The short story The Balloon written by Donald Barthelme tells a ironic story of the citizens of Manhattan's reactions caused by a simple balloon with no intended meaning. The people of Manhattan try to give the balloon a meaning according to their perception, but the meaning is neither insisted on or defined.
There was a certain amount of initial argumentation about the "meaning" of the ballon; this subsided, because we have learned not to insist on meanings, and they are rarely even looked for now, except in cases involving the simplest, safest phenomena.
The quote shows the irony of people trying to find meaning in such a simple and safe thing as a balloon. The teller portrays a postmodern world where it is accepted that things in life are without meaning, but it is clear that the citizens in the text need to find meaning in unimportant things as the balloon that serves no purpose. You could argue that the citizens are placed in a postmodern world but they aren't cabable of accepting this meaninglessness and they are therefore not postmodern. It is therefore interesting to discuss whether this text is postmodern or modern.
Comment to argue if you find the text modern or postmodern.
By further reading it comes clear that the subject of the text is postmodern. It exemplifies postmodern in the way it rejects a absolute truth and allows people to create a subjective truth. In the text a balloon is hung over the city with no intention or meaning which allows the citizens to give the balloon a meaning by themselves.
SvarSletThis might not be enough to characterize the story as postmodern but it places it closer towards postmodern than modern on a continuum.
I agree that it is not necessarily metafictional at a first glance. But after discussing the following questions, look at it again.
SvarSlet1. The critic Peter Brooks in his book “Reading for the Plot” argues that when we read stories, we gain pleasure in reading in anticipation of the ending. When we get to the ending, we are wiser than at the beginning, and we can now look at what we have read in a new and more profound light.
Read the end of “The Balloon” and comment on this. How much do you know of the story once you have reached the ending?
2. Does it make sense that this text is, in fact, about the reader and the reader’s approach to literature? Could this be an argument for Roland Barthes’ idea of “the death of the author” as the authoritative voice? Barthes states, “the birth of the reader must be at the expense of the death of the author”. Comment, please.
Denne kommentar er fjernet af forfatteren.
SletWhen reading The Balloon we, as readers, tend to search for a meaning or purpose for the balloon and an interpretation of the text. We read the text believing that the meaning of the balloon will be revealed but as readers we get fooled, because of the fact that there is no absolute meaning or truth of the balloon but only the subjective truth given by the individual; the teller, the citizens or the reader.
SletThe metafictional level is revealed when we as readers come to the knowledge that we search for the absolute meaning like the citizens.
At the end we only know the truth of the balloon given by the teller though he tends to make his truth the absolute truth. The teller seems superior to the citizens and their individual truths, but he is actually no different from the citizens or the reader, for that sake, when making his own truth.
To answer your second question in extension to the first the individual truth point towards “the death of the author” because of the unfulfilled end and the left out conclusion or interpretation.
We approach literature with an expectation of a intended meaning given by the author, but when leaving out the biographical reading the risk of fallacy gets removed. This is according to Roland Barthes a necessity because of the fact that it is almost impossible to detect what the writer precisely intended, and therefore the text must be read independently from the author to make space for individual interpretation as the quote states.
This text is according to our reading a comment on the way we read and approach literature. We search for a universal meaning or truth where it perhaps shouldn’t be looked for.
Can we read and understand this text without committing the ‘affective’ fallacy’? And also, does it make sense reading the text as an expression of the author’s intent?
SvarSletWhat about the various characters? How does the meaning they give the balloon hold up to the one that the narrator gives at the end? Whose meaning is more valid?
In our latest comment we stated that when leaving out the biographical reading the risk of committing fallacy gets removed. But by further discussion it might not be possible to read and understand the text without committing the intentional fallacy because of the author’s relation to the text. The author wrote the text, he is therefore everywhere in the text, almost inevitable. The author’s choice of words, sentences and characters is deliberate and his intent is to be looked for everywhere and hard to remove or ignore. Looked for or not the intent of the author influences the readers perception and analysis of the text.
SvarSletWe committed the affective fallacy when feeling disappointed after reading the end of the text because we had an expectation of knowledge about the intended meaning of the balloon according to the teller, but it had no valid intent, though the teller thinks his intent is more valid than the meaning of it given by the other characters. Those meanings given by the various of characters seem more valid because they search for a greater meaning or truth, which appeals to the reader, who as well looks for a greater meaning of the balloon.
We came to the acknowledgement that we committed the affective fallacy and the metal-level was thereby clear and when realizing this meta-level another meta-level is revealed.