Saturday, January 16, 2010
Omniscient Narrators
I am nearly finished with the 1200 pages of World Without End and it has been so engrossing that I haven't read much else to report on. I thought at one point that Follett had described one minor character as "ambitious" on one page and "not ambitious" on another page. Having come across this during some late night reading, I folded the pages to mark them and composed in my mind a blog about the responsibility of the omniscient narrator to remain consistent with his trusting readers. The blog reached draft form before I checked some details of my memory and by the clear light of day, it was very apparent that Follett was describing two different minor characters, one "ambitious" and the other "not ambitious". I erased my draft blog, grateful that I hadn't made a fool of myself. So much for the trusting reader. I still think that it is remarkable how willing we are to follow an omniscient narrator. After all, he/she knows everything that is happening and that will happen and we very generously allow the narrator to spin out details in a sequence that creates a story, complete with uncertainty and tension. What would happen if we readers demanded that omniscient narrators tell us everything they know right up front? Efficient and time-saving but it sure wouldn't be storytelling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Notes from the Omniscient Narrator, forwarded by EZuroski:
ReplyDeleteIt had started as a day like so many others: Cranky and underachieving earthworms furrowing in the coarse, unhappy soil of Lichtenstein; a battered Los Angeles taxi, originally purchased by one Ali Ghulam in 1981 that now held Marianna, who held her testy pet poodle, Patsy, recently spayed, close to her perfumed breast while outside the day drizzled, froze, baked, and loathed its place in God’s firmament. “Are you a man, a mouse, or what?” cried ambitious, paranoid Rachel, happily perched atop the Seattle Space Needle and shaking her fist, lacquered nails bright against the cloudy sky that Jim in Air Control had correctly identified as cumulo-nimbus before he ate his tuna fish sandwich with Miracle Whip—NOT mayo. North of Manhattan, a doubter whined about the responsibilities blah blah whine whine of the omniscient author and how vulnerable and trusting little dweebie readers are— Did you really think I wasn’t going to know that?
Even though it turned out not to apply in this case, Derek would certainly be in agreement on the obligation of an omniscient narrator to remain consistent with characterizations. One of his terrible pet peeves (he wouldn't call it a "peeve"; he would call it being ethically vigilant or something) is when TV shows manipulate characters to serve the plot, so that the characters are inconsistent to the point of seeming insane. He yells at the television, "STOP SACRIFICING YOUR CHARACTERS TO YOUR INANE PLOT TWISTS! JESUS CHRIST!" This is why sometimes he is not allowed to watch tv with me.
ReplyDelete@ezuroski, Exactemente, ma soeur. There are narrators out there who under a little pressure could flip and begin to write just like that, and then where would we be? In the middle of a Jasper Fforde novel, perhaps.
ReplyDelete@Lady Z, yes, as you know well, I also carry on discourse with TV shows, books, and other media sources. As your husband does, I take these one-sided conversations seriously but I hope some of you will pull me back when I begin to report on how the TV commentators, books, and movies begin to talk back to me.
ReplyDelete