What This Theme Explores
The novel probes how meaning travels across bodies, species, and even worlds—what counts as “language,” and who gets to decide. It asks whether speech is the most reliable conduit for truth, or if more intuitive forms—gesture, presence, ritual, weather—speak more honestly. Silence is not absence but a charged medium that can hold love, grief, and secrets at once. The book ultimately weighs our hunger to be understood against the limits of any one mode of expression.
How It Develops
The theme begins with Edgar Sawtelle, whose birth rewrites the terms of communication on the farm. His “near-silence,” first registered through [Almondine]’s(/books/the-story-of-edgar-sawtelle/almondine) attuned senses, forces the family to discover languages beyond sound. With Louisa Wilkes’s arrival and the introduction of sign in “Signs” (chapter-1-5), Edgar’s world opens: signs give shape to thought and invite others in, proving that fluency can be manual, visual, and relational.
After Gar Sawtelle dies, communication turns fraught. Edgar’s inability to speak compounds his isolation and leaves him without a conventional way to accuse Claude Sawtelle. He responds by inventing a new language—training his litter to perform a sequence that encodes the night of Gar’s death—culminating in “A Way to Know for Sure” (chapter-21-25). This is the theme at its boldest: narrative as choreography, bodies as alphabet, truth staged rather than told. Edgar’s flight into the Chequamegon forest then strips language to essentials—gesture, scent, endurance—suggesting that survival itself is a grammar.
On his return, all modes jam at once. The dogs’ performance is misread; warnings are not believed; even the supernatural breaks in when Gar’s presence arrives “In the Rain” (chapter-26-30), a weather-language that is as legible as it is deniable. The final blaze fuses sound, sign, and act into catastrophic static: the barn burns, and with it the family’s carefully bred lexicon—leaving only silence, the last and most terrible speech.
Key Examples
-
Edgar’s failed call for help during Gar’s collapse dramatizes how institutions recognize only certain kinds of voice. On the phone, his moving lips, beating chest, and expelled breath cannot cross the threshold of audibility, so the operator’s questions proceed as if no message exists—an infrastructural refusal to hear (“A Thin Sigh” chapter-11-15). The scene makes miscommunication not a personal flaw but a systemic one.
-
Sign language, introduced through Louisa’s insistence in “Signs,” widens what counts as language and who belongs within it. It gives Edgar expressive power, but also asks his family to meet him halfway—recalibrating the household’s rhythms, gazes, and attentions. Communication here is built, not assumed, and depends on shared labor rather than sound alone.
-
Almondine becomes Edgar’s earliest interpreter, reading his posture and breath when no one else can, and even alerting Trudy Sawtelle to his needs. Their bond shows how comprehension can arise from attunement and routine, not vocabulary; the dog’s presence is a kind of standing translation. The intimacy between them makes later silences—especially separation—feel like the loss of a language.
-
Edgar’s choreographed accusation—training his pups to reenact Gar’s death—turns the dogs into a living sentence. By encoding sequence, causality, and emphasis in action, he proves that narrative can be performed as well as spoken. The tragedy is that a language can be perfectly formed and still fail if its audience will not or cannot read it (“A Way to Know for Sure”).
Character Connections
Edgar sits at the center of the theme, transforming silence into invention. His muteness sharpens his observational acuity and ethical imagination; again and again, he seeks forms that others can receive—sign, writing, training, and even the logistics of farm work. His arc argues that agency in communication lies as much in design and patience as in voice.
Claude personifies the slipperiness of speech. Urbane and fluent, he weaponizes words to charm and misdirect, and his half-hearted engagement with sign signals a deeper refusal to meet Edgar on equitable terms. In him, talk becomes camouflage—proof that eloquence and honesty are not synonyms.
Trudy embodies the labor and limits of love. She learns sign and tries to bridge worlds, but her desire to sustain a coherent family blinds her to Edgar’s nonverbal warnings. Her struggle shows how emotion can fog perception, and how even sincere listeners can miss messages that contradict what they need to believe.
Gar communicates primarily through deed—training, routine, shared work—and his posthumous “message” arrives as weather, a visitation that must be felt rather than parsed. He models a quiet authority that trusts experience over rhetoric, and in death, his presence critiques the narrowness of speech-based certainty.
Symbolic Elements
Sign language symbolizes invented kinship: a human-made bridge that dignifies difference while demanding reciprocal effort. It is both liberating—granting Edgar fluency—and conspicuous, marking him as outside the spoken mainstream and exposing how accessibility depends on others’ willingness to learn.
The Sawtelle dogs function as a living lexicon. Selectively bred for attentiveness and trained for clarity, they materialize the idea that understanding is collaborative: handler and dog co-author meaning. When the kennel burns, the family’s shared language—decades of breeding, training, and subtle cues—goes silent at once.
Silence is multivalent: the ache of isolation, the solace of the forest, the pressure of secrets, the ethical pause before action. It can heal by deepening attention or harm by enabling denial; the novel refuses to simplify it into either absence or purity.
Letters—especially “The Letters from Fortunate Fields” (chapter-16-20)—embody time-delayed dialogue. They preserve thought across years and distance, modeling a patient, reflective mode of communication that contrasts with the immediacy (and volatility) of speech and gesture.
Contemporary Relevance
In a culture saturated with speech and notifications, the novel insists that attention—not volume—makes meaning. It invites readers to consider accessibility as a collective practice; to honor nonverbal fluencies in neurodiverse, multilingual, and cross-species contexts; and to question charisma as a proxy for truth. Its tragedies warn that infrastructures built for one kind of voice will mishear—or erase—others, and that learning another’s language (literal or figurative) is an ethical act.
Essential Quote
“You cannot begin too early to bring the power of language to children whose grasp may be precarious... The baby wanted to communicate. It would learn whatever was given as an example, whether English, French, German, Chinese, or sign.”
This statement reframes language as capacity rather than sound, arguing that the human impulse to reach across separation precedes any specific medium. It also shifts responsibility onto communities: if a child learns what is offered, then exclusion is a choice, and inclusion a practice. The novel tests this claim—showing what flourishes when the offer is made, and what burns when it is withheld.