Is it my imagination or is the author playing games with the narrator? As I read the first chapter, I felt like the narrator was telling the action as if it was in past, as if it had already happened. Then chapter two starts with dialogue between Theresa and Carlotta in the present tense. I felt a little ambiguity because the narrator could be recounting the dialogue that happened in the past or switching to present tense. Chapter 3 starts in the present tense, “It is well known…” but then ends in the past?? Am I missing something? In the 5th paragraph “A long period of silence followed this short dialogue, and we shall take advantage thereof to acquaint our readers with the two young women …” She appears to be still in the past tense, but pausing the action as if it was the present.
And on several occasions the narrator speaks directly to the readers. On p. 37 speaking of Enrique she says, “Did his soul understand that other passionate soul of which he was master?…We do not know: the events themselves will soon tell us and will then shape the opinions of our readers.” How can the narrator not know? This sentence seems to be an indication of the present.
The narrator also seems to be establishing his/her power over the text and therefore the reader, not only the power of the narrator, but writers in general as authors. This plays into our previous discussions in class of the part the author plays in establishing meanings by the selections and presentation of events. But she makes a decision not to do this and tells us so.
Not only does the narrator address the reader directly, but tells us her purpose. “Not wanting to get ahead of things, we will limit ourselves for now to providing some knowledge of the people who appear in this story and of the events leading up to it.” (p. 37) Here are the events. You decide if Enrique understands and is deserving of Carlota. Preceding this statement, she plants questions in the mind of the reader to get him/her wondering. “Did Enrique Otway deserve so beautiful a passion?” “Did he share in that divine enthusiasm which permits Heaven to be dreamt on earth?” The narrator wants the reader to start questioning and draw their own conclusions, and s/he will present the story in a way that allows that to happen. S/he is drawing in, mentally engaging the reader and making it personal.
February 11, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I found the shift in narration odd, too. It was a rhetorical style of the period, I believe, where the authors felt it necessary to keep an open dialogue with the reader, often upsetting the time frame, and confusing rather than adding to one’s appreciation of novelistic style. Really quite annoying! (Although I do think Avellaneda writes well in other respects.)