Bakhtin’s text Discourse in the novel was very difficult to follow and understand, so I will share what I managed to understand from it. It appears that Bakhtin is attempting to redefine the meaning and purpose of the novel. He seems to also reconsider the structure of language. He compares the novel to other literary genres such as poetry and theatre in aims of showing that in the novel, “… the prose writer confronts a multitude of routes, roads and paths that have been laid down in the object of social consciousness” (278). In other words, the novel produces much more variety in terms of style, speech and voice as opposed to the poetic genre, which “is always illuminated by one unitary and indisputable discourse” (278). It is precisely these different styles, voices and perspectives that make novels so unique. I guess this makes sense since by combining various different languages, dialects, and styles within novels, there is a possibility of producing various levels of meaning. However, I wonder if this is necessarily the case for all novels?

Another topic that Bakhtin discusses is the notion of heteroglossia. Simply put, this is the coexistence of multiple varieties or dialects within a single language. However, according to Bakhtin, heteroglossia is “another’s speech in another’s language, serving to express authorial intentions but in a refracted way” (324). I am however unsure exactly what Bakhtin means by another’s speech in another’s language? Reading further on, he states that such speech is double-voiced, expressing both the intentions of the author and that of the character speaking. Evidently, this will produce two different voices, meanings and expressions and thus, create a conflict between these elements. My only issue is that I am having trouble understanding the relevance of heteroglossia as it pertains to the novel. Maybe Bakhtin is trying to emphasize that the novel, given its multifaceted nature, is a direct example of heteroglossia. Moreover, Bakhtin seems to extend the notion of heteroglossia to language in general. He states, “For any individual consciousness living in it, language is not an abstract system of normative forms but rather a concrete heteroglot conception of the world” (293). In other words, all languages have their own set of ideals and meaning; there are no neutral words because all words have intentions and a purpose.

Therefore, novels are defined by diversity but the question is, what purpose does this distinction between the novel and poetry really serve? The only explanation I have is that maybe Bakhtin is attempting to draw our attention to new ways of understanding the novel and the structure of language itself since poetry does not seem to be providing us with these answers.