Heteroglossia and the first round of crooks

As I was reading Sue Vice, I just couldn't help but think of all the homeless kittens I could be saving. I believe the greatest source for my pain stems from the fact that although Vice's work is supposed to be a helpful mediator between student and Great One (Bakhtin), the result is a sometimes confusing and repetitve cacophony of literary terms violently thrashing between my ears. Most of my ah-ha moments came from quotations of Bakhtin's words. Undoubtedly, Vice has done much of my work for me in selecting these choice phrases. Still, I couldn't help but think also of Hemingway . "For Sale: baby shoes, never used." I think the concepts of heteroglossia would be applicable in examing several of my favorite works in Hispanic and African-American literature. Also, I really appreciated the quote from Leo Rosten, 'Nothing is more lame than a passage of mangled pronunciation recorded in accurate phenomes. Any yokel in the Ozarks...' (36). In works with images of language depicted with "accurate phonemes," I was aware of the differences between dialogue and narration, but this chapter has given me cause to ask further questions about how characters interact with the narrator and vice versa. Further, I loved the idea that authors and novels are not just documenting language. Rather, '"the primary stylistic project of the novel as a genre is to create images of language," not necessarily to reproduce those languages themselves" (28). I loved the example on page 22, pulled from Dostoevsky, illuminating 'skaz,' although I am not sure I fully grasp the meaning of 'loophole.' I understand the rhetorical style used here, of saying something you don't really mean but want to say so the other person can't argue against your true meaning, your outward false one, in effect reinforcing your true meaning. Yeah. This concept is more intuitively understood than textually, and I will try and bring it up in class.
I was able to relate what I gathered of the concept to the counterfeiting narratives, but based on one question: Are the narratives really and truly the actual words of the the accused? If not, I suppose this complicates an examination based on heteroglossia even further than it would be.
The first narrative spurned several psychoanalytic thoughts about criminals and American immigrants during the time period, and how our contemporary treatment of both has not changed entirely from the eighteenth century. The man aliased "Owen Syllavan" was locked in a closet as a child and experienced what appears to be demonic possession, yet his account seems more noble than that of the almost boastful burglar Issac Frasier. By his paranoid narrative style, Frasier seems harmless. However, this character has an impeccable memory and can recall nearly ever item he thieved, including women's broaches or silk scarves. It is interesting that though defiant, all accounts steer off the faithfully linear accounts to express penitentence. Actually, it was Frasier most of all that would stop his narrative to repent, which made it seem more authentic. After reading each narrative, I was surprised to realize I could give a modern day relativity to each one. For example, I figured Herman Rosencrantz, family man and all, was just going through a mid-life crisis, which is why he went down the road he did. Boredom. Joseph Bill-Packer...his wife died and he could find no other outlet for his egomania and so he went about the country pretending to be a famous doctor. And that question, "why?" I realized permeated my entire reading experience. I think that will be a major theme for the semester. Why do these obviously capable, energetic, resourceful people lead lives of crime?