Grotesque use of Language in Richard Mayne's short story F**d

Asmita Ojha ‘15’

The Theory of Literary Criticism, Eng. 553

Instructor: Markas Dangaura

25^th April, 2018

Grotesque use of Language in Richard Mayne's short story F**d

            This paper seeks to examine the ambivalent use of language in Mayne's short story food. The writer was accused of using immoral words in his story. Actually, the writer has used language very ambiguously to mean something else. Hence, how he arouses the appetite of chicken meat in the readers through the usage of sexual imageries becomes a researchable issue.

            J.L. Austin in his book How to Do Things with Words argues about the performative and ambiguous use of language. Austin rejects the old logical view of language as description of state of affairs in the world. He argues, "While some statements may be constative (referential), many others are performative" (95). Some words actually perform the actions they describe. Here, in this story, the judge performs the act of opening the court session by saying , "Well, ladies and gentleman of the jury, we have all heard a great deal this afternoon about purity and compassion" (6). The judge performs along with his utterance. As he says ladies and gentlemen he opens the court listening.

            Raman Selden in "Language and Representation" argues, "A speech act must have a context for it to have a meaning" (95). In other words we decide on meaning once we have decided whether or not a particular locution is an appropriate speech act within particular conventional situation. "Well ladies and gentlemen of the jury" would not possess a performative function in an informal gathering such as a party, unless it were construed as a joke. Selden argues, "Wittgenstein proposes that whole language system is made by the specific context in which the language usage occurs" (95). Austin's theory of speech acts is also related to Wittgenstein's view of language.

            Austin rejects the Aristotelian idea that "The mind should passively reflect things and these images of things should be reflected without distortion in a clear language" (97). In Mayne's story, the clear representation of eating a big chicken tandoori in every Sunday by a couple is reflected in a much distorted way. The small excerpt from the writer's book seems the elaboration of sexual intercourse at first hand. He narrates, "Her hungry eyes met his as, ever so slowly, and she turned to reveal the warm, full curves of her breast and leg. He watched, fascinated as the covering fell away from the soft white skin. Eagerly, he bent forward" (7). The picture of chicken tandoori is presented as a lady seducing a male before sex.

            Austin's grotesque uses of language are the distortions of true human nature. Interestingly his ambiguous story makes us please at the end. It satirizes the follies and vices of the human mind as they are expressed in language. Languages are full of such distorted discourse.

            Austin argues about the three features of human speech. First one is locutionary, second illocutionary and the third is perlocutionary act. As argued by Austin locutionary act means "Uttering a certain sentence within a certain sense and reference" (120). Here, the uttering act of judge about the verdict of the court regarding the book is locutionary act. The story narrates, "For what we have to consider and consider very carefully before we give out verdict" (7). The uttering of verdict is with a sense that before something about anything, we have to be very careful and have enough knowledge. Here, the judge wants readers understand that the book is not about anything immoral.

            Next, Austin argues about the illocutionary act of speech which is performative function of speech. He argues, "To perform an illocutionary act is to determine in what way we are using the locution" (120). Either we are asking or answering a question, or performance of an act in saying something. The story narrates, "We have to consider this book not as remote academic professors, not as pedants but as people, as men and women of the world" (7). The judge appeals people to criticize the book like a common man. Finding certain ideology, psychology and criticism in a text is a duty of professors and teachers but common man should read the text as an art. If we apply theory to any text, the beauty of that text seems quite unfamiliar to us. Thus, here the illocutionary act of the judge can be said as indirect order and appeal.

            Third and the final function of speech is perlocutionary act of speech. Austin argues, "Saying something will often, or even normally produce certain consequential effects upon the feelings thoughts of the audience" (121). He further argues that it may be done with the design, intention or purpose. The judge in the story wants people confirm the non-vulnerability of the text. He thus brings the excerpt from the accused book to prove that book is about arousing temptation and inflame the appetites. The ending of that excerpt states, "Estella surrendered to the moment's sudden succulence, the firm warm flesh that brought the secret juices welling from within her. All too soon they were replete, exhausted. On Sunday's, they always bought too big a chicken" (8). This small excerpt from the book confirms that the book is not about immorality and vulgarity. Rather, the book is a strong procedure to arouse the deep hunger making our mouth juicy for the chicken tandoori.

             Austin claims, "The occasion of an utterance matters seriously and that the words used are to some extent to be explained by the context in which they are designed" (121). The judge saying "And let me remind you ladies and gentleman" (7) is actually contextual because he is addressing all the jury and all the public listening the court session. The judge is persuading them against the blasphemy of the book arguing, "The world is not an ivory tower where there are no problems, no dangers, no human weakness. The world is full of temptations; temptations of the flesh" (7). He disconfirms the negative reaction of the book proposing that since human beings are not out of the play of problems, of course there arise problems. And he develops the context to present the paragraph before them by saying the world is full of temptations, seduction, and attractiveness. Either human flesh or chicken flesh, humans are tempting creatures.

            Consequently, Austin argues about the "Poetical use of language and parasitic use of language" (121) which he means that language can be used very poetically to refer certain action. In the story, the accused writer has used the language in very poetic way to arouse human hunger. Similarly, his language is parasitic because it is dependence upon the sexual connotations and imagery. The words "Her breast and leg , soft white skin, warm flesh, secret juices" (7-8). All these words imply sexual imageries.

            Thus, we can affirm the performative use of language which is more powerful and thrilling. The context is necessary to know the text is explicated by Mayne as argued by Austin.