Object-Oriented Ontology and "The Dead": Taking a Look at the Piano's State of Existence by Laura Drew

Understanding theories, in my opinion, can be a difficult task. Most of the time theorists will use words I’ve never even seen before to explain their ideas and that’s when they start to lose me. So hearing the words “Object-Oriented Ontology” for the first time was no different of an experience. Well the first half of the phrase, “object-oriented,” is easy to understand, but “ontology” threw me for a loop. I had never heard of “ontology” before, so the only thing I understood was that this theory had to do with objects or things as opposed to humans.

However, as I started to read about OOO I realized that my first impression of the theory was close with one exception—humans can be objects too. According to Timothy Morton, an “object” is “any entity whatsoever: symphonies, grass, poems, wind, nebulae, wind harps, plays, humans, spools of thread, porpoises” (205-6). Personally, I would have never thought of humans as objects. In the case of OOO though, this makes sense.

The crux of the theory emphasizes that objects can exist without human perception. As Timothy Morton says, “there can be no ‘top object’ that gives meaning and reality to others” (209). Since humans are objects too, this suggests that humans are not “above” other objects. All objects are equal. Graham Harman, another OOO theorist, says, “even if an object were absent from us, it would still be present to itself” (196). In other words, even if a human isn’t seeing an object or using an object, that object still exists. Again, since humans are also objects this is logical.

It is here at the crux that I focus my analysis of James Joyce’s “The Dead.” Joyce’s story focuses on Gabriel Conroy who, with his wife, attends the annual dinner and dance at the Morkan sisters’ home. While reading “The Dead” I noticed that one of the more prominent objects was the piano. The piano is mentioned at least 16 times throughout the story. So as I thought about OOO in relation to the piano I asked myself: How is the piano used? And are there indications that the narrator acknowledges the piano’s existence outside of human perception? These questions were the driving force of my analysis. I discovered that the piano is used in two ways: as an instrument and as a table. However the piano also acts of its own accord suggesting the narrator’s awareness of the piano’s existence and Gabriel’s lack of one. Following my analysis, I will evaluate the effectiveness of OOO as an approach to literary analysis.

Analysis of “The Dead”

One of the conventional ways the piano is used in “The Dead” is as an instrument. However in being described as an instrument, the narrator suggests the piano only exists in relation to other objects. There is a moment in the story where the piano is not explicitly mentioned. The narrator says, “At the same moment a clapping of hands and a final flourish of the pianist told that the waltz had ended” (Joyce 26). Since the musician is described as a pianist, we can assume he or she is playing the piano. The fact that the piano isn’t explicitly referred to however, suggests an opposing view with the idea of object-oriented ontology. Timothy Morton describes this opposing view as “overmining,” which means “objects are not real until they interact with other objects” (213). Or, to put it simply, an object gives meaning to another object. In the case of the piano on page 26, the pianist is the object that gives the piano meaning. The pianist is the object playing the piano. Therefore suggesting the narrator sees the piano in the existence of human perception.

In a more extensive description of the piano being played, the object itself is only explicitly mentioned once:

[Gabriel] liked the music but the piece she was playing had no melody for him and he doubted whether it had any melody for the other listeners, though they had begged Mary Jane to play something. Four young men, who had come from the refreshment-room to stand in the door-way at the sound of the piano, had gone away quietly in couples after a few minutes. The only persons who seemed to follow the music were Mary Jane herself, her hands racing along the key-board or lifted from it at the pauses like those of a priestess in momentary imprecation, and Aunt Kate standing at her elbow to turn the page. (Joyce 29)

Most of this description refers to what the piano is producing or the parts of the piano, as opposed to the piano itself. Even though the word “piano” is used, it is in relation to the sound. The focus is not the object. Also the narrator describes Mary Jane’s hands “racing along the key-board”, not the piano. Here is an example of “undermining.” Morton explains, “things are reducible to smaller entities such as particles” (213). In other words undermining is reducing an object to its parts. The above passage refers to the sound and key-board of the piano, therefore the narrator is undermining. This goes against object-oriented ontology. Furthermore, the passage speaks to the piano’s sound in relation to the people and their reactions. Gabriel “likes” the sound but doesn’t think there is a melody. Four men were drawn to the drawing room by the “sound of the piano.” Again, this indicates the piano is not the center but its sound is. In putting the sound in relation to human reaction, the narrator again situates the piano’s existence in human perception.

Another instance of the piano being used as an instrument is later on in the story where Gabriel says, “Someone is strumming at the piano, anyhow” (Joyce 46). Here Gabriel suggests the piano cannot play on its own, “someone” has to be playing it. Again, this goes against the crux of OOO. In saying that someone is playing the piano, Gabriel is unable to fathom the piano existing without human perception.

A more unconventional use of the piano is as a table when it is closed. The first instance of this occurring is on page 27: “The top of the closed square piano served also as a sideboard for viands and sweets” (Joyce). Here the piano is no longer being used for its intended purpose. Someone at the party put the food and sweets on the piano like it was a table. If I were to follow the “overmining” view, I might say that humans gave a new meaning to the piano. Instead of a traditional instrument to be played, it serves as a space to put other objects on top of. Later on the piano is again described as a table:

On the closed square piano a pudding in a huge yellow dish lay in waiting and behind it were three squads of bottles of stout and ale and minerals, drawn up according to the colours of their uniforms, the first two black, with brown and red labels, the third and smallest squad white, with transverse green sashes. (Joyce 38)

Instead of just food, there are now drinks on top of the table. It seems then the importance of the piano is not to make beautiful music but to serve as a buffet. However, object-oriented ontology would not acknowledge this change in the piano’s meaning. Timothy Morton says, “objects are prior to their relations” (217). Graham Harman furthers this saying, “Object-oriented philosophy is a frank realism which views objects or things as genuine realities deeper than any of the relations in which they might become involved” (196). In other words, the relation an object has does not change the object’s truth. So in the case of the piano, just because it is now being used as a table does not mean its not also an instrument. It can still make music. However, it is interesting to note that in both mentions of the piano as a table there is no mention of humans. We can assume that a human put those objects on top of the table, but the narrator doesn’t explicitly state this fact. As such, this could be an indication of the narrator acknowledging the piano’s existence outside of human perception by focusing on the piano’s relation with other objects (i.e. food and drinks).

Despite these instances of the piano being played or used by another object, the narrator describes the piano acting on its own at least four times. The first instance where the piano appears to act on its own is on page 28: “As the piano had twice begun the prelude to the first figure Mary Jane led her recruits quickly from the room” (Joyce). Here the piano apparently is playing the song all on its own. A pianist isn’t mentioned at all. Therefore the narrator seems to acknowledge the piano’s existence outside of human perception. This happens again on page 30. The narrator says, “The most vigorous clapping came from the four young men in the doorway who had gone away to the refreshment-room at the beginning of the piece but had come back when the piano had stopped” (Joyce). Instead of the pianist stopping it’s the piano that stopped, as if the piano had a mind of its own. Again, it seems the narrator is acknowledging the piano can act on its own without the help of humans.

The next two instances of the piano acting on its own are interesting because Gabriel being absent from the room characterizes them. On page 42 the narrator says, “The piano was playing a waltz tune and he could hear the skirts sweeping against the drawing-room door” (Joyce). When this is happening Gabriel is in the other room where the dinner with the adults are about to begin. Therefore he is unable to see anyone playing the piano, which could be an indication why the narrator chooses to describe the piano acting on its own.

This occurs again near the end of the party when Gabriel sees his wife standing at the top of the stairs. She’s listening to something coming from another room. The narrator says, “Now that the hall-door was closed the voice and the piano could be heard more clearly” (Joyce 48-9). Gabriel is not in the same room as the piano, so the narrator seems to describe the piano as its own separate entity from human action. Gabriel isn’t hearing the pianist playing the piano, just the piano itself. Therefore the narrator acknowledges the piano existing outside of human perception. What is interesting, however, is that only a few paragraphs before this passage the narrator says, “But he could hear little save the noise of laughter and dispute on the front steps, a few chords struck on the piano and a few notes of a man’s voice singing” (Joyce 48). This instance is of Gabriel, outside of the room, but the narrator describes the piano being used by something else because it is being “struck on.” This is a short window for change. But notice that Gabriel is referred to in the passage where the piano is described as an object being used and he is absent from the passage where the piano acts on its own. This suggests that it is Gabriel who cannot acknowledge the existence of the piano outside of human perception, but the narrator can.

It seems that Gabriel’s inability to acknowledge the piano’s existence outside of his perception suggests that Gabriel very much believes humans are the “top object.” It also shows his inability to connect with the piano. In the passage on page 29, Gabriel thinks the piece being played lacks a melody. Since the melody comes from the piano, Gabriel is citing some fault in the piano. Also, since he says, “Someone is strumming the piano” (Joyce 29), when he is not in the room of the piano suggests that he cannot fathom the piano acting of its own accord. Someone, a human, must be playing the piano.

Evaluating OOO

Objected-oriented ontology pushed me to think about objects in stories in a different way. I think I’ve been prone to thinking of objects in the overmining sense, because many objects are “man-made.” A piano has to be created by a human; it does not create itself. This is probably why humans don’t really think of objects outside of our own perception. However, if I think about it, the piano existing outside of human perception is logical. Just because I don’t see a piano, doesn’t mean a piano doesn’t exist somewhere. For instance there isn’t a piano in my dorm room, but I know that there is a piano on the first floor of the building.

I particularly liked using OOO because it was a different approach than New Criticism. This method of literary analysis focuses on the text, the words. It’s also, typically, what we do when we first start analyzing a text. We look for meaning in the text. So when looking at “The Dead,” more specifically the piano, I might discuss how the piano can draw emotion out of Gretta, Gabriel’s wife, something Gabriel struggles with. However, I might not have been able to acknowledge why this is the case.

OOO, on the other hand, helped me see a possible reason behind this. As I concluded at the end of my analysis, Gabriel cannot acknowledge the piano’s existence outside of his own perception. He cannot fathom the piano being it’s own entity, creating its own music. He assumes that there must be someone playing the piano. His inability to acknowledge this prevents him from connecting with the piano, and other objects for that matter. If he cannot connect with the piano and Gretta can then he probably struggles with connecting with Gretta too.

However it is interesting that when our class discussed “The Dead” without the help of any specific methods of analysis, the piano did not come up. Gabriel’s inability to connect with his wife was brought up in our discussion, but not because of the piano. Instead, we discussed how he’s unable to compete with another boy his wife loved when she was younger. Therefore Gabriel can’t compete with another human being, not even when that person is dead. We also analyzed the differences between Gabriel and Gretta by focusing on their character traits that we inferred from the text. For instance, Gabriel thinks too much and Gretta is spontaneous. So it seems to me that without object-oriented ontology, I might not have thought about the piano all that much. Furthermore, I would not have thought about the piano in relation to Gabriel’s character.

As such I think that is probably one of OOO’s strengths—forcing us to look at objects. It’s really easy, while reading a story, to overlook small details like an object. I believe that when I read “The Dead” the first time I did not really pay attention to the piano. I didn’t immediately notice the different ways the piano was used, or how it was described. In fact, I don’t think it was until someone pointed out how the piano was described as acting on its own on page 49 that I started to look at the piano more closely. Once that passage was pointed out, the other passages I discussed in my analysis seemed to pop out at me during a second reading. Therefore, OOO has made me more aware of objects and how an object can be important or significant to a story.

Even more so, I think it’s important that OOO considers humans to be objects too. This forces us to push aside our ego and see objects separate from our relation to them. Since this is part of the crux of OOO, it helped me see Gabriel’s character in a different light. Gabriel is an object just like the piano, but he’s incapable of recognizing this. He thinks he’s “above” the piano. He cannot situate himself on the same plane and therefore he cannot connect to the piano. But again, if it weren’t for OOO, I would have never thought of Gabriel as an object. I would have seen him as a human, separate from other objects. In that case, I might have been more forgiving. I would have overlooked his lack of connection to the piano.

However, OOO isn’t perfect. Since I was only focused on the piano, I couldn’t account for the rest of the story. While the piano is present for most of the story, even if in the background, it does disappear completely once Gabriel and his wife leave the party. As such, I wasn’t able to see if Gabriel changes at all in the story. Also, there are many important events that take place without the piano. For instance, if I’m looking at Gabriel’s character in relation to the piano, I cannot analyze his big speech. Most of the time, the piano is mentioned in passing so the passages that I can analyze are short and don’t necessarily lend to the story’s plot. In that sense OOO can be too focused.

It might be more effective to use OOO in conjunction with another method of analysis. I think objects are important to look at, but if an object isn’t completely present in the story then the analysis loses out on a lot of the story. That said OOO is an effective approach that forced me to look at James Joyce’s “The Dead” in a different way. I enjoyed analyzing the piano and trying to determine the piano’s existence in relation to how it is presented in the story. Again, I find myself to be much more aware of objects because of object-oriented ontology.

Works Cited

Harman, Graham. "The Well-Wrought Broken Hammer: Object-Oriented Literary Criticism." New Literary History. (2012): 183-203. Web. 14 May. 2013.

Joyce, James. "The Dead." Trans. Array Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. Boston, Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1994. Print.

Morton, Timothy. "An Object-Oriented Defense of Poetry."New Literary History. (2012): 205-224. Web. 14 May. 2013.