Main Concepts In Contemporary Critical TheoryUniversity of Bucharest, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, 1st year English Major, Group 4, Seminar instructor Dragos Ivana

MIKHAIL BAKHTINS THEORIES APPLIED TO PREFACE TO JOSEPH ANDREWSIlina StefanTruth through parodyThe main purposes of this essay are attempting to apply Mikhail Bakhtins theories on the chosen text, Preface to Joseph Andrews, highlighting how parody provides an intricate moral message to the reader.Bakhtins theoriesIn The Prehistory of Novelistic Discourse, Bakhtin analyzes this style of writing, which is the novel, by specifying that literary styles are not enough to form criteria for defining them. Instead, we are to focus on elements which differentiate the novel from other genres.Bakhtin explains how imagery and metaphors are used in novels, but in a different way than in poetry. While the latter focuses on direct imagery, the first focuses on indirect imagery. To clarify: in poetry, words/meanings are seen through the prism of the author, while in novels, meaning is projected through the author and through the character (these two meanings often times differing from each other).Understanding this is relevant to what Bakhtin further discusses in his essay, specifically the idea of parody[footnoteRef:1], the main theme of this essay, which is fundamental in discussing Fieldings preface. [1: Definition ofparody noun(pluralparodies) - an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect: the film is a parody of the horror genre]

One of the most ancient and widespread forms for representing the direct word of another is parody.(Bakhtin 52) Thus, parody is essentially placing different, specific meaning into words, the aim of this being to ridicule.Both Bakhtin and Fielding undertake a theoretical project in parallel by using the same set of terms, and it should not be considered that Fieldings work merely gives examples to Bakhtins theories. Instead, we can consider them complementing the other, thus forming a better basis for both of their theories.Preface contents relevant to analysisJoseph Andrews was the first novel published by English writer Henry Fielding, a novel that draws on a variety of inspirations (mainly Don Quixote) and uses a mixture of styles including mock-heroic and prose fiction. In the preface of this novel, Fielding provides a critical framework and attempts to explain his style of writing.He begins the preface by bluntly stating The EPIC, as well as the DRAMA, is divided into tragedy and comedy.(Fielding indent 2). Andrews then continues by stating HOMER, who was the father of this species of poetry, gave us the pattern of both these (Fielding indent 2). Bakhtin believes the same, himself stating This is an image of the Homeric style. It is precisely style that is the main hero of the work (Bakhtin 51)Joseph Andrews continues his discussion by saying:A comic romance is a comic epic-poem in prose; differing from comedy, as the serious epic from tragedy: its action being more extended and comprehensive; containing a much larger circle of incidents, and introducing a greater variety of characters. [] by introducing persons of inferiour rank, and consequently of inferiour manners, []by preserving the ludicrous instead of the sublime. (Fielding indent 5)He explains that the comic epic differs from comedy in having more comprehensive action and a greater variety of incidents and characters; it differs from the serious Romance in having lower-class characters. By using these lower-class characters he actually humanizes through comedy/parody (underneath the characters there is in fact an intricate moral message. By ridiculing his characters and their extreme virtue, Fielding in fact does nothing but critique society as a whole and tries to give order to the world.) Indeed, no two species of writing can differ more widely than the comic and the burlesque: for as the latter is ever the exhibition of what is monstrous and unnatural, and where our delight, if we examine it, arises from the surprising absurdity, as in appropriating the manners of the highest to the lowest, or converso;so in the former, we should ever confine ourselves strictly to nature(Fielding indent 6)Here, Fielding explains that the comic epic differs from comedy in having more comprehensive action and a greater variety of incidents and characters; it differs from the serious Romance by having lower-class characters. Thus, Bakhtins analysis is applied here, that of taking chivalry and ridiculing it, but for a cause. Fielding attempts to correct society by humanizing it through parody. By using parody, he avoids bluntly attacking people, thus covering his messages in a shroud of words, through heteroglossia[footnoteRef:2]. Through heteroglossia, Fielding layers the voices in the novel into low and high language, specifically the vulgar and the classical, as well as the satirical and the comical. Great vices are the proper objects of our detestation, smaller faults of our pity: but affectation appears to me the only true source of the Ridiculous.(Fielding indent 17). He mentions himself, in the preface to the novel, that he uses these rough associations (ridiculing affection, one of the most chivalric actions). [2: Definition ofheteroglossia noun [mass noun] - the presence of two or more expressed viewpoints in a text or other artistic work]

Whereas in theCaricaturawe allow all licence. Its aim is to exhibit monsters, not men; and all distortions and exaggerations whatever are within its proper province.(Fielding indent 9)[] Now what Caricatura is in painting, Burlesque is in writing[] the Monstrous is much easier to paint than describe, and the Ridiculous to describe than paint.(Fielding indent 10) Burlesque on the other hand is like caricatura[footnoteRef:3] in painting. It describes monsters, not men and underlines the fact that true comedy finds its source in nature, ridiculing something that is already real/ palpable opposed to creating. [3: Definition of caricatura(caricature) noun - a picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect]

Finally, Fielding states at the end of his preface: But perhaps it may be objected to me, that I have against my own rules introduced vices, and of a very black kind into this work. [] the vices to be found here, are rather the accidental consequences of some human frailty, or foible, than causes habitually existing in the mind [].(Fielding indent 18)With this statement, the author clarifies the fact that the existence of the preface provides proof that he is in the utmost control of his technique, his novel and its characters and further proves that underneath the apparent silly characters there is a deep moral message, meant to order the world through comedy, this in turn attained through humanizing.ConclusionTo conclude, Joseph Andrews provides an exceptional basis for applying Bakhtins theory, specifically that of the Novels literary styles and through voice layering. Having discussed the styles involved, it is safe to say that parody plays, in my opinion, the most important role in the way that Fielding exteriorizes his ideas about society as a whole at the time. By using parody, he ridicules the very opposite of mediocre, and that is chivalry. All of this was not out of dark heart though, instead he intended to correct society and put it on a higher seat.

Works cited1. Bakhtin M.M., The Dialogic Imaginatio, Edited by Michael Holquist, Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. University of Texas press Slavic searies no.1, Translation of Voprosy literatury I estetiki, Second paperback printing. 19832. Fielding Henry, Famous prefaces The Harvard classics 1904-14 Preface to Joseph Andrews (1742)3. http://oxforddictionaries.com/

4