Focus 2003.tif 122 halS 011 Grrmoll Studiu Linguistic Squinting: T be Reader's Encounter with the Textuality of Peter H_andke's Die Angst des T 017I1fIlIllS beim E!flJleter Marielle Sutherland J osef Bloch, an ex-goalkeeper and now a conSTruction worker in Vienna, walks in [Q work onc morning and deCides he has been red because nobody looks up [Q acknowledge him (Handke 7) . This is Bloch's first semiotic misadventure in the novel, and the reader is carried on his schizophrell1c Stream of consciousness lhrough many more divergent encounte rs between self and ex terna l order, as Bloch strays further and funher from convention and predictability. His interaction with other human beings is perpcmally rcmrded by misunderstandings: he strangles a cinema cashier the morning after he has slept wilh her. Consciously or unconsciously on the run, he wanders aimlessly in a remOle vi llage on the Austrian bo rder; in this state of dislocation, he is plunged further intO an Incoherence o f signs while the police systemaucally decipher lhe clues which lead whim. The interes t in Oft Aug!1 de! TlJfnlallnI bdm 81flllelu has focused mainly o n lbe confusion of the protagonist's wodel - tbe subjection o f Josef Bloch to a disUirbance in the relation be(wl!l!n signifier and signified. This has led to readings o f the text as a psychological case s(Udy and as an investiga tJon into semio tic opcmtio ns. 1 Patrick O 'Neill, however, addresses the reader's recepuol1 or the texl, distinguishing bc£\.veen story as lhe narrative plane of tbe tex t and dijcomre as the reader's inrerest in thl! manner o f narrarion (284).2 He writes: "Bloch's multiple confusions on the level of stor}' arc refl ected in the multiple possibilities for confusion that are put in the way of lhe reader on (he level of d iscourse' (285). O'Neill reads dle novd as a mirror held up to the reader's act of reading. arguing that nOt only does the text ask the reader to recognize In Bloch her 124 FontIon Grrman Sludies own compulsion to interpret me world, btu it also offers itself as semiotic material upon which she can practice that ifllerpreration.1 As a piece of narration, (he novel is signing (0 irs reader, and the anxielY which its protagonist undergoes in his snuggle [0 connect [0 its extern:al world of signs is, O'Neill argues, potentially reproduced in (he relation it sets up belWten itself and irs readee His argument, however, remains primarily focused on the reader's interpretative responses to lhe text, suggesting that her conventional obedience to the linguistic and literary call for coherent meaning - her persistent attempts [0 decode the significance of certain recurring phenomena in me [ext - are comparable to Bloch's pa.ranoid~schizophrenic tendencies. J would like to expand on O'Neill's anicle and argue that nOt only does thc text proffer and then revoke literary conventions, but it also, on occasion, draws the reader dauscrophobicaUy d ose to its linguistic operations, seizing from her precisely thardisproporrionatc attention Bloch gives to language. I \Y;U show mar Bloch feels O\Ter\\'Orked by language, ensnared and exhausted by irs demand to be rcad unambiguously, and that there are momems in the text when language similarly perplexes and overpowers the reader. Of Bloch's encouragement to focus on (he goalkeeper instead of me rest of the game at the fOOlbali match his companion says, ''\'(Ienn man auf den Tormann schaue, kommc es einem vor, als Db man sdtielcn musse" (126). Bloch applies an overbearing scruriny to unnatural focus­ objccts in the text, and the reader also oftep finds heeself drawn into an excessive and disrutbing preoccupation with the \vords on the page, a metaphorical 'squinting: as she cries to bring the lexemes and their grammatical and syntactical relations to one another into focus. Indeed, the word 'schielen' actually induces a linguistic squinting in (he reader at lruS point in the (eXl, fo r the ambiguity of the senrence demands funher scrutiny from her. The statement is that it mRI! to the observer that he is squinting, and so the reader is drawn inro a struggle with the laycrs of perspective conditioning [he language. r will first of all inlroduce Bloch's neurosis as one which is centered on [he reading of reality as a coherence berween self and \\-'Orld, identifying where Bloch's anxiety entees lhe reader 10 her anempts [Q oriem herself within the texrual realiry of me noveL. 1 will go on to look at Handke's notion that language - despite: Linguistic S9l1inung 125 human reliance on It - is a prccarious, indeed dangerous. piece of artifice cuhcr than a stablc medium for rcality. 1 will lhell examine how Bloch IS disrurbed by language on a lc\,d even more fundamental than that of signification. I will ttace how Bloch's over-conSClousncss of language as a tyrannizing agency is passed 10 the reader in her confrontation with a text which foregrounds its textuatiry and 'narnltedness' in linguistic turns and effects winch may obsess and whoUy disorient her while at the same ome conveying to her her dependence on language. The tex t invites th c reader to recognize [hat all signs are arbitrary and kept in place by conventions which legis late when it is acceptable to infer meaning and when it is not. Bloch's dysfu nctional semiotics cause him to behave unconventionally in his attribution of significance. When the waitress takes a chair down from lhe {~b le for Bloch he takes down another chair and sits down (36). I lere, Instead of re:dJllg a sign which is not there, he falls to read a sign which is there. ~ Bloch is dislodged from lhe world around him: "Es bm ihm vor als hine ihn tin Stemmeiscn von dem, was er sah, :tbgestemmt, od:r als seien viclmehr die Gegcnstande nngsherum von ihm abgehoben worden" (58) . This mability to rdate conventionally (0 the external \\'Orld leads to an acute self-consciousness which thoroughly isolates l\1m: Es war em Ruck gewesen, und mn emem Ruck war er unnaturbch geworden, war er aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen worden. Er lag da, unmaglich, so wirklicb; kein Vcrgleich mehr. Sein Dewu~lsein von sich war so srark, da~ cr -Ib desangsl haue. Er schwitzn:. Einc t-, [unze ficl Zll Boden unt! rollte unler das l3eu; cr hordlle auf: ein Vergldch? Dann wa r er cingeschlafcn. (80) Thomas Barry argues that Bloch anempts to read the sound of the coin as a SImile as part of an existential desire to be comparable with somelhing In Ihe external \\·orld. HIS fC=2r of dealil at (his point, according to Bany, IS grounded in Ius absolute isolation, [he utter incommunicabilny of hiS sit\lation. I-lis impulse is 10 produce 126 ForllI 011 Gtnlloll SJlIdiu language in order to come into contact with the world- ,I,-.s b a I . . ' ecomes comp~ sion to perceive objecrs as metaphors (100-0 1).5 The ~ompulslon for relation manifes(s itself as paranoia a manic enquir Into what does and what does not make sense. He'panics: "Ob d/ Bunken er:\llas mitteilcn salhe? Waren es Btinkzeichen?" (48). s The reader finds herself in a similar situation with the text befo~ her~hich does not offer her the consoling oriencation of plo( ~he l~ ca~ned along on Bloch's predisposition cowards detail which unpatrS hiS .ability to unify actions and events. They projiferarc into a host of disconnected elements and incidents which neither Blod nor the reader can diges t, as dle scene at the inn demonstrates: 1 ~ie ~~linerin ging hill,ter die Tbeke. Bloch legte ~e Hande auf den Tisch. Die Kelinerin buckle slch und offnete die F!asche. Bloch schob den Aschenbecher weg. Die KeHncrin nahm im V~rbeigehen von einem anderen Tiscb eineo BI.erd;:ckel. Bloch ri.ickte mit dem Sruhl zuruck. ~Ie ~ellnerin nahm das G!as Van der Flasche, auf die Sl~ es gesriilpt hacre, legre den Bierdeckd auf d:n Tisch, stellte das Glas auf den Deckel, kippte di.e Flaschc in das Glas, stellr die Flasche auf den Tisch und ging ,"reg. Es fing schon wieder an! Bloch wut3re ruche mehr, was er run solfte. (36)6 The reader finds it unnatural I~ follow Blocl' . . l ' 1 S perspecnve so Int.ense y alCough a linear series of experiences which seems to be ~~~g .nowhere? Her conventional orientation would be towards lhe b l:na1r~man' of the murder committed by Bloch and his pursuit B~ t ~ police. ~e detective story, however, remains peripheral in och s pcrspecnve. Tn her anxiery to make sense of Ihc text, the reader must cas~ around for clues in ale same way as Bloch cloes. ~be reader s anXlcry to unify the derails is prO\"oked further by the seducnve presence of possible clues Bloch notices the 'be I ··d · H' h " . SCla Igtes " IrSC geweih on .rwo oc~asions, and because the barmaid explains es sramme v?~ emcm Hirsch, der sich ins Minenfeld verirn habe" (38), rile susploon arises alat the broken antlers could b for Bloch f, h '" e an omen , Or e too IS disonemed as words set traps fo r him. T he Linguistic Squinting \27 police's determination to crap the murderer is also always in the background. BU{ the reader is torn between her interpretation and Ihe awareness that ber ovcrnctive, readerly imagination resembles Bloch's exaggerated perspective.s Another obvious invi tation to the reader to decode tile text is the significance of the goalkeepe r figure framing the leX1.9 At tile side of the pitch with Bloch at the end of the novel, when he elaborates a theory of the goalkeeper's innate disadvantage, the reader may become a different kind of footba ll fanatic as she tries to translate Bloch's idiosyncrasies so that they have everything to do with football.1O However, Vannatta is right to idt:mify the pUfe chance at the heart of tile save the goalkeeper makes in the novel (615) and lO argue that the phenomenal world is without explanation or meaning (609). Bloch has lhe uncanny feeling that language fo rces a predictability on language-users and lheir perception of the world: "es kam ihm nkh! geheuer vor, wie man Zli reden anfallgell unci dabe::i wissen konnte, was man am Ende des Satzes sagen wlirde" (89). The novel reproduces this anxiet), in the reader in the sense that language artificially orders realiry, creating a semblance of coherence which reality itself does nOt inherently possess. Bloch bas schizophrenic tendencies in thal he deviates from semiotic norms, bur the tide refers to him as a 'goalkeeper,' which H :l!1dke caUs "einen 'normalen' Heiden" (Text + Krilik 3) . If he were to be labeled a schizophrenic, the reader might dismiss Bloch's experiences as specific lO his mental condition and therefore ir relevant to her own. Handke continues: "Oieser Vorgang, Gegenstande als Normen zu sehen, soil eben /lich! als krankhaft verharm!ost, sondem als lebensi.iblich vorgestellr werden" (Text + Kritik 3). Lin stead argues lhal it is "purely the intens ity of Bloch's perspective lhat makes him sta nd Out from the other characters" (97). Un like the average language-user, Bloch is sensitive \0 the enforced orderliness and coherence of language which insists on irs reflection of a given causality in nature. He investigates words and discovers tha t tlley are in fact shaping the human concept that eVt:n(s proceed logicaUy from one anotber. Grammatical and syntacrkal reglilations mediate Bloch's experience of reality, and the reader finds him trying to resist its irresistible p rocedures: 128 Forus on Germdll SJudieJ Er ging wei(er, weil - Mu~te er das Weirergehen begriinden, damit -? \Vas bezweckte cr, wenn -? Mu~te er das "wenn" begriinden, indem er .? Ging rus so weiu~[. his -? War er schon so weil, da~ -? Warum mupte daraus. da~ er hier ging, erwas gefolgen werden? Mu~re er begrunden, warum er mer stehenblieb? (123) Bloch feels oppressed and persecuted by (he linguistic system: "Ee mu~te sich vor \'(/onern in acht nehmen, die das, was er ausdrucken wallte, zu effier An \-00 Aussage machten" (90-9 1). He finds that synt2x is commanding him [0 give reasons for his actions., refusing to permit the possibility of the irrational. Language seems to be demanding from Bloch that he: recognize the Hlterpretabiliry o f rhe world: Je Hinger cr sprach, desto weniger narurlich kam Bloch vor, was er redere. AUmahlich scbien ibm gar jedes Won eine Erklarung zu bediirfen. Er mu~te sich beherrschen, urn nicht minen im Satz ins StOcken zu ge.nuen. (66) Bloch's response is to over-scruLinize language; Dennis Vannatta, however, contends that it is folly to expeq language to rationalize rhe world: "In Wirtgensleinian terms, Bloch's problem is that he is exp«:ting his analysIS of language lO result in explanaoons. Instead, 'we must do away with all b.plallatiolls,' wrOte Wittgenstein in the Philolophua! [lIIJtJtigaliolll, 'and descrIption alone must rake its place' "(qtd. in Vannatta 612). Language is standing intimidaungly 111 the foreground in this novel because it is a self-conscious description of bnguage, rather than the practical tool of elucidation Bloch wishes it to be. Bloch simply cannOt access the paradise of coherence he is desperate to believe in. [-Ie suffers under the COnlradiction that he IS besieged by, and yet is [orally dependent upon language. II Bloch's fraught relationship with language is a collision with ambigui~, with [he insubilHY of the model which language perpetuates. Tn his obsession dlat all words make absolute sense, Linguistic Squinting 129 he experiences language as a uap which entangles him in its imransparency, its perpetual failure [0 ma~ a coherem world_ .. An example of this ambiguity is: "Die KeUnwn brachte das Getraok, das Bloch fUr sie bestdh hatte. Welche 'sie'?" (38). Handke comends: "l ndem man die Spracbe nur btl/Jilt! und nicht in ilH und mil ihr beschreibt, zeigt man niclt[ auf die FehlerqueUe:n in d er Sprache hin sondern flillt moen selber zum Oprer" (E(follbtin/llr111 30). He: im~lies here that, in contrast (0 the unreflecting ucilimrian approach to lanW.lage, the liter1l ry project brings language forward In order to be scruuoized and criticized. The result is nOt more preCISIon, but rather an awareness of breach (,Feblerqucllenl and -inadequacy. 111e reader becomes aware of her own addicuon to the Imguistic search ror the rational as the novel perrorms its rext. Vannana describes the liternry projec t as a depiction or language wluch does not reach beyond language: "Evems can be neither predicted ll.or explained in ouonal terms - by Bloch or by Handke. lrouonahty may be dramatized, however; mdeed, lttationaliry is perhaps the dominant theme in Handke's drama and fiction" (6 16). Bloch's derangemem by a system which insists on its coherel:ce and yet ~o~s not always deliver its user into a direct and unambIguous realiry tS dramatized in the roregrounding of tex t, and the reader 15 part of this dr.imatization. Bloch's deviant perspective drnins language of Its Innocence as a natural and reltable human interrace with rhe world. Handke argues that language-users imernalize linguistic conventions, and that liternry langu2ge C2n explo re the way in which this ... \fOrks: Jeh babe keine Themen, uber die ich schreiben mochte, ieh babe nur ein Thema: Ober mieh selbSf kIar zu werden, mich kennenzulernen oder nicht kennenzulernen, zu lernen. was ich falsch maehe, was ieh f2lsch denke, was ich unbedacht denke, was Ich unbedacht sp reche, was Ich automatisch sp reche. (Prosa 270)12 In the self--conscious maneuverings of lneranlfe, author 2nd reader can interrogate the textuality or cooslfuctedness or language which is naturalized anu employed 'automatically' III conventional 130 FOClls 011 German S odies speech. 1l Linguistic conventions corrupt individual expression in the novel, so that the signifier gains an unnatural pronunence over [he signified. The landlady's use of cliche, for example, is to Bloch juSt an edifice of language, and (hert-fore reaches (he reader as words wiulOut CQment: "Die Piichterin amwartere mit tinet Redcnsarc" (51). Handke said in an imerview m lhe Kilner Stadt-AnznJ!r lhat he wanted his text to administer a ;'schizophrenic shock" to the reader (Durzack 67). As language inflates and amplifies itself before Bloch, outdoing its own pmenLiai for referentialiry, the reader experiences the shock of [he (ext pressing forward in pl:llce of the realiry it is supposed to encode. The reader, like Bloch, feels that the text is in canuol. Looking more closely at the narrative plane, the conscious strucnue and factual tone of the prose suggests that the narrative is a reporting of events, which requires litcle Interpretation by the reader. 1I But there is tension between [he lucid, naive surface of the text and the current of complelcity running menacingly underneath, and resisting the sttucrure of, this surface. Heinz Ludwig Arnold refers to rhe "Starrhell der Prosa" (94); this 'stiffness' irritates the reader who cannot align Bloch's random mental processes to it. The text is foregrounded here: whereas language conventionally clarifies, in Dit AIJ,gJl des TorlllanRI bti", Eifmtltr it obscures. The self-conscious gramm3ticality and constructed ness of the text creates an impression of the artificialuy of language, and this is how Ilandke uses language to attack language, uses a 'poeoc thinking' ( lt7uRIchtll 76) - literature - ro hjghlight the conceprual limitations which conventional language imposes. '"'rhe text of Bloch's wocld asserts itself in the unnatural dominance of the signifier; the "Aufdringlichkeit det Waner nir die Sachen in der Umgebung" (2 1) IS manifested in the schizophrenic mmd as an exaggerated sense that the outside world is relaying messages of its own accord. Objecrs become speech: Oberhaupt kam ihm alles ahnhch vor; aile Gegenstande erinnerten ihn aneinander .. \'(Ias sollIe er an dem Blitzablener ablesen? ... Uod \varum hatten die Kekse don auf dem H olzteller die Form von Fischen? Sollce er "Stumm wie ein LingUIstic Squinting 131 Fisch" sein? Durfte er nicJu weiterreden? (111) Bloch senses that the biscuits are shaped in s~lch a way as to Issue a specific command, yet he goes through vanous. in(e rp~etative contorllons and still is not sure he has gotten to theu meaning. As commands, the biscuits are manifestations of the oppressiveness of language which becomes autonomous and takes p~ssession o.r objects in the world rather than functioning as a velude ~or the.lr expression.u Language exceeds and eludes Bloch, l),l1Inntca lly III control: "Es war, als ob er das anes nlcht sah, sondeen es irgendwo, von einem Pia kat mil Verhaltensmaf3 regcln ablas" (111).16 As Bloch's world fragments around him, objeCls are grotesquely magnified in (heir singularity, going over IntO speech, into 'Reklame fur sich selbd (58). Similarly, names block access to the substance of the things themselves, language paraJlIlg itself so that signs duner perception: '\X'ieder kamen Ihm die Einzelheiten wie Nameosschilder vor' (86). Word games and puns escalate and aggravate Bloch's sense that language IS maliciously teasIng and deceiving him: ''A ls ob sie (objecrsJ mir zuzwlIlkern und Zelchen geben!" (92). D etails stand uneasily for th~ whole: "ltu~erhalb der Auschniue sah er die EinzelheHen 3ufdnngi.Jch deullich: 31s ob die Teile, die er sah, fUr das Ganze standen" (85-86).11 An overall coherence o f world and language has undone itself and anarchic elements jump out at Bloch, who says of pictures: "\\]enn man sle ansab, sprangen sie einem bllchsriibllch 111 die Augen" (98). The reader experiences the 'schizophrenic shock' of text in its literal sense - in its substanuahry as text - Inerally sp cingll \g at her eyes. Like Bloch, she is confronted by individual eiemeIHs of language which are nauseatingly both unstable and o\·er-assew.ve. Bloch experiences language as compelling him 10 recoglUze meall1~g and rationality; thi s leads to an over-attention fO o perauons WithIn language. The reader similarly latches on to words in lhe teXI whIch seem to be ill-fitting and therefore demand explanauon, and yet tbe reader cannot decide Whelher these words make sense or not. In his determination that the schizophrenic condition should nm be triyiai.Jzed In the palhologization of the protagonist, Il andke makes his text a place of preca.riousness and danger for (he (cade r. Bloch is troubled and dizzied by language's sudden inscrutability and 132 Foot! Oft German Sludia unpredict3bility after all its insistence on order: "Nicht tin Scheei erschreckte ihn. sondeen ein auf den Kopf gesteUter Satz am Ende eioer Reihe gewohnlichcr Satze" (123-124). 'Schizophrenic shock' and Linguistic squinting arc: induced in me reader as she encounters ~menccs which resist rational.i:llltion in the text. As mentioned earlier, [he novel makes the reader conscious of her subjection [0 me narration. The ncSt time me narratOr disoriems the reader is when Bloch accidemally hails a [axi. Most critics focus on the confused semiotics here: Bloch raises his arm withom imending this as a signal that he would ltke a laxi; however, a taxi does Stop for him and he gets in anyway. \l(Ihereas Lile semiotic mistake is transparent, the narration which follows is nO(; "Schlie~lich horte er vor sich ein Bremsgerausch; Bloch drehte sich um: hinter Ihm stand ein Taxi, der Taxifahrer schimpfte; Bloch drehte sich wieder urn, stieg ein" (7). Firstly, the action narraled here mm'es tOO qUickly for the reader to foUow at a first reading, and secondly, II IS spatiaUy impOSSible. If Dloch':) ahernating facing-directlons are traced, they cannOi be coordinated with rhe position of the car. The reader is forced to srudy the text closely yet cannot get any funlu:r than the text. It elicits an unnarural, obsessive scrutiny from her.11 Another occasion when the reader must read wilh a squint is when Bloch IS o n the bus after having left the footbaU match before the end: "Bloch bildett: sich ein, die Gerausche zu horen, mil denen die BierAaschen aufs Spielfeld fielen; zugleich harte er Staub gegen die Scheiben schlagen" (I I). Here, the expectation is set up (in the 'bildete sich ein') that Ihe second clause \vill correct Ihe first and State that £he sound was not bOllIeS bur somelhing else, implYing that Bloch had confused the sound. Instead it does nO( correct, but proposes Ihal Bloch Ihlnks he hears one specific sound and actually does hear another at lhe same ume. The simuiraneiry disorients the reader aU the more because she cannot work OUt whether Bloch is separ2ung the two sounds in his head, or whether the Imaginary sound of the bottles replaces the actual sound of tile dust for him. Added [0 this is [he fact that the sound of the dust may not be real aL all, even though the text offers it as a more real sound than the bottles - indeed, It is difficult to imagtne that dusr hitting windows can be audible. The pO:iSLbiliries arc held nauseaungly In check. "Bloch tat, als sei er erschrocken; aber in der Wirklichkeit ,var er Linguisuc SQuinting 133 erschrocken" (13). Here, the text goes against Ihe rational, linguistic expectation that che pretence will be confirmed In Ihe second clause. The reader is suspended between a sense Ihat the semcnce is wrong and the recogmtion that It might sull make Sense. Reader expectauon is overturned again here: "Bloch he~ den Dc<:kel f:ll1en und setzte sich neben die Pachterin, nicht eins nach clem anrlt!rn, sondt!rIl indcm er bd jeder Bewegung zogene" (108). The reader is already disorit!lHcd by the correction. She may bt!gin to think that Bloch is making a distinction berwecn 'lind,' which means 'and then' and ' unci ' which means 'at the same lime as.' BUI when the 'sondern' comes, Ihe narralor int.roduces something Ihat is n0111l cOlllradlcuon with 'eins nach dem andern.' The reader may read and re-read, but although Ihere is grammatical and syntactical consensus wiilun the sentence she is still not able to grasp it. An~lher insl-ance where the texr is suddenly magnified IS: "1:.s kam ]hm vor, als rei~e ein Knopf von scmem Rock ulld springe auf dIe Srra~c=. Eor hob den Knopf auf und steckte ihn ":1Il" (124). The reader IS probably accusromed [Q assllffilllg th:u If a sentellct! begllls with "es kam ihm vor," the appearance will n lm out nOi to be the reality, and yet the appearance is confirmed In Bloch pIcking up the bunon. The juxtaposition of Ihe hypothetical and the aClUal constilllies ~ readerly bILnd spot here, for [he reader IS suspemkd be£wcen real and unreal. The momentary magnifica Don of the button in T3loch's attention to it becomes an ove r-fexlUal moment for the rt:ade.r when she finds she apportions an unusual amount of attention to the words on the page in order 10 SOrt oUl th e ambigtmy. Similarly the. 'au~erdem' in: moch wuf dIe Karten ein. Als sic in den leercn Kasten ficlen, haUte es darin. Aber der Bne/hasten W2r so klein, daf3 es gar nicht hallen konnle. Au~erdem war Bloch sofon weitergegangen. (47) First ]t is reponed thal the cards echoeu as they landed at the bonom of lhe pO!:itbox. Then Ihe srabiliry of this SflllemCnt is challenged by tile next, which srates that the postbox IS 100 small to faciljralc an echo. A further ambiguity ]S ullroduced in the 'au~erdcm,' which suggests that Bloch had anyway lefl Ihe scene 134 FOGiS on G(mlOn Studies before a sound could be made o r not made. Does this mean that Bloch is sensitized to noise and hea rs it anyway? Or that he JUSt thinks he hears I{ because he expects to (Le. his assumption becomes the reality)? The 'au~erdem' may even be used to dismiss the whole incident as irrelevant despite the original scrutinizing o f the postbox. The text has a way o f perplexing the reader and entanglmg her Ul eccentricities and mlbiguicies which seem to suaddle the: boundary between the racional and the irrational. She is forced to conduct a Blocman interrogation o f lile word 'au~erdem'.19 Language can become a difficult experience for the reader, even though it makes perfect sense: Abet es folgte rucht mehe darauf, als da~ er den Schuldiener in die halbdunkle Holzhuue hinein fragrc, ob es denn fue allc SchulkJassen our dieses dne Schul:z.immer gebe, und da~ dec Schuldiener 3oO[\I,:O([C[(:, fur aile Schulklassen gebe es our dieses eioe Schulzimmer. (100·01) The overuse of the subjunctive foregrounds the texrual in the reader-experience, and it is also curious that the answer is hypothesized as weU as the question. This passage lOuches on the nausea induced by [he following passage in which simply too many modal layers are introduced: A1s die Kellnerin slch zu ihm Setzte, tat er nach einiger Zeit, als woUte er den Arm urn sic legen; sle merku:, da~ er nur so run wolhe. und lehnte sich wri.ick. noch bevor er deutIich machen konme, da~ er nur so haue run wollen. Bloch wollLe sich rechtfcrcigen, indem ce den Arm wirklich um SIC legte; abet sic war schon aufgestanden. (57) The reader nnds hersel f teying to see through the self-consciousness of (he protagonist and son ou t what is (he reality behind me text. There IS a similar mlbiguity in the fo llowing passage, which becomes an unnarurnl focus fo r the reader: Linguistic Sguinung Er beobachtete auf einem r eid doen I lund, dec auf einen blann zulief; danll bemerkrc cr, da~ cr !lieht mehe den !-l und beobachtClC, sandeen den Mann, dec 5ich beweglc wit jemand, dec cincm andern in den \'(Ieg ueten will. J CLZ t sah er himer clem Mann tin Kind siehen; und er bemerkre, da~ er nicht den Mann ulld den Ilund beobachtctc, wie man e.s gewohnt gewesen \vaee, sondeen das Kind, d:l.s von weitem zu zappdn schien: abet dann merkre er, daf3 es da s Geschrcl des Kind c:s war, was ihm ein G ezappel vormaclue. Jnzwi ~chen hane dec tvJann den I lund schon am I-I alsband gepackr, und aile dcci, f-Iund , Mann lind Kind, waren in eine RidHung wcitcrgcgangen. "\'('em hat das gegolten?" dachte Bloch. (98) 135 As Bloch observes the man he 10sC!i sight of the contexrual, relational struCtures of the scene and the reader tOO must concentrate harder on the language. The child becomes isolated in Bloch's excluslve perspective, and the oddity of its role as the foclls-object uansla.tes into agitation as it wriggles in tIle distance. HIS sensory perceptlon is confused, for he thinks he secs Ihe child wriggling when in [aCl he realizes lIlal it is screaming. The SCreal1llS rdayed (0 him not aurally but III the geslUre of wriggling, for it is the scream of the child "was ihm ein Gezappel vor machte." This performance, o r 'show,' of wriggling by the scream makes eno rmous demands on the reader who must try to penetrlHe !.he layers of perspeClive m o rder to piece tOgether an audio-visual scene. The 'Gezappel' is ill?ucecl in the reader in the form of an anxiety at the dense overlappmg of sound, gesture and tIle 'shOWing' of gesture. The word 'Gezappel ' compels ber attention as an impenetrable piece of language. Bloch's anxiety that he must go through the CQ([upuons of language. and cannot arrive at a truc aruculation o f his experience is transn1llted 10 ,he reader as sbe tries to deal wnh Ihe words on the page. The language of this passage IS fidgeungly :idf-conscious and {cxnlal, subjecting [he reader (0 an extraordlllary detail and intensity, and dem::LOdtng [he same absolute concentrauon upon language which so pressurizes Bloch. 136 roms 01' Ctmltm S (udiu Speech marks also become exaggerated focus-points which srill do not yidd any new information. They seem to be randomly inserted throughout the narrative, each time surprising the reader, who has become accustomed to the dominant mode of indirect speech (the narrator's mediation), for suddenly Bloch's consciousness seems to be more immediately present. The reader ffi3y find this 2mbiguous. for it could be the Mrr.l(Or stepping back bnefly (for IOsCfutable reasons), or it could be the onset of a deeper self-consciousness in Bloch, (he speech marks signifying his awareness mat he is thinking.20 The [elides's awareness of the speech marks may be exaggerated m[Q (he same kind of anxiety WIth which Dloch is inflicted, If she dwells (00 long on them, [hey stand unnaturally forward, detracting from the content of the language in the same \\Tay the 'Rufzeichen' bear down on Bloch's consciousness. Handke does transmit Bloch's anxiety to the reader in the text's subversion o f literary conventio ns and (he reader's hermeneutic expectations. but me reader also comes close to Bloch's neurosis on a more elemental level of the textual language. The text often foregrounds its own inLransparency, (easing the reader into trying to work our what is wrong with the linguistic relations she is dependent on for an understandmg of [he cexl. 1 have tned to show that the language of the text ofcen elicits an excessive, strained, Blochian attention from me reader which bars her from any comprehensible, direct relation [0 the subject mauer. The relation which is established, then, is one of identification with th,e protagonist through a schizophrenic squinting at the text. Notes I Dunak, Heintz, MLXner, Renner, Summerfield 'lnd ThuS\\'2ldner offer psychological readmgs and Lenzen and Barr)' bnng III a SOCIological and an erisccnnal dimension respectively. l}chnen, DIxon, Falkenstein, Schlueter and \'('hue offer semIOtic readmgs and LmSlcad adds a sociological dmlension. 1 Schlueter briefly mentions (he reader, suggesting that the reader is not just a reader of realiey but also of ,hi! text when she suggesls at the end of her chapter on Die Antll du TOnJlanns bURl E!lmeltr thaI when the words LingUIstic Squinting \37 on the page rum to unages of the objects, Bloch is observing the reader unconsciously names each outline: "It may ,,\teU be that dle 'norm:!.\' hero of llandke's novel IS not Bloch after all, but the reader" (92). J l am emplOying the femlnme pronoun simply asa neutral altemati,'e to the m:l.Sculme. It IS not mtended (Q posit female reading behavlOur. The textual suatCSles I ",,'lll be dISCUSSing POSIl a reader of Handkt: who is senSLOve to the enquiry intO language which dorrun3tes his \!,'Ork. • O'Neill S:.lys that l3Ioch h:.lS lost the faith necessary to keep him WltlllJ) lhe semlOllC order (287-88). "Sprache funkuoniert mit emem automauschen Rdlex, IlInter dem die Wirkhchkeit verschwindetl.··J Du:se sprachliche Sicherhelt. dIe Sicherhell der Formeln, 1St Btoch verlorengegangen" (Dumck 73). S Barry'S thesis IS that Bloch toes to transcend his alienation from the external world through the creative use of language: " I lis pathologtcal need to perceive the world as metaphor expresses his desire to gIVe meanmg 10 the mndom, arbiu'ary and meaningless evems around hun" (10 1). Barry aq,'lIes thar Bloch resembles a wri ter creaung a "system of rel1tionship" for hiS estranged consciousness (102). ' llellll"z makes Ihe same point but he assumes thatlhere IS a gIVen Unity III eve1lls and that 13I0ch simply docs not perct:lve this: "dJe nawr!.iche EinhClt zerlegt 5ich hier Ul CUle Vidhcil." (to ... ). I do nOt believe that H andke pOSItS this 'n:!.ruN.1 unity.' The novel is I"alher concerned with how language gl\'es the fulse Impression that it medIates a naruml unity. 1 Dunak apphes dIe adjectives 'zlellos' and 'umhetirrend' to Bloch (71). • O'NeLiI makes the same argumem, usmg other examples t DIxon offen an Ullerpreauon of the relaoonshlp be[\'\'Cen football and human eXISlence, compaong the fear of God, In ..... hose hands human fate rests, and the goalkeeper's fear that his fute IS delivered IIUO hIS own bands at the pcnal[)' kick (76) 10 American English: soccer II On the fish-shal>ed bISCUIts Sergooos says: "Er ,,·ersucht, mre Bedeutung ;w crralcn, wird Ihrer aber nichl sieber" (59). In other words, Bloch cannOt N.uonauze the bISCUItS even though he feels compeUed 10 do so. Il Sec Gunther Sergoons: "Fur Ihn ist dIe LlteN.Nr 'Spmche': die Darstellung mIt der Sprache 1St eme Dantellung der Sprache" (2). "Die 1J((:rJosche Darstellung ist nlcht 'narilrhch', sondern em von eincm f'. lcnschcn gev,'olher, durch 'Sprachc' cxistierender Vorgang" (3) Il I !:I.ndke said IItcrature should fucilll3U: the "Entschlelerung des Zwanges, cler UTI Geru~t der Spnche sleckl" (Scrgoons 2). I' ll ern argues that rhe overall impression is olle of ddinltloll and redefinlllon until no ambigult), is pennmed (4). Thc Irratiomi, however, perperuall}' breaks through the (cxt. 138 Fot'1ls 011 Gtrmall Slldiu IS "So ""'erdcn die Wantt rur die Gegcnstandc als We Gcgcnstindc selhst gcnommcn" (Schllllcr 5). Handke writes: "das Prmzip w:u, zu zelscn, WIt: Sl~ ,emanclcm die Gegensriindc. rue cr W3hrrummt, infolge ClnC:S r!rclgmsscs (cines Mordes) immcr mche vcrsprachhchcn und, mdcm die fllldee vcrsprachlicht u'Crden. auch ;:u GcbOlcn und Verboten \I,'Crdcn" (Ttxl + Kn/ik 3). III ~rgooris wmes: "Bloch bewialcigt d~ Ralna{ nich( mn def Spracht::, s~nd~rn e~ seiber wtrd von dec Sprache, von semer versprachlichtcn Wlrkhchkcl{ bewiiltigt, bezwungcn, umerdriickr" (49). Rossbacher il lustrates the point that Bloch feels he must do what objects demand from him In Bloch's compulSion fO flip through magllz.mes right [0 the cnd ~fore purong them down, even though he does not enjOy It (9.f). Bloch sho\lo'S symptOms of a modern condition in which me hwnan ~as beco~e the object of sentences because he reacts ILnrefi ectmgly to lingUlsuc signals.. ThiS passivity might also have something [0 do wilh th e passive role of the goalkeeper who can only react and never Intervene :as unste2d interprets it (96). Sergooris sa}"s Bloch is a manifeSt2bon of a \'1.gue, fragmented Signal-language devoid of grammatical and 1081cal unity (60). Duaack argues that Bloch IS disconnected from the linguistic consensus and tlus Isolacon IS re!leered in lhe 'Atomisierung und AuRosung' of language (338). II Rossbacher does lldJress the illogicality of the narrated IIlcident, llrguing that the narrator IS 1I.5 unreliable as Bloch, but he docs nOt explore the re~der's response to [his (90-91). 19 Rossb~cher says the c~ds do nO[ echQ although Bloch perceives an echo (96). I dUnk the key [ 0 thiS passage is nOt whemer the cards echoed or no! bUI the reader's compulsion to determine from the: I~nguage of the lex: whether th~y echo or not. Because the reader h:u the feeling the narrator IS as unreliable as Bloch, she I>«omes invoh'ed in speculations which ~nlght help her figure out what really happened. Speculations such as: is It Bloch or the narrator who decides thaI (he postbox is too smaU? And: pc:~haps this is II nusjudgemem - a disturbed percepuon _ of [he size, and so II IS nOI that Bloch did not hear the sound, but mat he JJJOllj,hl he did nOI hear It because he JhrJughl me postbox was too small! ' Ielntz IS close when he says that there is no natural cooperation between th e sentences. H eimz IS also right to poim Out thal the words mke on an autonomy 10 U1elC dispute wuh one another but he does not mention the reader's response to tillS (107). I. ugue [hat the reader's provoked Isolation of these lines of texl IS experienced b)' her as a disruptive Itnguistic enCOunter. ]II Vannalta acl.:nowledges that some words and phrases are in