|
|
See, for example, Henry James, The Art of Fiction and Other Essays,
ed. Morris Roberts (New York: Oxford University Press, 1948); Norman Friedman,
“Point of View in Fiction: The Development of a Critical Concept.” PMLA
70(December
1955): 1160-84 W; Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1961); Tzvetan Todorov, “Poétique”
in Oswald Ducrot et al., Qu’est-ce que le structuralisme? (Paris:
Seuil, 1968), pp. 97-166; and Gérard Genette, Figures III
(Paris: Seuil, 1972).
See, among others, Walker Gibson, “Authors,
Speakers, Readers, and Mock Readers,” College English 9 (February
1950): 265-69 ; Rolan Barthes, “Introduction à l’analyse structurale
des récits,”
Communications 8 (1966): 18-19?; Tzetan Todorov,
“Les Catégories du récit littéraire,” Communications
8(1966):
146-47?: Gerald Prince, “Notes Towards a Categorization of Fictional ‘Narratees,’
” Genre 4 (Marc?:1971): 100-105; and Genette,
Figures III,
pp. 265-67.
In a certain sense, every narrator is his own narratee.
But most narrators have other narratees as well.
See Tzvetan Todorov, “Les Hommes-récits,”
Poétique
de la prose (Paris: Seuil, 1971), pp. 78-91.
See Tzvetan Todorov, “Le Récit primitif,”
in ibid., pp. 66-67.
For convenience’s sake, we speak (and will speak often)
of readers. It is obvious that a narratee should not be mistaken
for a listener –real, virtual, or ideal.
The description of the linguistic capabilities of
the zero-degree narratee nonetheless raises many problems. Thus,
it is not always easy to determine the meaning(s) (dénotation[s])
of a given term and it becomes necessary to fix in time the language (langue)
known to the narratee, a task that is sometimes difficult when working
from the text itself. In addition, the narrator can manipulate a
language in a personal way. Confronted by certain idiosyncrasies
that are not easy to situate in relation to the text, do we say that the
narratee experiences them as exaggerations, as errors, or on the contrary
do they seem perfectly normal to him? Because of these difficulties
and many others as well, the description of the narratee and his language
cannot always be exact. It is, nevertheless, to a large extent reproducible.
We use these terms as they are used in modern logic.
See in this regard, Gerald Prince, A Grammar of
Stories: An Introduction (The Hague: Mouton, 1973). A formal
description of the rules followed by all narratives can be found in this
work.
On verisimilitude, see the excellent issue 11 of Communications
(1968).
Barthes, “Introduction à l’analyse structurale
des récits,” p.10. It should be noted that while this confusion
has been very much exploited, it is not at all necessary for the development
of a narrative.
Roland Barthes, S/Z (Paris: Seuil, 1970),
pp. 27-28.
We should undoubtedly distinguish the “virtual” narratee
from the “real” narratee in a more systematic manner. But this distinction
would perhaps not be very helpful.
Note that even an ”I” can designate a “you”.
See, in this regard, Gérard Genette, “Vraisemblance
et motivation.” In his Figures II (Paris: Seuil, 1969).
We follow here in modifying the perspective, Booth, The
Rhetoric of Fiction, pp. 155 ff.
See, in this regard, the book by Wayne C. Booth,
already mentioned.
|
|