One of the central thematic elements of As I Lay Dying is the distinction between what is a fact and what is an interpretation of a fact. Clearly, any objective fact can result in a multitude of subjective interpretations because the characters all have singular points of view. Their perspectives of any empirical truth is dependent upon their prejudices and perceptions; as a result nothing that is said can be fully trusted or assumed to be pure in its objective truth. Though the novel is structured on the basis of the fact that each character is on the same path and experiencing the same events, they all differ in their perspectives of what they see and the emotions that are engendered by the events. Since each of the novel’s characters possess a perspective that the reader cannot know for sure is entirely accurate and truthful, the them of As I Lay Dying may be said to be that there is no such thing as objective truth.
To achieve his effect of shifting perspectives and raising the question of reality, William Faulkner introduces two literary techniques in As I Lay Dying that serve to draw into question the validity of the information being provided. Faulkner engages in the use of not just a wide variety of narrators, but he also utilizes the confusion of stream-of-consciousness to heighten the inability to distinguish between fact and interpretation. The technique of stream-of-consciousness allows for the narration to be introduced as if the thoughts are being read as the characters are thinking them; ideas and memories arise without premeditation and as such bear the mark of immediacy. In addition, because it is the character’s thoughts rather than dialogue with another, the first instinct is to believe since thoughts are usually unfiltered. The use of stream-of-consciousness also serves to obscure the journey toward finding an objective truth. For instance, Cora Tull’s perspective on the relationship that exists between Addie and Darl or Addie and Jewel is significantly dissimilar to the image that is gained about the feelings they actually hold for Addie as expressed in their individual sections. The point is that any supposed objective truth that exists in any circumstance cannot necessarily be found in just one particular point of view. Another instance of this shifting perspective is in how Jewel and Peabody consider Addy in terms of being victimized, where as Anse clings to his reality that places him as a victim.
Faulkner also uses the technique of structuring the novel in the form of monologues disconnected by speaker, time and place to create an uneasy foundation upon which to construct an objective reality. Consider the difficulty of constructing an accurate timeline of events from the monologue in which Dewey Dell faces off with Vardman in the shed. “”You durn little sneak!” My hands shake him, hard. Maybe I couldn’t stop them. I didn’t know they could shake so hard. They shake both of us, shaking. “I never done it,” he says. “I never touched them.””(Faulkner 383). Both characters insist and believe in their own innocence, but clearly both cannot be innocent. In addition, they are each so wrapped up in insisting upon their version of the story that the sequence of the actual circumstances becomes confused within their own consciousness. Dewey Dell believed that Vardaman was covertly watching her, whereas Vardaman labored under the impression that Dewey Dell was going to tell him off. The result is a blending of the past and the present and the inability to come to anything even close to an object reality. In another instance, the reality of just exactly what was taking place between Cora and Darl remains forever locked in mystery because the perspectives that are presented are contradictory. “He did not answer. He just stood and looked at his dying mother, his heart too full for words” (Faulkner 355). Cora views Darl through the rosy lens of being a loving son; more than that, she think he is the Addie’s favorite. From Darl’s perspective, however, he seems to be completely unresponsive to his mother and the three dollar load. Not only that, but most of the others believe that it is Jewel who is the favorite. This utter disconnect serves to call into question the reliability of the narrators.
It is the perception of reality that is buried in the structure of the novel; what the characters think and the words they speak create a foundation upon which to build yet another subjective reality: the reader’s. Faulkner also makes use of linguistic devices to uses figurative language in describing scenery and characters. Characters often resort to using metaphors and similes as well as other stylistic turns of phrase. For example, when Darl seeks to incite Dewey Dell, it isn’t explicit, but rather is accomplished through the use of double entendres. The double entendre is a perfect metaphor for the other shifting sand of subjectivity upon which the story is constructed because these phrases have a factual meaning, but can be interpreted in various ways. Darl remarks “Those cakes will be in fine shape by the time we get to Jefferson” (Faulkner 483). “Cakes” serves as a metaphor for Dewey’s pregnancy. Darl differs significantly from most of the other characters in that he employs a variety of descriptive flourishes in his narrative. It is this creative usage of language that makes Darl different, causing some to consider him to be strange or unusual. Word choice or peculiarities of speech is a tactic that Faulkner engages often to further delineate the differences between the characters.
The language used by characters in the novel are unique to each and very often is a revelation more profound than the textual content of their narratives. This is an important distinction because the words that each character speaks are the only real insight into the objective reality that exists, albeit is just a smaller part of an overall jigsaw puzzle of subjective realities. As an example, there are the multiple references to religion and scripture that Tull makes. It is important in understanding her to pay attention just to the fact that she is referencing religious iconography, but in how she goes about making those references. Her manner is to voice them almost like a child would repeat a catechism he doesn’t fully understand. It becomes obvious over time that Tull herself does not fully comprehend the profundity of the religion she clings to. This is mirrored in the fact that also doesn’t seem capable of understanding what is really taking place among the family. In contrast, Jewel regularly use obscene language and speaks quite insensitively. His quick temper is mirrored by the violence of his language; both his actions and words contain electrical beams of hostility.
The Bundren family cannot agree on an objective reality because they are dysfunctional and make little attempt at arriving at any genuine understanding of each other. Just as the novel is itself a collection of individual narratives and memories, the Bundren family has never really been a cohesive unit at any time; they are simply a set of disconnected individuals who happen to share a common ancestry. The great irony is that what seems to at last bring about their unity isn’t a celebration of life, but an occasion of death. Yet this attempt at a final reconciliation isn’t any more “real” either because each family member has their own personal and private motivations that they refuse to share with each other. In fact, most of the time they seem to be callously disregarding the fact that Addy is merely a corpse rotting away. In perhaps the most perverse reversal of subjective truth, some of them are repulse by the stench of death, but that is counterpointed by the fact that the buzzards flying overhead are drawn to the family member for exactly the same reason. Objective truth is consistently shown to be merely the result of intensely personal subjectivity; what is appalling to one person will be appealing to another.
As I Lay Dying ultimately even presents the dead member of its cast of characters in a subjective light by questioning whether objective truth can exist. Addie’s true qualities as a human being remain a mystery; some may view her as a character treading in the icy waters of evil, while others may arrive at the conclusion that she is perhaps the only character in the entire story worthy of some measure of admiration precisely because she takes the view that what a person does is more important that what a person says. The multiple viewpoints and the difficulty stream-of-consciousness technique all conspire to create a work that is purposely open-ended and subject to interpretation. There is no objective truth to the novel any more than there is any objective truth to the events that take place within it. Faulkner’s engagement of multiple narratives also serves the purpose of becoming a filter that is necessary for sorting out the lies and opinions from the factual events. The novel makes excellent use of shifts in time to further make the foundation of truth less sound and to offer up the same factual events told from differing perspectives. The result is naturally unsettling and confusing, but that is Faulkner’s intent as he set out to create a novel that desires to make people ask tough questions about the nature of reality and the search for an objective truth.
