In this novel about reading, and writing, it is fitting that the first person narrator is in fact the author of the novel. While that first person voice comes through more frequently in the middle and the end of the text, we must be aware that she is the first person narrator throughout. When she allows this voice to come through, she is acting in two positions: an instructor to her reader's and a defender of the novel as an art form. While the commentary she provides in both areas are very interesting and a deserved focus of this text, I would like to trace the narrator's its effect on storytelling. This narrator is not a part of the story and her only relation to the characters of the story is that she is making them up and developing their stories.
Yet, throughout the bulk of the novel, Austen is acting as a third person narrator that can only know and see what Catherine learns and sees simultaneously. This gives us a picture into the interiority of Catherine (self-concious about her position in society and her position with Henry, yet also excited by adventures resembling the romances that she reads). However, when it comes to moving the plot quickly, Austen often abandons this close tie with her character of choice and moves all of the characters about like chess pieces. In particular, the last two chapters, Austen has completely abandoned Catherine in favor of a third person narrator that can see the actions of all characters, even if Catherine cannot. When she dives into the interiority, it is not Catherine, but a combined Catherine and Henry's interiority: "They felt and they depolored-- but they could not resent it." All throughout the text, Catherine would have died for an opportunity to know the sentiments of Henry, and now it seems that their sentiments are tied together and identical. I belive that this abandonment of Catherine is because in the interest of efficiency, staying close to the interiority of one character is not feasible.
Why follow Catherine as a narrator in this novel? For Nancy Armstrong, the true testament of the novel is to express the excesses of individualism and guage how such acts of individualism are received through the plot. Yet, I would argue that the characters that truly exhibit an excess of individuality are Henry (defying his father by marrying Catherine) and Isabella (actively attempting to engage in relationships that will alter her station in life). The plot effects vary, the one who acts out individuality for love is rewarded with happiness and the one who acts out individuality for greed is left in loneliness. Yet Catherine safely toes the line throughout the text and never acts out of incivility by her own doing. Even when she is outwardly scorned (John not stopping the carriage and General Tilney turning her out of the house) she does not retaliate at all or defend her position acively to those characters. So, why follow her, in this marriage of novel and individual?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Form of the Novel and the Individual
"No other medium then availabe could have reconstituted the imagined relation between individual reader and national readership with the rhetorical dexterity of the novel" -Nancy Armstrong How Novels Think
As I had said in class today, I found this one of the most compelling quotes of her examination on the relationship between the rise of the novel and the rise of the individual. I was specifically interested in what about the form of the novel gave it the rhetorical dexterity to carry the responsibility of the individual all alone. In looking at a few of the texts we read over the semester, I want to try to make an addition, or perhaps an amendment to Armstrong's thorough argument.
I believe that the novel, more than any other form of literature prior to it, allowed a reader to have unique access to the whole interior of another human being over the course of a story. Yes other forms could illustrate aspects of the individual. The Odyssey shows a man defying not only the social contract, but the gods themselves, in his quest for greatness. Greece could not have wanted every citizen to play the part of Odysseus in their state. Soliloquoys in Shakespeare's plays allowed a viewer to see what a certain character was thinking while no other character in the play was aware of such insight. Sermons and religious writings could warn against excessive individualism as a sin against God and the community. Even the Bible itself follows individual after individual in their exhibitions of faith much to the dismay of dozens of communities over Judeo-Christian tradition. So what is it about the novel that can allow Nancy Armstrong to stake the two together so inseparably?
I have two theories that rely heavily on one another: privacy and the 1st person narrator. The novel was the first form of text that people would take into a room and read alone. The rise of readership truly allowed a body of text to have any power whatsoever, particularly the power to create the individual. All of the other forms of literature were stories shared in a community. The reader had to be separated from that community if they were to understand themselves as apart from that community in a personal way. Secondly, the 1st person narrator (in all of the facets that I've discussed in previous blogs) allowed a reader an intensive inside look into the workings of an individual acting in excess.
In my opinion, a third person narrator, no matter how close to the situation that narrator may be to a single character, could not act in this unique role that Armstrong is giving to the novel. Having an outside person tell a story that does not include them can only express the interiority of the individual in a limited way. That barrier presented by a narrator other than a character of the text is similar to the barrier of a community in the viewing of a play or the listening of an epic tale. And yes, a soliloquoy did allow insight into the interiority of a play, but it was limited in length and depth. The prose writing of fiction allowed a reader to become intimate with a character for the days or weeks it took to read their narrative.
As I had said in class today, I found this one of the most compelling quotes of her examination on the relationship between the rise of the novel and the rise of the individual. I was specifically interested in what about the form of the novel gave it the rhetorical dexterity to carry the responsibility of the individual all alone. In looking at a few of the texts we read over the semester, I want to try to make an addition, or perhaps an amendment to Armstrong's thorough argument.
I believe that the novel, more than any other form of literature prior to it, allowed a reader to have unique access to the whole interior of another human being over the course of a story. Yes other forms could illustrate aspects of the individual. The Odyssey shows a man defying not only the social contract, but the gods themselves, in his quest for greatness. Greece could not have wanted every citizen to play the part of Odysseus in their state. Soliloquoys in Shakespeare's plays allowed a viewer to see what a certain character was thinking while no other character in the play was aware of such insight. Sermons and religious writings could warn against excessive individualism as a sin against God and the community. Even the Bible itself follows individual after individual in their exhibitions of faith much to the dismay of dozens of communities over Judeo-Christian tradition. So what is it about the novel that can allow Nancy Armstrong to stake the two together so inseparably?
I have two theories that rely heavily on one another: privacy and the 1st person narrator. The novel was the first form of text that people would take into a room and read alone. The rise of readership truly allowed a body of text to have any power whatsoever, particularly the power to create the individual. All of the other forms of literature were stories shared in a community. The reader had to be separated from that community if they were to understand themselves as apart from that community in a personal way. Secondly, the 1st person narrator (in all of the facets that I've discussed in previous blogs) allowed a reader an intensive inside look into the workings of an individual acting in excess.
In my opinion, a third person narrator, no matter how close to the situation that narrator may be to a single character, could not act in this unique role that Armstrong is giving to the novel. Having an outside person tell a story that does not include them can only express the interiority of the individual in a limited way. That barrier presented by a narrator other than a character of the text is similar to the barrier of a community in the viewing of a play or the listening of an epic tale. And yes, a soliloquoy did allow insight into the interiority of a play, but it was limited in length and depth. The prose writing of fiction allowed a reader to become intimate with a character for the days or weeks it took to read their narrative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
