Introduction
This essay explores the nuances of Lacanian readings of John Banville’s literary works, specifically focusing on how a particular Lacanian interpretation might differ from other Lacanian scholarship in this field. Banville, an acclaimed Irish novelist, often presents complex characters and narratives that lend themselves to psychoanalytic critique, particularly through the lens of Jacques Lacan’s theories of the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real. The purpose of this essay is to examine the distinctive elements of a Lacanian reading—emphasising subjectivity and desire—and contrast these with broader Lacanian scholarship on Banville’s texts, which might prioritise other thematic or structural concerns. The discussion will highlight key differences in interpretive focus, supported by examples from Banville’s novels and relevant academic sources. By doing so, it aims to offer a sound, albeit limited, critical understanding of how psychoanalytic frameworks can diverge even within a singular theoretical tradition.
The Core of a Lacanian Reading: Subjectivity and Desire
A Lacanian reading of Banville’s works typically centres on the fragmented nature of subjectivity, as influenced by Lacan’s concept of the mirror stage, where the self is constructed through an illusory unity (Lacan, 1977). This perspective often interprets Banville’s protagonists—such as Victor Maskell in The Untouchable—as subjects caught in a perpetual struggle with their own desires and misrecognitions. For instance, Maskell’s dual life as a spy and art historian can be read as a manifestation of the split self, oscillating between the Imaginary (idealised identity) and the Symbolic (social roles and language). Such a reading prioritises the psychological depth of characters, examining how their unconscious drives shape narrative progression.
This focus on desire and subjectivity arguably sets a Lacanian reading apart by delving into the internal conflicts of Banville’s characters with greater specificity. It draws directly on Lacan’s assertion that desire is always the “desire of the Other,” suggesting that Banville’s characters often pursue unattainable ideals shaped by external influences (Lacan, 1977). This interpretive lens, therefore, tends to foreground personal alienation and the impossibility of fulfilment, offering a poignant critique of identity within Banville’s bleak, introspective worlds.
Contrasting Broader Lacanian Scholarship on Banville
In contrast, other Lacanian scholarship on Banville’s works often extends beyond individual subjectivity to explore structural or thematic elements through a Lacanian framework. Scholars like Joseph McMinn (2001) have applied Lacan’s concept of the Symbolic order to analyse Banville’s use of language and narrative structure. McMinn argues that Banville’s intricate prose reflects the Symbolic’s dominance over the subject, where meaning is perpetually deferred, mirroring Lacan’s ideas of linguistic slippage. For instance, in The Sea, the fragmented narrative style can be seen as embodying the Lacanian notion that language fails to fully capture the Real—the unrepresentable truth of experience.
Furthermore, some Lacanian scholars focus on cultural and historical dimensions in Banville’s texts, examining how the Symbolic order intersects with Irish identity or postcolonial themes. While a specific Lacanian reading might zero in on personal desire, broader scholarship often contextualises these desires within larger social frameworks, thus offering a more expansive interpretation. This divergence highlights a critical difference: while a narrow Lacanian reading emphasizes the psychological, other scholarship integrates Lacan’s theories with external cultural forces, sometimes diluting the focus on the individual psyche.
Implications of Interpretive Differences
The divergence between a focused Lacanian reading and broader Lacanian scholarship on Banville’s works reveals the flexibility of Lacan’s theories in literary analysis. A reading centred on subjectivity and desire offers profound insight into character complexity, illuminating the existential struggles at the heart of Banville’s narratives. However, it risks overlooking the socio-cultural dimensions that other scholars address, which are equally vital for a holistic understanding of texts like The Book of Evidence, where personal guilt intersects with societal judgment. Indeed, this limitation suggests that while a specific Lacanian reading provides depth, it may lack the breadth of other approaches. Generally, combining these perspectives could yield a more comprehensive critique, though this essay acknowledges its scope is confined to distinguishing rather than synthesising these views.
Conclusion
In summary, a Lacanian reading of John Banville’s works, with its emphasis on subjectivity and desire, differs from broader Lacanian scholarship by prioritising the internal, psychological conflicts of characters over structural or cultural analyses. While the former offers a detailed exploration of the split self and unattainable desires, as seen in novels like The Untouchable, the latter integrates Lacan’s concepts with linguistic or socio-historical themes, providing a wider interpretive framework. This distinction underscores the varied applications of Lacanian theory in literary studies, suggesting that each approach has unique strengths and limitations. Ultimately, understanding these differences enriches one’s appreciation of Banville’s complex narratives, highlighting the multifaceted nature of psychoanalytic criticism in English literature.
References
- Lacan, J. (1977) Écrits: A Selection. Translated by A. Sheridan. Tavistock Publications.
- McMinn, J. (2001) The Supreme Fictions of John Banville. Manchester University Press.
