The Impotence of Words and the Vagueness of Truth in Winesburg, Ohio - Literature Essay Samples

Sherwood Anderson, in his masterpiece Winesburg, Ohio was writing against the notion that stories have to have a plot which reveals a moral idea or conclusion (Prof. Fisher, lecture). Like the tales that Doctor Parcival tells George Willard in The Philosopher, Andersons short stories also seem to begin nowhere and end nowhere (51). We as readers must, like George Willard, decide if such stories are little more than a pack of lies or if rather, they contain the very essence of truth (51). The ability (or lack thereof) of both his characters and his narrator to distinguish between lies and truth is one of Andersons central preoccupations. The people who inhabit Winesburg, Ohio are acutely aware of the impotence of words in the face of expressing any form of truth or meaning. Words, instead, serve as obstacles in uncovering truth. It is not only Andersons characters, however, which comprehend the impotence of words. The narrator, as we shall see, also struggles to find words that can ex press truth. Its not surprising then that truth, in Winesburg, Ohio takes on a vague and amorphous shape that can be described using only the most vague and amorphous of words: thing.Present in nearly all the stories of Winesburg, Ohio is a form of what Lionel Trilling has called the American Laconic, a kind of masculine refusal of words and language (Prof. Fisher, lecture). Andersons characters are intensely aware of the inability of words to capture, express and explain any form of truth or meaning. In Mother, Elizabeth Willard prays that her son, George, will be allowed to express something for us both (40). She thinks to herself, He is groping about, trying to find himselfHe is not a dull clod, all words and smartness. Within him there is a secret something that is striving to grow. It is the thing I let be killed in myself (43). In this instance, words are portrayed as an obstacle in both finding oneself and expressing a vague something, a vague truth of some sort. Similarly, K ate Swift admonishes George to not become a mere peddler of words. The thing to learn is to know what people are thinking about, not what they say (162). Again words are seen here as impotent, mere; it matters not what words people say, but the feelings and thoughts that are behind the words. Helen White realizes that the world was full of meaningless people saying words (239), George Willard decides not to use speeches as they seemed utterly pointless 237) and the artist Enoch comes to realize that he knew what he wanted to say, but he knew also that he could never by any possibility say it (169). Enochs case provides an apt example of Andersons belief in the impotence and uselessness of words in conveying truthful meaning. Enoch is an artist who hangs out with talking artists who talked and talked and believe that talking matters much more than it does (169). Not only are words portrayed as impotent, they are also viewed as irrelevant. No words could ever capture the truth of Enoc hs paintings; as he puts it The picture you see doesnt consist of the things you see and say words about (169). Words dont exist in the same realm as the truths of Enochs paintings, and as such, are not only utterly useless, but, given the context, completely absurd.But what exactly are these mysterious truths which Andersons characters are unable to name with mere words? Unlike words, which are fixed and unyielding, truth in Winesburg, Ohio never takes on a definite shape, and as such, is incapable of being captured by concrete words. In the Book of the Grotesque Anderson tells us:That in the beginning when the world was young there were a great many thoughts but no such thing as a truth. Man made the truths himself and each truth was a composite of a great many vague thoughts. All about in the world were the truths and they were all beautifulAnd then the people came along. Each as he appeared snatched up one of the truths and some who were quite strong snatched up a dozen of them. It was the truths that made the people grotesquesIt was his notion that the moment one of the people took one of the truths to himself, called it his truth, and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesque and the truth he embraced became a falsehood (24).Truths are composed of many vague thoughts, theyre essentially formless and vague without definite shape or definite meaning. Truths become falsehoods when Andersons characters try to possess them, like one would possess a solid, ownable object. In Andersons world, when persons try to call a truth their own, when they try to define it, to give it a name and a form, to use it as a model which can be explained and talked about, it is then that the truth becomes a falsehood. Truths resist naming, they resist labels and words and are constantly changing and reforming shape. For instance, in Paper Pills, Doctor Reefy erects little pyramids of truth and after erecting knocked them down again that he might have the truths to erect other pyramids (35). Later he forms a truth that arose gigantic in his mind. The truth clouded the world. It became terrible and then faded away and the little thoughts began again (37), thoughts which he eventually stuffs into his pocket to become round hard balls (38). Truths, therefore, resist definite shape, they are pyramids which are knocked down, they are round hard balls, and they resist singularity; which is to say, no single gigantic truth can ever take the place of the multitude of truths which exist. In essence, truth, as it functions in Winesburg, Ohio is shapeless, vague, un-nameable and multitudinous in nature. It is not only, however, Andersons characters which are unable to name truth or express it through words, but Andersons omnipotent narrator as well. In Sophistication, Andersons narrator repeatedly uses the intentionally vague word thing to describe (or at least hint at) the truth and meaning of what his characters are experiencing. For example, when Helen and George walk together in the night, Anderson writes, In the mind of each was the same thought. ÂÅ'I have come to this place and here is this other, was the substance of the thing felt (241) She took his arm and walked beside him in dignified silence. For some reason they could not have explained they had both got from their silent evening together the thing needed. Man or boy, woman or girl, they had for a moment taken a hold of the thing that makes the mature life of men and women in the modern world possible (243). Notice first of all, as was pointed out before, that it is only in silence, (without words), that the characters can grasp this truthful thing. Words are again portrayed as an obstacle to truth. But this vague truth is not only un-nameable and indescribable for Andersons characters. Andersons narrator, similarly, is only able to describe it as a thing. What, then, is this thing to which the narrator continually refers? Put tritely, it is a form of truth that allows Ande rsons characters to survive and persist in the modern world. But as with any Andersonian form of truth, it must necessarily be without definite shape, name or form. Thus to attempt to describe such a truth in any more specific or concrete terms than as a thing would be, for Andersons narrator, to turn it into a falsehood. For example, in the Book of the Grotesque the old writer becomes filled with words which puts him in danger of becoming a grotesque (24). What ultimately saves him is the young thing inside him (24). The old writer doesnt allow himself to become filled with a definite truth, a truth that would then, inevitably, become a falsehood. Ironically what allows him to survive, to find an Andersonian form of truth can only be described as a thing. We see again that to describe it otherwise would be to metaphorically kill it, would make it into a concrete, describable, singular falsehood. But how can we assert confidently that Andersons use of the word thing is meant to poin t to some form of truth? The old writer in The Book of the Grotesque has a dream where He imagined the young indescribable thing within himself was driving a long procession of figures before his eyesThey were all grotesques. All of the men and women the writer had ever known had become grotesques (22). The old man understands people for what, he believes, they are: persons clinging to falsehoods, living their lives by a single, concrete, nameable (and hence essentially un-truthful) truth. Conversely, in Sophistication the young writer, George Willard, Looks out upon the world, seeing, as though they marched in a procession before him, the countless figures of men who before his time have come out of nothingness into the world, lived their lives and again disappeared into nothingness (235). Both writers have a vision of figures of men who are living seemingly meaningless, pointless lives; they are people living falsehoods, people who come and go through nothingness. There is therefo re a direct correlation between George Willards use of the word nothingness and the old writers use of the word grotesqueness (i.e., the falseness of men). Nothingness is an interesting word choice given that the two words which compose it are no and thing. Remember, moreover, that that which sustains the old writer, that which allows George Willard and Helen to have a night of shared truth and understanding, and that which, in general, makes life possible in the modern world is repeatedly described as that thing. Therefore a no-thing takes on a symbolic meaning here, representing the inherent falseness of men whom attempt to name and possess a single truth.Sherwood Anderson, by understanding the inherent impotence in words in describing and capturing the very nature of truth and what it means to be human, has created a powerful and deeply moving novel. Although Anderson understands the impossibility of ever fully capturing truth in words, I believe he comes closest when he writes, One shudders at the thought of the meaningless of life while at the same instant, and if the people of the town are his people, one loves life so intensely that tears come into his eyes (241). To attempt to analyze this passage would only kill the inherent truth that its words express.