Monday, January 29, 2007

Alphra Behn: Unbiased Narrator or Omniscient Story-teller?

As Grace mentioned, readers of Oronooko can’t help but to become enthralled in the writing style that Behn incorporates into the narrative. Her style is captivating, which is important because, as readers, we must rely on a well-informed narrator to guide us through the narrative since there are no clear divisions and it at times can be confusing to follow. However, as a reader, I found myself also questioning some areas where I thought Behn was blurring the line between fiction and fact, which led me to further ponder the question of her role as narrator. Ultimately, is she an unbiased narrator, strictly adhering to Oronooko’s account or is she an omniscient story-teller, crafting her story from various accounts and adding details as she saw fit, or is she a combination of the two?

One of her most important assets is the detail with which she spends describing the various characters. We not only know what their outward physical appearances are, but we are given a glimpse into their inner workings. Behn alludes to this notion in her dedicatory to Lord Maitland: “An ill hand may diminish, but a good hand cannot augment history. A poet is a painter in his way, he draws to the life, but in another kind; we draw the nobler part, the soul and mind” (3). This level of detail enables readers to have a well-rounded perspective of each character and allows them to make judgments for themselves regarding these individuals. For example, several people have noted the detail with which she describes Oronooko. She uses the same level of detail when describing those around him as well, as seen in the description of Oronooko’s new owner, Mr. Trefry. Of his physical appearance, she writes: “… so extraordinary in his face, his shape and mein, a greatness of look, and haughtiness in his air” (41).

However, I would argue that there are areas where, I find myself questioning Behn as the narrator. For example, Behn does not meet Oronooko until he is on Surinam. Yet, the level of detail in the first half of the novel does not change or become greater in the second half. Also, with regard to her level of detail, how did Behn so accurately know the feelings of her characters? For instance, she writes: “Trefry soon found that he [Oronooko] was something greater than he confessed; and from that moment began to conceive so vast an esteem for him that he ever after loved him as his dearest brother, and showed him all the civilities due to so great a man” (42). Unless Behn was present at that exact moment, I find it hard to believe that she knew exactly how Trefry felt. Yet, the narrator does not appear to be unsure of herself when making this declaration.

Thus, I would argue that Behn’s narrative is somewhat biased in the sense that we are only being told the story through Oronooko’s eyes, and as such, it is a limited perspective. That said, Behn does her best as an artist to paint an accurate portrayal of Oronooko’s life as he has told it to her. Although there are some embellishments and exaggerations, these are elements of the story that make it so great and have allowed it to be passed on through generations of readers. Nonetheless, from the simple fact that we are still reading Oronooko today, it can be said that Behn, as a narrator, achieved her ultimate goal. That is, creating a narrative with the “power to preserve this great man” (5).

1 comment:

thowe said...

This is a very interesting post by Laura, especially because it touches on one of the most important themes developed in Oroonoko: the ability of language to represent truth(fully). While I question the precise way in which Laura is seeing Behn using "detail"--especially in the general dedication and the portions of the text drawing shape from the romance tradition--we should indeed question the narrator's stated goal of telling a true story.

I don't think we can say that Behn's general prose style is highly "detailed," though. In fact, she takes great care to paint her characters in highly stylized, general language--for instance, Laura's quote: "Of [Trefry's] physical appearance, she writes: “… so extraordinary in his face, his shape and mein, a greatness of look, and haughtiness in his air” (41)." What, precisely, is "detailed" about this? What color hair does he have, is his face weathered? What makes him "haughty"? These are the kinds of things that the style of chivalric romance is not interested in capturing. What is "his shape and mein" like, exactly? Note all the superlatives that Behn uses while describing her characters--they're always the most this, the most that. Her adjectives are very rarely concrete and almost always exaggerated, abstract, or figurative.

But, Behn does incorporate a different level of detail that does lend "an air of authenticity," as Watt would say, to her narrative. For instance, Trefry is an actual man, a historically real figure; as is Willoughby, Charles II, Byam, and other characters. Even the places (Surinam, Cormantien/Ghana) and the national interests she references (British colonies, Dutch colonies, their struggles during the period, and so on). What Laura is noticing, I think, is a very real tension between these two levels of discourse--the backward looking, "nostalgic," highly-stylized discourse of chivalric romance, and the contemporary, even violent, highly particularized discourse of the "modern novel." Behn's narrator is torn between these two worlds; hence, the schizophrenic nature of her prose style.

I think we can make the argument, too, that Behn's narrator is attuned to this discursive schizophrenia--note all the places in the text where lying, promises, and "one's word" are mentioned? We can extend this logically to include the issue of accurate representation itself--after all, what is any text but a representation of something else? A re-presentation? Texts are never the "things themselves"; there's always a level of representation in between, a filter as it were. This is why the question of "biased" representation is kind of moot--all representation is biased, it's just a question of how much, to what end, and whether the individual doing the representing acknoweldged her biases.

Finally, a point of accuracy: Laura notes that "we are only being told the story through Oronooko’s eyes." Is this actually true? Whose "eyes" are we getting the story through?