1

Experimental Absurdity in Flann OBriens At Swim-Two-Birds In order to try and understand the experimental aspects of At 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 why At Swim-Two-Birds can definitely be considered experimental. Is At 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 of what 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 youre reading 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

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 on the 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 why At 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

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

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

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

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 unconventional At Swim-Two-Birds is, 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

(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 in At SwimTwo-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.

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