The Narrator ... The narrator is the most central concept in the analysis of narrative texts. The identity of the narrator, the degree to which and the manner in which that identity is indicated in the text, and the choices that are implied lend the text its specific eharaeter. This topie is closely related to the notion
of focalization,
with which
it has, traditionally,
been
identified.
Narrator
and
focalization together determine what has been called narration - ineorrectly, beca use only the narrator narrates, i.e. utters language which may be termed narrative since it represents a story. The focalizor. .. is an aspect of the story this narrator tells. It ís the represented 'colouring' of the fabula by a specific agent of perception, the holder of the 'point of view.' ... This is, emphatieally,
not to say that the narrator should not be analysed
in relation to the
fúcalizing agent. On the contrary, precisely when the connection between these two agents is not self-evident, it becomes easier to gain insight into the complexity of the re!ationship between the three agents that function in the three layers - the narrator, the focalizor, the actor - and those moments at which they do or do not overlap in the shape of a single 'person.' This nonoverlap also holds for narratives in visual media
't and 'He'
are both 'i'
.... As soon as there is language, there is a speaker who utters it; as soon as those linguistic utterances
constitute
a narrative
text, there
is a narrator,
a narrating
subject.
From
a
grammatical point of view, this is always a 'first person.' In fact, the term 'third-person narrator' is absurd: a narrator is not a 'he' or 's he.' At best the narrator can narrate about someone else, a 'he' or 'she' - who might, incidentally, happen to be a narrator as well Of course, this does not imply that the distinction between 'first-person' and 'third-person'
narratives is itself invalid. Just
compare the following sentences:
1 I shal/ be twenty-one tomorrow. 2 Elizabeth will be twenty-one tomorrow .
.. We may rewrite both sentences as:
(1 say:) 1 shall be twenty-one tomorrow. (1 say:) Elizabeth will be twenty-one tomorrow. Both sentences are uUered by a speaking subject, an '1'. The difference rests in the object of the utterance. In 1 the '1' speaks about itself. In 2 the '1' speaks about someone else. When in a text the narrator never refers explicitly to itself as a character, we may, again, speak of an external narrator (EN). After all, the narrating agent does not figure in the fabula as an actor. On the other hand, if the '1' is to be identified with a character in the fabula it itself narrates, we speak of a character-bound
narrator, a
e N.
This difference between an E N and a
e N,
a narrator that tells about others and a narrator
that tells about him -or herself- such a narrator is personified narrative rhetoric of 'truth.' A
eN
- entails a difference
in the
usually proclairns that it recounts true facts about her- or
-_._-------------'
himself. 'lt' pretends to be writing 'her' autobiography, fantastic, absurd, metaphysical.
even if the fábula is blatantly implausibie,
... The narrative rhetoric of a C N is therefore here indicated by
the addition: (1 narrate: (1 state autobiographically:))
I felt somewhat tired that day.
The rhetoric of an EN may also be used to present a story about others as true. We may indicate this as follows:
(1 narrate: (1 testify:)) Elizabeth felt somewhat tired that day.
On the other hand, the rhetoric sometimes points to the presence of invention. Indications that the narrator is out to tel! a fictive story and wants the readers to know it are, for instance, narrations of impossible or unknowable situations, or generic indications such as 'Once upon a time ... " which is often present at the beginning of a fairy tale, and subtitles such as 'A Novel' or 'A Winter's Tale.' These indications suggest fictionality
The fabula is fictitious, invented.
Al! Kinds of 'l's (It may be that) the '1,' the narrative subject, is not a character in the story it narrates, (or that) the narrator is also a character. (Once you) ... have full contextual information on a particular event, you may be faced with the following schemes:
Scheme 1 •
The event is based upon a certaín perception, in which an actor (e.g. A1) is involved.
•
The perception triggers a response on another actor (e.q. A2), the character-bound
focalizor
(CF). •
The intricacies of the two previous items are narrated by a linguistic subject outside the event itself, the external narrating agent (EN)
If we want to indicate briefly how the sentence works, we might also formulate it like this: EN [CF (A2)-A 1]. The narrator, the focalizor, and the actor are each of different identity.
Scheme 2 (Another possibility is that of) ... a narrator whose intention is to relate the events of its own life in a story which will explain its eventual outcome. This means that the narrator narrates and also states autobiagraphically
in arder to explain.
The situation then is as follows: •
The event as in Scheme 1
•
Actor 2 perceives the event.
•
Actor 2 also becomes the narrating agent. Thus we have:
CN (A2) [CF (A2)-A 1]
Two of the three agents have the same name and the same identity.
Scheme 3 •
The event as in Scheme 1.
•
The focalizor as in Scheme 1.
•
The narrator names itself. but is not a character in the fabula. However, it does more than just refer to its identity as "l". In fact, it presents explanations
which might denote pa rtia lity
towards one of the characters against another. This becomes a case of double focalization,
that of the anonymous focalizor which may be
located in the narrative agent, and that of the character to which it is partial: EF [CF (A2)]-A 1, or, with an indication of the levels of focalization: EF1 [CF2 (A2)]-A1 Thus there is a partial coincidence of two of the three agents, while there are still three different identities at play ...
Scheme4 The narrator is also an actor, for example, when there are references to previous encounters (such as telephone calls, conversations,
etc.) between the actor and the agent referring to itself
as '1'. The actor '1,' which, from the point of view of identity, coincides with the narrator, is, however, probably not important from the point of view of action. It stands apart, observes the events, and relates the story according to its point of view. A narrator of this type is a witness. The question whether the story that it tells is invented can no longer be asked. The text is full of indications that the story must be considered 'true.' Of course, this do es not prove that it is also true; it merely speaks for the implied claim of the narrator. The interpretation of this sentence is:
(1 narrate: (1 declare as witness:)) The event. Since the narrator so clearly pretends to testify, it must also, supposedly, with the character-bound
make olear how it got its information ....
Then focalization
is localized
narrator who refers to itself and is, therefore, perceptible in the texto In
I
that case the formula is
1 CN ('/) [CF ('I1-A1]
Now both narration and focalization rest with the CN, the anonymous witness who is yet an '1'.
In these (schemes) we have seen four different narrative situations. In 1 and 3 the narrator stood outside the fabula and in 2 and 4 it did not. In 1 the focalizor was a character. In 3 we considered a case of embedded focalization, since here we saw an infiltration of external agents into the story. In 2 the identification of the agents was closest: the narrator and the focalizor were both the character (A2). In 4, finally, narrator and focalizor coincided; however, unlike 2, not in the identity of one of the active actors, but in the identity of a witness. With these analyses, the fundamental distinction mentioned earlier between a narrative '1' that talks about itself and a narrative '1' that speaks of others has proven toa general. More distinctions between the various 'I's are called for to get a finer picture. Sometimes the narrative '1' exclusively narrates, as in 1; it may also perceive, as in 2, 3, and 4; and it may also act, as in
2 and 4. When it acts, this action may remain limited to testimony, as in 4. The traditional distinction between 'I'-narratives and 'he'-narratives is, as we see, inadequate not only for terminological reasons. The difference between 1 and 3 would remain inarticulate because the infiltration of the '1' into the story is neglected. In some narratives, the narrative situations analysed here - that is, the different relationships of the ,narrative '1' to the object of narration are constant within each narrative text. This means that one can immediately, already on the first page, see which is the narrative situation. But the narrative situation can also change. Displacernents occur especially between 1 and 3. A narrator may remain imperceptible tor a long time, but suddenly begin to refer to itself, sometimes in such a subtle manner that the reader hardly nofices. However, focalization need not in every case always remain with the same agent. Technically it would be almost impossible to maintain such continuity.... BAL, MiEKE (1988) Narratology: An Introduction
lo the Theory of Narrative, Toronto U'P.
