BOOKS
311
heteroglossia of novelistic discourse precludes analysis of its
structures by the "authoritarian, dogmatic, and conservative"
ideologies of poetics and logics alike.
To recognize the rhetorical nature of novelistic discourse is to
acknowledge the socially disruptive politics of dialogism . The
"politics of style," Bakhtin writes, is determined by the way in
which it relates to "alien discourses," whether it is receptive and
inclusive or hostile and exclusive . Of all the generic conventions,
only the novel is democratic and egalitarian. In principle, no
discourse is absolutely alien to the novel, nothing can be excluded
from representation in it on grounds of generic propriety, for the
novel is both antigeneric and inherently improper-improper
because
it is antigeneric. "In the novel," Bakhtin asserts, "literary language
possesses an organ for perceiving the heterodox nature of its own
speech. Heteroglossia-in-itself becomes, in the novel and thanks to
the novel, heteroglossia-for-itself: languages are dialogically
implicated
in
each other and begin to exist
jor
each other. . . ."
My summary of only a few of Bakhtin's ideas about discourse
and the novel will make them seem much more abstract and
theoretical than they appear to be on actual reading of the essays.
The neologisms and technical terminology employed throughout
this book are intimidating (the editor provides a glossary) and will
put off readers more interested in criticism than in theory.
Moreover, on the surface at least, such Hegelian turns of phrase as
that quoted at the end of my last paragraph would appear to be at
odds with the ideal of dialogism, which the author embraces, and
certainly with the spirit of the "low" genres and of the novel, which
he celebrates. Nothing is more authoritarian than technical
terminology and very little is less monological than scholarly
discourse. And it might as well be said, nothing is more laughable
than a "serious" discourse on laughter. As the argument rolls on,
the examples multiply, the inversions of conventional opinions
unfold, and the technical vocabulary expands-all in the interest of
dialogue, laughter, polyglossia, and so on. One begins to suspect
that Bakhtin is making not only a theoretical point but also a general
point about theory itself, that he is taking back with one hand what
he has proferred with the other. For the style, the manner of
Bakhtin's discourse, is at odds with its content, its thesis. I surmise
that this was intentional.
Recall that it is authority in all its forms that he brings into
question in his celebration of laughter, and that it is the right of
