What is a "satisfactory" narrator?
The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 24 Oct 1999
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1844

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright
in each message remains with the person who wrote it.

Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original
archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than
retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.

==============================================================================

Daniel Fusch — 24 Oct 1999, 21:23

William Ansley:

snip:
"Whether Severian is a reliable narrator or not, he is certainly an
unsatisfactory one by any of the usual standards of story telling."

But what ARE the "usual standards" of storytelling? What does it take for a 
narrator to be "satisfactory"? Literature is full of unreliable and 
inconsistent narrators who leave most of the work to the reader.

Is Ishmael, the completely enigmatic and often inconsistent narrator of 
"Moby Dick" -- satisfactory?

What about the poet who narrates "Paradise Lost" -- wherein the reader is 
expected to weed through the arguments and speeches in order to fill in 
what's missing, what's wrong, and what is intentionally deceiving?

What about the narrator(s) of "The Sound and the Fury" -- in which the 
reader supplies nearly ALL the details of the plot based on subtle clues?

How do we define a satisfactory narrator? For that matter, does the plot 
need to be linear and explained in order to qualify as good storytelling? 
(Of course, some people don't like the epics, and some people don't like 
modernism....)

Here's my point--or rather my question--isn't Gene Wolfe, through Severian, 
asking us to examine the way we perceive storytelling? Consider that 
storytelling is thousands of years old, and has passed through many 
forms--at one time it was an oral form in which the audience was invited to 
participate.

Consider the modern Japanese--I don't know about their stories, but in their 
nonfiction, they consider it an insult to the reader if they outright state 
the conclusion for the reader. The reader is expected to put the pieces 
together and draw the conclusion.

Severian's fictional audience may not expect the same manner of storytelling 
that we expect. "The Book of the New Sun" should really be treated--for all 
intents and purposes--as a work translated from another culture. That, after 
all, is the effect that Wolfe is trying to achieve.

My 2 cents,
Daniel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Straight — 25 Oct 1999, 12:56
  follows, by subject match Daniel Fusch

> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Daniel Fusch wrote:
> "Whether Severian is a reliable narrator or not, he is certainly an
> unsatisfactory one by any of the usual standards of story telling."

[...]

> Here's my point--or rather my question--isn't Gene Wolfe, through
> Severian, asking us to examine the way we perceive storytelling?
> Consider that storytelling is thousands of years old, and has passed
> through many forms--at one time it was an oral form in which the
> audience was invited to participate. 

[...]

> Severian's fictional audience may not expect the same manner of
> storytelling that we expect. "The Book of the New Sun" should really be
> treated--for all intents and purposes--as a work translated from another
> culture. That, after all, is the effect that Wolfe is trying to achieve. 

As I first read this, I wondered if you weren't conflating Wolfe and
Severian.  That last paragraph seems like handwaving, unless we have some
evidence that Severian's culture has different narrative standards than
our own. 

We have some data to consider the question.  Severian repeats several
stories not of his own invention.  Do they show any of the same
idiosyncrasies as Severian's narrative?

-Rostrum

------------------------------------------------------------------------------