experimental absurdity in flann o'brien's at swim two birds

7/29/2019 Experimental Absurdity in Flann O'Brien's At Swim Two Birds

1/8

1

Experimental Absurdity in Flann OBriens At Swim-Two-Birds

In order to try and understand the experimental aspects ofAt Swim-Two-Birds it is

important to look at the narrative structure. OBrien has set up the novel in a very unique way

that is the embedded narrative that Alvaro explains (1).At Swim-Two-Birds is a story about a

young college student, writing a novel about an author Trellis, who in turn is writing a novel

about a variety of different characters who each have their own unique stories. There seem to

be four different levels or planes that the novel exists on, this being the main reason whyAt

Swim-Two-Birds can definitely be considered experimental. IsAt Swim-Two-Birds successful in

achieving what could be considered a definitive purpose? Or is the meaning and purpose lost

beneath the strange mixture of absurdity, fantasy and realism?

From the very beginning of the novel the first thing that stands out is how the narrative

is constantly broken up by this comment on the nature ofwhat has been previously said. The

main character, the undergraduate student makes the statement I denied this which is

immediately followed by Nature of denial: Inarticulate, of gesture (OBrien 11). Why is there

this constant need to explain the nature of what has just happened? Instead of simply

including these descriptions in the narrative, it is set apart, and it kind of jolts the reader each

time it happens. The narrative immediately distances the reader and also makes you very aware

that yourereading a book, instead of being able to achieve that feeling of getting lost in a the

story. Alvaro uses the word subversive to describe OBriens writing style, which means to

challenge or undermine any conventional ideas and to be unorthodox in presentation, which is

exactly what OBrien does.At Swim-Two-Birds is unconventional in many different ways and it


2/8

2

refuses to be ordinary or easily accessible which is why I think it is so frustrating or annoying for

some readers.

As a reader I found that the most accessible narrative plane was the storyline of the

undergraduate student, quite possibly because his story was very simple.At Swim-Two-Birds

takes us through the process that the student goes through as a writer. Likewise Alvaro explains

that the embedded narrative often focuses onthe creative process itself, thematized

through the figure of this diegetic writer, for s/he usually comments on the problems

encountered in her/his task as creator (1). Writing a novel that has so many different narrative

planes focuses on a very complex aspect of writing, so the creative process is very apparent.

The multiple narrative planes not only make it a difficult narrative to write, but also difficult to

read, which relates back to the problemsas creator that Alvaro mentions. The increasing

number of embedded narratives makes the novel as a whole more complex, which is whyAt

Swim-Two-Birds is so experimental.

Ironically our main character of the narrative leads a very simple life despite the

complex narrative he belongs to overall. The interesting part is that the most of the narrative

takes place within his mind as the first person narrator. The mind itself is also very complex,

and only certain parts of your mind can be accessed at once, which is why I think the writing

process is very difficult and experience this as readers through the students character. Your

imagination has an endless amount of possibilities, but it is limited by attention span and

awareness, just like the students writing abilities are limited by his alcoholism or his laziness.

The narrative bounces back and forth between the different narrative planes without warning,

but it always comes back to the main first person narrative of the student. This brings up the


3/8

3

idea of a stream of consciousness, which I think is a very big part of OBriens narrative. The

idea that the whole novel is Chapter 1 is ironic and funny, but also very valid if you look at the

narrative as being a stream of conscious thought. Thoughts cannot be separated into chapters

because thoughts are a constantly occurring thing, and I like this idea in that it sort of explains

how OBriens narrative functions.

In an attempt to find order within the chaos of this stream of consciousness narrative, I

think there seems to be more convention in the smaller side stories. The legendary hero Finn

MacCool and the depraved character John Furriskey are traditional characters that are easily

recognizable and their storylines make sense on their own (OBrien 60). But both characters

belong in very different genres, and I believe this is why the entire narrative becomes so

unconventional. OBrien then takes it another step further and allows the characters in to

interact with the author of their own narrative and permit novelist and characters to occupy

the same level of reality (McMullen 69). If we look at what is realistic, we know that

characters in a novel can only interact with the author through the imagination of the author.

And realistically, these interactions are all controlled by the author because his imagination is

under his own control. But in another successfully attempt at achieving the absurd, OBrien

takes away the authors control over his own imagination, allows the characters to decide their

own fates, and eventually wreak havoc. The worlds that OBrien has created in his novel

continue to spiral out of control, and Alvaro explains that the novel establishes transgression

as its norm. (3).

OBrien also uses interesting literary techniques like periphrasis or an excessive amount

of flower languge to make even the simple side stories more difficult to read. Finn MacCools


4/8

4

background story is an excellent example, because it is overwhelmed with hyphenated or

portmanteau words, as well as an excessive amount of alliterations and conjunctions. The

words or and and occur many times throughout making each sentence a challenge. In a way

this technique is humorous because it adds to the absurdity and exaggerated character of Finn

MacCool, but it also works with the consistent theme of the novel in alienating the reader. Kim

McMullen explains this alienation in that it persistently violates conventional frame-tale

ontology and draws into inter-textual colloquy texts framed by the discourses of various ranks

and professions, shaped by multiple ideologies, and spanning pre-, post-, and colonial Irish

history. (62) Basically she has explained my previous point about combining the two very

different narratives of Finn and Furriskey; neither character belongs to the same genre and they

simply do not belong in the same story, which is why OBriens narrative violates the

convention.

The most intriguing and difficult part of the narrative is the descriptive of the Pooka

MacPhellimey, his journey and other matters (OBrien 103). The language in this part of the

narrative focuses mainly on the dialogue between the Pooka and the Good Fairy, which is

different than the type of narrative encountered so far. OBrien challenges the traditional idea

of dialogue by not including and quotations, and making the dialogue itself very monotonous

and long. The Pooka does not start moving until page 113 which a whole ten pages of dialogue

with almost no action whatsoever. The conversation between the Pooka and the Good Fairy

over the course of these ten pages gets exceedingly more absurd, from pockets, to spirituality,

kangaroos, as well as clothing and social etiquette. The conversation bounces from one topic to

the next, just as our narrative bounces back and forth like weve previously discussed. It is


5/8

5

interesting to note that the Good Fairy keeps switching positions throughout the conversation,

and feels the need to point it out every time he does. The character of the Good Fairy kind of

questions the whole idea of existence or a state of being. His character is constantly switching

places, like the hair of the Pookas wife and the Pookas pocket. The Good Fairy also does not

have body, which also questions the concept of identity (OBrien 105). The theme of searching

for identity or the loss of identity is a common theme throughout literature and I think OBrien

seeks to make a parody of this in creating the Good Fairy. The Good Fairy does not need a body

or a constant state of being to exist, which is absurd, but it is completely accepted by the Pooka

and all of the other characters as well. It would seem that creating a character without an

identity is useless or meaningless, but the Good Fairy adds a great deal to a lot of the dialogue

that occurs in the narrative. Now it seems as though OBrien is further challenging the

conventions of colloquy by creating a conversation between the non-existent Good Fairy with

the mythological Pooka, a dialogue that is not separated by quotations or broken up with

action. It would seem that the conventional rules have been completely ignored at this point,

and everything has officially become possible and accepted within the narrative that our

student, and ultimately OBrien, is creating.

Given that all rational rules are being ignored, I think its important to go back to my

point about the characters wreaking havoc. The torture of Trellis by his characters towards the

end of the novel is where I have a difficult time discerning a purpose from the absurdity. Once

again we see many portmanteau words as the Pooka describes the torture of Trellis; razor-cut

to knee-rear, an oak-stirk in the nipple, suspension by nose-ring (OBrien 175). The torture of

Trellis is taken to an unrealistic and irrational level, and it seems completely unlikely that Trellis


6/8

6

survives it all. I think that this is a comment on how a fantasy narrative can work, that the

possibilities are endless and nothing is impossible. However, after the torture is finished,

Shanahan makes the comment that they should collapse the ceiling on top of Trellis (OBrien

178). The Pooka, however, insists that we return to your room the way we may perfect these

diversions (178). Ironically, amidst all of this chaos and torture, it is necessary that the torture

be carried out in the proper order. The absurdity of this repetition of the torture just so that

they can collapse a ceiling on Trellis at the proper moment is humorous, but it is difficult to see

the purpose of this event in the narrative. It almost seems like the repetition of the torture is

suggesting that order matters, that a story cannot be written properly if everything does not

occur in the right place. Obviously we know that this statement is not something OBrien

believes in because of how unconventionalAt Swim-Two-Birdsis, so I think ultimately OBrien

making a mockery and an absurd parody of the traditional narrative structure.

The ending of the novel is I think where OBrien mocks the traditional narrative

structure the most. The narrative voice of our student is lost here and is replaced with what

seems to be a new narrator, and I think it is the closest we get to OBrien himself, or at the very

least a voice which seems very close to that of a real author (Alvaro 18). At the beginning of

the novel we know that the student believes a novel can have many different beginnings so this

assumes it could have many different endings (OBrien 9). The conclusions of the book,

ultimate is where we lose our familiar narrative voice, and the ending itself does not act as a

very conclusive ending at all (OBrien 216). It almost seems like this ultimate conclusion to the

novel is out of place or does not belong. OBrien vaguely makes it consistent with the rest of the

novel thought by mentioning Sweeny and Trellis, and also including this theme of three


7/8

7

(OBrien 216-218). He is mocking the traditional happily ever after type of conclusion by

throwing in an ending that is vague and uninspiring, but connects just enough to the rest of the

narrative that it works, once again adding the frustration and alienation felt as a reader.

It is difficult to pinpoint the purpose of each of these experimental aspects inAt Swim-

Two-Birds. It is safe to say that the narrative was written with the intention of avoiding, denying

and challenging every aspect of literature that is common or conventional. An experiment

usually has guidelines and a basis for a desired outcome, but I am not sure if OBrien really had

one specific outcome in mind, other than antagonizing the reader. He combined a wide variety

of genres and used unorthodox literary techniques, and then succeeded in layering this into

multiple narrative planes that coexist and created a narrative structure that is completely

unique. I think that OBrien chose to experiment with these different literary aspects simply to

see the overall outcome, to achieve the unexpected. Instead of belonging to a specific category

or follow a certain pattern,At Swim-Two-Birds achieves uniqueness, creating its own

nonsensical and absurd convention by being completely unconventional.


8/8

8

Works Cited

Del Rio Alvaro, Constanza. Narrative Embeddings in Flann OBriens At Swim Two

Birds.Miscelnea: A Journal of English and American Studies. 15.28 (1994): 1-21.

Web. 6 December 2012.

McMullen, Kim. Culture as Colloquy: Flann O'Brien's Postmodern Dialogue with Irish Tradition

A Forum on Fiction. 27.1 (1993): 62-84. Web. 6 December 2012.

OBrien, Flann.At Swim-Two-Birds. London: Penguin Classics, 2001. Print.

OED Online. September 2012. Oxford University Press. 5 November 2012

experimental absurdity in flann o'brien's at swim two birds

Documents