the power of the narrator

[chrismythoi]

whenever you read a book that has a narrator distinct from the main characters, how do you think that it best functions?

for example, in don quixote the narrator is often providing witty asides and linking the stories via a historical report from the narrator. a similar thing also occurs in dead souls, and of course the bible is replete with such occurances of narrator seperation. does it aid the storytelling or does it distract you and make you too aware of the 'fiction'?

[dfloyd]

is Marlowe, created by Joseph Conrad. Marlowe is actually another character which the author uses strictly as a narrator to give the work verisimillitude. Marlowe appears in more than one Conrad novel, but he may be at his best when narrating 'Lord Jim'.

[chrismythoi]

does that leave you doubting the truth to the events in heart of darkness then, or do you just take it with a pinch of salt?

[kelby_lake]

I like unreliable narrators actually :)

[Emil Miller]

I like unreliable narrators actually :)

OK Kelby, we all know you're thinking of Nick in The Great Gatsby

[Virgil]

whenever you read a book that has a narrator distinct from the main characters, how do you think that it best functions?

for example, in don quixote the narrator is often providing witty asides and linking the stories via a historical report from the narrator. a similar thing also occurs in dead souls, and of course the bible is replete with such occurances of narrator seperation. does it aid the storytelling or does it distract you and make you too aware of the 'fiction'?

Now are you separating a first person narrator from a third person narrator who infuses himself into the work like Don Quixote? There is a distinction. If it's a first person narrator, like Conrad's Marlow as someone alluded to, then he is integral to the story. And he can be reliabe or unreliable, like Ford Maddox Ford's The Good Soldier. If it's the third person narrator who infuses himself into the story, then you have to assess what the author is attempting to do. There was a theory that the author's personality was part of the story telling process, and so he was there to speak to you the reader. At some point, possibly because of Henry James, it became the general rule that the author would not intrude his persona into the story because it would disturb the illusion of a continuous stream of narrative that was to simulate imaginary play of the story inside the reader's mind. In recent years, oh the last forty or so, this rule has been questioned and violated. However, despite its violation most authors still work toward keeping a personal distance from the story. I hope that helps.

[Emil Miller]

Now are you separating a first person narrator from a third person narrator who infuses himself into the work like Don Quixote? There is a distinction. If it's a first person narrator, like Conrad's Marlow as someone alluded to, then he is integral to the story. And he can be reliabe or unreliable, like Ford Maddox Ford's The Good Soldier. If it's the third person narrator who infuses himself into the story, then you have to assess what the author is attempting to do. There was a theory that the author's personality was part of the story telling process, and so he was there to speak to you the reader. At some point, possibly because of Henry James, it became the general rule that the author would not intrude his persona into the story because it would disturb the illusion of a continuous stream of narrative that was to simulate imaginary play of the story inside the reader's mind. In recent years, oh the last forty or so, this rule has been questioned and violated. However, despite its violation most authors still work toward keeping a personal distance from the story. I hope that helps.

Hi Virgil,

I hope you will excuse the fact that I have been drinking again and may not express myself clearly but, personally, I like the first person narrator who acts as a surrogate for myself. It is like being a fly on the wall in witnessing the unfolding of the drama while actually playing a part in it and, in my view, brings the action closer than the third person format.
However, both are valid as the means for conveying a story, and I think your summation of the difference is exactly as you have said

[JBI]

The author or an avatar of the author doesn't need to enter the story directly - he can simply use a bizarre narrator to do so. Much metaficiton relies on dissembling grand-narrative structure, especially Canadian Post-modern writing. And as such, the narrator can contradict himself, provide ridiculous, or even contradicting facts, or simply be insane. It depends how you read the text - rule of thumb, in anything written after 1900, never trust any form of narrator.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I like unreliable narrators actually :)

Yes it certainly adds a different element to the story. One of the most interesting novels for looking at unreliable narration has to be Wuthering Heights especially the character of Lockwood. Questioning reliability here brings whole new elements of meaning to the novel, the ending is not quite the same without it.

On a the broader perspective I would question every narrator's reliablity in some ways, especially with the inclusion of Freudian analysis, with this in mind no narrator is wholly true to the words and actions they partake of.

[kasie]

.....rule of thumb, in anything written after 1900, never trust any form of narrator.

I have to agree, JBI - when I read Atonement recently, I was seduced by the apparently trustworthy third person narrator. It was only when I read the very last line (which is a date) that I realised who the 'narrator' was and the whole question of reliability reared itself and threw a whole new light on the book. I won't go into any further detail for the sake of anyone who hasn't read it and it would be a spoiler to discuss it, but I can't be the only reader who has been led into the carefully laid trap.

[DisPater]

Now are you separating a first person narrator from a third person narrator who infuses himself into the work like Don Quixote? There is a distinction. If it's a first person narrator, like Conrad's Marlow as someone alluded to, then he is integral to the story. And he can be reliabe or unreliable, like Ford Maddox Ford's The Good Soldier. If it's the third person narrator who infuses himself into the story, then you have to assess what the author is attempting to do. There was a theory that the author's personality was part of the story telling process, and so he was there to speak to you the reader. At some point, possibly because of Henry James, it became the general rule that the author would not intrude his persona into the story because it would disturb the illusion of a continuous stream of narrative that was to simulate imaginary play of the story inside the reader's mind. In recent years, oh the last forty or so, this rule has been questioned and violated. However, despite its violation most authors still work toward keeping a personal distance from the story. I hope that helps.

As a matter of fact, before Henry James, the first person who used a impersonal narrator was Flaubert in "Madame Bovary". The story begins with a first person narrator, a colleague of Charles Bovary (the first chapter); after that, the story is continued by a third person narrator. Flaubert's mode to realize his impersonal narrator was to eliminate the authorial comments (comments made by the narrator on the characters in the story or over the story --- see Fielding's Tom Jones).
All first person narrators are unreliable; their version of the story can be contested because it is only one point of view of the "action" seen through his norms and values. A first person narrator brings some personal characteristics, being what Wayne Booth called a "dramatized narrator". But all those characteristics are making the narrator unreliable.
And the most important thing: do not confuse the author with the narrator, even in a first person narration.In Conrad's Lord Jim oh Heart of Darkness, the narrator, Marlow, is not Conrad's alter-ego. Although Conrad uses in the narration events which happened in his journeys, the author and the narrator are different devices.
Wayne Booth introduced another concept: implied author; but his concept is still under much debate. Some people are saying that the implied author is a valid concept, and others are refusing to accept it.

[kelby_lake]

OK Kelby, we all know you're thinking of Nick in The Great Gatsby

Yes :)

But there's lots: narrator of The Yellow Wallpaper, Alfieri in A View From The Bridge and Tom from The Glass Menagerie (both plays but...), Dowell in The Good Soldier...

[Emil Miller]

Yes :)

But there's lots: narrator of The Yellow Wallpaper, Alfieri in A View From The Bridge and Tom from The Glass Menagerie (both plays but...), Dowell in The Good Soldier...

I was only kidding.

Dowell in the Good Soldier must be the most unreliable narrator of them all.