Abstract
This article proffers a deconstructionist reading of the dramatic monologue and examines its rhetorical strategies and the politics of monologic representation, by which the first-person speaker/monologist monopolizes discursive space and over-represents himself, while silencing other voices in the text and refusing them the freedom and space to express themselves. Through a close analysis of monologist representation of the Other in various texts, including “Mending Wall” by Robert Frost, “Devonshire Street W. 1” by John Betjeman, as well as Ron Carlson’s short story “Bigfoot Stole My Wife” (albeit a dramatic monologue in prose), this article seeks to expose the ways in which the poetic persona is always partial, interested, and subjective, with not-so-subtle an agenda, a speaker who passes value judgments on the human objects of his overbearing tone. By examining the politics of monologist representation against both Aristotelian ethos and Bakhtinian intonation, the article suggests that readers and critics can give voice to the voiceless in this elastic genre and abandon their sympathetic interpretations that practically absolve monologists of any bias towards their absent enemies or any politics of representation.
Highlights
تقـدم هـذه الد ارسـة قـ ارءة تفكيكيـة مضـادة للمونولـوج الد ارمـي وتحلـل الأسـاليب البلاغيـة وألاعيـب التمثيـل
The ubiquity of masks worn by monologue speakers, which goes to explain the structural imbalance in the representation of the militating self and that of the embattled other
Because the third-person other is not allowed enough space, if any, to represent him/herself, representing them by the first-person speaker is tantamount to practically silencing them. It should be noted from the start that the focus of this paper is on the politics of monologist representation rather than on the historical development of the dramatic monologue per se
Summary
The dramatic monologue is occasioned by a crushing crisis in the life of the monologist, a bitter sense of embattlement, or a resounding defeat. Because the third-person other is not allowed enough space, if any, to represent him/herself, representing them by the first-person speaker is tantamount to practically silencing them It should be noted from the start that the focus of this paper is on the politics of monologist representation rather than on the historical development of the dramatic monologue per se. Though fruitful and promising in numerous ways, Wagner-Lawlor’s study spends much less time examining another generically mandated silence: that of the plaintiff’s adversary, the absent third-person She focuses on the “generically mandated silence of the auditor” (576) as a result of the speaker’s “hermeneutical tyranny” (588) and “rhetoric of enthrallment” (589), both of which in turn lead us, the real readers, to be lured into “the speaker’s verbal webs” (578). By giving voice to the voiceless, it is time we abandoned such sympathetic interpretations that practically absolve monologists of any bias towards their absent enemies or any politics of representation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
