Decentring the Individual Subject: The Perpetual Recycling of the Narrating “I” in David Mitchell’s Ghostwritten

Abstract

British author David Mitchell’s debut novel Ghostwritten, published in 1999, has been lauded for its innovative nine-part structure, in which each chapter is presented as a first-person narrative that involves, each time, a different narrator with a different story. Mitchell himself describes this arrangement as a way to “locate meaning in randomness [...] Each chapter offers a different reason why its events unfold as they do” (Begley 2010: 5). Such a postmodern concern with randomness is evident when the ostensible self-sufficiency of the individual account is undermined by the arbitrary, often mysterious (re)appearance of one or the other narrator as character in another’s story. Interestingly, these surprise appearances, of what could be called the “experi-encing other”, work to undermine the centrality of the narrator’s story – of what could be called the “master narrative”. This destabilisation is compounded in characteristic postmodern fashion by the continual displacement of the narrating “I” from one chapter to the next. Thus, while the “I” remains – or seems to remain – a constant throughout, the individual subject is ceaselessly recycled as the experiencing other in different guises; it is a process that apparently denies the formation of an individual identity, thus ratifying the postmodern anxiety about the end of individuality. However, as I argue in this article, it is precisely this continual recycling that affords the decentred subject a chance at individuality. In a telling deconstructive gesture, Mitchell’s novel bypasses the transcendental Subject to allow a space in which the plural subject can claim its identity, paradoxically, as a singular entity.

Opsomming

Die Britse skrywer David Mitchell se debuutroman Ghostwritten, gepubliseer in 1999, word geag vir sy innoverende nege-ledige struktuur, waar elke hoofstuk aangebied word as ’n eerste-persoons vertelling wat elke keer ’n ander verteller met ’n eie storie behels. Mitchell self beskryf hierdie samestelling as ’n poging om sin te vind midde verwarring: “Each chapter offers a different reason why its events unfold as they do” (Begley 2010: 5). So ’n postmoderne belang in ewekansigheid kom na vore wanneer die oënskynlike selfgenoegsaamheid van ieder vertelling ondermyn word deur die arbitrêre, telkens onverklaarbare herverskyning van die een of ander verteller as ’n karakter in ’n ander se verhaal. Beduidend hierin is hoe hierdie onverwagse manifestasies van die “ervarende ander” werk om die sentralitiet van die verteller se storie – overgesetsynde die meesternarratief – te ondermyn. In tipiese postmoderne fatsoen word sulke destabilisering verder verdiep deur die voortdurende verplasing van die vertellende “Ek” van een hoofstuk tot die volgende. Aldus, onderwyl die “Ek” deurgaans konstant blyk te wees, word die individuele subjek onophoudelik hersirkuleer as die “ervarende ander” agter verskillende fasades; hierdie proses ontsê skynbaar die vorming van ’n individuele identiteit om sodoende die postmoderne angstigheid rakende die einde van individualiteit te bekragtig. In hierdie artikel word egter aangevoer dat so ’n aanhoudende hersirkulering eweneens neerkom op ’n herwinningsaksie, waardeur die gedesentraliseerde subjek ’n kans op individualiteit gebied word. In ’n veelsprekende dekonstruktiewe gebaar omseil Mitchell se roman die transendentale Subjek om plek te maak vir die plurale subjek om, paradoksaal, ’n identiteit as enkelvoudige entiteit op te neem.