The Completely Incomplete - Examining the Usefulness of Wayne Booth's Question: 'Did Laurence Sterne Finish Tristram Shandy?'
 |
| The plot-lines of the first four volumes of Tristram Shandy, as drawn by Laurence Sterne |
The value in asking whether
Laurence Sterne completed Tristram Shandy[1] is
dependent upon a sufficient disparity between the question’s two potential
answers. Both responses would likely bare significant consequences if
concerning texts with a more rigid and predictable structure, as the difference
between the finished and the incomplete would be strikingly clear and may lead
to entirely different interpretations. However, the uniquely digressive nature
of Tristram Shandy, a novel which so
often relies on the fractured and the unfinished as its driving force,
diminishes the impact of Wayne Booth’s question because it lessens the implication of
each possible answer. It matters little whether or not the novel was
consciously completed. The novel can always justifiably be seen as complete, as
its abrupt cessation remains consistent with the rest of the novel’s tendency
to reject completeness and avoid closure. While this suggests the usefulness of
Booth’s query is limited, this is only in terms of its possible answers. It
remains a worthwhile question in itself, as the fact it is being asked demonstrates
the bewildering effect Sterne has on his readers, long after he had stopped
writing.
In the case that Sterne meant to close his
novel at the ninth volume, we are left with an appropriate conclusion to a book
which relentlessly defies and mocks the expectations of its readers. Wayne
Booth suggests that Sterne manipulates these expectations primarily through the
overarching structure of the novel, which works as an elaborate and prolonged
contradiction of its own title page[2]. The
reader expects the ‘Life and opinions of Tristram Shandy’, but it becomes apparent
that only the latter half of this promise will be fulfilled. Tristram is
finally born a third of the way through the novel. There is no description of
his adolescence and we only glean a brief insight into his adulthood during Volume
VII, which is a parody of travel writing more than it is autobiographical. It
becomes difficult to imagine an ending that could sufficiently fill the sizable
gaps left behind by Tristram’s skittish, non-linear narration; completeness does
not seem to be Sterne’s intention. He makes no real effort to cloak Tristram’s
fragmentary storytelling, under the guise of an intricate plot that will
eventually emerge as a unified whole. Tristram is instead self-aware and
unapologetic about his narrative style, labelling his writing ‘rhapsodical
work’[3] as
early as Volume I and continues to do this summation justice until the very end.
Although Tristram does keep some promises to his readers, most notably the tale
of Toby’s armours which is first mentioned in Volume II and eventually
completed during the final volume, this never culminates in an orderly,
comprehensive plot. As the novel continues, the ‘unforeseen stoppages’[4]
which appear to be getting in the way of the narrative, seem more and more like
an allusion to the final, unexpected stoppage of the novel itself. If the
inconclusive and perhaps frustrating ending is deemed intentional, it appropriately
serves as a continuation of Sterne’s mischievous and self-aware approach to
narration.
If, on the contrary, we accept that the
novel came to an end involuntarily, due to events in Sterne’s personal life, it
is equally justifiable to view the novel as complete. This is because the
possibility of an enforced, abrupt ending is introduced to the reader long
before it occurs, when the narrator focuses on his mortality at the beginning
of Volume VII[5]. This
passage mirrors Sterne’s own concerns regarding his failing health at the time
of writing. The release of Volumes VII and VIII in 1765 marks Sterne’s most
significant deviation from Tristram’s vow that he would be ‘publishing two
volumes of [his] life every year’[6].
The three years it took Sterne to complete these two volumes can be attributed
to his worsening tuberculosis, which manifests itself within the novel as
Tristram’s ‘vile cough’[7].
This emphasis on deteriorating health serves as a reminder that while Tristram
wishes to publish volumes ‘as long as [he] lives’[8],
they will have to come to an end eventually. The parallel between the author
and narrator’s mortality is tangible to the extent that an abrupt ending not
only appears possible, but is almost expected by the reader. Therefore, while
the novel can be viewed as unintentionally incomplete, it cannot be in a way
which is ruinous or conflicting with the rest of the narrative, as Sterne’s
apparent inability to carry on writing effectively becomes Tristram’s. Sterne
may have stopped writing Tristram Shandy
for many reasons, but through an acknowledgement of Tristram’s mortality he
allows any sudden end to his writing to be deemed appropriate, thus completing
the novel by default.
While the question raised by Booth may not be useful in terms of its possible answers, it remains an insightful statement within itself, as it appears to symbolise the mixture of curiosity and confusion that Sterne stimulates within his readers. Instances of this often come at the end of instalments, where Tristram indicates that he will provide ‘a full explanation of matters’[11] he has only briefly alluded to, which encourages an inquisitiveness alongside the reader’s prior bewilderment. We are playfully encouraged to ‘endeavour to solve’ the ‘points left yet unravelled’[12] in the current volume, but Sterne’s contemporary readers know they will have to wait at least a year for any further exposition. Through this simultaneous use of digression and allusion, Sterne forms a pattern whereby he seeks to confound his readers before attempting to spark their interest soon after. This is apparent in every volume but the last, within which Booth states ‘there is no indication whatsoever of any further possibility for the story’ and ‘no play upon expectations [that are found] in all the conclusions of the other instalments’[13]. Although the completeness of all of the novel’s volumes may be questioned individually, they are not, as the reader believes the narrative loose ends will be tied up in due course. In the final volume, the reader has to truly confront the fragmented nature of the novel for the first time, due to the absence of any potential closure. This leaves the reader’s curiosity unsatisfied, which causes the completeness of the entire novel to be questioned. The fact that Booth’s question is being asked is worthwhile, as it suggests that Sterne is successful in maintaining a power over his readers by inspiring a sense of curiosity, even when he cannot achieve this with the promise of revealing more.The question of Tristram Shandy’s completion is limited in its usefulness because, whatever the answer, we are lead to conclusions which mirror each other. The argument that Sterne did in fact complete his novel stems from the idea that completeness can be found in a continuation of the cycle of incompleteness maintained throughout the novel, through to the very end. The argument that instead perceives Sterne’s work as unfinished, concedes to an overall incompleteness which in itself works to represent and complete this same cycle. Sterne’s toying with the traditions of structure and plot lead to this similarity between the implications of both answers, and in turn, works to diminish the usefulness of Booth’s question. The conventional idea of completeness becomes broader and more elusive because instead of a concrete beginning, middle and end, the novel creates only a fractured impression of these structures. While Booth’s exploration into the completeness of Tristram Shandy is rooted in Volume IX, which he believed was meant as the end, this focus is limited as it confronts a particular idea of incompleteness synonymous with the absence of an ending. This is especially problematic in a novel like Tristram Shandy, where numerous instances of the incomplete work to form a fragmented narrative. Using points of focus other than its ending is equally appropriate in gauging a work’s completeness. For example, Wolfgang Iser points to an incompleteness which is derived from the ‘multiplicity of beginnings’[9] found in the novel. He suggests that Sterne does not seek to establish a concrete starting point for his narrative, as Tristram is not yet born when the novel begins. This deviation from the norms of eighteenth-century literature, whereby the hero’s birth is ‘something that could be taken for granted’[10], leads to a beginning as vague and irresolute as the ending. While Booth seems concerned with whether Sterne intentionally finished his novel, Iser’s exploration into beginnings shows how this becomes inconsequential within a novel that questions our standard idea of completeness from the very start.
While the question raised by Booth may not be useful in terms of its possible answers, it remains an insightful statement within itself, as it appears to symbolise the mixture of curiosity and confusion that Sterne stimulates within his readers. Instances of this often come at the end of instalments, where Tristram indicates that he will provide ‘a full explanation of matters’[11] he has only briefly alluded to, which encourages an inquisitiveness alongside the reader’s prior bewilderment. We are playfully encouraged to ‘endeavour to solve’ the ‘points left yet unravelled’[12] in the current volume, but Sterne’s contemporary readers know they will have to wait at least a year for any further exposition. Through this simultaneous use of digression and allusion, Sterne forms a pattern whereby he seeks to confound his readers before attempting to spark their interest soon after. This is apparent in every volume but the last, within which Booth states ‘there is no indication whatsoever of any further possibility for the story’ and ‘no play upon expectations [that are found] in all the conclusions of the other instalments’[13]. Although the completeness of all of the novel’s volumes may be questioned individually, they are not, as the reader believes the narrative loose ends will be tied up in due course. In the final volume, the reader has to truly confront the fragmented nature of the novel for the first time, due to the absence of any potential closure. This leaves the reader’s curiosity unsatisfied, which causes the completeness of the entire novel to be questioned. The fact that Booth’s question is being asked is worthwhile, as it suggests that Sterne is successful in maintaining a power over his readers by inspiring a sense of curiosity, even when he cannot achieve this with the promise of revealing more.The question of Tristram Shandy’s completion is limited in its usefulness because, whatever the answer, we are lead to conclusions which mirror each other. The argument that Sterne did in fact complete his novel stems from the idea that completeness can be found in a continuation of the cycle of incompleteness maintained throughout the novel, through to the very end. The argument that instead perceives Sterne’s work as unfinished, concedes to an overall incompleteness which in itself works to represent and complete this same cycle. Sterne’s toying with the traditions of structure and plot lead to this similarity between the implications of both answers, and in turn, works to diminish the usefulness of Booth’s question. The conventional idea of completeness becomes broader and more elusive because instead of a concrete beginning, middle and end, the novel creates only a fractured impression of these structures. While Booth’s exploration into the completeness of Tristram Shandy is rooted in Volume IX, which he believed was meant as the end, this focus is limited as it confronts a particular idea of incompleteness synonymous with the absence of an ending. This is especially problematic in a novel like Tristram Shandy, where numerous instances of the incomplete work to form a fragmented narrative. Using points of focus other than its ending is equally appropriate in gauging a work’s completeness. For example, Wolfgang Iser points to an incompleteness which is derived from the ‘multiplicity of beginnings’[9] found in the novel. He suggests that Sterne does not seek to establish a concrete starting point for his narrative, as Tristram is not yet born when the novel begins. This deviation from the norms of eighteenth-century literature, whereby the hero’s birth is ‘something that could be taken for granted’[10], leads to a beginning as vague and irresolute as the ending. While Booth seems concerned with whether Sterne intentionally finished his novel, Iser’s exploration into beginnings shows how this becomes inconsequential within a novel that questions our standard idea of completeness from the very start.
It seems both unnecessary and convoluted to
question the completeness of a novel which
intends to question our very own idea of completeness. Through his fixation on
digression and his willingness to experiment with structure, Sterne seeks to challenge
his reader’s traditional ideas of totality in Tristram Shandy. The value in Booth’s question of completeness lies
in its demonstration of Sterne’s success in this endeavour and not in the manner
it is answered. It is fitting that we are left with such a question in response
to a novel fuelled by matters that are constantly put on hold or overlooked by
its narrator. However, Booth’s response to the question seems to concern
whether or not Sterne consciously completed his novel. In this case, a more
suitable question may be ‘Did Sterne intend to finish Tristram Shandy?’ as this would eliminate any notions of
completeness detached from authorial intention. The question as it stands seems
futile, because it is difficult to imagine an ending to Sterne’s narrative that
could provide a sense of incompleteness not already present in the rest of the
novel. In effect, the novel’s most significant sense of completeness is derived
from a continuous cycle of the incomplete, whereby the reader is prompted to
form a whole from the fragments that Sterne provides.
Bibliography
Booth, Wayne, Modern Philology, Vol. 48, No. 3 (University of
Chicago Press, Feb, 1951), pp. 172-183
Iser, Wolfgang, Sterne: Tristram Shandy in Landmarks of World Literature, trans. by
David Henry Wilson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
Sterne, Laurence, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy,
Gentleman, ed. by Melvyn New and Joan New
(London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003)
[1] Laurence
Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram
Shandy, Gentleman, ed. by Melvyn New and Joan New
(London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003)
(London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2003)
[2] Wayne Booth, Modern
Philology, Vol. 48, No. 3 (University of Chicago Press, Feb, 1951), pp.
172-183, (180)
[3] Laurence
Sterne, I, xiii, pg 33
[4] Ibid, I,
xiv, pg 35
[5] Laurence
Sterne, VII, pp 431-444
[6] Ibid, I,
xiii, pg 35
[7] Ibid,
VII, i, pg 431
[8] Ibid, I,
xiii, pg 35
[9] Wolfgang
Iser, Sterne: Tristram Shandy in Landmarks of World Literature, trans. by David Henry Wilson (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1988) pg 1
[10] Ibid, pg
1
[11] Laurence
Sterne, II, xix, 137
[12] Ibid,
II, xix, 136
[13] Wayne
Booth, pg 175
Comments
Post a Comment