lispector humor

8/2/2019 Lispector Humor

1/9

Humor in a New Reading of Clarice Lispector

Author(s): Valrie C. LastingerSource: Hispania, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 130-137Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and PortugueseStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/342669

Accessed: 23/07/2009 16:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsp.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toHispania.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/342669?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/342669?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/9


3/9

HUMOR IN A NEW READING OF CLARICELISPECTOR 131

constituteshumor: romAristotle o Freud,humor s definednvariousmanners nd t isstilla notionover which he debate s open.Humorprovesto be a very difficultonceptto explain ationally. havequotedhere thenamesof AristotleandFreudbecause bothaddressdifferent ides of the question.Aris-totle tries to conceivewhatmakesasentenceora situationunny nd oprovide definitionof the concept,whileFreud xplains ach n-stanceofhumornthe contextof eachspecificelement.ButinLagosdefamilia,the humordoes not exist between the characters,butbetween the readers and the text: for mypurpose,sinceI donothavedirectaccess tothe mindof all of Lispector's eaders,it isAristotle'sposition hat will be most useful.Inthe wordsof NormanN. Holland,nAris-totle'stheorywe laugh at the contrast between the thing presentedand the way it is presented.... Aristotle opens up thequestion of the literaryform (25).

Expandingnthis dea,thiscontrastspro-vokedbythe meansofadiscrepancyetweenthe normand a statementor situation:t iswhena comments off-centeredhat tmightbecomecomical.Aseries ofexperimentson-ductedbyDanielKahnemanndDaleT.Millerwas publishedn an article entitled "NormTheory: ComparingRealityto Its Alterna-tive."The two psychologistsdid not studyhumor pecifically,utindeed,muchof theirexperimentalmaterialwas humorous,be-causeallof it was off-centered,distant romthe normby whichwe so oftenreason. Forexample, heynotedwhen anobservationdepartsfromthe normalcovariationof cause andeffect, the discrepancy s usuallyattributedto the effect rather than to the cause. Thus, a childmaybe described as "bigfor her age" but not "as youngforher size,"andstudents may be described as overachiev-ers, not as undertalented(144).

From this observation,we can concludethat oproduce comicalffect,onedoesnotneed to transformhe message (thereis nodifferencebetweena childwho is young orher size or one who is bigfor her age), butsimplyo departrom he normativehought;or rather, he linguisticormwithwhichtoexpress t. ForLispector,hisdepartureeryoftentakesplaceat a semiotic evel,by theinversion of a cliche-the norm.Besides this definition ased on the off-centernotion,another actorof interesttomy study s the problem f whatCharlesR.

Gruner alls"thesuperiorityaughter":The psychological reaction-immediate, sudden, andusuallyunconscious- is a favorablecomparisonof one'sown safe, comfortable self with the low estate of theunfortunate oser (57).In a literary ext this type of humorworkstwoways:the superiorityanbe thatof theauthor-who laughtsat her readers-, orthatof a certaincategoryof "knowledgeablereaders"-who then laughat the ignorantones-. This is particularlyelevant or thestudyofLispector,whoknew iterary heoryverywellandwas aware f themanydifferenttechniqueshatcouldbemanipulatedocreatea caseof"superiorityaughter."or hepres-ent study,I will divide he comicmodeintothree categories: comedy of situation,ofideas, and of manipulationf narrativeech-niques.These threecategorieswillrefertothe definitions f humor ivenabove: heno-tionsof off-centerandsuperiority.

* * *It mayat first seem shocking o speakabouta comedyof situationn a studyof anauthorwho attractsmostofthe critics' tten-

tionbecauseofthephilosophicalresentationof her characters.However,manya storyofLagosde amiliawouldprompt aughterromthereader nthecontextof"traditional"omicliterature.A carefulreadingof some of theselectionsin LaCosdefamiliawillillustratethe comicmode as exploredbyLispector."TheSmallestWomann the World"m-ploys all the effects of comedy used byRabelais r Voltairenthegenreof thephilo-sophicalale. The resemblance etweenVol-taire'sMicromegass particularlyppropriatehere,becauseof theappearancefgiantsanddwarfs,and the context of the "scientific"goals of Micromegas nd of MarcelPretre.Theomnipresent ynicalone of "TheSmall-est Woman" lsobearsresemblance o thatof Micromegas:he importanthemeof pos-session is achievedmainly hroughhe vocab-ularyof the newspaperreaders and theirsuperior one, but staysat this level of thetone. As in Voltaire'sale, the size of thecharacterss ahumorous llegory fdifferenthuman ttitudes.Duringhe firstpartof"TheSmallestWoman,"he reader s led to thinkof the smallcreatureas the essence of allhuman eings;human atureostfrom ontactwithcivilization:he is "Asblack samonkey"(89). Thereader s toldattheopening f the


4/9

132 HISPANIA 72 MARCH1989

story that her discoverywas likefinding"abox insideanotherbox, insideyet anotherbox,"(88) suggestingthat if we look withenough eal insideourselves,we canresumethatprimary tate of happiness.The imageof the returnto initialunionwith nature sbrought orthby the fact that the smallestwomans pregnantthepregnancymirroringthe imageof a box ina box).The comicelements are omnipresentn"TheSmallestWoman":he false feelingofsuperiorityof the readers of the Sundaypaper;he short ocusesoneach amily'seac-tion whichcatches each one of them red-handed s theyquicklylaim wnershipf thewoman; he ironyof the defensethey putupinfrontof the savagehuman ature heyfeelhasbeenexposed nthem,suchas themotherwhoproceeds o thewashing nddressingofherson "as fcleanlinessmightgiveemphasisto a tranquilizinguperficiality"93).Butthemaincomical ffectcomes whentheexplorercancommunicate iththe"true" uman,heonewho s "true onature,"nly o learn hatshe, too, is primarilyreoccupied ymaterialpossession:"it s so nice to possess, so niceto possess. The explorerblinkedseveraltimes" 95).SheadmiresnMarcelPretrehissuperficiality,his civilized varnish--sym-bolizedbyhisringandhisboots.In "HappyBirthday,"he setting of thepartyto honorthe Grandmothers a veryformal ndunfriendlyne:allmembers fthefamilyare gathered,dressed in their bestclothes,not to showrespectto the oldlady,butto impress achother.Theatmospherestense, everyonebeing"fullof pastoffenses"(75).All hebrothers,heirwivesandchildrenare sitting n the chairs"placed gainst hewall,"75) as if in a gallery,or maybeas toprotect themselves frombeingshot in theback.The sceneis silent,rigid,andso is theheroineof the day,describedas a puppet.Herdaughter eems to take careofher as ifshe wasnothingbut anemptybody:In order to speed the preparation,she had dressed theold lady immediatelyafter lunch. She had fastened herchainroundher neck and, pinningher broochinposition,she hadthen sprayedher witha little cologne to hidethemusty smell- before seatingher at the head of the table(75).

Theparty tarts nanatmosphere fhypo-critical appiness, espite heold ady'spres-ence: "theycontinuedo enjoythe partybythemselves,and heystartedonthefirsthelp-

ing of hamsandwiches,more as a proofoftheirenthusiasmhanbecausetheyfelt anyappetite"76). All the participantseem tobeweak,greedy thesentence:"Wewillhaveno talk about business today,... this isMother'sbirthday"omes up three times),preoccupiedwithkeepinga decenttone tothe party throughout he afternoon,eventhough heyhateeachother.Allof a suddenhowever,hisis notpossible: henarratore-veals the old lady's houghtsof despiteforherfamily, llowinghe reader o takea posi-tion of superiority owardthe characters.They are worse thananythinghe narratorhadhintedat; the oldlady ells us:Howcouldshe havegivenlifeto those grinning,spineless,and indulgent creatures? The rancor groaned in herempty breast. A bunch of communists, that'swhat theywere--communists. She looked at them with senilescorn (80).

As she thinks hat, the oldladyspits onthe floorto markher disgust.The comicaleffecthere reliesonthe onehandonthedis-crepancybetween the hypocritical tmos-phere of harmonyand the candorof themother'sgesture:how shocking o have toendureheaction ftheverypersonyoucometo honor... Buton the otherhand, t is alsohumorous ecausethe mother s not clearlyconscious fhaving pat.Thenarrator,ivingher point of view, says: "... she suddenlythought,as if she had spat" (80, myem-phasis).There ollows longparagraphellingof her innerthoughts;andthen, whenthepointof view changesbackto the daughter,thereaderknows hatthemotherdid ndeedspit:"'Mother!'alledoutthemortified ilda.'What re youdoing,Mother?"'80). So thechildren,who have come to honorthe oldlady'seighty-ninth irthday, re insultedbythe meansof the verything heypretend oenvyinher- herage:it is onlybecausesheis senilethatshe acts out herthoughts.In"TheChicken,"hiscomedyofsituationis alsoverystronglyused. Here forexampleis a quotationrom he story,as the chicken,whichs to be theSunday inner'smain om-ponent,flies out of the kitchen orcing hefamilyo chaseher:The masterof the house, remindinghimselfof the twofoldnecessity of sporadically ngagingin sport andof gettingthe familysome lunchappearedresplendentin a pairofswimmingtrunks, andresolved to followthe pathtracedby the chicken(50).The choice of the wordstwofold, resplen-


5/9

HUMOR IN A NEW READING OF CLARICELISPECTOR 133

dent, master of the house andsporadi-cally reinforceshe comicnatureof the situ-ation,basedonthe contrast etween helevelof expressionand the socialcondition f thefarmer's amily.This contrast s maintainedthroughouthe story, whose tone parodiesthat of a breathtakingunt in a junglewithsuch ermsas "asavage truggleorsurvival,""the man,... a naturalhunter."When thefarmerfinallycapturesthe bird, it is "im-mediately arriedoff in triumph"50), as atrophywouldbe. The humorof the situationis enhanced lsobysomeonewhois, mostofthe time, very well hidden ... the narrator.It is importanto understandhatthe comiccomponents brought ut notmerelybythechoiceof wordsof the narrator, ut alsobythe situation,whichwouldbe amusingnde-pendently f the narrator's ointof view.Inthe case of "TheChicken,"he settingis initselfa traditionallyumorous ne:thereadercanpicturea ridiculousman(wearing wim-ming runks),a littleoutof shape(heknowshe shouldexercise more often), chasingachicken(who usuallysymbolizesstupidity),on the roofof a barn.But,eventhough havechosen o examinethecomedyofsituationna storyuponwhichlittlehasbeenwritten, hiselementspresentas well nstories whichareusuallypresentedas Lispector'smostprofoundnes. Forexam-ple, in "TheDaydreamsf a DrunkWoman,"theprotagonists, as MassaudMoisesnotes,"submergedn anexistentialmilieu ike[an]aquaticcreature in [its] naturalelement"(272).Thewoman ccompanies erhusbandatabusinessdinner.Backathome,sherecallshow,as she hadreached nherdrunkennessthat specialexistentialist wareness,"abovethe roundness of her low-cutdress ... [a] flyhad settled on her bare bosom"(36). Thecomedy of the situation s reinforcedbythe fact thatthe womanhasjustrelated hefactthatherhusband'susinesspartner"hadpressed his foot againsthers beneaththetable,andabove hetablehisface waswatch-ingher"(35-36).Thejuxtapositionf thesetwoeventscreatesa comical ituation:s thehusband'sriend ries to seducethe woman,and s thereforeprobablyakingnventory fher sexual eatures,afly andsonthewoman'sbreast!If thewomanhadshownany nterestin responding o the seducer's invitation,thoseelementsmighthavebeentragic,ruin-ingherattractiveness.Butsince afternoting

thathe was "a ellow... whowasnotunattrac-tive," he decides to abandonhe idea of anaffairand"shrugsher shoulders"36): theonly nterpretationeftis then a comical ne.The detail s off-center ndyet so visible hatit seems to haveacomical urpose:hereaderimagines ither the seducernoticinghe flyonthe bosomhe admires,orthe womandis-creetlytrying o chase it away.Beyond this first level of comedy, liesanother stratumof humor, he comedyofideas.Somecritics uchasDennisSeniffhavedeplored hat suchprimacybe givento thephilosophicalrientationfLispector's ork:The philosophicperspective on Clarice's work ... failsto emphasizethat its primaryconcern is not the problemof being itself per se, whichis the majorpreoccupationof ontologicalphilosophy,but the acceptance of a par-ticularstate of existence (161).However, t does not matter whether thisphilosophicalspectofLispector'swork s tooemphasizedby the critics, it is presentinLagosdefamilia,andthe fact thatLispectorchooses to criticizehumorouslyhe Frenchexistentialistss one more indication f theconcern he had or their deology.Humor sone of the mostefficient oolsofphilosophers,fromVoltaireo Sartre,and t is onlynormalthatLispectorwoulduse it.In the lightof existentialist hilosophy,tis interestingonotice hatevenGiovanni on-tiero, one of the criticswhohasbest shownthe linkbetweenLispectorand the Frenchphilosophersoesnotmention heirstartlingdifference. n France, here arevery few (ifany)examplesof femaleexistentialist ero-ines. Thisfact,whichs perhapsunderstand-able nmaleauthorsikeCamus rSartre, s,at best, surprisingromthe feministeaderSimonede Beauvoir.Allof herexistentialistheroesaremale;fshe indeedpresents emaleprotagonists,he latterdo nothowever ufferfrom he samephilosophicalormentas theirmalecounterparts.t is interestingo pointout that Beauvoir omments n greatdetailthe ackof female xistentialistsnher ictionalwritings.She statesinLa Force des chosesthatthemaindrive nherfictionalwork s thetheoryof the authentic, o whichI haveal-readyalluded.Sinceshe does not see intheworld aroundher womentroubledby theirbeing, her concernfor authenticityorbidsher to portray uch charactersn hernovels(365).Suchanattitudes however urprisingandinvitescontroversy: fter all, Beauvoir


6/9

134 HISPANIA 72 MARCH 1989

was a female existentialist, therefore shecould have been the model of an authenticcharacter.This explanation of the situation of thefemale heroines in the French existentialistmode shows how important he standpointofLispectoris. She obviously s strongly nfavorof the female philosophical xperience, sincemost of her protagonistsare women or younggirls. But this author does not limit her dis-agreement with Beauvoir'spositionto a meresubstitution of female for male. She overtlymilitates for a feminineexperience of existen-tialism. After all, the main symptom of theexistentialist sufferer is nausea, which alsohappenstraditionallyo be a femaleattribute,especially in the context of a pregnancy.It istherefore in a humorousmanner that Lispec-tor willpointout to the reader how her femaleprotagonists are indeed authentic in theirexperience of nausea, since they can relatethat experience to the one of morning sick-ness. In "Love," n the midst of her crisis,Anna claims the existentialist's nausea andidentifies it with morningsickness: as she isabout to enter a hallucinatory-like hase of

consciousness "the nauseareached her throatas if she were pregnantand abandoned" 43).The over-determinationof the word 'nausea'is certainlyunexpected in a philosophical x-perience and produces once again an off-center effect.This mightbe one of the best examples ofhumor at a semiotic level; by merely mergingthe contexts of an old cliche (the existentialistnausea versus morningsickness), Lispectordeparts from the norm. If one talks aboutphilosophy, he nausea has to be existentialist;if one talks about a female character, it hasto be morningsickness. But, what does onedo with the female philosopher?The humor-ous effect is created not by substituting anexternalfactor,butbyplayingwithtwo seman-tic fields that had been heretofore hermeti-cally separated. Of course, the humor canonlybe detected by one of the knowledgeablereadersmentionedabove the ones who canthenexperience a sweet feelingofsuperiority.This is a very sophisticated nstance of thecomedy of ideas, but there are many othermore apparentexamplesof this category.Oneof the most obviouscases maybe that of "TheChicken,"which seems to be one of Lispec-tor's favorite animals, since she portrays atleast two otherimportantchickens inher writ-

ings: one inthe story "TheEgg and the Chick-en," rom the collectionFelicidade landestina,and Laura, the chicken heroine of her shortstory for children "The Intimate Life ofLaura."'In "The Chicken" he reader is led by sev-eral characters to think of the female charac-teristics of the chicken as primordial o itsdestiny as a bird. After all, the chicken's ifeis spared at the beginningof the story onlybecause she laysanegg, an act whichis noth-ing more thana "chicken-duty"as reproduc-tion is considered in some circles to be theonly female function). But this is analyzedcomically as a gesture of maternal love:"Mummy!Mummy! Don't kill the chicken,she's laid an egg! The chicken loves us!"(51, my emphasis). Later in the story, thefather is full of remorse for having chasedthe chickenwhen she was supposedly "preg-nant": "The father, from time to time, stillremembered. 'And to think that I made herrun in that state!"' (51). One has to agreethat, for a feministwriter, Lispectoruses un-usual comical means of stigmatizing he tradi-tional conception of women. As a feminist,she refuses to accept the sort of respect thatwomen receive for being entrusted with thebearing of a child: a woman should not berespected forthe wrongreasons. The comicaleffect comes here fromthe very imageof thechickensymbolizingwomen:this is a tradition-ally sexist metaphor, tying women to theirmaternalrole ("motherhen")anddoingawaywith their intelligence. But again, Lispectoradopts the image, turns it aroundandadaptsit to her own purpose. The distanciation romthe normof the usualmeaningof the chicken-womanimage creates the humor.Allthese examples have shownthat, asidefrom the comedy of situation and character,there exists inLispector'swork a deeper levelof humor,one which plays a functionin thedefense of the ideas for which she stands.The third evel of comedy inLagosdefami-lia makes its authora particularlynterestingone in the light of criticism. Since the dawnof "experimental"writing, after WorldWarII, a new kind of writer has emerged-fromOswald de Andrade to Lya Luft. These au-thors, workingchieflywiththe idea ofcreatingin their writing the perfect illustrationof asmany theories as possible, are fascinating othe knowledgeablereader. Even though Cla-rice Lispectordoes not exactly fit in this cate-


7/9

HUMOR NA NEWREADINGOFCLARICEISPECTOR 135

gory, her knowledgeof literarycriticismsshownat manydifferent extual evels. Oneof thetechniqueshe uses inthemostamus-ingmanner s the manipulationf the readerwiththe use of narrative efinements."TheDinner,"orexample, anbeanalyzedas a literary xperiment.ndeed, hestory sstructuredroundheobstacle hatanauthorhasto overcomewhenhe wants o showmul-tiple pointsof view. He must successivelyenterthedifferentmental tatesof thecharac-ters whose pointof view he expresses bymeansofthe narrator. oillustrate etter henecessityof sucha device,Lispectorn"TheDinner" ses a firstpersonnarrator, ho be-cause of the very natureof that status, isincapablef makinghe story progress.Theplotcan be summarizedn a few sentences:a man(thefirst-person arrator)s eatingata restaurant ndobservesthe otherpatrons.A manwhose behaviors goingto excite the"I"'s uriositynters: hemanordershisfoodand eats it, despitethe fact thaton severaloccasionshe seems on the verge of crying.The "I" ries to decipher he secret of themanhe designatesunder he pronoun"he."But"I"'s ffortsremainruitless;"he"eavestherestaurantwithouthaving atisfied ither"I"'sor the reader's uriosity.It is importanto understandhatthe plotin the traditionalmeaningof "action"or"events,"f "TheDinner"s renderedterileby the very status of the "I": t is because"I"s positedat thebeginnings an"authen-tic"person,andtherefore imited o its ownandonly pointof view, thatthe plotcannotprogress.HadLispectorntroduced third-personnarrator, he or maybethe impliedauthorwouldhave been able to insert thedetailsnecessaryto a progression,beneaththe surface, orexample,of a passage nthestyle indirect libre, revealing he man'sthoughts.Butin"TheDinner,"ispector aschosen to show howlimited he possibilitiesof a strict firstpersonnarration re:suchatechniquecan only lead to a plot based onintrospection.TheDinner,"hen,is exceed-inglyamusingor the critic,who can maginehoweasy it wouldbe technicallyo helpthe"I"satisfyhis curiosity.The detective-storytone used by the "I" s particularlyffectivein creating uspenseover the "mystery" fthe"he."Thecomedyofabsurdityntroducedbythediscrepancyetween hetone ofnarra-tionandthe actualplot (a man withwatery

eyes eatingatarestaurant)eaches tsclimaxat the end of the story.The man eavestherestaurantwithouthaving xplained istears-and why,shouldhe, if he is authentic? etthe "I"doesnothesitate ocondemnhe"he"in veryviolent erms:Powerless o act, I watchedhimputting n his hatandadjustingis tie inthe mirror.Hethencrossed hebright-ness of the roomanddisappeared.But I am stilla man.WhenI havebeenbetrayed ndslaughtered,whensomeonehasgoneaway orever, r I have ostthe bestof my possessions,or whenI have earned hat I amabout o die- I do not eat. I havenotyet attainedhispower, his edifice,this ruin. I push awaymy plate,Ireject hemeatand ts blood 101).

Aside fromthe humorof the tone, thereis a moreprofoundevel of comedy hat canbeinterpreteds acritique fthefirst-personnarrative, critique imed tthefirstperson'slimitationointrospection.heimplieduthormarksthe absurdity f the "I,"who knowsonly ts subjectivitynddoes not hesitatetocondemnhe "he." f he stopsfor aninstantto reflectuponthe case that "I"wantstomakeagainst"he,"he readerquickly nder-stands hathe is presentedwithonlyonesideofthestory,as shouldbe thecasewithafirstpersonnarration.t is thenthathumor omesforth,bythe meansofsuperiority:hereaderdominates he "I," ees its limitations, ndcanthen smileat its narrow ision.Oncethereaderhasunderstood he humorof the "I"character, here is only one more step heneeds totakebefore eizingLispector'soint:fictionshouldgive the impression f reality,an mpressionhatcanbereached nly hroughartificialiterarydevicesabsent fromreality,whereultimatelyne s alwaysimited oone'sownpointof view.It is interestingt thispointto mention hatall the otherstories ofLacosdefamilia, for the most partintrospective,arenot narratedn thefirstperson,but nthethird.Moreover,norder o make hereaderunderstand owthe factspresented n mostof the storiesrepresentrealitysolelyin themindofeachprotagonistaken eparately, i-spector translatesthis unreliabilityf thecharacters ythefrequent se of anunreliablenarrator.It is withthe techniqueof the unreliablenarratorhatLispector howsbest howshecanaggressively allonthereader o partici-pate nthestory.Averygoodexample fthisis seen in"TheChicken,"herethenarratorplayswith he reader s hewouldwithayo-yo.


8/9

136 HISPANIA 72 MARCH1989

Atfirst,he introduceshe chicken s a think-ingbeing--and averysensitiveone- asthechickens in the kitchen,waitingo be exe-cuted, it is stated that "no one wouldeverhaveguessedthat the chickeneltanxious"(49, myemphasis).Later,duringhe chase,the reader s toldbythe omniscient arratorof the bird'sntimatehoughts:"thechickenhadto decidefor herself he pathsshe mustfollowwithoutanyassistance romherrace"(50). In the very next paragraph, owever,doubt s introducednthe reader'smind, incethe narratornsinuateshat hechicken, fterall,is nothingbut a stupidbird:"Whatwas itin the chicken'sentrailsthat made her abeing? The chicken s in fact a being. It istrue thatone wouldnotbe able to relyuponherforanything"50).Thelast statements,of course, wrong,since the narrator pensthe storyby introducinghe chickenas theone "forSunday'sunch" 49): therefore,atleastthreepeopledependonthe bird or heirSundayustenance.Fromthen on, the narratorpushes thereader in the directionof consideringhechickenas a symbol,probably f humanbe-ings, if not of women. The bird is said toreminiscewhen she is aloneabouther mo-mentofglory:"oncenawhile,butevermoreinfrequently,he remembered ow she hadstood out against he sky on the roofedgereadyto cry out"(52). By the insightshegiveshim ntothe chicken'snner ifeandex-pectations, the narrator encourages thereader o invest n the symbolic alueof thechicken: fterall,he is asensiblehuman eingwhoknows hata chicken oes nothaveexis-tentialist ilemmas. uchachickenmust henbe anallegoricalne. But inthepunchineofthestory, henarratorroves o behopelesslyunreliablewhen he allowshis symbol o beeaten like a vulgarbird,leaving he readerwiththe impression f beingcheated:"Untilone daytheykilledher andate her,andtheyearsrolledon"(52).Thenarrator ascompleted circle,sincethechickenwas atfirst ntroducedsSunday'slunch,and is in facteatenbythe endof thestory,buthehas nthemeantimemanipulatedthereader ntobelievinghatthe storycouldendotherwise.Wearehereinpresenceof asubtlehumor,addressed o the knowledge-ablereader,onewhoknowshowunreliablenarratoranbe, andhowamusingt is for anauthor o take the readerby the handand

guidehimthrougha maze of contradictorycues.Thereaders leftpowerlessbutamusedat the masteryof the Lispector.

umor fsituation,umorflanguage,humorof narration-how do theyin-teract in an overall"humorous"eadingofClariceLispector?t is at firstnecessarytoemphasizehatseeinghumordoes not givethe readera radicallyifferentnterpretationof the meaningof Lispector'swork. In thewords of Giovanni ontiero,she, indeed,ispreoccupied ithprofoundhilosophicalat-ters:ClariceLispectorshows an almost obsessive preoccupa-tion with the themes of humansufferingandfailure,thedisconcerting implicationsof our humanity,... (man's)awarenessof inevitablealienation .. andmost forcefullyof all, his terror upon recognizingthe ultimatenothing-ness (15).Butif humordoes not necessarilyallow hereaderanentirelydifferenteadingrom hatof the traditional ritic, its instancesarenonethelessufficientlyumerouso meritat-tention n the interpretationf Lispector.n-deed, humor s takeninto considerationnmanycommentaries n La Nausee,andoneshouldnotignore nLispectorwhathasbeenpraisednJean-Paulartre:humors apower-fulmeans of conveyingdeas. InLispector'scase it hasproven o be a veryeffectivewayforhertomarkher diosyncrasynd ndepen-dencefromthe authors o whomshe owesso much, allowingher to introducethefeminineresencenphilosophicaliscourse.

Finally, fterhaving riedto describe heimportance f humor n Lagosdefamilia, Iwouldpointouthowever hat at least one ofthe storiesanalyzed ereindetailhasingen-eral not been touchedupon by the critics,since ts commentatorsreunclearnregard-ingphilosophicalnterpretationndnarrativetechniques:here s notmuch heory o backuptheanalysis f a chicken onsciousness...I believe, however, hat throughhumorweareableto explainndetail uchstories.Thestudyof humor nnarrative,herefore,mustnotbeoverlookednananalysis fLispector'swork.*NOTE

1Ithas been said that the chicken can symbolize thewoman in Lispector's work; even though it is true that


9/9

HUMORN A NEWREADINGOFCLARICE ISPECTOR 137

one lacks irmtextual upporto backupsucha state-ment,one cannothelpbut notice henumerousomicalhintsbywhich hereaders pushedntoassociatinghechickenwithwomen. s itmerecoincidencehat heveryname Laura is used in Lacosdefamiliafor the pro-tagonistof "The Imitation f the Rose,"whichshortlyafter ts publicationecameone of Lispector'smostfa-mous emalecharacters.* WORKSCITEDBeauvoir, imonede. La Forcedes choses.Paris:Galli-mard,1963.Fitz, Earl E. ClariceLispector. oston:TwaynePub-lishers,1985.Gruner,Charles.Understandingaughter. hicago: el-son-Hall, 978.Holland,NormanH. Laughing,A PsychologyfHumor.

Ithaca ndLondon:CornellUniversity ress, 1982.Kahneman, aniel,andDale T. Miller."NormTheory:Comparing ealityo Its Alternative."sychologicalReview, 3.2 (April 986):136-53.Lispector,Clarice.FamilyTies,translated y GiovanniPontiero.Austin:UniversityfTexasPress, 1972.Moises,Massaud. Clariceispector: iction ndCosmicVision." tudies n ShortFiction8.1 (Winter 971):268-81.Nunes,MariaLuisa."Narrative odesnClarice ispec-tor's: The Renderingof Consciousness." uso-BrazilianReview .2 (Winter 977):174-84.Pontiero,Giovanni.ntroductiono C. Lispector, amilyTies. Austin:University f TexasPress, 1972,pp.13-23.Seniff,Dennis."Self-DoubtnClarice's."uso-BrazilianReview 4.2(Winter 977):199-208.

lispector humor

Documents