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.