Abstract
This chapter examines the use of different types of we-narration in two literary stories that portray the theme of neglect and alienation in modern society, Janice Galloway’s ‘Scenes from the life no. 26: The community and the senior citizen’ and Jon McGregor’s Even the Dogs. Both texts have an observing we-narrator. Galloway’s short story presents a voyeuristic commentator, apparently watching a staged performance. This we becomes increasingly detached as the narrative progresses, possibly preventing readers from fully empathising. By contrast, McGregor’s we-narrator is highly involved, contributing personal knowledge and memories. The degree of involvement of these we-narrators is quite different, but both texts use their unusual perspectives to provide unsettling views of those who have fallen into a state of neglect and are marginalised by society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
The character is referred to as the “OLD WOMAN” (in capitals) throughout the main narrative, except where she subsequently becomes “MRS MAULE” (again in capitals).
- 2.
In addition to features of a play script (capitals for participant designations and some passages of dialogue in play script form embedded in the narrative), stage-related words are used such as “off-stage” (53), “prop” (55) and “performance” (57). Galloway has commented in an interview in relation to this and her other “Scenes” stories: “this was partly playing with what a play might be, what a play might not be […] The idea of writing a play that couldn’t possibly be a play” (Galloway 2006: 20).
- 3.
Jackson (2004: 14) describes the effect of this text as “astonishingly disconcerting”.
- 4.
For example, she clears the kitchen of everything, including simply throwing her plate in the bin, as if there is no longer a need for these items (52). When she leaves the bathroom, we are told that the cabinet and room “have served their purpose” (55). There appears to be a specific objective underlying her actions since “Her meticulousness suggests planning; preparations made for a specific moment […] the moment is come” (54–55).
- 5.
The nature of the viewing situation is unclear. The we is said to be observing a stage, although some critics have described the presentation style as cinematic (e.g. Jackson 2004: 15). There is an indication that there is control of how the scene is mediated towards the start of the story, “Someone increases the volume further” (48), which is perhaps more likely in a cinema setting than for a stage production.
- 6.
See Jobert’s (2016) discussion of how such linguistic constructions can represent a sub-group within the we.
- 7.
This illusion may be challenged by the stage set-up and by the fact that this supposedly frail old lady suddenly herself clears the stage of the armchair and settee for the final “performance”, a postmodernist contradiction ( e.g. McHale 1987).
- 8.
No-one else except the health visitor appears in the story and she does not seem to make any effective contribution to the old woman’s welfare.
- 9.
The punctuation (in this and other examples) is given as in the original text. The novel is printed in this edition without question marks.
- 10.
Alexander (2013: 740) believes that this voice is “difficult to locate or identify with any precision”.
- 11.
Laura is mentioned as being part of the we-group on page 8, but this we-group reference relates to the previously-living enactors of the ghosts —since Laura is alive at the end of the story it seems unlikely that she is one of the we-ghosts. Mike’s status is rather unclear—he is part of the group in life and seems to be either part of the ghostly we-group or at least has direct contact with them. Mike is in a coma for part of the narrative so his consciousness may be displaced in ghostly form, but he is not dead.
- 12.
See Sanford et al. (2008) for a psychological study of institutional “they ”.
- 13.
McGregor discusses this point in an interview (Edwards 2010: 242).
- 14.
Interview with Jon McGregor (Edwards 2010: 238).
References
Alexander, N. (2013) ‘Profoundly ordinary: Jon McGregor and everyday life’, Contemporary Literature 54(4): 720–751.
Edwards, C. (2010) ‘An Interview with Jon McGregor’, Contemporary Literature 51(2): 217–245.
Emmott, C. (1997) Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galloway, J. (1992) ‘Scenes from the life no. 26: The community and the senior citizen’, in J. Galloway, Blood, London: Minerva, pp. 46–57.
Galloway, J. (2006) ‘Janice Galloway’ (interview), in Murray, I. (ed.), Scottish Writers Talking 3, Edinburgh: John Donald, pp. 1–58.
Ganteau, J.-M. (2013) ‘Trauma and the ethics of vulnerability: Jon McGregor’s Even the Dogs’, Études Britanniques Contemporaines, Accessed 15th July 2016. Online: http://ebc.revies.org/940
Ganteau, J.-M. (2014) ‘Vulnerable form and traumatic vulnerability: Jon McGregor’s Even the Dogs’, in Onega, S. and Ganteau J-M (eds.) Contemporary Trauma Narratives: Liminality and the Ethics of Form, New York: Routledge, pp. 89–104.
Jackson, E.-R. (2004) ‘Love in a changing environment: Placing Janice Galloway’s short stories’, Edinburgh Review (special issue, L. Jackson (ed.) Exchanges: Reading Janice Galloway’s fictions): 7–20.
Jobert, M. (2016) ‘Odd pronominal narratives: The singular voice of the first-person plural in Julie Otsuka’s The Buddha in the Attic’, in Sotirova, V. (ed.) The Bloomsbury Companion to Stylistics, London: Bloomsbury, pp. 537–552.
Marcus, A. (2008) ‘We Are You: The Plural and the Dual in “We” Fictional Narratives’, Journal of Literary Semantics 37(1): 1–21.
Margolin, U. (2001) ‘Collective perspective, individual perspective, and the speaker in between: On “we” literary narratives’, in Van Peer, W. and Chatman, S. (eds.) New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective, Albany, NY: State University of New York, pp. 241–253.
McGregor, J. (2010) Even the Dogs, London: Bloomsbury.
McHale, B. (1987) Postmodernist Fiction, New York: Methuen.
Richardson, B. (2006) Unnatural Voices: Extreme Narration in Modern and Contemporary Fiction, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Sanford, A. J. and Emmott, C. (2012) Mind, Brain and Narrative, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanford, A. J., Filik, R., Emmott, C., and Morrow, L. I. (2008) ‘“They’re digging up the road again”: The processing cost of institutional they’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61: 372–380.
Shklovsky, V. (1965) ‘Art as technique’, in L. T. Lemon and M. J. Reis (eds.), Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 3–24). [First published in Russian in 1917.].
Skloot, F. (2010) ‘Drug wars’, Sunday book review, The New York Times, April 9th 2010, Accessed 15th July 2016. Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/books/review/Skloot-t.html?_r=0
Wales, K. (1996) Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Emmott, C. (2018). The Observing We in Literary Representations of Neglect and Social Alienation: Types of Narrator Involvement in Janice Galloway’s ‘Scenes from the Life No. 26: The Community and the Senior Citizen’ and Jon McGregor’s Even the Dogs . In: Gibbons, A., Macrae, A. (eds) Pronouns in Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95317-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95317-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95316-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95317-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)