Zach Musgrave

ENGL 310-1

24 September 2008

Pierre Machery and Virginia Woolf

(Proof ≠ Use)

            Pierre Machery has a theory. A Theory of Literary Production, to be more precise. He holds that to correctly understand the meaning and theme of a work of literature one must set about asking certain questions in certain ways in a certain very precise fashion. Virginia Woolf has a heroine. Mrs. Dalloway, to be precise. Either’s work has merit on its own. But just like oil and vinegar never truly mix correctly, neither does Machery’s theory mix with Woolf’s fiction. In fact, Machery doesn’t mix with much of anything very well. With his reliance on detail, meticulous examination and mathematical sense of completeness, Machery’s methodology of meaning extraction has little applicability and is too theoretical to achieve any truly meaningful results.

            In my examination of A Theory of Literary Production, I chose to focus on several paragraphs where Machery talks about the nuts and bolts of interpreting a work’s theme. The overall gist of his rather obtuse prose is that a work’s theme gets its meaning from specific attributes, which can be seen as sub-questions within the overall queried theme. Furthermore, a work only becomes “possible” when it truly mirrors its theme. One’s comprehension of this is achieved by asking an increasingly minute series of questions, of boundless depth and infinite recursion, that when run out of bounds sum to the overall theme. If this sounds like an algorithm straight out of computer science, well, that’s because it is.

            Breaking Machery’s instructions down further, it becomes clear that asking these self-referencing questions is terribly difficult. Machery insists they take no external parameters (“nor will it be able to see that this answer constitutes a question”). This requires an impractically deep analysis of the text since all relevant information and connotation must pass through the gateway of recursion (“Next question, please.” Ad infinitum.)

It is established that asking these questions results in an increasing spiral of ever more questions (in a fashion possibly more advanced than standard exponential growth). Clearly, in an intensive implementation of Machery’s theory the number of questions would approach infinity. A theorem:

The limit of the accuracy of a reading using Machery’s algorithmic criticism approaches one (or perfection) only when the number of questions asked (assumingly they are perfectly framed, have zero external reference and are perfectly answered) approaches infinity.

Perhaps a graph would be useful, but the upshot is that Machery’s thematic extraction only truly functions if infinite time and resources are allocated. The author welcomes comments on where these may be found.

            Broadening a bit, Machery’s overall premise is that a “true appreciation of the work” exists (19). It relies on the “necessity of asking questions” but that it explicitly abhors a reliance on outside influences (18). Positing good questions (within these guidelines) is very difficult, and since said truth is admittedly personal it is still open to interpretation. Finally, Machery insists a work’s meaning is dependent upon the body of the work – and is yielded from it – the body is not derived from the meaning but vice versa.

            In essence, these two paragraphs codify Machery’s algorithmic approach to interpreting the meaning throughout a work – in effect juicing it of its substance like so many oranges at breakfast. He defines a recursive idea of the sources of substance in a work, where each finer thematic point is a subset, but not dependent upon, the whole.

            One of the major theme’s of Virginia Woolf’s novel Mrs. Dalloway is the oppression felt between opposing forces in certain characters. I chose to focus on that existing between Elizabeth and Ms. Kilman, who is not just Elizabeth’s history tutor but also something of a spiritual leader. This may be fine (at least on the surface) by Elizabeth but Clarissa detests Ms. Kilman for it. Clarissa detests her not so much for taking Elizabeth out of Clarissa’s sphere of influence, but rather for being, in her view, obtuse to what she feels are the deeper things of life. This resentment is most explicitly related to “love and religion” mainly because in Clarissa’s view they destroy “the privacy of the soul”. The subliminal fight for influence over Elizabeth felt independently by both Clarissa and Ms. Kilman is seen as oppression by both sides.

            Now to try and clarify the above using Machery’s critical framework. I asked some questions, attempting to adhere to his requirements as stated in the original text.

·       Why is Ms. Kilman Elizabeth’s spiritual leader?

o      Elizabeth is impressionable, and no one else in her life was acting as such.

·       Who else might have filled this role?

o      One can assume the only other who might (based on Woolf’s characterizations) is Clarissa.

·       Why wasn’t Clarissa doing so (or presently attempting to do so)?

o      She is far too preoccupied balancing her own inner and outer lives, desires for contact and privacy, to worry much about her daughter’s.

·       Clarissa is perturbed because someone else is exerting this influence it seems she could have. Why?

o      Because influencing Elizabeth would be a confluence of her inner and outer lives. Clarissa feels this void but doesn’t know what to do about it. She’s confused.

·       Why would Clarissa not put forth this effort?

·       What is it about Ms. Kilman that makes her live vicariously through Elizabeth?

·       What will happen to Ms. Kilman as Elizabeth distances herself?

·       Will Clarissa one day grow closer with Elizabeth?

 

Clearly this is a very limited list that goes on in index to infinity. It may loop back upon itself, it may veer into triviality, but Machery makes no allowance for any of these possibilities. In computing, one would say an algorithm this recursive to solve a problem this simple (considering a reasonably intelligent reader could pick out the theme without ever touching Machery’s methodology) serves no purpose other than a textbook case study. It’s incredibly inefficient and mathematically impossible to implement accurately. As little as mathematics and computational theory have to do with literary criticism, I think the flaw in Machery’s thinking is obvious.

A theory of literature is important when reading a work such as Mrs. Dalloway but it must be one that’s workable, not merely provable, in a generalized case. Hence, Machery’s theory doesn’t really work. Perhaps it does in a limited sense, in that it yields some meaning. Problem: it is quite literally provable via calculus that Machery cannot yield the entire meaning in a real-world scenario. And, since Machery himself believes in one correct meaning (“true appreciation of the work”) some of the meaning is clearly not enough. To summarize, Machery’s theory doesn’t satisfactorily explain the thematic elements of Mrs. Dalloway, nor could it in accordance with his self-imposed specifications. Its impracticality and restricted nature prevents it from accomplishing just about anything.

Appendix – Selections from Machery and Woolf

 

Machery, CCTR, p. 21

“The level of interpretation determined by this parallelism [the question of the work’s theme] will only acquire meaning from the elucidation of another level, with which it will have a determining relationship: the question of this question.

The investigation into the conditions of the possibility of the work is accomplished in the answer to an explicit question, but it will not be able to seek the answer of those conditions, nor will it be able to see that this answer constitutes a question. Nevertheless, the second question will necessarily be posed within the first question, or even through it. It is this second question which, for us, defines the space of history.”

 

Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway

“…The gilt rim of the Sir Joshua picture of the little girl with a muff brought back Kilman with a rush; Kilman her enemy. That was satisfying; that was real. Ah, how she hated her—hot, hypocritical, corrupt; with all that power; Elizabeth’s seducer; the woman who had crept in to steal and defile (Richard would say, what nonsense!). She hated her: she loved her. It was enemies one wanted, not friends…”

OUTLINE / BRAINSTORMING

Machery, CCTR, p. 21

 

“The level of interpretation determined by this parallelism [the question of the work’s theme] will only acquire meaning from the elucidation of another level, with which it will have a determining relationship: the question of this question.

 

The investigation into the conditions of the possibility of the work is accomplished in the answer to an explicit question, but it will not be able to seek the answer of those conditions, nor will it be able to see that this answer constitutes a question. Nevertheless, the second question will necessarily be posed within the first question, or even through it. It is this second question which, for us, defines the space of history.”

 

I. What does this mean

            A. Interpretation of the work’s theme gets its overall meaning from more specific attributes

            B. These attributes can be thought of as sub-questions within the larger question of theme

            C. The “possibility” of the work is its achievement of truly mirroring its theme

            D. Whether it has achieved its ends (theme replication) yields from a question.

            E. BUT: this question can’t know of its situation in replicating a theme

            F. This question has infinitely nested internal questions throughout it, and it is these and their combined boundless depth that defines the true thematic scope.

 

II. Machery is stating

A.    Interpretation of a theme in a work is contingent upon asking infinitely more specific questions.

B.    These questions must function within themselves (take no external parameters)

C.    M is asking the readers to analyze the text on a very deep level to understand its theme.

D.    The other implication is that a true revelation of the theme can never be achieved as the limit of the accuracy of the reading approaches (but never reaches) infinity as the number of questions asked likewise approaches infinity. Machery reads like basic calculus, now if only he were that useful.)

 

III. Within the entire A Theory of Literary Production

A.    M’s overall premise is that a “true appreciation of the work” (19) exists and that it relies on the “necessity of asking questions” (18) but that it doesn’t rely on outside influences. This makes positing good questions (within these guidelines) difficult.

B.    Hence, said truth is a bit more flexible and metaphysical. Individual readings may therefore vary.

C.    The work’s meaning is dependent upon the body of the work – and is yielded from it – the body is not derived from the meaning but vice versa.

 

IV. Passage is important

A.    These two paragraphs codify Machery’s algorithmic approach to meaning throughout a work – in effect juicing it of its substance like so many oranges at breakfast. It defines a recursive idea of the sources of substance in a work, where each finer thematic point is a subset, but not dependent upon, the whole.

 

WOOLF

“…The gilt rim of the Sir Joshua picture of the little girl with a muff brought back Kilman with a rush; Kilman her enemy. That was satisfying; that was real. Ah, how she hated her—hot, hypocritical, corrupt; with all that power; Elizabeth’s seducer; the woman who had crept in to steal and defile (Richard would say, What nonsense!). She hated her: she loved her. It was enemies one wanted, not friends…”

 

 

I.      Theme: Oppression

a.     Elizabeth and Ms. Kilman

                                               i.     Ms. Kilman is not just E’s history tutor but also something of a spiritual leader, like a pastor but less formal.

                                             ii.     She seems to exhibit a superiority about it (at least in Clarissa’s mind)

                                            iii.     Clarissa detests her not so much for taking E out of C’s sphere of influence, but rather for being, in her view, obtuse to what she feels are the deeper things of life.

                                            iv.     Clarissa hates “love and religion” mainly because in her view they destroy “the privacy of the soul”.

                                             v.     The subliminal fight for influence over Elizabeth felt independently by both Clarissa and Ms. Kilman is felt as oppression from both sides

b.     Septimus and Sir William Bradshaw

                                               i.     Septimus feels oppressed by modern society at large. He finds life so abhorrent his only recourse is to end it.

 

 

II.    Conclusion

a.     Machery wants the reader to divine the work’s true meaning by asking questions. So, I asked some (exs.)

                                               i.     Why is Ms. Kilman E’s spiritual leader? E is impressionable, no one else was doing so.

                                             ii.     Why was no one else doing so? Assume only other who might (based on Woolf’s characterizations) is Clarissa.

                                            iii.     Why wasn’t Clarissa doing so? She is too preoccupied balancing her own inner and outer lives to worry much about her daughter’s.

                                            iv.     Yet, she is perturbed because someone else is exerting that influence she could have. Why? Because influencing E would be a confluence of her inner and outer lives.

                                             v.     Why would Clarissa not put forth this effort? What is it about Ms. Kilman that makes her live vicariously through E? What will happen to Ms. Kilman as E distances herself? Will Clarissa grow closer with E?

                                            vi.     Clearly the list of questions goes on and on and on. You can keep asking them and get no closer to a more thorough understanding of the theme. Especially by restricting outside influence Machery makes this process theoretically possible, but impossible at best and truly hateful at worst. It dives too far into minutiae without looking at a greater scope.

                                          vii.     In computing, one would say an algorithm this recursive to solve a problem this simple (as in, an intelligent reader could pick out the theme without ever touching Machery’s methodology) serves no purpose other than a textbook case study. In other words, it’s incredibly inefficient and mathematically impossible to implement accurately. THESEUS

III.  Real deal conclusion

a.     A theory of literature is important when reading a work such as Mrs. Dalloway but it must be one that’s workable, not merely provable, in a generalized case. Hence, Machery’s theory doesn’t really work. It does in a limited sense, in that it yields some of the meaning. But since Machery himself believes in one correct meaning (“true appreciation of the work”) some of the meaning is clearly not enough. In conclusion, Machery’s theory doesn’t satisfactorily explain the thematic elements of Mrs. Dalloway, nor could it in accordance with his self-imposed specifications. It’s impractical and unnecessary. QED.