Text Analysis

As literature has evolved or developed in the late twentieth century, it is undeniable that writers such as John Barth have chosen the issue of metafiction in their works. Furthermore, it can be argued that Barth generates his work on the basis of self-consciousness. In addition, he uses self-conscious techniques. Therefore, I am going to evaluate the perception of self-hood, self-consciousness and the self-conscious techniques that are used in 'Lost in the Funhouse' that allow metafiction to take place. Similarly, I am going to support my analysis with the previous critic’s arguments. For example, I am going to identify originality and authorship that is acknowledged by John Barth. Likewise, I am going to evaluate how Waugh believes that language is used in order to construct reality.

When analysing ‘Lost in the Funhouse’, Worthington (2001) denotes “Lost in the Funhouse invites such an interpretation by repeatedly suggesting that traditional narrative forms and the authors who construct them have lost their power to find or depict a coherent meaning” (p.115). In this respect, I believe that Worthington is foregrounding Barth’s essay (1967) ‘The literature of exhaustion’ because he is arguing that the author otherwise known as John Barth, no longer has authority over his narrative. Comparatively, it can be argued that Barth is allowing this to happen because he has included the concept of originality in his narrative. Correspondingly, it can be argued that this aspect is a positive factor because if the author has surrendered their powers of authorship then the concept of originality will be present in the narrative. Furthermore, Worthington (2001) argument can be related to Barthe’s (1968) essay ‘The death of the author’. For example, with regards to the text, Barth (1972) is allowing the reader to construct their own interpretation of the text as they transgress through the narrative. In other words, as Barthe (1968) suggests the author will no longer be present. Therefore, the reader is now in total control of the narrative. Furthermore, the reader will be endured into a constant engagement in the text because there is no author to influence their elucidation.

 In comparison to John Barth and Roland Barthe, it can be argued that ‘Lost in the Funhouse’ (1972) is not constructed in the same way as a traditional narrative because the opening is immediately directed towards the reader. For example, “For whom is the funhouse fun? Perhaps for lovers. For Ambrose it is a place of fear and confusion”(Barth 1972:77). Correspondingly, Waugh (2003) propounds “Metafictional novels often begin with an explicit discussion of the arbitrary nature of beginnings, of boundaries” (p.29). With regards to Independence Day, it can be argued that Barth is designating the boundaries of how historical events relate to Ambrose’s present and future existence. For example, “… the occasion of their visit is Independence Day, the most important secular holiday of the United States of America” (Barth 1972:77). This implies that the author’s future existence in relation to family holidays is reliant upon this day. When examining the author in terms of self-hood, Fulmer (2000) propounds “The narrator is not justified by his past and must always be in the process of composing himself, for consciousness is a new existence every moment” (p.340). In other words, Independence Day has had an impact on the identity of Ambrose. Similarly, it will continue to do so. However, Ambrose must compose himself in the narrative in order to achieve moments that are totally subscribed to his independent thoughts and consciousness.

In addition, as the paragraph progresses the subject matter shifts to a discussion about typeface. For example, “Italics are also employed in fiction stories especially for “outside,” intrusive, artificial voices…” (Barth 1972:77). In relation to authority, Worthington (2001) suggests “Depict narrators as authors so aware of themselves and so concerned with the effect of this awareness on their warning creative powers that they cannot avoid continually inserting their presence into the stories they narrate” (p.115).  In other words, a narrator will always be present in the narrative. Therefore, the reader has no room for self-interpretation. However, I believe that Barth is aware of the issues of authorship. Therefore, he has constructed his narrative with italics in order to allow the reader to recognise and question aspects of authority (Worthington 2001). In other words, the uses of italics allow the reader to interrogate the story. Correspondingly, Hutcheon (2001) suggests that in metafiction the reader is a crucial element. For example, she states “The text is so self-consciously fictional…the reader’s interpretation is particularly necessary to imbue the text with meaning” (Worthington 2001:117). In other words, the reader will be actively participating in the text because they will need to make the decision as to whether the words on the page are that of the narrator, or are the words of an intrusive voice. In my opinion, Barth serves to experiment with the reader, in order to allow themself to generate authority.

On the other hand, it can be argued that at the beginning of the text Ambrose does not comply with Barth’s believes surrounding ‘The Literature of exhaustion’. In other words, Ambrose’s construction at the beginning of the text is generated on the basis of tradition. For example, “His voice came out high pitched as a child’s if he let himself get carried away; to be on the safe side, therefore, he moved and spoke with deliberate calm and adult gravity” (Barth 1972:77). This implies that Ambrose is adapting himself and the story of himself to fit the conventional structure. Therefore, it can be argued the beginning of the narrative generates no originality because Ambrose is constructed as a conventional character. This implies that the creation of Ambrose can be related to authorship. For example, Worthington (2001) states “… a text that thematizes a self-conscious awareness of the processes of its own construction unavoidably thematize the importance of its construction” (p.118). This implies that the structure and its content are entirely focused towards the concept of authorship. In other words, Barth is claiming that he has no control over the story that he is creating. Furthermore, it can be argued that Barth would acknowledge this to be a positive element because the majority of previous literature had no originality. However, the creation of the author demonstrates that the author-narrator will have a constant presence or influence throughout the text (Worthington 2001).

Furthermore, Martin (1997) argues that “…Ambrose account of his life must be filtered through language and numerous fictional devices despite his desire to achieve realism” (p.153). In relation to the text, “Interestingly as with others aspects of realism is an allusion that is being enhanced by purely artificial means” (Barth 1972:77) can relate to Waugh (2003) argument on how language constructs reality. In other words, Ambrose acknowledges that reality is manufactured. However, when constructing the reality, the reader is unaware of the shifts from reality to fiction. Therefore, the character Ambrose is self-consciously a participant in the plot (Waugh 2003). Correspondingly, Carmichael (2006) propounds that Barth’s work is the “Manipulation of narrative voices to dramatize Barth’s continuing concern about values, action, and the absence of sustaining order in the world” (p.1). This implies that ‘Lost in the Funhouse’ can be conveyed to be an adventure, on the quest for identity. Furthermore, in relation to the quest for identity the adventure could be known as an escapade with regards to the self. Congruently, Martin (1997) establishes Ambrose to be a form of artist. In this respect, I agree with Martin (1997) because Ambrose could be compared to an artist that is creating a canvas for the reader. In other words, Ambrose is creating a personal realm for the reader to observe. Correspondingly, it can be argues that the reader has to accept Ambrose’s personal realm. Similarly, Martin (1997) propounds “The artist, like the pubescent youth, is haunted by the assumption that others are aware of ones every thought, idea, emotion, and intention” (p.153). In other words, Ambrose is constantly aware of the devices that he uses throughout the story, in the same way as an artist would be constantly be questioning the choice of colour in a painting.

In addition, it can be argued that Ambrose is exploring both his past and his future with the aim of creating order in his life (Martin 1997). For example, on entering the funhouse Ambrose realizes his inexperience with sexuality. In addition, he does not understand the bodily changes as he develops sexually. This implies that his sexual drives force him to focus on the opposite sex, such as Magda. An example, of this could be the repeated line “…whose figure is exceedingly well developed for her age” (Barth 1972:79). With regards to Waugh’s (1995) and  (2003) criticism, it can be argued that as the reader comes to realize that Ambrose is conveying a recount of his past, the reader must question the sense of reality. When exploring this concept, Baudrillard (ND) denotes “Simulators attempt to make the real, all the real” (p.2). In other words, Ambrose is the simulator attempting to convey Magda as a real woman. However, this could imply that Magda was not a well-developed girl at all. Therefore, it is Ambrose recount that s denoting her physical appearance.  In comparison, Martin (1997) propounds “In order to portray reality the author must employ artificial techniques. Doing so the author is anxious that the reader may be all too aware of his faltering attempts” (p.153). This implies that Magda is a construct of the hyper-real. Therefore, the funhouse metaphorically represents the confusion and self-consciousness of an adolescent.

Overall, when examining Ambrose’s relationship with the funhouse it can be argued that he has the role of an artist who must create the mazes and fictional devices in order to portray reality (Martin 1997). Therefore, he is an artist seeking to design a maze of fictional devices whilst struggling to convey reality (Worthington 2001).