This blog post examines how the narrator’s method of intervening in a story affects the reader’s process of perceiving truth. We will explore together how the narrator’s position, information, and degree of involvement alter the direction of the narrative.
Reading a novel means listening to the voice of someone telling a story. We call the entity that narrates events involving various characters within a specific setting the narrator. Therefore, readers always obtain information about the fictional world through the narrator’s voice. For instance, consider a scene where a character’s dialogue is expressed in direct speech. Because dramas progress through character dialogue without a narrator, such scenes might feel similar to drama. However, this should actually be seen as a deliberate strategy by the narrator—choosing direct speech over indirect to create the illusion that the reader is hearing the dialogue directly. Regardless of whether the narrator paraphrased the dialogue or not, the reader always encounters the world solely through the narrator’s voice.
For the narrator to speak about an event, the act of observing that event is first necessary. Considering this, Brooks and Warren distinguished first-person and third-person perspectives solely based on the narrator’s vantage point. Within these, they further subdivided them into first-person protagonist viewpoint, first-person observer viewpoint, author-observer viewpoint, and omniscient author viewpoint, depending on whether the narrator observes the event as a witness or analyzes it as an investigator. However, their discussion faced criticism for equating the third-person narrator’s viewpoint with the author’s perspective. It was also noted that they lumped together techniques depicting the inner thoughts of specific characters and those depicting the inner thoughts of all characters under the single term “omniscient author viewpoint.”
In contrast, research exploring the narrator’s role as the observing subject was further deepened by Lanser. He argued that the narrator’s role must be understood in conjunction with the story’s content and theme. Criticizing the limitations of previous discussions—which, as the term “point of view” suggests, focused solely on the physical location from which events are observed—Lance asserted that one must consider not only the narrator’s spatial position but also their specific ideological stance. This is because the same event can be perceived and represented differently depending on whether the narrator occupies a different space or holds different values. Based on this, Lansser described the narrator as a cognitive framework through which the author presents their created world. Considering that readers encounter the story mediated by the narrator, this clearly establishes that the perspectives readers can see and the voices they can hear are always dependent on the narrator.
In relation to this issue, Plato’s classic questioning of the narrator’s intervention within a work and the manner of conveying truth to the reader remains fascinating. He linked the problem of the soul’s authenticity while discussing mimesis. He judged that authenticity was doubted the more the narrator’s intervention was minimized, causing readers to confuse reality with fiction. Conversely, authenticity was deemed higher the more subjective commentary was revealed, making the narrator clearly recognizable. Applying this perspective to the novel suggests we must move beyond the attitude of viewing the narrator as an entity that compromises objectivity by intervening in the story. That is, it is not because of the narrator that the novel fails to achieve objectivity; rather, it is thanks to the narrator that the novel has acquired a distinctiveness that sets it apart from other narrative forms.
While various discussions about the novel’s narrator have been conducted thus far, it is difficult to say that a sufficiently sophisticated theoretical framework has been established to encompass the vast number of novelistic works. Indeed, even within individual works, it is not easy to find cases where a single point of view is consistently maintained from beginning to end. Even works we consider masterpieces are no exception. Therefore, rather than attempting to define the narrator’s position, perspective, or role solely within overly theoretical frameworks, it is far wiser to understand it in connection with the appreciation of specific works. Writers themselves constantly ponder the most effective way to convey their intended message. This awareness leads to the view that the novel can be seen as a kind of game played by the reader, the characters, and the narrator over information.
According to this view, even the same event can be reinterpreted as an entirely different story depending on who possesses more information. For instance, when the narrator provides the reader with information unknown to the characters, the reader inevitably feels tension watching characters unaware of the crisis they face. Conversely, if the characters and reader share the same information, the reader experiences the events as if solving a puzzle alongside the characters, understanding the situation at a similar level. Furthermore, when a character hides secrets not revealed to the reader, the reader only grasps the full picture of the events upon reaching the conclusion, experiencing the impact of a powerful twist. Thus, creating the narrator most suited to convey the intended message is the first step determining a work’s success or failure. This critical consideration remains a significant point of discussion in contemporary narrative theory research.
