AND HIS INFLUENCE EXTENDS BEYOND AMERICA. HIS MESSAGE
REACHES ALL THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED BY CORRUPTED INSTITUTIONAL POWER. (2007, P. 209)
AS HUTCHEON NOTES, “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION, LIKE THE NON-FICTIONAL NOVEL, ALSO TURNS TO THE
INTERTEXTS OF HISTORY AS WELL AS LITERATURE” (2004, P. 132). WHEN AARON WANTS TO INTRODUCE SACHS
TO US FOR THE FIRST TIME, HE DESCRIBES HIM AS SUCH: “HE RESEMBLED ICHABOD CRANE, PERHAPS, BUT HE WAS
ALSO JOHN BROWN” (AUSTER 1992, P. 12). BOTH CRANE AND BROWN WERE FAMOUS MILITARY OFFICERS IN THE
19TH-CENTURY UNITED STATES. ICHABOD CRANE IS ALSO THE NAME OF THE PROTAGONIST OF WASHINGTON
IRVING’S THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW. USING BOTH HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTERTEXTS, LEVIATHAN
GOES ON WITH LISTING OTHER HISTORICAL PERSONAGES AND EVENTS TO HIGHLIGHT ITS INTERTEXTUALITY AND
HOW HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. ISOLATING CERTAIN HISTORICAL EVENTS MAY FILL
THEM WITH CERTAIN MESSAGES, IGNORING THE SO-CALLED MINOR EVENTS WHICH IN REALITY CONTRIBUTED TO
THE MAJOR ONES. IN THE CASE OF LEVIATHAN, IT “CAN BE READ AS RESPONSES TO TERRORISM AND
CONTEMPORARY POLITICS AND AS STUDIES OF THE ROLE OF THE AUTHOR IN LIFE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY”
(BARONE 1995, P. 10).
THE ROLE OF WRITER, IN NARRATING PAST EVENTS TO US, BECOMES EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN GIVING CERTAIN
SIGNIFICANCE TO CERTAIN HISTORICAL EVENTS. AARON TELLS US THAT SACHS’S FIRST NOVEL, THE NEW
COLOSSUS, “IS FILLED WITH REFERENCES TO THE STATUE OF LIBERTY” (AUSTER 1992, P. 35). SACHS IS WELL-
READ AND FINDS CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HISTORICAL EVENTS. HE IS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT BLIND TO THE
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF HISTORICAL EVENTS, EVEN THOUGH SIMULTANEOUS EVENTS MIGHT HAVE NO
CONNECTION WITH EACH OTHER. IT IS IMPLIED FROM AARON’S WORDS THAT ANY KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON WHO
HAS SOME HAND IN HISTORY IS ABLE TO INTERPRET EVENTS SUBJECTIVELY, EVEN IF EVENTS IN THEMSELVES
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER AND ARE PURELY ACCIDENTAL.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 769
3.3. SELF-REFLEXIVITY: SACHS WRITING THE NEW COLOSSUS AND AARON WRITING LEVIATHAN
“SELF-REFLEXIVITY” IS DEFINED AS “THE EXPOSURE OF THE AUTONOMY OF THE NARRATIVES ABOUT HISTORICAL
EVENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE EVENTS THEMSELVES” (WESSELING 1991, P. 120). “SELF-REFLEXIVE FICTION”
TOOK SHAPE, ACCORDING TO FEDERMAN, IN THE 1960S TO FILL “THE LINGUISTIC GAP CREATED BY THE
DISARTICULATION OF THE OFFICIAL DISCOURSE IN ITS RELATION WITH THE INDIVIDUAL” (1988, P. 1152). APART
FROM GIVING “A SELF-CONSCIOUS TREATMENT OF HISTORY AND FICTION,” TEXTS THAT TEND TO BLUR THE
BOUNDARY BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION ARE NOT “CLOSED AND SELF-SUFFICIENT ARTEFACTS.” THEY ARE FULL
OF “FRAGMENTS, RECONSTRUCTIONS, REFRACTIONS, INDIRECT CONNECTIONS AND UNEXPECTED TURNS” NOT
ONLY TO TEASE READERS IN THE ACT OF READING (IBARROLA-ARMENDARIZ 2008, P. 29), BUT ALSO TO
CONSTANTLY REMIND THEM THAT WHAT THEY ARE READING IS NOT UNIFIED AS ABSOLUTE FACT. INSTEAD OF
BESTOWING READERS WITH “THE FINISHED PRODUCT OF A WELL-MADE STORY”, POSTMODERNIST NOVELISTS
MAKE “THE PRODUCTION PROCESS” OVERT (WESSELING 1991, P. 119). SELF-REFLEXIVITY THUS SERVES A HIGHER
PURPOSE OF INFORMING READERS OF HOW ANYTHING IS WRITTEN TO BE ANNOUNCED SO THAT READERS CAN BE
CRITICAL OF WHAT THEY READ.
IN MANY TRADITIONAL HISTORICAL NOVELS, AS HUTCHEON ARGUES, CERTAIN HISTORICAL FIGURES ARE
FICTIONALIZED “TO VALIDATE OR AUTHENTICATE THE FICTIONAL WORLD BY THEIR PRESENCE, AS IF TO HIDE THE
JOINS BETWEEN FICTION AND HISTORY IN A FORMAL AND ONTOLOGICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND” (2004, P. 114). IN
ORDER TO “FOREGROUND STRATEGIES FOR HISTORICAL RESEARCH AND NARRATION,” THAT IS, TO MAKE THEIR
HISTORICAL RENDERING SELF-REFLEXIVE, POSTMODERNIST WRITERS USE “HISTORIAN-LIKE CHARACTER[S] OR
EXTERNAL NARRATOR[S]” WHO COMMENT ON THEIR HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECT “THE
JUXTAPOSITION OF DIVERGING VIEWS ON THE SAME HISTORICAL SUBJECT MATTER” (WESSELING 1991, P. 119).
ACCORDINGLY, IN POSTMODERNIST FICTION, “THE MAKING OF HISTORY IS ANALYZED AS IF IT WERE THE WRITING
OF A STORY” (P. 120). IF WE PEER INTO POSTMODERNIST HISTORICAL NOVELS, WE OBSERVE THAT, THROUGH
SELF-REFLEXIVITY, THEY TRY TO PRESENT US WITH THE FACT THAT RANDOM EVENTS IN HISTORY HAVE BEEN
GIVEN AN ORDER THROUGH DISCOURSE TO BECOME AN UNDERSTANDABLE NARRATIVE.
ACCORDING TO HORSELY, “THE REALISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHER OFTEN SHOWS HIMSELF TO THE READER IN THE
ACT OF ANALYSIS” (1990, P. 118). BY EXPLAINING HOW THE NEW COLOSSUS IS, AARON IS TELLING US HOW
HISTORICAL FICTION BECOMES METAFICTIONAL, HENCE “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” AND IT SELF-
REFLEXIVE ATTITUDE. AARON TELLS US THAT THE NEW COLOSSUS IS “A HISTORICAL NOVEL, A METICULOUSLY
RESEARCHED BOOK SET IN AMERICA BETWEEN 1876 AND 1890 AND BASED ON DOCUMENTED, VERIFIABLE
FACTS.” MOST OF THE CHARACTERS ARE REAL AND REALLY LIVED IN THAT ERA. THE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS
ARE FROM OTHER LITERARY WORKS, A FACT WHICH HIGHLIGHTS THE INTERTEXTUALITY OF THE NOVEL. ALL THE
EVENTS IN THE BOOK ARE “TRUE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY FOLLOW THE HISTORICAL RECORD – AND IN THOSE
PLACES WHERE THE RECORD IS UNCLEAR, THERE IS NO TAMPERING WITH THE LAWS OF PROBABILITY.” SACHS’S
OWN HISTORICAL NARRATIVE CAN BE SEEN AS AN EXAMPLE OF “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” AS DEFINED BY
HUTCHEON IN A POETICS OF POSTMODERNISM (MARTIN 2007, P. 206). WE KNOW THAT NO NOVEL BY THE NAME
OF THE NEW COLOSSUS EVER EXISTS IN REALITY; HOWEVER, PARTS OF THE EVENTS REALLY HAPPENED AND
SERVE AUSTER’S USE OF SELF-REFLEXIVITY IN LEVIATHAN. WE ALSO KNOW THAT SACHS’S SECOND NOVEL,
WHICH WAS TO BE CALLED LEVIATHAN, IS NEVER PUBLISHED AND AARON CALLS HIS BIOGRAPHICAL RECORD OF
SACHS LEVIATHAN. ALTHOUGH THESE TWO WORKS SEEM TO HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH EACH OTHER, THEY
BOTH REFER TO ONE THING AND THAT IS AUSTER’S LEVIATHAN AND ITS WRITING PROCESS AS A POSTMODERN
HISTORICAL FICTION OR A PRACTICE IN “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION.”
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 770
3.4. THE REFUTATION OF TRUTH CLAIMS AND THE UNRELIABLE NARRATOR: IS PETER AARON RELIABLE?
“HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” PRIVILEGES TWO MODES OF NARRATION WHICH “PROBLEMATIZE THE ENTIRE
NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY:” “MULTIPLE POINTS OF VIEW (AS IN THOMAS’S THE WHITE HOTEL) OR AN OVERTLY
CONTROLLING NARRATOR (AS IN SWIFT’S WATERLAND) .” NONE OF THESE NARRATIVE MODES KNOWS THE PAST
“WITH ANY CERTAINTY” (HUTCHEON 2004, P. 117), BECAUSE TRUTH IS RELATIVE FOR EACH NARRATOR IN THE
FIRST CASE AND NO NARRATOR CAN HAVE A GOD-LIKE EYE OVER EVERYTHING AND JUDGE THEM. WHEN THERE IS
NO RELIABLE NARRATOR, AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY RELIABLE NARRATOR, SUCH UNRELIABILITY CHALLENGES
“THE RECOGNIZED HISTORICAL RECORD” (MALPAS 2005, P. 101). “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION,” THROUGH
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, CHALLENGES ANY BLINDFOLDEDNESS TO THE ASSUMED RELIABILITY OF ANY NARRATOR,
ESPECIALLY IN HISTORICAL RECORDS. MCHALE (2004) CONCEIVES OF SUCH NARRATION AS PROMOTING
“ONTOLOGICAL PLURALITY OR INSTABILITY” OR ONTOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE BLURRING OF THE
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION (P. 11). FICTION AND HISTORY ARE NARRATIVES “DISTINGUISHED BY
THEIR FRAMES.” THE INTERACTION OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC AND THE METAFICTIONAL IN “HISTORIOGRAPHIC
METAFICTION” FOREGROUNDS THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIMS OF BOTH “AUTHENTIC” REPRESENTATION AND
“INAUTHENTIC” IMITATION ALIKE. ACCORDINGLY, THE VERY SIGNIFICANCE OF “ARTISTIC ORIGINALITY” IS AS
CHALLENGED (HUTCHEON 2004, PP. 109-110). EVERY ACCOUNT IS THUS TAKEN AS A NARRATIVE, ENTANGLED IN
THE LAWS OF LANGUAGE AND DISCOURSE. LESSING MOVES FURTHER BY ARGUING THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITE
REASON WHY REMNANTS FROM THE PAST SHOULD BE PRIVILEGED AS VALID SOURCES OF INFORMATION. ANY
OBJECT IS THE PRODUCT OF HUMAN BEINGS WHO PERCEIVED THE WORLD IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN INTERESTS
(1983, PP. 88-103). THE SAME ARGUMENT GOES WITH “THE SUBJECTIVE NATURE” OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
WHICH ACT AS “COLLAGE” (WESSELING 1991, P. 123). COLLAGE IS ALSO AN EXAMPLE OF “METAHISTORICAL
REFLECTION” ON RECALLING THE PAST. SINCE THE NARRATORS IN SUCH NOVELS HAVE NO ABSOLUTE POINT OF
REFERENCE, “EXPLICIT REFLECTION” UPON EVENTS IS NOT OBTAINED. THESE NOVELS THUS COMMENT ON “THE
RETROSPECTIVE RETRIEVAL OF THE PAST” EITHER THROUGH QUOTATIONS OR SOURCES WHICH ARE NOT
NECESSARILY VALID (PP. 124-125). THIS CAN BE ADDED THAT WE SHOULD NOT FORGET HOW ANY HISTORIAN
MIGHT HAVE EXAGGERATED OR DEGRADED THE IMPORTANCE OF AN HISTORICAL EVENT THROUGH FIGURES OF
SPEECH AND/OR RHETORICAL FIGURES. THE POINT IS THAT, AS WESSELING SAYS, “DOCUMENTS CANNOT SPEAK
FOR THEMSELVES AT ALL, BUT OFFER NOISE INSTEAD, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONCUR WITH EACH OTHER” (1991,
P. 124).
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 771
AARON READS THE NEWS ABOUT SACHS’S DEATH IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR AND
TRUSTWORTHY MEDIA WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. COMBINING HISTORY AND FICTION, SINCE THE NEWSPAPER
REALLY EXISTS WHILE SACHS IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, AUSTER MAKES US ENCOUNTER ONTOLOGICAL
CRACKS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE NOVEL. AS KELLY EXPLAINS, THE PASSAGE HERE “READS LIKE A
NEWSPAPER REPORT (ALBEIT AN UNUSUALLY GRAPHIC ONE), AND THE TONE IT INITIATES CONTINUES RIGHT THE
WAY DOWN THE OPENING PAGE, SO THAT THE LONG FIRST PARAGRAPH IS ALMOST AS FORENSIC AS THE REPORTS
IT ALLUDES TO.” EVEN SO, THE ESSENTIAL “PROBLEM OF WITNESSING” SHOWS ITSELF AS EARLY AS THE SECOND
LINE (2013, P. 59): “THERE WERE NO WITNESSES,” AARON SAYS (AUSTER 1992, P. 1), ALTHOUGH WE ARE GIVEN
MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEWS IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS. THE NOVEL THEN BECOMES A FICTIONAL
BIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN SACHS BY PETER AARON, A FACT WHICH MAKES IT INEVITABLE NOT TO FULLY TRUST
THE RECORDS SINCE THEY ARE THROUGH AARON’S EYES AS SACHS’S CLOSE FRIEND WHO WAS ALTOGETHER
ABSENT IN THE LAST MONTHS OF SACHS’S LIFE AND OBTAINED HIS INFORMATION ABOUT HIM THROUGH MARIA.
AS A WITNESS, AARON PROMISES TO “ONLY SPEAK ABOUT THE THINGS I KNOW, THE THINGS I HAVE SEEN WITH
MY OWN EYES AND HEARD WITH MY OWN EARS” (AUSTER 1992, P. 22). HOWEVER, APPLYING WHAT HE HEARS
FROM OTHERS ABOUT SACHS AND WHAT HE HIMSELF KNOWS ABOUT HIM MAKES READERS DOUBT HIS STORY, “A
STORY IN WHICH ANY SIMPLE KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH COMES UNDER QUESTION FROM A VARIETY OF ANGLES”
(KELLY 2013, P. 60). FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY, AARON IS FRANK WITH READERS ABOUT THE LACK OF
HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SACHS’S LIFE: “I WANT TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HIM, . . . BUT I CAN’T DISMISS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT I’M WRONG, THAT THE TRUTH IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I IMAGINE IT TO BE” (AUSTER
1992, P. 22). OTHER PROBLEMS ARISE WHEN THESE ACCOUNTS MUTUALLY CONFLICT ON CERTAIN POINTS ABOUT
SACHS’S LIFE. FOR EXAMPLE, SACHS’S VERSION OF HIS FALL IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT MARIA TELLS AARON.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS WHEN MARIA TELLS AARON OF LILLIAN’S DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF HER FALLING OUT
WITH DIMAGGIO. THIS STATEMENTS ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHT “THE DIFFICULTY OF A SIMPLE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
TRUTH AND FALSITY, AND, INDEED, THIS DISTINCTION IS EVERYWHERE THREATENED AND UNDER ERASURE IN
AARON’S NARRATIVE” (KELLY 2013, P. 61). AARON AS SACHS’S CLOSE FRIENDS CANNOT TALK FOR SURE ABOUT
SACHS’S REAL MOTIVATION IN WRITING HIS BIOGRAPHY, SO HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR HISTORIANS TO RECORD
THINGS IN WHICH THEY ARE NECESSARILY NOT THE FIRST WITNESSES? HOWEVER, AARON’S NARRATION SHOWS
THE MISSION OF LITERATURE TO “SAY EVERYTHING,” TO INCLUDE “ALL THE EVENTS” AND “ALL ACCOUNTS OF
EVENTS” WITHIN ITSELF, EVEN “AT THE EXPENSE OF A CLEAR AND DETERMINATE NARRATION” (KELLY 2013, P.
74).
3.5. NON-TELEOLOGICAL NARRATION: NARRATIVE FLUCTUATIONS IN A BOMBING CASE
POSTMODERNIST FICTION RE-WRITES OR RE-PRESENTS THE PAST IN THE FORM OF FICTIONALIZED HISTORY AND BY
OPENING THE PAST TO THE PRESENT PREVENT THE PAST “FROM BEING CONCLUSIVE AND TELEOLOGICAL”
(HUTCHEON, 2004, P. 110). FOLLOWING THE “LINGUISTIC TURN IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY THOUGHT”,
PHILOSOPHERS OF HISTORY HAVE HIGHLIGHTED “THE LINGUISTIC CONVENTIONS THAT GOVERN THE NARRATIVE
REPRESENTATION OF HISTORY.” IN THIS VIEW, “NARRATIVE IS NOT A TRANSPARENT MEDIUM FOR REPRESENTING
HISTORICAL REALITY,” AS ROLAND BARTHES, W. B. GALLIE, FRANK R. ANKERSMIT, HAYDEN V. WHITE, AND
OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT, BUT IT EVOKES “A SPECIFIC MODE OF UNDERSTANDING THE PAST” (WESSELING
1991, P. 128). IN OTHER WORDS, NARRATIVITY IMPOSES A CERTAIN FORM ON HISTORICAL EVENTS BEFORE THEY
“CAN BECOME AN OBJECT OF HISTORICAL INQUIRY AND REPRESENTATION.” ACCORDINGLY, TWO IMPORTANT
ELEMENTS THAT MAKE HISTORY, “CAUSALITY AND TELEOLOGY,” ARE CONCEIVED AS “LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA”
AND RECOUNTED THROUGH LANGUAGE (WESSELING 1991, P. 128). FRANK KERMODE DESCRIBES THIS FEATURE
OF NARRATIVE UNDERSTANDING BY ARGUING THAT STORIES CHANGE CHRONOLOGICAL TIME INTO “A POINT IN
TIME FILLED WITH SIGNIFICANCE, CHARGED WITH A MEANING DERIVED FROM ITS RELATION TO THE END” (1979,
P. 47). DISTINCT EVENTS ARE THUS TELEOLOGICALLY COMBINED TOGETHER TO FORM ONE DOCUMENTED AND
MEANINGFUL HISTORICAL EVENT, WHICH COULD BE OTHERWISE RECOUNTED IN THE POSTMODERN SENSE.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 772
THE NON-TELEOLOGICAL NARRATION IN “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” TELLS US THAT RANDOMNESS IS
MORE COGNITIVELY ACCEPTABLE THAN SEQUENTIAL AND CAUSAL SET OF EVENTS. LEVIATHAN IS FILLED WITH A
SERIES OF SEEMINGLY UNRELATED PLOT TWISTS THAT EVENTUALLY CULMINATE IN SACHS’S DEATH. THIS
“MANIC PLOT,” AS KELLY SAYS, GIVES READERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NOVEL “AS THE
PLAYING OUT OF THE LOGIC OF SACHS’S STRANGE SITUATION AND CHOICES, AS THE UNAVOIDABLE OUTCOME OF
A TRAGIC FATE, OR AS A CONTINUED SERIES OF RANDOM EVENTS, PLAUSIBLE OR IMPLAUSIBLE.” THE PLOT
STRUCTURE “CONTINUES TO BE OFFERED TO US IN UNCERTAINTY, AS A PALIMPSEST OF TESTIMONIES, WITH THE
NARRATOR AARON’S DIRECT ACCESS TO KEY EVENTS RECEDING FURTHER AND FURTHER AS THE NOVEL GOES
ON.” AARON ESTABLISHES HIMSELF AS “AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR” THROUGH HIS OWN DOUBTS. HE LACKS
“DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF ALMOST ALL THE EVENTS OF THE NOVEL’S SECOND HALF” AND HE PROVES HIMSELF “A
POOR READER OF THE CLUES PRESENTED TO HIM BY SACHS’S BEHAVIOR” (KELLY 2013, P. 70). “I COULD HAVE
LEARNED TO LIVE WITH THIS QUIETER AND MORE SUBDUED SACHS,” AARON REFLECTS, “BUT THE OUTWARD
SIGNS WERE TOO DISCOURAGING, AND I COULDN’T SHAKE THE FEELING THAT THEY WERE SYMPTOMS OF SOME
LARGER DISTRESS” (AUSTER 1992, P. 123). COMING TO KNOW MORE ABOUT SACHS’S MOTIVATION, AARON
LATER HOLDS THAT
KNOWING WHAT I KNOW NOW, I CAN SEE HOW LITTLE I REALLY UNDERSTOOD. I WAS DRAWING CONCLUSIONS
FROM WHAT AMOUNTED TO PARTIAL EVIDENCE, BASING MY RESPONSE ON A CLUSTER OF RANDOM, OBSERVABLE
FACTS THAT TOLD ONLY A SMALL PIECE OF THE STORY. (P. 126)
NOW THAT HE KNOWS CERTAIN FACTS ABOUT SACHS, HE HAS TO RETURN BACK TO HIS FORMER EVIDENCE AND
REREAD THEM. REREADING HIS FORMER EVIDENCE LEADS TO REINTERPRETATIONS AND NEW PLOT TWISTS. AS
KELLY BELIEVES, “THE ADDED TWIST” IS THAT AUSTER’S PASSAGE HAPPENS IN “A LITERARY TEXT, WRITTEN BY
A CHARACTER WHO EXISTS ONLY IN A FICTIONAL WORLD,” THAT IS, “THE PASSAGE ASKS TO BE READ THROUGH
THE LENS OF AN IRONY THAT COMPLICATES THE TESTIMONY” (2013, P. 72). AARON’S TWISTED PLOT IN HIS
BIOGRAPHY OF SACHS, WHICH FINDS ITS REFLECTION AS AUSTER’S NOVEL, PROVES NON-TELEOLOGICAL SINCE IT
HAS NO FINAL CONCLUSION TO OFFER ABOUT SACHS’S REAL MOTIVATION.
3.6. PLURALITY: THE TRUTH BEHIND SACHS’ MOTIVATIONS
AS HUTCHEON SAYS, “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION ESPOUSES A POSTMODERN IDEOLOGY OF PLURALITY AND
RECOGNITION OF DIFFERENCE.” SHE HOLDS THAT NO “TYPE” EXISTS HERE AND THAT “THERE IS NO SENSE OF
CULTURAL UNIVERSALITY.” THE PROTAGONISTS OF SUCH FICTION ARE OPENLY “SPECIFIC, INDIVIDUAL,
CULTURALLY AND FAMILIALLY CONDITIONED” IN FACING HISTORY (2004, P. 114). SINCE NO SINGLE SUBJECTIVE
VIEWPOINT IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY A GENERAL VIEW OF HISTORY, A PLURALITY OF PERSPECTIVES CAN BE
JUSTIFIABLY THE BEST POSTMODERN OPTION FOR HISTORIOGRAPHY TO REPORT HISTORICAL EVENTS. IT IS
THEREFORE AN INHERENT ASPECT OF “HISTORIOGRAPHIC METAFICTION” TO BE PLURALISTIC IN INCLUDING AS
MANY AS VERSIONS OF HISTORICAL EVENTS, EVEN IF THEY ARE TINGED WITH FICTIONALITY. PETER AARON IN
LEVIATHAN HOLDS THAT
EACH ONE OF US IS CONNECTED TO SACHS’S DEATH IN SOME WAY, AND IT WON’T BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO TELL
HIS STORY WITHOUT TELLING EACH OF OUR STORIES AT THE SAME TIME. EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED TO
EVERYTHING ELSE, EVERY STORY OVERLAPS WITH EVERY OTHER STORY. . . . I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT I’M THE
ONE WHO BROUGHT ALL OF US TOGETHER. (AUSTER 1992, P. 51)
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 773
AARON’S EXPLANATION IMPLIES THAT IF ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD HAVE WRITTEN SACHS’S LIFE, IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. AARON OBTAINS PART OF HIS INFORMATION ABOUT SACHS FROM MARIA, AND MARIA
MIGHT HAVE TALKED ABOUT SACHS AS SHE HAD PLEASED. SO AARON’S EVIDENCE WHEN HE BEGINS TO WRITE
SACHS’S BIOGRAPHY IS SUBJECTIVE NOT ONLY ON AARON’S GROUNDS BUT ALSO IN INCORPORATING ANOTHER
PERSON’S PERSONAL ACCOUNT ABOUT SACHS. MOREOVER, AARON’S ACCOUNT MAY MODIFY ANY
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SACHS, BUT THE FBI AGENTS’ REPORTS POSSESS “A PRECONCEIVED NOTION OF WHAT
FORCES HAVE SHAPED THE MIND OF A FORMER CONVICT AND NATIONAL DISSENTER” (MARTIN 2007, P. 179). THE
POINT IS THAT ALTHOUGH AARON GIVES HIS MANUSCRIPT ABOUT SACHS TO THE FBI AGENTS, AARON HAS
ALREADY DOCUMENTED HIS OWN VERSION OF THE EVENTS AND NOT WHAT THE AGENTS ARE REALLY AFTER.
AARON CANNOT EVEN DECIDE TO CHOOSE ONE SPECIFIC VERSION OF SACHS: A WRITER WITH TRANSCENDENTAL
ASPIRATIONS OR A RADICAL WITH LEFTIST/MARXIST IDEOLOGIES. THE NOVEL IS THUS “A TESTIMONY TO THE LIFE
OF SACHS” AND HELPS AARON SPECULATE HIS FRIEND’S ACTIONS. AARON MOSTLY “INVESTIGATES THE OUTSIDE
FORCES THAT HAVE SHAPED SACHS AS AN INDIVIDUAL” (2007, P. 210), A FACT WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE
COMMENTS AARON HAS ON THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE 1980S THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
AS MARTIN SAYS, “LEVIATHAN CAN BE CONSIDERED EITHER AN ATTEMPT ON AARON’S PART TO COMPREHEND
AND DEFEND HIS FRIEND’S ACTIONS OR A CLEVERLY CONSTRUCTED WORK OF SELF-DECEPTIVE HISTORICAL
FICTION.” WITH LEVIATHAN, MARTIN ARGUES, “AUSTER RESORTS TO HISTORICAL FICTION, AND EXAMINES THE
MOTIVATION BEHIND THE ACTIONS OF A LITERARY VERSION OF A MODERN AMERICAN TERRORIST” (2007, P. 211).
LIKEWISE, ONE CAN QUESTION ANY HISTORICAL ACCOUNT REGARDING ITS VALIDITY AND TRUTHFULNESS. SINCE
ALL HISTORICAL WRITINGS ARE IN THE FORM OF NARRATIVES AND NARRATIVES FOLLOW CERTAIN LITERARY
PRINCIPLES, ALL WRITTEN AND ORAL HISTORIES ARE OPEN TO QUESTION TO EXPOSE THE PLURALITY OF TRUTHS
THAT THEY HIDE CONCERNING A CERTAIN EVENT.
IIII, Conclusion
“Historiographic metafiction” has the potential not only to discuss different aspects of historical events from
different perspectives but also to tell its readers that all these historical records are subjective following certain
narrative techniques including parody, intertextuality, self-referentiality, unreliability of narration, non-
teleological narration, and plurality of truth. In Auster’s Leviathan, in historicizing the life of Benjamin Sachs,
Peter Aaron initially wants to save his closest friend from the FBI agents who are investigating his case after his
sudden death because of the explosion of one of his bombs in his hands. By trying to save his friend and
showing his true motivations in becoming a radical, Aaron has to go through the techniques of historiography in
the course of historicizing Sachs’s life. Although Aaron wants to give a truthful picture of his closest friend, he
is not immune from the accusations that are posed against historiographers. All humans are exposed to their
own biases and interests, and pure objectivity is never achieved. That is what happens for Aaron as well when
he doubts whether his accounts of Sachs’s life and motivations are true. In the course of obtaining information
about Sachs, Aaron has to ask other people for help. And those people themselves have their own interests and
hide certain facts about Sachs. To make his own history of Sachs, Aaron goes through different elements of
“historiographic metafiction.” By highlighting a set of historical events of the 1960s to 1980s in the United
States, Aaron creates a background about the circumstances that shaped Sachs’s mentality and change of
character from peacefulness to radicalism. To do so, Aaron, as Auster’s main narrator, highlight the events
which were against the Republicans to show that Reagan’s period was not as prosperous and as peaceful as the
contemporary media used to show. Auster thus partly retells the history of the era to show us its less highlighted
events.
Auster also uses many intertexts and parodies in Leviathan in refering to many famous characters of the 19th
century who were radicals, transcendentalists, or fans of national mottos and whose worldviews were all against
conservatism of the Republicans. And the point is that these events were considered minor in their own times.
Leviathan is also a self-reflexive novel in which the process of writing history by individuals is highlighted.
Aaron confesses that he is writing to purge Sachs of terroristic labels and at times he does not know what the
truth is. Aaron is also an unreliable narrator. He obtains his information about Sachs partly by himself and
partly through others. Others are sometimes not really honest with him about Sachs’s life and Aaron sometimes
even doubts his own judgment and shares it with readers. Non-teleological narration, focusing on the process of
writing than the end, is also observable in Leviathan in which the novel begins with the death news of Sachs
and ends a couple of weeks later with the FBI agents having found who Sachs was. Finally, plurality highlights
the relativity of truth among any number of people who witness an event or report an event or even narrate an
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 774
event. Aaron’s version of Sachs’s life is different from what the FBI agents will report and what other
characters will keep in their memories. Aaron himself even doubts whether his own version of reality is valid.
Altogether, Leviathan is a case in point considering how “historiographic metafiction” is written. Although
Leviathan is not really rich in its historical documenting of the minor events of the 1980s, the perspective it has
taken to highlight those minor events against the political corruption of the era is significant since Auster has
highlighted the moral motivations of certain radicals against conservatives rather than the cruel aspect of their
actions.
REFERENCES
[1] Antin, D. (1972). Modernism and postmodernism: Approaching the present in American poetry. Boundary, 21(1): 98–133.
[2] Auster, Paul. (2005). Collected prose. New York: Picador.
[3] Auster, P. (1992). Leviathan. New York: Viking Press.
[4] Auster, P, and Siegumfeldt, I. B. (2017). A life in words: Conversations with Paul Auster. New York: Seven Stories Press.
[5] Barone, D. 1995. “Introduction: Paul Auster and the Postmodern American Novel.” In Beyond the Red Notebook, ed. Dennis Barone, 1-26. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
[6] Belsey, C. (1980). Critical practice. London: Methuen.
[7] Berman, M. (1989). Looking at our city. In Search of New York, ed. Jim Sleeper, 21. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
[8] Butler, C. (2002). Postmodernism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9] Calinescu, M. (1997). Rewriting. In International postmodernism: Theory and literary practice, ed. Hans Bertens and Douwe Fokkema, 243-48. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[10] Copestake, I. (2010). Thomas Pynchon. In A Companion to Twentieth-Century United States Fiction, ed. David Seed, 428-38. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
[11] Crain, C. (March 21, 2102). Havel’s specter: On Václav Havel. The Nation. Retrieved 28 February 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/havels-specter-vaclav-havel/#
[12] Currie, M., ed. (2013). Metafiction. New York: Routledge.
[13] D’Urso, D. J. (2006). Postmodern and existential ethics in Paul Auster’s Moon Palace and Leviathan. Master’s thesis, Iowa State University, USA.
[14] Deshmukh, P. (2014). ‘Then catastrophe strikes:’ Reading disaster in Paul Auster’s novels and autobiographies. PhD dissertation, Université Paris-Est, Paris.
[15] Federman, R. (1988). Self-reflexive fiction. In Columbia literary history of the United States, ed. Emory Elliott, 1142-57. New York: Columbia University Press.
[16] Hardy, M. (1999, January). Les Leviathan de Paul Auster: fiction(s) et explosion(s). Revue Française d’Etudes Américaines, 79: 105-18.
[17] Horsely, L. (1990). Political fiction and the historical imagination. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.
[18] Hutcheon, L. (2004). A poetics of postmodernism: History, theory, fiction. New York: Routledge.
[19] Hutcheon, L. (1989). Historiographic metafiction: Parody and the intertextuality of history. In Intertextuality and contemporary AmericanfFiction, ed. P. O’Donnell and Robert Con Davis, 3-32. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[20] Ibarrola-Armendariz, A. (2008). Reading historiographic metafiction as an anti-discriminatory practice in contemporary America. In Discrimination and tolerance in historical perspective, ed. Gudmundur Halfdanarson, 19-39. Pisa: Plus-Pisa University Press.
[21] Kelly, A. (2013). American fiction in transition: Observer-hero narrative, the 1990s, and postmodernism. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
[22] Kermode, F. (1979). The sense of an ending: Studies in the theory of fiction. London: Oxford University Press.
[23] Kiremidjian, G. D. (1969). The aesthetics of parody. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 28 (2): 231–42.
[24] Krupat, A. (1989). The voice in the margin: Native American literature and the canon. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[25] LaCapra, D. (1985). History and criticism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
[26] Lessing, T. (1983). Geschichte als Sinngebung des Sinnlosen. München: Matthes & Seitz.
[27] Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
[28] Malpas. S. (2005). The postmodern. New York: Routledge.
[29] Martin, B. (2008). Paul Auster’s postmodernity. New York: Routledge.
[30] McHale, B. (2004). Postmodernist fiction. New York: Methuen.
[31] Parini, J., ed. (2003). American writers: Supplement XII. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
[32] Pfister, M. (1991). How postmodern is intertextuality? Plett: 207–24.
[33] Sesnic, J. (2014, January). National fantasy and the culture of memory in the American nineties: The case of Paul Auster’s novel Leviathan. Knjizevna Smotra, 46(1): 67-76.
[34] Swift, G. (1984). Waterland. London: Picador.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 775
[35] Thévenon, M. 2012. Les “avatars du moi” chez Paul Auster: autofiction et métafiction dans les romans de la maturité. Master’s thesis, Université de Grenoble.
[36] Thiher, A. (1984). Words in reflection: Modern language theory and postmodern fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[37] Thomas, D. M. (1984). The white hotel Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[38] Varvogli, A. (2001). The world that is the book: Paul Auster’s fiction. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
[39] Waugh, P. (1984). Metafiction: The theory and practice of self-conscious fiction. New York: Methuen.
[40] Wesseling, E. (1997). Historical fiction: Utopia in history. In International postmodernism: Theory and literary practice, ed. Hans Bertens and Douwe Fokkema, 203-11. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[41] Wesseling, E. (1991). Writing history as a prophet: Postmodernist innovations of the historical novel. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue VI, 2020
ISSN No : 1006-7930
Page No: 776