Miscellanea X. The Lacanian L-Schema in Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea

Genesis: The L-Schema in Literary Criticism

When Lacan analyzes literature, he often employs the "L-Schema" to map the subject onto his three orders, namely:

Additional Notes:

While Lacan’s standard "Schema L" is typically a Z-shaped, quadrangular structure (Subject $S$ - objet petit a - autre $a'$ - Big Other $A$), the note here distills it into a triangular field of power.

This reduced topological structure identifies three coordinates for literary criticism:

1. The Real ($\mathcal{R}$): The purely impossible kernel that resists symbolization; the traumatic truth (in Hemingway’s context, the ruthless, indifferent sea).
2. The Imaginary ($\mathcal{I}$): Narcissistic identification and mirror relations (the misrecognition wherein the author perceives the character as "he is me").
3. The Symbolic ($\mathcal{S}$): The Law of language and the signifying chain (the narrative logic, fate, and necessity inherent in the novel).

The crux of the matter is: Within the apparatus of writing, who occupies that commanding position of the "Symbolic" master?

1. The Deduction of Two Schemata of Authorial Power

Applying this to The Old Man and the Sea, I conceptualize two distinct schemata:

Schema A

&

Schema B

From Hemingway's perspective, how should the relationship between these three entities be configured in high literature? The subject in the third position essentially possesses full knowledge of the unfolding events and, consequently, holds the power to control their development. Meanwhile, the subject in the second position recognizes the uncontrollable nature of the first position (The Real) and their own blindness regarding the event's occurrence, while simultaneously acknowledging the third position's mastery over the situation.

Additional Notes:

This section contains the core insight of the note. By permuting the positions of "Santiago" and "Hemingway" on the horizontal axis, it reveals two fundamentally different literary ontologies.

• Schema A: The Traditional "Discourse of the Master" In this schema, Hemingway (the narrator) occupies the bottom-right position of the Symbolic Big Other ($A$).
  • Theocratic Despotism: The author functions like a deity, surveying Santiago (in Position 2, the Imaginary) from above.
  • Obsessional Control: The author "possesses full knowledge," implying that the Signified precedes the Signifier. The author preordains the conclusion, rendering the character a mere marionette of their intent. This mode of writing is safe, yet sterile, for it forecloses the breach through which the "unconscious" flows.
• Schema B: The Lacanian "Destitution/Cession" Schema B, championed by the author of the note, effectively represents a subversion of the subjective position. Hemingway abdicates the throne of power, receding to the bottom-left corner—a locus synonymous with the "little other" ($a$) or the observer in Lacanian analysis.
  • The Vacancy of Power: Hemingway relinquishes omnipotence/omniscience, admitting his inability to control the operations of the Symbolic.
  • The Automaton of the Signifier: Santiago occupies the dominant bottom-right position. This implies that once the signifier of the "Code Hero" is established, it acquires a life of its own. In this schema, the character becomes the author’s "Big Other."

2. The Great Writer: Abdication as Seer

Typically, the alignment of author and character conforms to the first schema (A): the author resides in Position 3 while the character remains in Position 2. Here, the author orchestrates the character's trajectory through inscription within the Symbolic—effectively, the author creates the story.

However, I contend that a great writer should conform to the second schema (B). The writer should inhabit Position 2, while the character assumes the dominant Position 3. The author thus acts as a "seer" or spectator of the narrative's unfolding, allowing the character to drive the plot—a process colloquially known as "letting the character come alive." While this may sound paradoxical, it is not uncommon among master writers. For instance, in interviews, Gabriel García Márquez remarked regarding characters in One Hundred Years of Solitude that while they "ought to have done certain things, they ended up doing others, much to his own surprise."

Additional Notes:

• The Author as Seer/Witness: Hemingway’s position as a "seer," as noted here, closely approximates the position of the Lacanian analyst in the clinical setting. The analyst must "play dead" and suspend their Ego to allow the analysand's unconscious discourse to emerge. In The Old Man and the Sea, Hemingway is effectively listening to Santiago. Because he occupies Position 2 (Imaginary/Observation), he perceives only the phenomena, ceding the agency of "Truth" to Santiago.

• Márquez’s "Surprise": The Autonomy of the Signifier The example of Márquez is persuasive. When a writer feels that "the character did something unexpected," it marks the precise moment when the Lacanian signifying chain begins to slide automatically. If the author forcefully intervenes (Schema A), it constitutes a defense mechanism of the Ego repressing the textual "unconscious." Great writing, conversely, is the process wherein the author accepts their own "castration" by the text itself—I do not control the story; the story writes itself through me.

3. Facing the Real: The Necessity and Ethics of Tragedy

In The Old Man and the Sea, the old man, as an archetypal figure of self-mastery, ought to command his own story. Alone, lacking tools, having fished for eighty-four days without success—for such an old man, the denouement of plunder by sharks is a fixed inevitability. Consequently, Hemingway does not act as Mishima does in The Sound of Waves, intentionally manufacturing twists and miracles. Instead, he submits to the conclusion that Santiago is destined for. This constitutes a profound respect for both the story and the character.

Additional Notes:

Philosophical Proposition: How do we confront the unconquerable Real?

• Yukio Mishima’s "Fantasy Defense": The note references Mishima’s The Sound of Waves (Shiosai). In Lacanian terms, so-called "intentional twists and miracles" are deployments of fantasy within the Imaginary to veil the trauma of the Real. The author, for aesthetic ends, forcibly sutures the fissures of the world, playing the role of a benevolent God (a complete Big Other). This is a neurotic mode of writing attempting to disavow lack.

• Hemingway’s "Submission": The Brutal Mathematics of the Real Why is the ending "fixed"? Because in Schema B, the "Sea" (the Real) at the apex is a terrifying black hole. $\text{Solitude} + \text{Blood} + \text{Deep Sea} = \text{Sharks}$ This is an immutable mathematical formula (the logic of the Symbolic). Hemingway’s greatness lies in his refusal to exercise "authorial privilege" to save the old man. He allowed the "Impossible" (Lacan’s definition of the Real) to occur.

• The Skeleton as Surplus: Ultimately, the sharks devour the flesh (the profit/signified as commodity or utility), leaving only the giant white skeleton (the pure signifier). What Santiago drags back is not wealth, but the proof of void resulting from his struggle with the Real. This "submission" to the tragic ending is not fatalism, but the ethics of psychoanalysis: not ceding ground to fantasy, but confronting the deadlock of desire. Hemingway respects not only the character but the brutal truth of the world.