Modern Language Association

Toward a Theory of the Engaging Narrator: Earnest Interventions in Gaskell, Stowe, and Eliot
Author(s): Robyn R. Warhol
Source: PMLA, Vol. 101, No. 5 (Oct., 1986), pp. 811-818
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/462357
Accessed: 21-10-2015 08:27 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ROBYN R. WARHOL

Narrator:
Towarda TheoryoftheEngaging
inGaskell,Stowe,andEliot
Earnest
Interventions
tweentheactualreaderand theinscribed"you" in
thetext("Introduction"18). Such a narratorI call
Butnoteverynarrator
whointervenes
RECENTLY"revisiting"
hisoriginal
theory "distancing."
to addressa narrateedoes so to settheactualreader
of thenarratee
in fiction,
GeraldPrincehas adapart fromthe "you" in the text.Anotherkind,
mittedthat his previousworkno morethan
whichI call "engaging,"
strives
to closethegapsbesuggests"the possible differences
betweennartweenthenarratee,
ratee,addressee,and receiver,"
theaddressee,and thereceiver.
whichhe takes"to
thatare almost albe analogousto thosebetweennarrator,
addresser, Using narrativeinterventions
waysspokenin earnest,such a narratoraddresses
and sender" ("Narratee" 6). He mentionsthat
a "you" thatis intendedto evokerecognition
thedistinctions
studying
and
amongthesethree(i.e.,the
inthepersonwhoholdsthebook and
"you" thatmaybe inscribedor encodedin a text, identification
theimpliedreadersuggested
reads,evenifthe "you" in thetextresemblesthat
bythat"you,"and the
actual readerwho receivesthat"you") mightlead
persononlyslightlyor not at all.3
To be sure,narrativestructures
to "a betterappreciationof the waysparticular
are alwayscomwhotypically
texts-as well as narrativeitself-can function" plex:novelists
employdistancing
narrativeinterventions
sometimes
("Narratee"7). In fact,Prince'sworkon thenaruse directaddressto
rateehas assumed,as a generalrule,a necessary
disengagetheirreaders,and eventhemostconsistently
tancebetweenthenarratee,theaddressee,and the
engagingnarratorssometimesintervenein their
receiverof fictionaltexts.'The canonic example, texts in distancing ways. But certain women
usedbybothPrinceand Genette,is thatofthenarnovelistsin mid-nineteenth-century
England and
rateeofLe Pere Goriot(Genette,Nouveau 91;qtd.
America-particularlyElizabethGaskell,Harriet
in Prince,"Narratee"5). Certainly,
BeecherStowe,and GeorgeEliot-experimented
as Princeand
Genettehave observed,when Balzac's narrator withengagingnarrativebecause it was centralto
speaksto a "you" who sitsin a well-paddedarmtheiridea of fiction.Writing
to inspirebeliefinthe
chair,holdingthebook withwhitehands,thisnarsituationstheirnovelsdescribe-and admittedly
rateemayor maynot be a figurewithwhomthe
hopingto moveactual readersto sympathizewith
actual readercan identify.
"If itshouldoccurthat
real-lifeslaves,workers,or ordinarymiddle-class
thereaderbearsan astonishing
resemblanceto the
people-these novelistsusedengagingnarrators
to
narratee,"Princewrites,"thisis an exceptionand
encourageactualreadersto identify
withthe"you"
not therule" ("Introduction"9).
in the texts.4An examinationof the ways their
Prince is certainlycorrectfor most novels in
worksdivergefromtheconventionsof distancing
whichthenarratorsand narrateesare-to borrow narrative
intervention
wouldnotonlyhelpcomplete
Genette'stermsin NarrativeDiscourse-both exPrince'stypologyof thenarrateebutalso contribtradiegetic
and heterodiegetic
(i.e.,novelsin which
uteto a morecomprehensive
understanding
ofthe
thenarrativeact is situatedoutsidethefictionand
conventionsof nineteenth-century
narrative.5
neithernarrator
nornarrateefunctions
as a characEmbracingSusan Suleiman's proposal of "a
ter).2The morespecifically
a heterodiegetic
narra- moratorium
on theimpliedreader,
withmoreattentorcharacterizes
thenarratee,
thelesslikelywillbe
tionpaid to narratees
and actualreaders,and to the
a resemblance
betweenthisaddresseeandtheactual
possiblerelationships
betweenthem"(92), I conreceiverof the text.A narratorwho providesso
centratehereon therelationbetweenthenarratee
muchinformation
about thenarrateethattheadand theactualreaderinengagingnarrative.
I examdresseebecomes,as Princesays,"as clearlydefined ine the differences
in strategy
and effectbetween
as anycharacter"necessarilyplaces a distancebedistancingand engagingnarrativeinterventions,
I

IN

811

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

812

Towarda Theoryof the EngagingNarrator

providing
specificexamplesof distancing
narrative
from works that are commonlymentionedin
studiesof thenarratee(e.g.,TomJonesand Vanity
Fair)andjuxtaposingthemwithexamplesofengaging narrativefromGaskell's,Stowe's,and Eliot's
earlynovels.As myexamplesshow,addingthedistinctionbetweenengagingand distancing
narrative
situationsto thevocabularyof poeticswouldboth
ofthevariety
of
extendthedescriptive
appreciation
possiblerelationsbetweenthenarrateeand theactual readerand promotecriticalappreciationof
whohaveoftenbeenderidedforusingunnovelists
usual conventionsof "conversation"betweennarratorand narratee.6
II
Generallyspeaking,a distancingnarratordiswiththe
couragestheactualreaderfromidentifying
narratee,while an engagingnarratorencourages
thatidentification.
beoutthesimilarity
Sketching
tweenthe narrator-addresser-sender
relationship
and the narratee-addressee-receiver
relationship,
Princehas used a simpleexamplethatcan helpdescribethesignificantly
different
rhetoricaleffects
of distancingand engagingaddressesto narratees.
Princewrites,"Justas in 'I ate a hamburgerfor
lunch,'thecharacter-Iis theone who ate and the
narrator-I
theone tellingabout theeating,in 'You
forlunch,'thecharacter-you
ate a hamburger
is the
onewhoateandthenarratee-you
theonetoldabout
theeating."Princeuses theexampleto showthat
"the difference
betweenintra-and extradiegetic
narrateeis no morefundamental
thantheone betweenintra-and extradiegetic
narrator"("Narratee" 5). This can be truein onlya limitedsense,
as we mustrealizeifwe considertherhehowever,
toricaleffect
wouldhaveon an actheseutterances
tualinterlocutor
or an actualreader.Dependingon
(1) theaccuracyof thestatement
about "you" and
(2) thespeaker'sstancetoward"you" inmakingthe
assertion,therelationbetweenthenarrateeand the
receiverof thestatement
could be eitherdistanced
or engaged.
Consider the effectthe two statementsabout
lunchmighthavein a real-world
conversation.If I
tellyouthatI ate a hamburgerforlunch,youmay
or maynotbelieveme,accordingto yoursenseof
myreliability
(you maynot knowme wellenough
I am characteristically
to knowwhether
or
truthful,
youmayknowthatI habituallylie about mycalorie intake)and accordingto anythingyou know

about mylunchbeyondmyassertion(maybeyou
sat acrossthelunchtablefromme and watchedme
eat that hamburger,or maybe you saw me eat
quiche instead). But you can neverbe certain
whetheror notmyreportof myown experienceis
true:possiblyI did not lie about what I ate for
lunch,evenif I customarily
do; possiblyI slipped
awayafterI had thequicheand secretly
ate a hamburgeras a secondlunch.You maybelievemystatementor not,butyoucan neverbe as certainof its
truthas you can be about mystatement"You ate
a hamburger
forlunch."You know-if youarenot
impossibly
absentminded-whether
youatea hamburgeror not,justas youknow,whileyouarereadingLe Pere Goriot,whetheryourhandsarewhite
and yourarmchairis comfortable.
The exampleshowsthatin factthereis a difference betweenthe narrator-addresser-sender
relationship and the narratee-addressee-receiver
relationship,
a difference
thatmustoccurto theactual readerin readingthetext.The readermayor
in how closelythenarrative
maynot be interested
"I" resemblestheactual author;readerscan only
speculateabout sucha resemblance,
which-even
ifitexists-would haveno bearingon therhetorical effectof thetext.Butone can knowwhetheror
notthenarrative"you" resemblesoneself,and the
wayone experiencesthefictionis affectedbyhow
personallyone can takeits addressesto "you."
Keepingthisinmind,wecan pursuetheexample
foritsdistancingand engagingpotentialities.
The
effectof myassertion"You ate a hamburger"will
dependon yourinterpretation
inof myrhetorical
tent.Sinceyouknowwhether
ornotyouatea hamburger,you mayassume thatmyassertionis not
intendedto conveyinformation
to you.Ifyouknow
I saw you havingquiche forlunchand I say "You
ate a hamburger,"myutterancewill be ironic.I
mightexpectyouto respondwithlaughter,
annoybut in any case-since you
ance, or perplexity,
would be unable to identify
yourexperiencewith
myassertion-youwouldseparateyouractualself
fromthe"you" inmystatement.
My remarkwould
be, then,distancing.
The distancingnarratormayevokelaughter,or
evenannoyance,froman actualreaderwhocannot
withthenarratee.The taskof theengagidentify
in contrast,is to evokesympathy
ingnarrator,
and
identificationfroman actual readerwho is unknownto theauthorand therefore
variinfinitely
able and unpredictable.
The engagingnarrator
is in
thepositionI wouldbe in if,to winyourtrustand

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

813

RobynR. Warhol
support,I had to approachyou,a stranger,
and tell
youwhatyouhad forlunch.I could tryto winyou
overthroughwhatI sayor throughthewayI sayit,
throughthesubstanceof myassertionor through
myattitudein assertingit. I could make a guess
aboutwhatyouate,based on myidea ofwhatmost
peopleeat; engagingnarrators
oftendo base assertions about "you" on such generalassumptions.
Chancesare,though,thatmyguesswouldbe inaccurate,in whichcase I could onlyhope to winyou
withtheappealingattitudeI tryto takein addressing you. The engaging narratorsof Stowe's,
Gaskell's,and Eliot'snovels-functioningas their
authors' surrogatesin earnestlytryingto foster
sympathy
forreal-world
sufferers-work
to engage
"you" throughthesubstanceand, failingthat,the
stanceoftheirnarrative
interventions
and addresses
to "you."
III
In Gaskell'sMaryBarton(1848),Stowe'sUncle
Tom's Cabin (1851-52),and Eliot's Adam Bede
(1859),theengagednarrateeis strikingly
presentin
passages of narrativeintervention
addressedto
"you."Typically,
thesenovelists'
engagingnarrators
differfromdistancingnarrators(e.g.,Fielding'sin
Tom Jones [1749] or Thackeray'sin VanityFair
[1846-47] or Eliot's in her firstnovel,Scenes of
ClericalLife[1857])intheirexplicit
attitudes
toward
thenarratees,
towardthecharacters,
and towardthe
veryact of narration.The differences
occurin five
forms:
1. Thenamesbywhichthenarrateeis addressed.
Whereasa distancingnarratormayspecifya name
ortitleforan extradiegetic
narratee
(e.g.,"Miss Bullock," "Miss Smith,"or "Jones,who reads this
book at his Club," in VanityFair; "Your Majesty
. mylordsand gentlemen"in Dickens'sBleak
House [1852-53];"Madam" or "Mrs.Farthingale"
in Eliot'sScenes),an engagingnarrator
willusually
eitheravoidnamingthenarrateeor use namesthat
referto largeclassesof potentialactualreaders.In
Uncle Tom'sCabin, themostextremeexampleof
the second approach, the narratorwill, Walt
Whitman-like,
specifynarrateesin a group(e.g.,
"mothersofAmerica")or includelargenumbersof
morespecifically
definedgroupsin passagesof directaddress(e.g., "Farmersof Massachusetts,of
New Hampshire,of Vermont,
of Connecticut,
who
readthisbook bytheblaze of yourwinter-evening
fire,-strong-hearted,generoussailorsand ship-

ownersof Maine. . . . Braveand generousmenof

NewYork,farmers
of richand joyousOhio,and ye
of thewideprairiestates. . ." [623]). Of course,
evensuchexhaustive
listsexcludemorereadersthan
theycan include.Stowe'snarrator,
like
therefore,
Gaskell'sand Eliot's,morefrequently
addressesthe
narratee
simplyas "Reader"or "you,"designations
thatcan signifyanyactual reader.
2. Thefrequencyof directaddressto thenarrasuch as Fieldtee.Whereasa distancingnarrator,
ing's,oftenrefers
to "theReader" or "myreader,"
an engagingnarrator,
verymuchlikean evangelical preacher,
morefrequently
speaksto "you."7 In
MaryBarton,forinstance,
thenarratee
is addressed
as "you" in at leasttwenty-two
passages,included
in thenarrative"we" in at leastfivepassages,and
to in thethirdperson.
seldom,if ever,referred
3. Thedegreeofirony
presentinreferences
to the
narratee.Evenwhiledirectly
addressingthenarraoftenironically
narrator
inscribes
tee,thedistancing
the addresseeas a potentially"bad reader,"thus
thereceiverof thetextfromidentifydiscouraging
ingwiththepersonaddressed.Balzac's addressto
the complacent,pleasure-seeking
narrateeof Le
Pere Goriotis an exampleof thisironicmode. So
is Fielding'samusingdirective
on howto read Tom
Jones, typical of Fielding in its self-conscious
awarenessof thedistancethenarratorencourages
betweenthenarratee,
theimpliedreader,andtheactual reader:
itisimpossible
Reader,
weshouldknowwhatSortofPersonthouwiltbe:Forperhaps,
thoumay'st
beas learned
inHumanNatureas Shakespear
himself
was,and,perhaps,thoumay'st
benowiserthansomeofhisEditors.
Nowlestthislatter
shouldbetheCase,wethink
proper,
beforewe go anyfarther
to givetheea few
together,
wholesomeAdmonitions..

. We warnthee not too

hastily
tocondemn
anyoftheIncidents
inthisourHisas impertinent
andforeign
toourmainDesign..
tory,
Fora little
ofa Critic
topresume
Reptile
tofindFaultwith
anyofitsParts,without
theMannerinwhich
knowing
theWholeisconnected
. . . isa mostpresumptious
Absurdity.
(398)
is Thackeray'sironicreference
Similarlydistancing
to "some carpingreader"who is incapableof enjoyingthesentimental
Fair(147).
passagesin Vanity
in contrast,usuallyassume
Engagingnarrators,
thattheirnarrateesare in perfectsympathy
with
them.WhenGaskell'snarratorinMaryBartonassuresthenarratee,"Your heartwould haveached
to have seen the man, howeverhardlyyou might

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

814

Towarda Theoryof theEngagingNarrator

havejudged his crime" (422); or whenEliot's in

Adam Bede interruptsa love scene to remark,
"That is a simplescene,reader.Butitis almostcertainthatyou,too,havebeeninlove" (411);thenarrators' earnestlyconfidentialattitudes toward
''you" encourageactual readersto see themselves
reflectedin thatpronoun.
As thesetwoexamplesshow,an engagingnarrainthenartorsometimesdoes implyimperfections
with,
or sympathize
ratee'sabilityto comprehend,
conthecontentsof thetext,evenwhileexpressing
fidencethatthenarrateewillriseto thechallenge.
often
fallibility
ofthenarratee's
Theseimplications
thatPrince
come throughnarrativeinterventions
calls

an incredulousresponse,
frozenriver.Anticipating
thenarratorencouragesthenarrateeto putherself
in Eliza's place:
mother,
oryourWillie,thatwere
IfitwereyourHarry,
tomorrow
youbya brutaltrader,
goingtobe tornfrom
morning-.-if
youhadseentheman,andheardthatthe
andyouhadonlyfrom
anddelivered,
papersweresigned
tomakegoodyourescape,twelve
o'clocktillmorning
(105)
howfastcouldyouwalk?

about
Bothpassagesprovidespecificinformation
thenarratees:Eliot'sis probablymale,Stowe'scertainlyfemale;bothareperhaps-by thenarrators'
standards-overlyjudgmental.But thenarrators'
stance,implicitintheirfaiththatthenarrateescan
level
of
metaat
the
.
.
situated
.
be
persuadedto sympathizeif the actual readers
surjustifications
or meta-narration....
meta-commentary,
language,
withAdam's and Eliza's experiences,
willidentify
deuswithinteresting
provide
always
Over-justifications
is whatmakesthepassages engaging.8
eventhoughthey
tailsaboutthenarratee's
personality,
A
4. Thenarrator's
stancetowardthecharacters.
thenarra- distancingnarrator
way;inovercoming
oftendo so inan indirect
mayseemto delightin remindinallayoverhisprejudices,
inprevailing
tee'sdefense,
enthatthecharacters
arefictional,
ingthenarratee
theyrevealthem.
inghisapprehensions,
the
extreme
under
the
control:
most
writer's
tirely
15)
("Introduction"
in VanityFair to the
examplesare the references
out of a box and
that
come
characters
as
puppets
Althoughengagingnarratorstend to inscribe
in
the
each
book
of TomJones,in
essays
prefatory
theirownastheirnarratees
throughoverjustifying
the
way
thebook is bediscusses
which
the
narrator
sertions,theyusuallydo so in the spiritof symnarratee
thattheficthus
reminding
the
ing
written,
the
to convert
and earnestly
attempting
pathetically
An
an
a
game.
engaging
arbitrary
creation,
tion
is
narrateesto theirownpointsofview.Thismodeof
of
the
characters'
such
reminders
narrator
avoids
with
addressencouragesactual readersto identify
are
insisting
insteadthatthecharacters
fictionality,
narunlikethesarcasmof distancing
thenarratees,
In
a
what
narrator
uses
"real."
doing
so,
such
readersout of
rators,whichironicallyembarrasses
Genettehas called "metalepsis"(crossingdiegetic
such identification.
levelsto implythatfiguresinsideand outsidethe
porThe engagingnarrators'overjustifications
narfictionexiston thesameplane).9A distancing
traytheirnarrateesless as potentiallybad readers
as Genettehas
ratoruses metalepsishumorously,
The narlimitedsympathizers.
thanas potentially
pointed out (234-35). An engaging narrator,
ratorsdefendtheircharacters'rightsto theactual
though,uses thedeviceto suggestthatthecharacthose
demonstrating
byexplicitly
readers'sympathy
tersare possiblyas "real" as thenarratorand narAn exampleis Eliot'sadvice
rightsto thenarratees.
with
ratee,who are,in thesecases,to be identified
to the narrateewho hesitatesto sympathizewith
theactualauthorand actualreader.Stowe'snarraAdam Bede's infatuation:
tor simplyclaims that her characters-or their
intherealworld(e.g.,that"the
counterparts-exist
in penetration,
BeforeyoudespiseAdamas deficient
of Eliza, the character
appearance
personal
ifyouwereeverpredisposed
tobelieve
prayaskyourself
drawnfromlife..
ascribed
to
are
sketches
her,
evilof anypretty
woman-ifyouevercould,without
theOhio river
of
the
mother's
crossing
The
incident
believeevilofthe
demonstration,
hard,head-breaking
is
well-known
fact"
on
the
ice
a
[Uncle 618]).
has
one supremely
womanwho
bewitched
you.
pretty
Gaskell'sand Eliot's narratorsoccasionallyclaim
(131)
No....
personalacquaintancewiththeircharacters,even
thoughthenarratorsneverfigureas intradiegetic
One of the most famouspassages of such overcharactersthemselves.
justificationoccursin Uncle Tom'sCabin, interinMaryBarOne of themanyoverjustifications
thesceneofEliza's barefootescapeoverthe
rupting

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RobynR. Warhol
tonis an exampleof metalepsisthatplacesthehetnarrator
and theintradiegetic
erodiegetic
characters
on thesame level.The narratordefendshercommentsaboutone character's
physicalappearanceby
citinga "personal" impressionof the fictional
woman: "I havecalled her 'the old woman' . . .
because,in truth,herappearancewas so muchbeyondheryears. . . shealwaysgavemetheidea of
age" (385-86). This heterodiegetic
"I," of course,
is neverpresentin thefictionalworld,hencenever
in a positionto see thecharacterin thecontextof
thefiction;theimplication
is,then,thatthecharactermustexistwithinthecontextof thenarrator's
ownworld.Eliotmakesa similarimplication
inone
intervention
thatrefersto a conversation
between
the heterodiegetic
narratorand the hero: "But I
gatheredfromAdam Bede, to whom I talkedof
thesemattersin hisold age . . ." (154). These instancesofmetalepsis-implying
thatthecharacters
exist,as thenarratorsdo, outsidetheworldof the
fiction-producean effect
thatdiffers
fromthehumorousdiscomfort
thatGenettehas identifiedas
theusual resultof thedevice.Insteadof distancing
theactualreaderfromthecharacters
byreminding
thenarratee
thattheyarefictional,
thesemetalepses
aremeantto reinforce
thereader'sserioussenseof
thecharactersas, in some way,real.
5. The narrator'simplicitor explicitattitude
towardtheact of narration.The distancingnarrator,directlyor indirectly,
frequently
remindsthe
narrateethatthefictionis a game and thecharacterspawns: such remindersmay be as directas
VanityFair's references
to the narratoras a stage
manageror puppetmaster;as indirect
as themockheroic"epic" languagein the "battle scenes" of
TomJonesor JosephAndrews;or as relatively
subtle as the type names that Fielding,Thackeray,
Dickens,and Trollopeassignto minorcharacters.
HenryJamesheadsthecriticaltradition
thathas
correctlyassessed this whole spectrumof selfconsciousartificeas a meansof destroying
theillusionof realityand reminding
thereaderthatthe
'0 Objectingto Troltextis, afterall, onlya fiction.
lope's penchantfornameslikeDr. PessimistAnticant, Mr. NeversayDie, and Mr. Stickatit;to his
frequentauthorialhintsabout the probableoutcomeoftheplot;and to hisnarrative
reminders
that
thenovelist"could directthecourseof eventsaccordingto his pleasure,"Jamescalled Trollope's
"pernicioustrick"of narrativeintervention
"suicidal." James's summaryof Trollope's strategy
describesthe distancingnarrator'sattitudeper-

815

fectly:"Therearecertainprecautionsinthewayof
novproducingthatillusiondear to theintending
elistwhichTrollopenotonlyhabituallyscornedto
take,but really,as we maysay,askingpardonfor
to violate"
theheatofthething,delighted
wantonly
(115-18).
betweendistancing
Jamesdoes not distinguish
intervenand engagingnarrators,
sinceall narrative
withtheillusion
tionsmust,at somelevel,interfere
theengagof reality.
Likeanyintervening
narrator,
ing narrator,too, intrudesinto the fictionwith
reminders
thatthenovelis "onlya story."In doing
fromdistancdiffer
so, however,
engagingnarrators
ingnarrators
inthattheirpurposesareseldomplayful:theyintrudeto remindtheirnarratees-who,in
theirtexts,should stand forthe actual readersthatthe fictionsreflectreal-worldconditionsfor
whichthereadersshouldtakeactiveresponsibility
afterputtingasidethebook. Whetherthesituation
depictedis thatof Americanslaves,or workingclasspoorinManchester,
or middle-class
ruralfolk
in England,theengagingnarratorexplicitly
draws
on the actual reader's memoryand emotion,
throughdirectaddressto thenarratee,to fostera
to improving
commitment
theextradiegetic
situationthe fictiondepicts.
Uncle Tom'sCabin is fullof direct,sermonlike
exhortation
to thenarratee,demandingsympathy
fortheslavesand evenactionon theirbehalf.The
passage mentionedabove,addressedto "mothers
of America,"specificallydirectsthe narrateesto
transfer
theiremotionalresponsefromthecharactersto theactual slaves:
youwhohavelearned,
bythecradlesofyourownchiltoloveandfeelforallmankind,
dren,
-by thesacred
love
themother
youbearyourchild. . . -I beseech
you,pity
whohasallyouraffections,
andnotonelegalright
toprooreducate,
thechildofherbosom!Bythesick
tect,
guide,
hourofyourchild;bythosedyingeyes,whichyoucan
neverforget;
bythoselastcries,thatwrung
yourheart
whenyoucouldneither
helpnorsave. . . -I beseech
you,pitythosemothers
thatareconstantly
madechildlessbytheAmerican
slave-trade!
Andsay,mothers
of
isthisa thing
America,
tobedefended,
sympathized
with,
passedoverinsilence?
(623-24)
Here,thenarrator's
strategy
is simplyto arousethe
egocentricfeelingsof anyactual readerswho can
withthenarratees,
identify
thento ask thereaders
to projectthosefeelings
intocompassionforactual
slaves.If thenarrateescan feelforthecharacters,
then the actual readersthe narrateesrepresent

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

816

Towarda Theoryof theEngagingNarrator

should be able to feelforthe actual personsthe

charactersrepresent.
inMaryBartonpursuesa simiGaskell'snarrator
side
at a character's
placingthenarratee
larstrategy,
ofthe
and including"you" inherimplicitcriticism
In thisscene,JohnBarcharacter'segocentricity.
absorbedinhis
street,
tonwalksdowna Manchester
own sorrows:
hadcome
crowd,
ifanyinallthehurrying
He wondered
Buthecouldnot,you
fromsucha houseofmourning.
readthelotofthosewhodailypassyoubyinthe
cannot,
oftheir
lives;
Howdoyouknowthewildromances
street.
theyareevennowenduring,
thetrials,thetemptations
sinkingunder?. . . Errandsof mercyresisting,
errands
of sin-did youeverthinkwhereall thethousandsofpeopleyoudailymeetarebound? (101-02)

better;but readingthenovelis to be onlyan exerthatcapacityin thereader's

cise forstrengthening
own life.Everyengagingaddressto "you" simultaneouslyremindsthe narratee(and the actual
reader) that the storyis only a fictionand encouragesthereaderto applyto nonfictional,
real
lifethefeelingsthe fictionmayhaveinspired.

IV

The use of theengagingnarratoris morea patof thesethree

ternin the narrativeinterventions
novelsthan it is a perfectly
consistenttechnique
withinanygivennovelor withinanynovelist'scareer.For that matter,each of these authorseschewedengagingnarrativein laterworks:Stowe's
TheMinister'sWooing(1859),forexample,is notaof anykind,as
blyfreeof narrativeinterventions
in Mary
Like manyothernarrativeinterventions
are Gaskell'sNorthand South (1855) and Wives
thewaydirectadBarton,thepassagedemonstrates
and Daughters(1864-66);Eliot steppedawayfrom
dressto thenarrateecan "realize"thefictionalsitengagingtechniquesinthemiddleof hercareer,as
uation fortheactual reader.
inSilas Marner(1861)and Romola (1862-63),reintoo, followsthe
In Adam Bede, Eliot's narrator,
troducingan engagingnarratorin Middlemarch
philosophythat Eliot summarizedin her earlier
(1871-72).
novel:"Sympathyis buta livingagainthroughour
Even withinthenovelsthathavedominantenown past in a newform"(Scenes 358). The Adam
are by
gagingnarrators,distancinginterventions
attitudetowardthepurposeof narBede narrator's
no meansentirely
absent.This is particularly
true
rationplayssuch a crucialrolein thenovelthatit
of UncleTom'sCabin,whichemploystheleastconis thesubjectof an entirechapter,"In Whichthe
sistently
engagingnarratorof the threenovelsin
StoryPauses a Little."Thisenormousintervention, question.The specificfluctuations
ofthenarrative
afterithas been unfoldthenarrative
interrupting
stance in that novel are the subject of another
instance
is an extraordinary
ingforsixteenchapters,
essay(Warhol),buta glanceat themostreadilyeviat lengththenarradefending
of overjustification,
dent sign of engagingnarrative-thatis, intertor'srefusalto idealizetheportraitsof thenovel's
ventionsaddresseddirectlyto "you" ratherthan
characters.Explainingthereasonsfordrawingthe
to named "readers" or to a third-person"my
as the Dutch mastershad
charactersrealistically,
reader"-shows a patternin Stowe'suse of engagdone, the narratoremphasizesthe influencethe
ingaddress.The firstsixchapters,
whichintroduce
novelshouldhaveon theactualreader'sexperience thecharactersand theirvariousrelationsto theinworld:
of theextradiegetic
stitution
of slavery,
containno emotionally
charged
episodesand onlythreepassages of intervention,
AndI wouldnot,evenifI hadthechoice,be theclever twoof whichfitthedescriptionof "engaging"adthan
whocouldcreatea worldso muchbetter
novelist
dressesto thereader.The nexttenchapters,detailto do ourdaily
this,inwhichwegetup inthemorning
ing the traumaticexperiencesof Tom and Eliza
colder
toturna harder,
work,thatyouwouldbe likely
directlyaftertheirowners'disastrousdecisionto
andthecommon
fields-on
green
streets,
eyeonthedusty
sellthem,containat leastsixteeninterventions,
no
menandwomen,
whocanbe chilled
therealbreathing
fewer
than
eleven
of
them
The
engaging.
subsewho
orinjuredbyyourprejudice;
byyourindifference
andhelpedonward
canbecheered
byyourfellow-feeling, quent chapters,full of domesticdetail and suspensefuladventures,contain passages of both
bravejustice.
youroutspoken,
yourforbearance,
(358)
buttheserdistancingand engagingintervention,
monlikefinalchapter,onlyelevenpages long,adIfempathy
withthecharacters
helpsdeveloptheacdresses"you" directlyin fiveseparatepassages.
so muchthe
Generallyspeaking,Stowe relieson engaging
tual reader'scapacityforsympathy,

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RobynR. Warhol
is mostcrunarrativewhenherreader'ssympathy
purpose,as inthesceneswhere
cialto herrhetorical
Eliza and Tomsuffertheemotionalconsequences
of eitherescapingor beingsold. Whiledistancing
remarksto thereadercan provideironicor comic
relief-and do, withvaryingdegreesof successin
Gaskell,Stowe,and Eliot-the engagingnarrator's
function
is ideallyto inducetearsand at leastto stir
of readup sentiment.The traditionaltestimony
or angry,admiringor
ers-whethersympathetic
appalled-would indicatethat Stowe's novel,in
particular,has oftenproducedthateffect.
of theenIndeed,thelinkbetweenthestrategy
or "sensagagingnarratorand "sentimentalism"
questionsfor
tionalism"innovelsraisesinteresting
as wellas forpoetics.Can wetracetheencriticism,
theories
exclusionfromnarrative
gagingnarrator's
to the long-standing
criticaldisapprovalof "sentimentality"in literature?Is that disapproval
rooted,as I have suggested,in a James-inspired
per se, or
prejudiceagainstnarrativeintervention
does it originatein an unspokendismissalof the
Gaskell,
techniquesand goals of women'swriting?
Stowe,and Eliot, in developingtheirown models
hopedto
oftherhetoric
of realistfiction,evidently
of theirfiction,to makeit
extendthereferentiality

817

accuratelymirrorand concretelyaffectthe real

prevailthecurrently
world.As thisdesiresubverts
ing idea of a literarytext as somethingselfremovedfromthe world,may it also
referential,
havebeenpartiallyresponsiblefortheomissionof
theory?And to
engagingtechniquesfromnarrative
whatextenthas thisomissionbeenan issueof gender? If we add theengagingnarratorto theparadigmof possible waysa narratorcan relateto a
thatthetechnique
willwe findeventually
narratee,
has in factbeenmorewidelyusedbymalenovelists
thanthisstudysuggests?Or is theengagingnarrator a historicalphenomenon,reflectingcertain
women'simpulsesto speaknineteenth-century
perifnotfroma pulpitthenfroma text-directly,
in theonlypublicforum
sonally,and influentially
opento them?A broaderlook at thehistoricaland
wouldgo
contextsoftheengagingnarrator
literary
a long way,I believe,towardansweringsome of
thesequestions;playingthetheoryoftheengaging
bymenand
offagainstothertexts,written
narrator
still.
women,mightgo further
of Vermont
University
Burlington

Notes
I The assumptionalso pervadestheAnglo-Americantraditionof rhetoricalcriticism,
whichtreats"the reader"as a figurecreatedbythetext.As WalkerGibsonputitin an influential
1955essay,
in everyliterary
Therearetworeadersdistinguishable
experience.
First,thereis the"real"individualuponwhosecrossedkneerests
theopen volume,and whosepersonality
is as complexand ultimately
inexpressible
as anydead poet's.Second,thereis thefictitiousreader-I shallcall himthe"mockreader"-whosemask
and costumetheindividualtakeson in orderto experiencethe
language.The mockreaderis an artifact,
controlled,
simplified,
abstractedout of thechaos of day-to-day
sensation.
(2)
in Booth's"impliedreader"
The idea ofthemockreadersurvives
and in thereaderthatOng assertsis "alwaysa fiction,"existing onlyas a personathatthe writerimaginesand the actual
readermayor maynotadopt.Thiscriticaltradition
removesthe
"actual reader"fromthediscussionofliterary
works,avoiding
the"affective
fallacy"and focusingmoreor lessexclusively
on
interpreting
thetext.See Suleimanand Crosman;Tompkins,
"Introduction";and Wilson.
2 Directaddressto a narratee
in a textwherethenarrative
situationis intradiegetic
(e g., Wuthering
Heights)or wherethenarratoris a characterwithinthenarrative
(e g.,JaneEyreorDavid
Copperfield)has a different
rhetorical
effect
becauseitmirrors

whatspeech-acttheorists
call "thenaturalnarrative
situation"
(see Pratt45). For an insightful
analysisof directaddressthat
fitsthiscategory,see Monod.
3Distancing and engagingare myterms.Veryfewcriticshave
in fictionaltexts.
analyzedtheeffectsof engagingintervention
Fora debatethatfocuseson engagingtechniqueswithoutusing
thetermnarratee,
seeGmelin's,Auerbach's,
and Spitzer'sdebate
overDante's use of directaddressin theDivine Comedy.
4 All threenovelists
maketheirintentions
bothinside
explicit,
and outsidetheirfictionaltexts.See Gaskell'sPrefaceto Mary
Barton (37); Stowe's "Concluding Remarks" in Uncle Tom
(618-29); Stowe'sA Keyto UncleTom'sCabin; and Eliot's "In
WhichtheStoryPauses a Little,"Adam Bede (150).
5 Stanghas shownthatmanymid-nineteenth-century
critics
and reviewers
of narrative
of
novelists
disapproved
intervention;
theperiodwouldhavebeenawareof thetheoretical
objections
to theconvention.
was self-conscious
Eliot,in particular,
about
typicalattitudestowardauthorialcommentary.
See herobservationson Sterne'snarrativeirregularities
(Pinney446).
6 Thoughrhetorical
and reader-response
criticshavedevoted
muchanalysisto Eliot,ifnotto Stoweor Gaskell,theyhavenot
focusedon directaddressor the narratee.See, forinstance,
Harvey;Smith;and Spady.
7 Tompkinsidentifies
similarities
betweenthe formsof addressin UncleTomand theOld Testament
modelsfortheAmerican jeremiad("SentimentalPower").

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

818

Towarda Theoryof theEngagingNarrator

8 Obviouslynot everyreadercan identify

withthenarratee.
Evidenceof the"distanced"responsein hostilereadersof Uncle Tom surfacesin reviewsof the novelby Stowe's contemporaries.See Ammons.
9 Genette'sanalysisof metalepsispointsto a typicallydistancingeffect:"The mosttroublingthingabout metalepsisinthatthe
hypothesis,
deed liesin thisunacceptableand insistent
and
and thatthenarrator
is perhapsalwaysdiegetic,
extradiegetic
his narratees-youand I-perhaps belongto some narrative"

(Narrative236). This resultis thedirectreverseof whatoccurs

in theengaginguse of metalepsis.
10See Conrad and Ford for further
evidencethat modern
tryto stayout of thetext.
novelists,to avoid distancingeffects,
obliviAs Fordputsit,theyintend"to keepthereaderentirely
ous of the factthattheauthorexists-evenof thefactthathe
is readinga book" (76). Fergusondemonstrates,
however,
that
cannot avoid
eventhe most scrupulousof the impressionists
some narrativeintervention.

WorksCited
Ammons,Elizabeth,ed. CriticalEssays on HarrietBeecher
Stowe. Boston: Hall, 1980.
Auerbach,Erich. "Dante's Addressesto theReader."GesammelteA ufsdatze
zurromanischen
Philologie.Bern:Francke,
1967. 145-55.
Booth,WayneC. TheRhetoricofFiction.2nd ed. Chicago: U
of Chicago P, 1983.
Conrad, Joseph. "The Preface to The Nigger of the 'Narcissus."' TheNiggerof the "Narcissus."Ed. RobertKimbrough.New York:Norton,1979.705-17.
Eliot,George.Adam Bede. Ed. JohnPaterson.Boston:Houghton, 1968.
. Scenes of ClericalLife. Ed. David Lodge. Harmondsworth:Penguin,1977.
Ferguson,Suzanne."The Face intheMirror:AuthorialPresence
in theMultipleVisionof Third-Person
Impressionist
Narrative."Criticism21 (1979): 230-50.
Fielding,Henry.The Historyof TomJones,a Foundling.Ed.
SheridanBaker.New York:Norton,1973.
and Fiction."CriticalWritFord,FordMadox. "Impressionism
ingsofFordMadox Ford. Ed. FrankMacShane. Lincoln:
U of NebraskaP, 1964. 33-103.
Gaskell,Elizabeth.MaryBarton.Ed. StephenGill.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1976.
Genette,Gerard. NarrativeDiscourse: An Essay in Method.
Trans.JaneE. Lewin.Ithaca: CornellUP, 1980.
. Nouveau discoursdu recit.Paris: Seuil, 1980.
Gibson, Walker. "Authors,Speakers, Readers, and Mock
Readers."Tompkins,Reader-ResponseCriticism1-6.
Gmelin,Hermann."Die Anredean den Leserin Dantes GottlicherKomodie." DeutschesDante-Jahrbuch
29-30 (1951):
130-40.
Harvey,W. J." The OmniscientAuthorConvention."TheArt
of GeorgeEliot. London: Chatto,1961.64-89.
James,Henry.PartialPortraits.London: Macmillan,1888.
Monod, Sylvere."CharlotteBronteand theThirty'Readers'
ofJaneEyre."JaneEyre.ByCharlotteBronte.Ed. Richard
J.Dunn. New York:Norton,1971.496-507.
AudienceIs Alwaysa Fiction."
Ong,WalterJ.,S.J."The Writer's
PMLA 90 (1975): 9-21.

Pinney,
Thomas,ed. TheEssaysofGeorgeEliot.London:Routledge,1963.
Pratt,MaryLouise.Towarda Speech-Act
TheoryofLiterary
Discourse. Bloomington:Indiana UP, 1977.
Prince,Gerald. "Introductionto the Studyof the Narratee."
Trans.FrancisMariner.Tompkins,
Reader-Response
Criticism 7-25.
. "The NarrateeRevisited."Second Colloquium on
Twentieth-Century
inFrench.AnnArbor,20 Oct.
Literature
1984.Forthcoming
inReadersandAuthors.Spec. issueof
Style19.2 (1985).
Smith,Jane S. "The Reader as Part of the Fiction:Middlemarch."TexasStudiesinLiterature
andLanguage19(1977):
188-203.
Spady, Carol Howe. "The Dynamicsof Reader Responsein
Middlemarch."RackhamLiteraryStudies9 (1978):64-75.
Spitzer,Leo. "The Addressesto theReaderin theCommedia."
RomanischeLiteraturstudien.
Tubingen:Niemeyer,
1959.
574-95.
Stang,Richard.The TheoryoftheNovelinEngland,1850-1870.
New York:Columbia UP, 1959.
Stowe,HarrietBeecher.A Keyto UncleTom'sCabin. Leipzig:
Tauchnitz,1853.
. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Ed. Ann Douglas. Harmondsworth:Penguin,1981.
Suleiman,Susan. "Of Readersand Narratees:The Experience
of Pamela." L'espritcreateur21 (1981):89-97.
TheReader
Suleiman,Susan,and IngeCrosman.Introduction.
in the Text.Princeton:PrincetonUP, 1980. 3-45.
Thackeray,
WilliamMakepeace.Vanity
Fair.Ed. J.I. M. Stewart.
Harmondsworth:
Penguin,1978.
Tompkins,JaneP. "An Introduction
to Reader-Response
Criticism." Tompkins,Reader-ResponseCriticismix-xxvi.
, ed. Reader-ResponseCriticism:From Formalismto
Post-structuralism.
Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UP, 1980.
. "SentimentalPower:Uncle Tom'sCabin and thePoliticsof LiteraryHistory."Glyph8 (1981):93-95.
Warhol,RobynR. "Poeticsand Persuasion:UncleTom'sCabin
as a RealistNovel." Essays in Literature.Forthcoming.
Wilson,W. Daniel. "ReadersinTexts."PMLA 96 (1981):848-63.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:27:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions