Deconstructive Narrative In Heart Of Darkness

Heart of Darkness has attracted the interest of a large number of commentators home and abroad due to its ample implications and high artistic merits, the debates hereby arise, especially concerning narratological division of story and discourse. The author of this thesis tries to find the reason leading to these collisions in the interpretations of story and discourse of the work, and further clarify the interactive relation between them in the perspective of deconstructive narratology.Part One begins with a summary of the past studies on Heart of Darkness abroad in three stages with its focus on the narrative and deconstructive studies. It is proved that deconstructionalists undertake their studies macrocosmically while narrative studies attach too much attention to unity in the text with incongruous details neglected. The studies at home lag far behind those abroad not only in quantity but also in depth.In Part Two it is pointed out that the new tendency in narratology calls for refreshment from outside to keep it up to date. In the eyes of deconstructionalists, there exists logocentism, hierarchical binary oppositions in the division of story and discourse, and prejudiced views on details in traditional narratology, while Miller's theory of deconstructive narrative lines shake the firm foundation of logocentricism and the concept of binary oppositions in traditional narrative studies.Part Three carries a detailed deconstructive narrative study on Heart of Darkness. The author doubts about the privileged position of story, and argues that it is a very common phenomenon that the discourse takes up the position of priority. This phenomenon, the hierarchical ruling of story over discourse, is due to the narratologist's aspiration for centrality and unity of story, which is often challenged by the existence of the "seemingly incongruous" details. These often-neglected details give birth to multiple beginnings, dilemma of the end and uncertainty of the middle. The coherence of the middle is violated by various transgressions which destroy the vanity of single narrative line in the text and lead to the appearance of double or multiple narrative lines with one trying to suppress the other, causing the final disappearance of both centrality and authoritative voice. The discourse analysis of Heart of Darkness further destroys the naive belief in the reflexive function of language to reach any concrete story, and proves that it is only an "ideal model" to have a true story with discourse full of lies and meanings deferred.Part Four is devoted to a comment on the limitation and significance of deconstructive narrative studies on the text. The author points out that nihilistic and pessimistic outlook of deconstructionalists usually leads to the agnostic tendency and the ignorance of subjectivity in their studies, which often trap themselves in a web of their own. The deconstructive narrative studies on Heart of Darkness, however, build itself up on detailed textual studies on the elements of heterogeneity and repetition, which has a high premium on the function of misreadmg in interpretation and draws back to literary appreciation the long-lost dignity of art instead of the objective and scientific rigidity held by the traditional narratologists.In a word, deconstructive narrative studies on Heart of Darkness show compatibility with the new approaches such as psychoanalysis, feminist studies, and new historicism. Deconstruction calls for inclusiveness to different opinions and voices in literature interpreting. It makes demonstrated a force existing in the interior of a text, a force always waiting for a chance to break away from the restriction of tradition and to seek for boundless interpretations. This study, in this sense, is a deconstruction and a construction as well.The originality of the study can be concluded as follows: it is proved that binary division between story and discourse held by the traditional narratologists actually illuminates their strong dependence on logos, but in Heart of Darkness it is discourse that takes up the privileged position instead of story; there exist multiple narrative lines in the text which demonstrates the working of multiple logos and consequently leads to the disappearance of centrality and authority; and it is also the first time that the theory of deconstructive narrative lines is used in interpreting Heart of Darkness.