Gender and Narrative Perspective in Margaret Atwood’s Stories
Let me sketch my conception of narrative perspective first (cf. Meindl, pp. 14–30). It hinges upon the distinction between what I call the authorial and figural frame of reference in narrative discourse. This distinction governs a system of narrative privileges and limitations. The figural frame of reference features a first-person narrator or, in third-person narrative, a centre-of-consciousness figure. These narrator or reflector figures have no direct access to the minds of other characters, whose thoughts cannot be simply stated. Thus, narrative perspective is limited in quantitative terms. On the other hand, the attitude and views of a narrator or reflector figure are only conditionally valid. They can occupy the whole range of human modes: reliability, error, deception of self or others, and so on. In qualitative terms, narrative perspective is thus unlimited. Conversely, in the authorial frame of reference of third person narrative, the minds of the fictional characters are open to inspection. A character’s thought can be simply stated. Quantitatively speaking, narrative perspective is thus unlimited. On the other hand, authorial attitude is not equivalent to a narrating figure or subject with potentially subjective views.
KeywordsFemale Focalisers Figural Frame Authorial Attitude Narrative Perspective Free Indirect Discourse
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Atwood, Margaret, Dancing Girls and Other Stories, Bantam Seal Book (Toronto: McClelland & Steward-Bantam, 1978).Google Scholar
- Atwood, Margaret, Bluebeard’s Egg, Bantam Seal Book (Toronto: McClelland Steward-Bantam, 1984).Google Scholar
- Brown, Russell M., ‘Atwood’s Sacred Wells’, Essays on Canadian Writing, no. 17 (1980) pp. 5–p43.Google Scholar
- Davey, Frank, ‘Alternate Stories: the Short Fiction of Audrey Thomas and Margaret Atwood’, Canadian Literature, no. 109 (1986) pp. 5–16.Google Scholar
- Godard, Barbara, ‘Palimpsest: Margaret Atwood’s Bluebeard’s Egg’, RANAM, no. 20 (1987) pp. 51–60.Google Scholar
- Hutcheon, Linda, The Canadian Postmodern: A Study of Contemporary English-Canadian Fiction (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
- Jehlen, Myra, ‘Archimedes and the Paradox of Feminist Criticism’, in Elizabeth and Emily K. Abel (eds), The’ signs’ Reader: Women, Gender and Scholarship (Chicago, III: University of Chicago Press, 1983) pp. 69–75.Google Scholar
- Meindl, Dieter, Der amerikanische Roman zwischen Naturalismus und Postmoderne (1930–1960): Eine Entwicklungsstudie auf diskurstheoretischer Grundlage (Munich: Fink, 1983).Google Scholar
- Miller, Nancy K. ‘Preface’, in Nancy K. Miller (ed), The Poetics of Gender (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986) pp. xi–xv.Google Scholar