The word sarcasm has its beginnings from old Grecian footings eiron ( hypocrite ) and eironia ( fake ignorance ) , and these two, along with alazon, impel the action in Greek old comedy. Although these two words are non rigorous in their differences, they reveal two diverse facets of sarcasm which are relevant to any treatment of dry discourse. The construct of “ feigning ” connotes that something is being hidden, which is to state one thing merely to intend another. That is the thought of simple sarcasm. The construct of imitating ignorance, nevertheless, has its beginning in philosophical tradition ; portion of Socratic Method which originates in duologues, and relies on the pretense of ignorance to build an statement.

Kierkegaard, the male parent of modern sarcasm, believes that the construct of irony “ makes its entry into the universe through Socrates ” ( The Concept of Irony, p. 9 ) , for whom the “ outer was non at all in harmoniousness with the inneraˆ¦ and merely under this angle of refraction is he to be comprehended ” ( 12 ) . The term “ refraction ” here, is of extreme importance. Kierkegaard gives an illustration of Napoleon ‘s image in which there is a grave and on either side of the grave, there are two trees, in between there is nil but empty infinite. As the oculus follows the trees, nevertheless, “ all of a sudden Napoleon himself emerges from this nil, and now it is impossible to hold him vanish once more ” ( 19 ) . And so is with Socrates ‘ addresss which: “ there is non one individual syllable that gives a intimation of any other reading, merely as there is non one individual line that suggests Napoleon, and yet this empty infinite, this nil, is what hides that which is most of import ” ( 19 ) .

Kierkegaard is an acknowledged influence on Barthelme ‘s work, as Barthelme has devoted his narrative, “ Kierkegaard Unfair to Shlegel ” , to him ; which is a treatment of sarcasm. In “ The Concept of Irony ” , Kierkegaard attempts to cover with the same jobs that underlie Barthelme ‘s sarcasm. The issue under treatment here is the freedom and individuality of the person that emanates from the Cartesian division of topic and object. Kierkegaard believes that “ the outstanding characteristic of ironyaˆ¦ is the subjective freedom which at every minute has within its power the possibility of a beginning and is non generated by old conditions ” ( 270 ) .

The sweeping difference between Socratic sarcasm and that of Kierkegaard is that Kierkegaard ‘s freedom has a unsafe extreme beyond the freedom of Socratic sarcasm. This utmost freedom allows “ an bizarre subjectiveness, a subjectiveness raised to the 2nd poweraˆ¦ which negates all historic actualityaˆ¦ to do room for a self-created actuality ” ( 292 ) . Harmonizing to him, the satirist “ does non hold the new in his power ” but alternatively “ destroys the given actuality by the given actuality itself ” ( 262 ) .

Kierkegaard ‘s cardinal unfavorable judgment of sarcasm remainders upon this premise: that, yes, the universe is lacking ; yes, all masterminds work forces wish a much better universe than it is now. But the lone manner to cover with this status is to accommodate his vision with actuality. As Kierkegaard says, “ sarcasm is destructive. Irony is irresponsible, a agency of accomplishing freedom by avoiding committedness. It destroys by striping an object of its world ” ( 17 ) . Furthermore, Kierkegaard understands sarcasm as “ absolute infinite negativeness ” , because he by and large envisions it in its Socratic signifier:

Directed non against this or that peculiar bing entity but against

the full given actuality at a certain clip and under certain conditions.

Therefore it has an intrinsic apriority, and it is non by in turn

destructing one part of actuality after another that it arrives at its sum

position [ as occurs in the Hegelian dialectic ] , but it is by virtuousness of this that

it destroys in the peculiar case. ( 254 )

Here Kierkegaard portions much of Hegel ‘s thoughts toward sarcasm. Before discoursing Hegel ‘s impression of sarcasm, I would wish to cast visible radiation on Romantic impression of sarcasm which both Hegel and Kierkegaard negate. Until the 18th century, sarcasm was thought as a rhetorical device, and as Joseph Dane in his book “ The Critical Methodology of Irony ” observes, was “ non a affair of ambiguity ” ( 63 ) . By contrast, the romantics, such as Friedrich Shlegel, elevate sarcasm into an inherently equivocal worldview which comes from J.G Fichte ‘s doctrine of the self-importance as “ the absolute rule of cognition ” ( Dane 89 ) . “ It is really good mark ” , says Shlegel, “ when the harmonious dullards are at a loss about how they should respond to this uninterrupted self-parodyaˆ¦ , until they get giddy and take what every bit meant as a gag earnestly and what as meant earnestly as a gag ” ( Philosophic fragments p. 108 ) .

Hegel, nevertheless, rejects the romantic construct of sarcasm, by knocking Fichte ‘s impression of the self-importance, in which, argues Hegel, “ no content of consciousness appears as absolute and independently existent but merely as a self-made and destructible show ” ( Hegel Aes. 65 ) . Harmonizing to him, the romantic creative person, missing “ echt seriousness ” , Hegel continues, regards others as “ deceived, hapless limited animals ” unable to understand the creative persons “ godly originative mastermind ” , and therefore cuts himself off from the remainder of humanity ( 66 ) . Ultimately, the romantic creative person experiences himself and everything else as a “ nothing ; his attitude to it all is ironical ” ( 66 ) .

To Hegel, romantic sarcasm relies on an surplus of subjectiveness, and this, Lillian Furst in her book, “ Fictions of Romantic sarcasm ” suggests, “ became the focal point of contention ” ( 33 ) . Kierkegaard as a adherent of Hegel, focuses on subjective and grounds that “ in sarcasm, the topic is negatively free, since the actuality that is supposed to give the topic content is non at that place ” ( 262 ) . He believes that when satirists criticize “ actuality itself ” , they become romantic satirists.

In Kierkegaard ‘s position, when romantic satirists detach themselves from actuality, they threaten the really construct of the ego in several ways:

because the satirist poetically produces himself every bit good as his

environment with the greatest possible poetic licence, because

he lives wholly hypothetically and subjectively, his life

eventually loses all continuity. With this he entirely lapses under

the sway of his theoretical accounts and feelings. His life is absolute emotion.

But as the satirist has no continuity, so the most contrary feelings

are allowed to displace each otheraˆ¦ Although thought himself

free, the satirist succumbs to the awful jurisprudence of the universe and

labors in the most atrocious bondageaˆ¦ ( 300-301 )

George J. Stack in his book “ Kierkegaard ‘s Experiential Ethical motives ” , discusses another menace to the ego by romantic sarcasm which is “ its inclination to take to inactive desperation, inaction, indecision and a sense of hopelessness in the face of an imagined ideality that one realizes can non be attained in finite existenceaˆ¦ ” ( 36 ) . so the lone manner for a ego so discouraged by life is to take nihilism, “ to go nil at all ” ( Kierkegaard 289 ) .

Now we can get down to link romantic sarcasm with postmodern authorship. At the heard of romantic sarcasm, lies incredulity which is one of the most of import elements in postmodern authorship, and this is the instance with both Shlegel and Barthelme, where they try to transform and deliver the universe through their sarcasm. This ability is rooted in their freedom which comes from the usage of sarcasm. Hegel, as a precursor of modern doctrine, has much in common with modernist thoughts and theories. His sarcasm is that of acknowledging the upset in the universe and trying to decide it. Harmonizing to Alan Wilde, “ control being one of the main jussive moods of the modernist imaginativeness ” ( Horizon of Assent p.10 ) , so both Hegel and modernist authors strived for control over the universe, Hegel through his sarcasm and modernists through their fiction. Hegel ‘s effort was to command and deliver the complexness of world, and modernists, excessively, totalized the disconnected universe piece by piece and by determining it artistically, consolidated it. The modernists usage of methods such as, disk shape and repeat, is an effort to determine pandemonium which is wholly impossible for Shlegel. Shlegel writes:

So powerful is the inherent aptitude for integrity in world that the

writer himself will frequently convey something to a sort of

completion which merely ca n’t be made a whole or a

unit ; frequently rather imaginatively and yet wholly

unnaturally. The worst thing about it is that whatever is

draped about the solid, truly existing fragments in the

effort to mug up a gloss of integrity consists mostly

of died shred. And if these are touched up clearly and

deceivingly, and tastily displayed, so that ‘s all the

worse ( 155 ) .

So Shlegel ‘s relationship to the universe is wholly different from modernists who try to utilize sarcasm in order to command and deliver the complexness of world “ smartly and deceivingly ” .

Barthelme ‘s stance is precisely the manner like Shlegel, which in incredulity, produces marks that refuse to mean the universe and while disregarding the universe, merely signify themselves. What he has observed is that linguistic communication is the best tool for stand foring the universe that makes no sense, and this linguistic communication in itself does non mention to anything outside it. Indeed, he has discovered that the writer ‘s occupation is non to stand for anything but to play. Play is one of the most of import elements in postmodern authorship and Barthelme ‘s stance is to exemplify the universe non in a serious mode, but through incredulity, playing with it and turning his sarcasm upon it. Skepticism liberates him from the restraints of the universe. He contradicts the universe and detaches himself from it. Harmonizing to Shlegel, “ existent incredulity would hold to get down and stop with the averment of and demand for an infinite figure of contradictions ” ( 227 ) . Barthelme operates the same as Shlegel does, they envisage the creative person in the same manner, who, harmonizing to Lillian Furst, is “ both involved in and detached from his creative activity, aware of the contradictions of his enterprise, but able to exceed them ” ( 26 ) . Barthelme wrote in 1963:

Play is one of the great possibilities of art ; it is besides, as

Norma O.Brown makes clear in his “ Life Against Death ” ,

the Eros-principle whose repression means entire catastrophe.

the humorless practicians of lupus erythematosus nouveau Roman produce

such catastrophes on a regular basis, as make our native believers of

the autonomous fact. It is the consequence of deficiency of earnestness.

( “ Joyce ” 18 )

Therefore Barthelme frees his fiction and makes it meaningful, as playful and nonserious as he is able. Therefore he is concerned in the same dialectics of “ serious drama ” that romantic satirists considered.

Now lets see one of the most ironical narratives of Barthelme which is itself a theoretical and at the same clip fictional work. In “ Kierkegaard Unfair to Shlegel ” , Barthelme examines the romantic satirist ‘s positions about degage high quality, in which the place of Kierkegaard and Hegel is represented by “ Q ” , and Shlegel is represented by “ A ” . The narrative begins by a fantasy image: a immature miss is seated in forepart of him on a European train. “ A ” says: “ she ‘s highly self-aware. She ‘s really self-conscious. All her motions are merely a shadiness overdone ” ( Barthelme, Sixty Stories p. 154 ) . At the same clip he is “ seeking to avoid looking at her legsaˆ¦ and her chests ” . “ Q ” , in response, tells him, “ that ‘s a really common phantasy ” , and “ A ” admits ; “ it gives a pooraˆ¦ a instead unsatisfactory pleasance ” ( 154 ) . While “ A ” avoids looking at the miss ‘s organic structure, at the same clip he is absorbed by her “ highly self-aware attitude ” , and this, shows A ‘s emotional distance from the miss and from the whole people. Kierkegaard says that the romantic satirist “ stands proudly inclosed within himself, andaˆ¦ Lashkar-e-Taibas people pass before him and finds no family for himself ” ( 283 ) .

The different point of views and mentalities of “ A ” and “ Q ” are clear in this few lines by Kierkegaard. “ In order for the moving person to be able to carry through his undertaking by carry throughing actuality, he must experience himself integrated into a larger context, must experience the seriousness of responsibilityaˆ¦ ” ( Kierkegaard 279 ) . But as “ A ” says in the narrative, “ battle with the universe is impossible ” . “ Q ” asks: “ you ‘re non political? ” “ You do n’t take part? “ , and, in response, “ A ” says: “ I participate. I make demands, gestural newspaper advertizements, and ballot. I make little run parts to the campaigner of my pick and turn my sarcasm against the others. But I accomplish nil ” ( 155 ) . Here A ‘s stance becomes clear as person whose attitude to all is ironical. This is the stance of Shlegel and Barthelme. Their positions toward everything are ironical. Furthermore, “ A ” regards the universe as ironical:

For illustration: we ‘re passing a great trade of money for this

ground forces we have, a really big ground forces, attractively equippedaˆ¦

now, the whole point of an ground forces is _ what ‘s the word? _

disincentive. And the nut of disincentive is credibleness. So what

does the authorities make? It goes and sells off its excess

uniforms. And the childs start have oning themaˆ¦ because they ‘re

cheap and have some kind of manner. And instantly you get

this huge clown ground forces in the streets parodying the existent ground forces.

( 155-156 )

As a consequence, “ A ” concludes that, it is “ a really serious onslaught on all the thoughts which support the existent ground forces ” , an “ undermining of its ain credibleness ” by a authorities that “ wants to do a few dollars mongering old uniforms ” ( 156 ) . Therefore, “ A ” prefers to stay an satirist, because as he says, “ it ‘s utile ” ( 156 ) .

Now citing Kierkegaard, Barthelme says:

An sarcasm directed non against a given object but against the

Whole of being. An sarcasm directed against the whole of

being green goodss, harmonizing to Kierkegaard, alienation

and poesy. The satirist, serially successful in disposing of

assorted objects of his sarcasm, becomes rummy with freedom.

He becomes lighter and lighter. Irony becomes an space

absolute negation. Quote sarcasm no longer directs itself against

this or that peculiar phenomenon, against a peculiar thing

unquote. Quote the whole of being has become foreign to the

dry capable unquote page276. For Kierkegaard, the actuality

of sarcasm is poesy ( 158 ) .

Barthelme, reacting to Kierkegaard, wants to turn irony upon him. The manner is playful throughout the narrative: the quotation marks, page Numberss which refer to Kierkegaard ‘s text. Finally, sing Kierkegaard ‘s disapproval of Shlegel ‘s Lucinde, Barthelme says that Kierkegaard has been “ unjust to Shlegel ” . Barthelme ‘s freedom as an satirist in the narrative arises from his remarks. Now let ‘s see such a freedom in these sentences:

What is interesting is my doing the statement that I think

Kierkegaard is unjust to Shlegelaˆ¦ because that is non what

I think at all. We have to make here with my ain sarcasm. Because

of class Kierkegaard was “ just ” to Shlegel. In doing a

statement to the contrary I am attemptingaˆ¦ to eliminate

Kierkegaard in order to cover with his disapproval ( 159-160 )

Barthelme ‘s sarcasm throughout the narrative is, in fact, the sarcasm of infinite absolute negation, which Kierkegaard condemns. His sarcasm destroys the object by striping it from world. There is no stable land to stand on ; we are left with no actuality and world. All our object goons are shattered and we as readers are shattered, excessively. Barthelme ‘s place is a double place of an satirist as a individual who is both wholly free and wholly enslaved. And it shows the absolute excitement of an satirist on the one manus, and his desperation and animus, on the other.

Barthelme efforts to handle Kierkegaard ironically, but he can non be destroyed, and we know this from the decision when the narrator-ironist is defeated: “ he has given his merriment and now he has nil ” . There is a tenseness throughout the narrative between the satirist and his object and this has made it beautiful. Kierkegaard is a strong topic and Barthelme is emotionally and intellectually engaged by him. The topic is treated with a certain regard, and provides much greater opposition toward sarcasm.

Barthelme sees the universe in its utmost negativeness as basically helter-skelter and meaningless, and through the negative freedom of his sarcasm, he shows that the universe is filled with unactuality. His attitude toward the worlds of his civilization and society is a sort of dry withdrawal, and the topic of his survey is the manner he employs irony as a manner to knock the societal worlds of his clip and a tool for making new fictional concepts. Barthelme depicts adult male as low and exhausted by the loss of the centres of authorization. His object is undermined, and so the antonym is undermined, excessively. His irony destroys everything. It destroys the yesteryear and the present ; it destroys traditional and daring attacks to art ; it destroys by diminishing and devaluating everything to mere linguistic communication, to manner and eventually, it destroys the construct of destructing itself.

So far, we have discussed the purposes and intents of sarcasm in Barthelme ‘s plants, now I would wish to discourse sarcasm as a manner to knock the criterions, values and worlds of society and civilization. Much of Barthelme ‘s success resides in his apprehension of societal worlds of his civilization, and picturing these worlds and satirising their built-in values and norms. “ Come Back, Dr. Caligari ” is one of Barthelme ‘s greatest and the most glorious plants which he plays the function of an acute societal ironist. His attitude in this aggregation is of an writer of the American middle-class in the early 1960ss. In general, they can be described as those of pessimism and they have derived from experiential doctrine: absurdness, ennui, boredom and disaffection.

He says in an interview: “ there is a consistent societal concern in my narratives from the 1960 ‘s to the presentaˆ¦ , an obbligato, ever present in everythingaˆ¦ ” ( Not Knowing, p.318 ) . He besides has noted earlier in his book, that:

Here, you can assail the authorities every bit violently as you want

and no 1 is traveling to throw you in gaol. The authorities

does n’t even notice. Over there [ in Europe and elsewhere ] ,

authors are given much more valueaˆ¦ accordingly, our

political engagement is watered down ( NK, p.312-313 ) .

Barthelme achieves sarcasm by what he calls his “ efforts to compose about the manner modern-day life is lived by most people ” ( NK 269 ) ; these lives are of “ implemented passiveness ” , which are experienced against “ an on-going background of trickery ” ( NK, 269 ) .

Most of Barthelme ‘s characters endure a tattered, mercenary, disillusioned and blighted being. “ A Shower of Gold ” , one of Barthelme ‘s most anthologized narratives, straight attacks the vulgarisation and popularisation of thoughts. The narrative is more theoretical than actual, and while the character claims that he does non cognize the linguistic communication of existential philosophy, Barthelme claims to cognize it good and he has shown it clearly and explicitly. Miss Arbor, questioning the painter for the telecasting show called “ Who Am I ” , asks: “ Mr. Peterson, are you absurd? ” “ aˆ¦ Do you meet your being as gratuitous? Do you experience de trap? Is there nausea? Peoples today, we feel, are hidden off inside themselves, alienated, despairing, populating in anguish, desperation and bad religion. Why have we been thrown here, and abandoned? aˆ¦ Who Am I? approaches these jobs in a root extremist manner ” ( 8 ) .

When Miss Arbor asks if he is interested in absurdness, Mr. Peterson says: “ I do n’t cognize. I ‘m non certain. ” Then, the aghast Miss Arbor responds: “ oh, Mr. Peterson, do n’t state that! You ‘ll beaˆ¦ ” , and so Peterson suggests: “ punished? ” Peterson ‘s penalty is, certainly, for his “ incredulity ” . His job is that he has ne’er believed in absurdness. When he goes on the T.V game show, he is convinced that absurdness is perfectly the human status. The retaliatory force of absurdness is to penalize those, who, like Peterson, express “ bad religion ” . Peterson starts to play his ain game of “ Who Am I? “ , manufacturing replies even before Miss Arbor can inquire inquiries.

“ In this sort of universe ” , Peterson said, ” absurd if you will,

possibilities however proliferate and escalate all around

us and there are chances for get downing once more. I am a

minor creative person and my trader wo n’t even expose my work if

he can assist it but minor is as child does and lightning

may strike even yet. Do n’t be reconciled. Turn off your

telecasting sets ” , Peterson said, “ hard currency in your life insurance

indulge in mindless optimism. Visit misss at twilight. Play the

guitar. How can you be alienated with out first holding been

connected? ( Sixty Stories, p.15-16 )

Change by reversaling the regulation of Who Am I? , Peterson points up the possibility of drama by making a new beginning for himself, although it is absurd, but it is a delightfully inventive diversion. As Peterson recreates himself, he inaugurates self-reflexive lampoon. He plays against the method of Who Am I? by inverting the usual inquiry and reply method, by lying about his individuality, and by masking himself over and over ; moreover, by making multiple and assorted possibilities and options for his life, he plays against and mocks the audience ‘s outlooks that his life, like many others, can be dwindled and devalued to a predictable, possibly worthless being. Barthelme, therefore, used self-reflexive characteristics non merely to mock absurdist subjects, but besides as a possibility for get downing once more. However, he tries to satirise the T.V game shows, where the value of the game is diminished to its wagess and contestants take portion in order to acquire those wagess, as we see in the narrative, where Peterson wonders about the two-hundred-dollar fee.

“ A Shower of Gold ” is a narrative which deals most with the businessperson flirting, but there are other narratives in the aggregation which delve into the subject of individuality crisis, the effort to do life interesting and besides to happen significance in life. Cardinal to these narratives is the job of ennui.

The chief thought in “ Me and Miss Mandible ” is the big spread between what adult male expects in life and what he gets, between life ‘s promises and its bestowments. In this narrative, Barthelme uses a technique which is really omnipresent in most of his stories_ that is changing the facets of our universe, and therefore leting us to see from a new position. A thirty-five-year-old adult male, through misconception, all of a sudden finds himself in a 6th class category which consists of 30 five pupils who are 11 old ages old and Miss Mandible, the instructor. The map and signifier of the narrative are in a semi-parodic manner: we can watch the character “ grow ” from the beginning of a first twenty-four hours to his dismissal from the school four months subsequently. At the beginning of the narrative, the wonder of the character is illustrated. He is funny about the kind of mistake which has caused him to be at that place. He is funny about his stability between Miss Mandible, who is attracted to him sexually, and Sue Ann Brownly, “ who is infatuated with him. ”

We besides learn that he has had a bedraggled matrimony ; his business as an insurance adjustor finished when he got a $ 165000 colony for a hurt adult female. After all these, he writes: “ little admiration that reeducation seemed my lone hope. ” The storyteller begins “ to understand how I went incorrectly, how we all went incorrect ” ( 17 ) . One twenty-four hours he reads Miss Mandible ‘s instructor ‘s manual:

Many students enjoy working fractions when they understand

what they are making. They have assurance in their ability to

take the right stairss and to obtain right replies. However, to

give the topic full societal significance, it is necessary that many

realistic state of affairss necessitating the procedures be found. Many

interesting and life-like jobs affecting the usage of fractions

should be solvedaˆ¦ ( 20 ) .

The narrative asks_ by implication_ what happens when you take the right stairss, acquire the correct replies, and you are fired from your occupation and your married woman leaves you? The storyteller continues by stating: “ who points out that agreements sometimes slip, that mistakes are made, that marks are missed? ” ( 22 ) . No 1 does. What is taught in simple school is that mark are promises and authorization peers life. Thus, in his former life, the storyteller trusted the company slogan, “ Here to Help in Time of Need ” ( 26 ) . By implementing this mark and moving in conformity with that, he was fired. He thought that he had found love, because he had attained a married woman with married woman marks “ beauty, appeal, softness, cooking ” . The storyteller ‘s great find in his current position at school is that “ marks are marks, and that some of them are prevarications ” ( 26 ) . Here, Barthelme ‘s parodic position is that most people fail to digest disenchantments and reverses in their lives because it is so hard to obtain this find.

The storyteller finds out that “ everything that is either interesting or life-like in the schoolroom ” emanates from interpersonal relations_ that is sex, and he continues that “ the ambiance is charged with stillborn gender ” . The pupils are non taught, do non cognize and are non able to pull off their gender. This is non to state that the writer wants schools to learn pupils gender and the ways to manage it, but Barthelme is satirising the educational system which pretends to explicate all human behaviours while extinguishing the most of import factor. The inquiries of how things went incorrect, all of the secrets that puzzled us as grownups, have their root in school, and Barthelme, is totaling them one by one and exposing their roots. He believes that the proper instruction of what is “ right ” an what is “ incorrect ” will take to self-knowledge and, all in all, to an interesting life.

“ Margins ” is another narrative in this aggregation which satirizes businessperson involvement in racial favoritism and race dealingss, and of class, Whites ‘ wonder and feelings about inkinesss ‘ ( “ Negroes ” ) . Edward is a white adult male and as he admits, is a sap, and Carl, the black adult male, agrees. Barthelme, here, exaggerates the Whites ‘ position in society and at the same clip reverses their place in American civilization. Edward ‘s involvement in handwriting and “ borders ” has made him a clown, while Carl is made to be a fetid literary black.

I Was Put in Jail in Selby County Albama For Five Old ages

For Stealing A Dollar and A Half Which I Did Not Do.

While I Was In Jail My Brother Was Killed & A ; My Mother

Ran Away When I Was Little. In Jail I Began Preaching & A ;

I Preach to People Wherever I Can Bearing Witness of

Eschatological Love. I Have Filled Out Documents for Jobs But

Cipher Will Give Me a Job Because I Have Been In Jail & A ;

The Whole Scene is Very Drab, Pepsi Cola. I Need Your

Offers to Get Food. Patent Applied For & A ; Deliver Us

From Evil ( 1,2 ) .

Edward earnestly asks: “ it ‘s non true, is it? ” . And Carl responds with a comically literary slang: “ it ‘s trueaˆ¦ with a sort of merde-y inner truth which shines Forth as the nonsubjective correlate of what really did go on, back place ” ( 2 ) .

Edward does non pay any attending to Carl ‘s marks ; he is concerned with his authorship, how it is written, and the breadth of the borders, the “ m ” and “ n ” . He asks inquiries which are common in all Whites ‘ heads: “ Are you a drug nut? ” “ Are you Muslim? ” “ Where make you steal your books from, largely? ” . When he is non able to acquire a privileged position over Carl, he says: “ Peoples like people who look neataˆ¦ you look sort of crummy, if you do n’t mind me stating soaˆ¦ do you believe I ‘m a pretty colour? ” ( 3 ) .

More than anything, Edward wants to learn Carl something. “ Get a haircut, Carlaˆ¦ Get a new suitaˆ¦ you could be upwards nomadic, you know, if you merely set your dorsum into it ” ( 4 ) . Carl declares that it is “ cold here on 14th street ” , and Edward comically responds that his coldness “ arises fro your fringy position as a detested individual in our society ” . Barthelme ‘s sarcasm is perfectly tangible, here, in the narrative. He shows the characters in their utmost blows and clowning. Carl has contempt for Edward ; and Edward, while holding a superior position, frights Carl and becomes defeated to do him submissive. Barthelme ‘s stance is that of an writer who wants to deflate assorted rotten and out of day of the month beliefs and premises and to jab merriment at those thoughts which have surrounded his civilization and society.