论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】It could be found， by sight of the tragic fate of the characters in Winesburg， Ohio， that each story is actually a tragedy of speechlessness，and the discourse itself is responsible， whose failure eventually led to the failure of human communication.Sherwood Anderson，with the insight of a great artist， depicts a lonely and isolated world of “grotesques”. I endeavor to explore the abundant intention starting with the failure of discourse.
【Key words】Winesburg；Ohio failure of speech；Speechlessness
【摘 要】透视《小镇畸人》中人物的悲剧命运，我们发现，每一个故事其实都是一出失语悲剧，其罪魁祸首是话语本身，话语的失败最终导致了人类沟通的失败。舍伍德·安德森凭借一个伟大艺术家的深刻洞察力，刻画出一个个孤立隔绝的“畸人”世界。本人从话语失败入手探析作品的丰富内涵。
【关键词】小镇畸人；话语失败；失语
Winesburg， Ohio， a well-known masterpiece by Sherwood Anderson， is a work in which he has well expressed the concern over human state in modem society. With a collection of twenty-five short stories， Anderson has depicted a group of grotesques who hunger for mutual understanding and communication but end up in loneliness and isolation.Loneliness， like an invisible wall， completely isolated the grotesques from the surrounding environment and the society， even from their own family， and due to the wall， they could enjoy neither understanding nor caring.
The most overwhelming desire and irresistible impulse of grotesques are to break these “walls” and to establish spiritual communication with the people around.Therefore， they had recourse to the discourse， whose chief function is to exchange information and communicate ideas-as it were， discourse is the major bridge between human minds. However， this is precisely where the problem arises， because discourse is broken， meaningless， and cannot convey feeling and ideas integrally. Even， to some degree， they express ideas and feelings for grotesques， but with no understanding of the audience， these attempts would end in misunderstanding.We cannot help but be shocked at the disastrous consequences human communication takes due to failure of discourse， touched by struggles the grotesques made， and sigh with regret when they encounter failure.
1.Meaninglessness of Discourse
Sherwood Anderson explains the meaninglessness of discourse through the discourse language of the characters as well as their attitude toward discourse language.“The meaninglessness of discourse” is not absolute； it is not to say discourse thoroughly bears no meaning， but that discourse hasn’t any specific meaning to be publicly accepted. On one hand， some characters in Winesburg，Ohio eager to express themselves and knowing exactly what to express， couldn’t speak the right language. On the other hand， the discourse of characters is so disjointed that it neither was the inevitable result of the plot， nor made their voices heard under certain circumstances. Through dozens of stories in Winesburg， Ohio， human， as the subject of discourse， cannot control the discourse. On the contrary， I’m just part of the language system； I do not speak the language， I am spoken by language instead （王岳川， 1992：233）.The discourse is out of human control. It gets its own way； it could be fluent and endless， but fail to convey and true meaning. Let’s take a look at Enoch Robinson in “Loneliness”. As Anderson stated， “the story of Enoch is in fact the story of a room almost more than it is the story of man”（125）.Indeed， the enclosed room was inhabited by “the spirits of men and women”（127） that invented by his quick imagination， in the face of whom Enoch was inspired and talked fluently. While among “living people”（127），“he sputtered and stammered and his voice sounded strange and squeaky to him. ...He knew what he wanted to say， but he knew also that he could never by any possibility say it.”（126）In addition， words slipped unmindfully out， which was filled with no meaning but the hustle and bustle. Take an example of words Enoch used to narrate the parting with his beloved：
“One night something happened. I became mad to make her understand me and to know what a big thing I was in that room. I wanted her to see how important I was.I told her over and over. When she tried to go away， I ran and locked the door. I followed her about. I talked and talked and then all of a sudden things went to smash. A look came into her eyes and I knew she did understand. Maybe she had understood all the time. I was furious. I couldn’t stand it. I wanted her to understand but， don’t you see， I couldn’t let her understand. I felt that then she would know everything， that I would be submerged， drowned out， you see. That’s how it is. I don’t know why.”（132）
From his narration， what can get？ We don’t know whether or not he wished his beloved to understand him after all， or she understood him eventually， or why he would think him “submerged， drowned out”. It cannot be too much to label this narration as “incoherent”. Enoch， who said these words， wasn’t an illiterate， but a well-educated artist who was buried in meditation all day long. Hence， it is not the person who is to blame， but the discourse itself what is completely out of human control.
Sometimes the discourse grows into a complete encumbrance and nuisance. Meaningless discourses were used to break awkward silence when no one could the proper words to express the inner feelings. In “Mother”， between Elizabeth Willard and her son George “there was a deep unexpressed bond of sympathy”（19）. When George went into her room to make her a visit， the silence made both of them feel awkward. Then Elizabeth interrupted the embarrassment with the words， “I think you had better be out among the boys. You are too much indoors.”And replied George， “I thought I would take a walk.”（21） Nevertheless， when George made it clear that he wanted to “go away and look at people and think”（26） rather than follow his father’s advice to be a “brisk and smart” businessman， （26）， Elizabeth “wanted to cry out with joy”（26）. What did she talk to her son then？ “I think you had better go out among the boys. You are too much indoors.”（26） The identical words as said on other embarrassing evening. Herein lies the tragedy caused by the totally vacuous discourse which failed to perform the function to communicate ideas and feelings. Upon this point Ward has made a perceptive argument that the problem Anderson has discussed here： “It is precisely in the process of striving for expression that the originality of the feeling cedes to the equivalizing tendencies in language. Thus utterance itself constitutes loss of originality. The central paradox of our lingual condition is that it would seem as though we lose our feelings precisely when and because we try to communicate them … The fullness is in the heart of the soul； the emptiness is in the language.” （J. A. Ward， 1985：46）
2.Destructiveness of Discourse
In Winesburg， Ohio， discourse not only fails to establish effective understanding between human beings but also destroys human relationships. J. A. Ward is insightful in pointing out that words can be powerful when meaningless for they can convey illusions （J. A. Ward， 1985：44）. He has made a comment， “Anderson came to associate words themselves with lies” and “he used language for deceit and manipulation”（35-36）. The story of Louise Bentley is quite representative， which demonstrates how discourses kept the characters in “illusions” and prevented them from achieving genuine understanding.
Anderson clarified the aim and theme from the very beginning of the story of “Surrender”， “The story of Louise Bentley … is a story of misunderstanding.”（57） And moreover，“Before such women as Louise can be understood and their lives made livable， much will have to be done. Thoughtful books will have to be written and thoughtful lives lived by people about t hem.”（57） These words seems like a wild overstatement at first glance， since Louise was just an ordinary woman （perhaps to be known as “a resentful woman”）， who had no striking thought and was no special compared to the people around her， especially the grotesques. However， after a second thought of these words， it is not difficult to find that Anderson has a strong suspicion about the expressive function of discourses and that he states quite clear that any ordinary person is extremely difficult to be understood. In fact， every single story in Winesburg， Ohio， to some extent， is a story about misunderstanding， among which Louise is misunderstood the worst.
It was as if Louise was born to be misunderstood， by reason that her birth was the result of misunderstanding. His father， Jesse Bentley， who once praised himself as Jesse in the Bible， prayed fervently to God for a son like David to that Jesse， to help him build the kingdom of God on earth one evening when his wife Katherine was expecting to be laid. But it turned out to be a daughter. The estrangement between father and daughter from the very beginning， so to speak， gradually grew into enmity. This is why whenever referring to the birthplace of the Bentley farm， she said sharply， “it is a place for a man child … the air of your house did me no good. It was like poison in my blood.”（50） Her enmity caused by her father’s disregard for her turned to his son David （whose name was obviously followed her father’s suggestion）. She hardly paid any attention to him， to the extent that her husband reproached her for her cruelty. Then she would laugh， “It is a man child and will get what it wants anyway… Had it been a woman child there is nothing in the world I would not have done for it.”（64） From these words， we can see her heart swam with grievance and misery. Louise acquired no real understanding from his father， or from other people around her. She worked hard constantly most from the need to divert herself from loneliness. Though Albert Hardy praised her as a representative of “the coming generations”， his two daughters thought of her as a poor bookworm， teased and roasted her mercilessly. Consequently， it is no wonder that she would say，“I hate everyone， I hate father and the old man Hardy， too， I get my lessons there in the school in town but I hate that also.” one day on the way to the farm. （63）
And yet， the most serious and fatal misunderstanding was that with his husband John Hardy. As to the reason why Louise drew close to John on her own initiative， Anderson explained as below：
“She became obsessed with the thought that it wanted but a courageous act on her part to make all of her association with people something quite different， and that it was possible by such an act to pass into a new life as one opens a door and goes into a room.”（60）
It is quite clear that the purpose in drawing close to John， or the burning desire was to break the walls of loneliness and to establish the intimate relationship on the basis of mutual understanding with others which had “no conscious connection with sex”（60）.
Her so-called “courageous act” was to write such a note to John：
“I want someone to love me and I want to love someone， if you are the one for me I want you to come into the orchard at night and make a noise under my window. It will be easy for me to crawl down over the shed and come to you. I am thinking about it all the time， so if you are to come at all you must come soon.” （62）
The writing of this note ended in a love affair between John and her， and her marriage with John eventually. If we take a close look at this note， it will be easy to find that， on one hand， these words successfully express her longing for friendship， love （not necessarily sexual love） and understanding； on the other hand， it is these words that betrayed her will and led her to an unexpected outcome and made her caught in an unwanted marriage. Postnuptially， she found all her wish defeated. Depression and anguish tortured her to such an extreme that she would tear through streets in the carriage in the country. But can we， therefore， blame John Hardy for misunderstanding Louise’s note？ The answer is negative.
In this note， Louise did not mean she loves John； all her said was that “I want someone to love me and I want to love someone”. These words revealed her extreme loneliness， and even once broke through the discourse barrier -it talked about love on the surface， but friendship was under discussion in her heart. From readers’ perspective， her appeal in the note-what she talked about referred to friendship only， not sexual love or marriage-could be reasonable， connected with her initial intention of writing the note， her experience at Bentleys， her desperate attempts at changing the state of loneliness （including seducing the farm hand who drove her home every Friday） and her earnest endeavor to clarify the note after marriage. However， in John’s view， it was a different story. First， Louise’s “love” directly pointed to him， which was exclusive. Second， the way she expressed her“love” to John-slipping it under his door late at night-was ambiguous.Last but most important， the appointment way stated in the note（“come into the orchard at night and make a noise under my window”） was a habitual practice of lovers. And furthermore， John had neither the idea of Louise former experiences nor the foreknowledge of her postnuptial changes. Hence， in the traditional concept about relationships between two sexes， Louise’s “love” was， from John’s perspective， inevitably pointing to sexual love and marriage. After she got married， Louise spared no efforts to make her husband understand “the vague and intangible hunger that had led to the writing of the note and that was still unsatisfied”（64）， but came to nothing once and twice and again.“Filled with his own notions of love between men and women”， John did not “listen but began to kiss her upon the lips”（64）. The affliction of Louise lied in the distortion of real intentions.
Discourse is deceptive. As Dunne points out， “any attempt to do so would make it into all imitable formula that would make it susceptible to becoming either misunderstood， manipulated or appropriated as another means of passing judgment on others” （Robert Dunne， 2005：106）. Both Louise Bentley and Louise Trunnion sacrificed their love for better understanding and sympathy from others. In a sense， they placed their love on the altar of discourse. The experiences of these two women could be regarded as the epitome of struggles between human and the destructiveness of discourse to establish communication and understanding.
3.Conclusion
Almost all the characters in Winesburg， Ohio attempted to approach George Willard with the same purpose-to warn this growing young man of incredibility of discourse. Among those， Kate Swift made it the plainest. She informed George straightforwardly，“If you are to become a writer you’ll have to stop fooling with words…… I don’t want to frighten you， but I would like to make you understand the import of what you think of attempting. You must not become a mere peddler of words. The thing to learn is to know what people are thinking about， not what they say.”（121）
Distinctly， there is an unbridgeable chasm between discourse and human mind. Discourse， if not completely pointless， at least is hard to reflect the real thought of people. “Words，” as the American writer Paula Fox has said， “are nets through which all truths escapes.” Grotesques in Winesburg are victims of what Dunne called “a betrayal of language’s failure to provide a sustained meaning for them” （Robert Dunne，2005：15）. Meanwhile， we should point out that there is the unbridgeable chasm between the discourse and human mind not because people frequently concealed own ideas and views for a variety of purposes and motivations in real life. The opposite is true in Winesburg， Ohio， the greatest wish and the most urgent need of grotesques was to make their own ideas and views understood. As Anderson stated in “Sophistication”， “He wants， most of all， understanding.” （183） Therefore， the only problem of grotesques was that discourse could not help make themselves understood by others， but troubled them most. Right after the above talks to George -it seemed plain and intelligible-it occurred to Kate that George was bound to be bewildered at her notions， and she was embittered by this. “What’s the use？ It will be ten years before you begin to understand what I mean when I talk to you.”（122）
【Bibliography】
[1]Dunne，Robert.（2005）.A New Book of the Grotesque. Kent， Ohio： The Kent State University Press.
[2]Anderson，Sherwood.（2004）.Winesburg， Ohio，Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[3]Ward， J.A.（1985）.American Silences：The Realism of James Agee， Walker Evans，and Edward Hopper.Baton Rouge： Louisiana State University Press.
[4]王岳川.后现代主义文化研究.北京：北京大学出版社，1992.
[5]朱云奇.“话语悲剧—《小城畸人》之解构主义阅读”.外国文学，2005.
【Key words】Winesburg；Ohio failure of speech；Speechlessness
【摘 要】透视《小镇畸人》中人物的悲剧命运，我们发现，每一个故事其实都是一出失语悲剧，其罪魁祸首是话语本身，话语的失败最终导致了人类沟通的失败。舍伍德·安德森凭借一个伟大艺术家的深刻洞察力，刻画出一个个孤立隔绝的“畸人”世界。本人从话语失败入手探析作品的丰富内涵。
【关键词】小镇畸人；话语失败；失语
Winesburg， Ohio， a well-known masterpiece by Sherwood Anderson， is a work in which he has well expressed the concern over human state in modem society. With a collection of twenty-five short stories， Anderson has depicted a group of grotesques who hunger for mutual understanding and communication but end up in loneliness and isolation.Loneliness， like an invisible wall， completely isolated the grotesques from the surrounding environment and the society， even from their own family， and due to the wall， they could enjoy neither understanding nor caring.
The most overwhelming desire and irresistible impulse of grotesques are to break these “walls” and to establish spiritual communication with the people around.Therefore， they had recourse to the discourse， whose chief function is to exchange information and communicate ideas-as it were， discourse is the major bridge between human minds. However， this is precisely where the problem arises， because discourse is broken， meaningless， and cannot convey feeling and ideas integrally. Even， to some degree， they express ideas and feelings for grotesques， but with no understanding of the audience， these attempts would end in misunderstanding.We cannot help but be shocked at the disastrous consequences human communication takes due to failure of discourse， touched by struggles the grotesques made， and sigh with regret when they encounter failure.
1.Meaninglessness of Discourse
Sherwood Anderson explains the meaninglessness of discourse through the discourse language of the characters as well as their attitude toward discourse language.“The meaninglessness of discourse” is not absolute； it is not to say discourse thoroughly bears no meaning， but that discourse hasn’t any specific meaning to be publicly accepted. On one hand， some characters in Winesburg，Ohio eager to express themselves and knowing exactly what to express， couldn’t speak the right language. On the other hand， the discourse of characters is so disjointed that it neither was the inevitable result of the plot， nor made their voices heard under certain circumstances. Through dozens of stories in Winesburg， Ohio， human， as the subject of discourse， cannot control the discourse. On the contrary， I’m just part of the language system； I do not speak the language， I am spoken by language instead （王岳川， 1992：233）.The discourse is out of human control. It gets its own way； it could be fluent and endless， but fail to convey and true meaning. Let’s take a look at Enoch Robinson in “Loneliness”. As Anderson stated， “the story of Enoch is in fact the story of a room almost more than it is the story of man”（125）.Indeed， the enclosed room was inhabited by “the spirits of men and women”（127） that invented by his quick imagination， in the face of whom Enoch was inspired and talked fluently. While among “living people”（127），“he sputtered and stammered and his voice sounded strange and squeaky to him. ...He knew what he wanted to say， but he knew also that he could never by any possibility say it.”（126）In addition， words slipped unmindfully out， which was filled with no meaning but the hustle and bustle. Take an example of words Enoch used to narrate the parting with his beloved：
“One night something happened. I became mad to make her understand me and to know what a big thing I was in that room. I wanted her to see how important I was.I told her over and over. When she tried to go away， I ran and locked the door. I followed her about. I talked and talked and then all of a sudden things went to smash. A look came into her eyes and I knew she did understand. Maybe she had understood all the time. I was furious. I couldn’t stand it. I wanted her to understand but， don’t you see， I couldn’t let her understand. I felt that then she would know everything， that I would be submerged， drowned out， you see. That’s how it is. I don’t know why.”（132）
From his narration， what can get？ We don’t know whether or not he wished his beloved to understand him after all， or she understood him eventually， or why he would think him “submerged， drowned out”. It cannot be too much to label this narration as “incoherent”. Enoch， who said these words， wasn’t an illiterate， but a well-educated artist who was buried in meditation all day long. Hence， it is not the person who is to blame， but the discourse itself what is completely out of human control.
Sometimes the discourse grows into a complete encumbrance and nuisance. Meaningless discourses were used to break awkward silence when no one could the proper words to express the inner feelings. In “Mother”， between Elizabeth Willard and her son George “there was a deep unexpressed bond of sympathy”（19）. When George went into her room to make her a visit， the silence made both of them feel awkward. Then Elizabeth interrupted the embarrassment with the words， “I think you had better be out among the boys. You are too much indoors.”And replied George， “I thought I would take a walk.”（21） Nevertheless， when George made it clear that he wanted to “go away and look at people and think”（26） rather than follow his father’s advice to be a “brisk and smart” businessman， （26）， Elizabeth “wanted to cry out with joy”（26）. What did she talk to her son then？ “I think you had better go out among the boys. You are too much indoors.”（26） The identical words as said on other embarrassing evening. Herein lies the tragedy caused by the totally vacuous discourse which failed to perform the function to communicate ideas and feelings. Upon this point Ward has made a perceptive argument that the problem Anderson has discussed here： “It is precisely in the process of striving for expression that the originality of the feeling cedes to the equivalizing tendencies in language. Thus utterance itself constitutes loss of originality. The central paradox of our lingual condition is that it would seem as though we lose our feelings precisely when and because we try to communicate them … The fullness is in the heart of the soul； the emptiness is in the language.” （J. A. Ward， 1985：46）
2.Destructiveness of Discourse
In Winesburg， Ohio， discourse not only fails to establish effective understanding between human beings but also destroys human relationships. J. A. Ward is insightful in pointing out that words can be powerful when meaningless for they can convey illusions （J. A. Ward， 1985：44）. He has made a comment， “Anderson came to associate words themselves with lies” and “he used language for deceit and manipulation”（35-36）. The story of Louise Bentley is quite representative， which demonstrates how discourses kept the characters in “illusions” and prevented them from achieving genuine understanding.
Anderson clarified the aim and theme from the very beginning of the story of “Surrender”， “The story of Louise Bentley … is a story of misunderstanding.”（57） And moreover，“Before such women as Louise can be understood and their lives made livable， much will have to be done. Thoughtful books will have to be written and thoughtful lives lived by people about t hem.”（57） These words seems like a wild overstatement at first glance， since Louise was just an ordinary woman （perhaps to be known as “a resentful woman”）， who had no striking thought and was no special compared to the people around her， especially the grotesques. However， after a second thought of these words， it is not difficult to find that Anderson has a strong suspicion about the expressive function of discourses and that he states quite clear that any ordinary person is extremely difficult to be understood. In fact， every single story in Winesburg， Ohio， to some extent， is a story about misunderstanding， among which Louise is misunderstood the worst.
It was as if Louise was born to be misunderstood， by reason that her birth was the result of misunderstanding. His father， Jesse Bentley， who once praised himself as Jesse in the Bible， prayed fervently to God for a son like David to that Jesse， to help him build the kingdom of God on earth one evening when his wife Katherine was expecting to be laid. But it turned out to be a daughter. The estrangement between father and daughter from the very beginning， so to speak， gradually grew into enmity. This is why whenever referring to the birthplace of the Bentley farm， she said sharply， “it is a place for a man child … the air of your house did me no good. It was like poison in my blood.”（50） Her enmity caused by her father’s disregard for her turned to his son David （whose name was obviously followed her father’s suggestion）. She hardly paid any attention to him， to the extent that her husband reproached her for her cruelty. Then she would laugh， “It is a man child and will get what it wants anyway… Had it been a woman child there is nothing in the world I would not have done for it.”（64） From these words， we can see her heart swam with grievance and misery. Louise acquired no real understanding from his father， or from other people around her. She worked hard constantly most from the need to divert herself from loneliness. Though Albert Hardy praised her as a representative of “the coming generations”， his two daughters thought of her as a poor bookworm， teased and roasted her mercilessly. Consequently， it is no wonder that she would say，“I hate everyone， I hate father and the old man Hardy， too， I get my lessons there in the school in town but I hate that also.” one day on the way to the farm. （63）
And yet， the most serious and fatal misunderstanding was that with his husband John Hardy. As to the reason why Louise drew close to John on her own initiative， Anderson explained as below：
“She became obsessed with the thought that it wanted but a courageous act on her part to make all of her association with people something quite different， and that it was possible by such an act to pass into a new life as one opens a door and goes into a room.”（60）
It is quite clear that the purpose in drawing close to John， or the burning desire was to break the walls of loneliness and to establish the intimate relationship on the basis of mutual understanding with others which had “no conscious connection with sex”（60）.
Her so-called “courageous act” was to write such a note to John：
“I want someone to love me and I want to love someone， if you are the one for me I want you to come into the orchard at night and make a noise under my window. It will be easy for me to crawl down over the shed and come to you. I am thinking about it all the time， so if you are to come at all you must come soon.” （62）
The writing of this note ended in a love affair between John and her， and her marriage with John eventually. If we take a close look at this note， it will be easy to find that， on one hand， these words successfully express her longing for friendship， love （not necessarily sexual love） and understanding； on the other hand， it is these words that betrayed her will and led her to an unexpected outcome and made her caught in an unwanted marriage. Postnuptially， she found all her wish defeated. Depression and anguish tortured her to such an extreme that she would tear through streets in the carriage in the country. But can we， therefore， blame John Hardy for misunderstanding Louise’s note？ The answer is negative.
In this note， Louise did not mean she loves John； all her said was that “I want someone to love me and I want to love someone”. These words revealed her extreme loneliness， and even once broke through the discourse barrier -it talked about love on the surface， but friendship was under discussion in her heart. From readers’ perspective， her appeal in the note-what she talked about referred to friendship only， not sexual love or marriage-could be reasonable， connected with her initial intention of writing the note， her experience at Bentleys， her desperate attempts at changing the state of loneliness （including seducing the farm hand who drove her home every Friday） and her earnest endeavor to clarify the note after marriage. However， in John’s view， it was a different story. First， Louise’s “love” directly pointed to him， which was exclusive. Second， the way she expressed her“love” to John-slipping it under his door late at night-was ambiguous.Last but most important， the appointment way stated in the note（“come into the orchard at night and make a noise under my window”） was a habitual practice of lovers. And furthermore， John had neither the idea of Louise former experiences nor the foreknowledge of her postnuptial changes. Hence， in the traditional concept about relationships between two sexes， Louise’s “love” was， from John’s perspective， inevitably pointing to sexual love and marriage. After she got married， Louise spared no efforts to make her husband understand “the vague and intangible hunger that had led to the writing of the note and that was still unsatisfied”（64）， but came to nothing once and twice and again.“Filled with his own notions of love between men and women”， John did not “listen but began to kiss her upon the lips”（64）. The affliction of Louise lied in the distortion of real intentions.
Discourse is deceptive. As Dunne points out， “any attempt to do so would make it into all imitable formula that would make it susceptible to becoming either misunderstood， manipulated or appropriated as another means of passing judgment on others” （Robert Dunne， 2005：106）. Both Louise Bentley and Louise Trunnion sacrificed their love for better understanding and sympathy from others. In a sense， they placed their love on the altar of discourse. The experiences of these two women could be regarded as the epitome of struggles between human and the destructiveness of discourse to establish communication and understanding.
3.Conclusion
Almost all the characters in Winesburg， Ohio attempted to approach George Willard with the same purpose-to warn this growing young man of incredibility of discourse. Among those， Kate Swift made it the plainest. She informed George straightforwardly，“If you are to become a writer you’ll have to stop fooling with words…… I don’t want to frighten you， but I would like to make you understand the import of what you think of attempting. You must not become a mere peddler of words. The thing to learn is to know what people are thinking about， not what they say.”（121）
Distinctly， there is an unbridgeable chasm between discourse and human mind. Discourse， if not completely pointless， at least is hard to reflect the real thought of people. “Words，” as the American writer Paula Fox has said， “are nets through which all truths escapes.” Grotesques in Winesburg are victims of what Dunne called “a betrayal of language’s failure to provide a sustained meaning for them” （Robert Dunne，2005：15）. Meanwhile， we should point out that there is the unbridgeable chasm between the discourse and human mind not because people frequently concealed own ideas and views for a variety of purposes and motivations in real life. The opposite is true in Winesburg， Ohio， the greatest wish and the most urgent need of grotesques was to make their own ideas and views understood. As Anderson stated in “Sophistication”， “He wants， most of all， understanding.” （183） Therefore， the only problem of grotesques was that discourse could not help make themselves understood by others， but troubled them most. Right after the above talks to George -it seemed plain and intelligible-it occurred to Kate that George was bound to be bewildered at her notions， and she was embittered by this. “What’s the use？ It will be ten years before you begin to understand what I mean when I talk to you.”（122）
【Bibliography】
[1]Dunne，Robert.（2005）.A New Book of the Grotesque. Kent， Ohio： The Kent State University Press.
[2]Anderson，Sherwood.（2004）.Winesburg， Ohio，Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[3]Ward， J.A.（1985）.American Silences：The Realism of James Agee， Walker Evans，and Edward Hopper.Baton Rouge： Louisiana State University Press.
[4]王岳川.后现代主义文化研究.北京：北京大学出版社，1992.
[5]朱云奇.“话语悲剧—《小城畸人》之解构主义阅读”.外国文学，2005.