Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Lanser-Fictions of Authority

    Transféré par

    anakothe
    77 vues22 pages
    Chapter 1: Towards a Feminist Poetics of Narrative voice

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Chapter 1: Towards a Feminist Poetics of Narrative voice

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    77 vues22 pages

    Lanser-Fictions of Authority

    Transféré par

    anakothe
    Chapter 1: Towards a Feminist Poetics of Narrative voice

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 22
    RESERVA Poin of View Fictions of Authority WOMEN WRITERS AND NARRATIVE VOICE Susan Sniader Lanser Cornell University Press * [4712 fs memory of ny mother ‘Mildred Geren Sader appr © ony Camel Une igh see ae for ee guts a ceri, i book ‘prt thee it ot be erica in ay form tot ermon in wg rm Be ub. Fr orators Cnt Unversy Pen 4 Reber Ph a, New Var gb InraionlSundird Book Number oo gy's (ed) Internal Sandi Book Number 0804-964 (pape) ar: har of Cog alligator on { tox pope © ‘he pape i ee bosk meu the misinwm euiesent Pemene fPge o rimed Liary Matera, ANSI yp4-184 1 ‘Toward a Feminist Poetics of Narrative Voice Wy this pve elationship with the wie? wv atéwe Grou, "The Lah af the Meda” “Few words areas resonant to contemporary feminists as “wice "The term appears in history and philosophy, in sociology, literature, and poychology, spanning diviplinary and theoretical differences. Book lex annwunee “another voice,” a “iflerent voice,” or resurrect the ot voices" of women pocts and pioneers; ional figures ancient and modern, aGual women faqs and obscure, are honored for Speaking up and speaking out! Other silenced communities-peoples ‘of color, peoples struggling agaist colonial rule, gay men and les biane—have also writen and spoken about the urgency of “coming to voike" Despite compelling interrogations of “voice” ava humanist, Fation, for the collectively and personally silted the term has be- ome a trope of kentty and power: as Lace Irigaray suggests, to ind a voice (oes to in a way (oie? site agentes es ett fo seit there ener eon rea Se etal eemne ctor Sea caret matte eee aah ee her ee riea cet eee pee eae ee ¥ tic In sratve poeta Charro, vice i an aly era thongh norecitumseribed er, deogonting erate rom bork nuhors and nominating sorters marvaee Atheugh thy ees aeknomledge the ld accuracy of oe and “ele ‘orgy someting wrt, tes terme pers oven anmmg ae ‘traf secoing to Gerard Conte," the most unaiateha alive someone speaking to me, ling me ory, ng me ‘olaten was he tells i= Narain ental sal rons ad tha svoies far move than the toca erative fo ge 4 story a The nareatve wie athe srvated wend ae tay consi; Wereistotalewhout acter. there isn ler who 1 le This interdependent pres the raat ine pat tha ica once coming and pvieged the naranr haa ho exaence “outside” the text yet rings the text no extence arate speech scanned enki he te of dare, fecne they ae the Ace that make the “nao posable Despite Weir shred recogiton ofthe power oF See” the (wo concepts have ben desernng—the etn and the narvatloge. calendar inguin of ontthetl tendency: the one seera. imei, ant pola the other specie, emis, eh Mica When feminssakabowt woce, we are ually ering tothe teavor of cal or fetonal pervona and groups who ase oma centered points of view Th ern my speak of» ear cha acter who refuses patriarchal pesines a ling vole” whether oF not that vole Is represented text, When narrative thors {SK about sie, we are ually concerned ith formal sutures ane ‘ot withthe eas, ideologies, or socal implcstone of pariuar ‘area paces, With few exception, ein rir doesnot Orcnary consider the eh apc of mation, and uae poets doesnot diary conser the otal properties and pola Implications of narrative vole" Formal pots may seem fo fe 2h in, tr os ee vi i: Gr Ip tee te Sama sam (Si tn yh Bh gt Sci oases ee ere rreaee Merrett ta ‘i asm ny “ew Pema armel (90) 30 9. Tajbracerate aieee ett wii Pt of Naan oie 5 uariepesiisa, sacking slgy a aja crank, ieqaipatisne pecan vEnaed) protic daca ee rettealy meecgfl Perini ken way set earrai apie ey euler sein precon fr elo, napa oF pwodicing dcinaions tat re Cray mening These incompathteeaencen whieh {bw vested ere, offer fafa counterpoint: Aes varatoogeal term, "woe tends {bn ic lone text practce a aid theese feeders of ts more canal ent sage. Ax poi ter, ‘voters textually oma formal ssaton atten teats erarycwens on thy were inconsequential toa ary. When) these to approaches o “wie” converge in wt Misa Bahl tascaled«apeelogial pots t becomes pone o ace arate tnhnigae not spy a prot of oly ta ely Het: normative we, stated at he junta of wee potion a ery prize einai he acl economic aed Trary conn Ter wih iho ben produced? Such scl or material poet refines the ea o which oth marae poetic and seme forms of femii theory have been pron, ames tat he inthe Fst eto a ending of testa proper uniter ne ible or random pheonmans, and nthe scend to the sump ff panhnrval “womens eae” or Teal form T ait that both arrive srctores se womens wing ae determined ter by esental prope or sd sehr imperatives Dut DY mpen ad changing conventions ta are themselves produced it stu by oe reaon of power ha impicte wre, reader, ext Tnmesern Wenem ates during tne centro pin ealte™ wich Tam concerned these onttuents of power must ince, Mie ery en race, fee lm eatonaity, ration emul) oma ea eet baat Some trea Bee ree ar mee ne a ae ane era ge eoteristed aerate eet Ee Lena eb Donates estas eel ea aremenrinn 6 Inbredcton and. rial seus, interacting with sad wihin = given socal for ‘So long at i¢ acknowledges is ol satus a8 hooey rather than claiming to trade in neutral, uninteypreted facts, historically sicuated trueturlist poetic may offer avaiable differential framework for ‘cating specie narrative pattems and practices The exploration ‘Of narrative structures in womens writings may, in ture, challenge the categories and postulates of naratology, since the canon on whieh tuarrative theory is grounded has been relendessy if not intentionally ‘unmade As one contibution to such a feminist poetics of nar tative, this book explores certain configurations of textual voice in Fctions by women of Britain, France, and the United States writing From the mid-eighteenth century co the mi-ewendeth—the period that coineides with the hegernony ofthe novel and is attendant no- tions of individualist) authorship. Reeogniaing that the *author- Fonetion” that grounds Western hterary autoriy i constructed in white, privileged-ass male terms I take as point of departure the Inypothesi dat female voizo— term used here simply to designate the narrator's grammatieal gender—is a ste of ideological tension made visible in textual practices, Tn chs inking social identity and narrative form, 1am postulating that the authority of given voice oF text is produced Teom a eon junction of social and rhetorical properties. Dscursive authorty—by ‘which mean hete the intellecual credibility ideological validity, and sexheticvalue claimed by or conferred upon a work, aulhor, narrator, hiracter, of textial practice produced interactively: it must there fore be characteriaed with respec: to specifi receiving communities, In Western literary systems forthe pas wo centuries, however, dis carsive authority has, with varying degrees of tensity, attached sell most readily {0 white, educated men of hegemonic Keology. One tmajor constiuent of narrative auheriy, therefore, isthe extemt to ‘hich a nartstor’s statue conforms to this dominant roca power. At the same time, narrative thority i alo constituted through (his- toricaly changing) textual strategies that even socially unauthorized 8: Norges formless Gnesi rem, Wo 1st nn pei yo Chain ete ica toni ies ih De Bodo en Coe Pani Pati of Neve Voice i writers ean appropriate. Since such appropriations may of course Tnckire, nonkegemonic writers and narrators may need to strike 3 delicate balance m accommodating and subverting dominant rhetor fea practice ‘Although T have been speaking atout authority asi it were wn: vesalydesiabl, some women writers have of course questioned not ‘aly thowe who hold authority and dhe mechanism by which they are futhoried, but the value of authority 2s madern Western cultures have constructed iI believe, however, chat even novelists wh chal: Fenge thi authority are constrained 1 adopt the authorising conven tions of narrative voice in order, parsdoxicilly, to mou an faulhontative critique of the authority thatthe tent therefore also perpetuates. Carrying oetsuch an Archimedean projet, which seers {o me particularly hazardows for texts seeking canonical satus, ne cesitaes sanding on the very ground one is attempling to decor ‘truet While willacknonledge waysin which women wrterscontinue to challenge even their own authoritative standing, the emphasis of this book i on the projet of sel-authorization, which, I argue, is impli in the very at of authorship. In other words, I assume that egaidless of any wornan write’ ambivalence toward authoriative instivaions and ideologies, che act of writing a novel and seeking to publish iLike myn act of writing a scholarly book and seeking to publish itis impliidy a quest for discursive authority: a ques 10 bbe hear respected, and believed, a hope of influence. Hasuine, thi i dha every writer who publahes a novel wants ito be authoritative for her readers, even if authoritatively antiauthortarian, within the sphere and forthe receiving commurity that che work carves out In aking this ssumption Lam aot denying what Esiward Said calls the “molested” or “sham” ature of textual authority in general and of ficial authority in particular, but Lam also reading the novel 28 2 culearal enterprise that has historically claimed anv received ruth value beyond the fitional have chosen to examine texts thar engage questions of authority specially through thet prpduction of narrative voice In each e280, arate voice isn ste af elie, contradiction, or challenge that is ‘manifested in and sometimes resolved through ideologically charged pty Pros gh pce onthe anaes tl ss Rawr, Mobo Pata Wid aallvtlace phate 4 Ironton technical practices. The texts explore construct narative voices th feel to mre themselves into Literature without leating Literature the same. These narrators, skepial ofthe authostatve aura of Ue inl pe and often eral pf male dominance in general, are none thelese pressed by social and textual convention to reproduce the very stnactutesthey won reformulate Such narrators often calito ques tion the very authority they endorse of, conversely, endorse the au thority they seem to be queatoning, Thats as they strive to create Fetons of autho, thee narrators expose fon of authority a the Wester novel ha constructed it—and in exposing the ftons, they may ent up re-etablshing the authority. Some of these texts work ‘out such dilemmas on ther thematic surfaces, constructing fitons (that i, abnat—authorty, 28 well When I describe tnese completes n some women’ writings Lam rot, however, auggering any kind of “authentic® female voice or arguing that women necestarly write differenty fram men, Rather, Teiew that disavowed writers ofboth sexes Bave engaged in various stealegies of adaptation and critique that make their work “dalogical in ways that Uakhin's formulation, which posts heteroglosia as 3 zeneral modern condition, may obscure." Ieis posible, for example, that women privileged enough to write literature are particulary sus {epible to what Margaret Homans describes a "a specific gender hase alienation from language” born of the “simultaneous parts ‘pation in and exclusion from a hegemonic group." My reading Iniggests that different communities of women have had different degrees of acces to particular narrative forms. Lam especially inter ‘ested in those female narrators who claim public authority, since trithin the historical period T am sudying it has not been voice in {eneral so much as public voice that women have been denied. As 1 Will suggest further Oni this caper, dhese concerns lead me less 10 {new arate poctcs than to a poetic attentive to issues that con tentlonal natratology has devalued or ignored. cermin ooh Soceom and Michael ean eng ge 1 TS vgn een sci a eg, ee tes omit Pai of Noe Vie ; Before describing move fully the focus of tht book, 1 want oi toguate the complex dynamics thc may govern a specific producto bt temale oice by tuning toa carious document that appeared ‘ain’ Casein psi ge: FEMALE INGENUITY. See Coraondce—A young Landy, new mari, bing btiged tn show her hdd the ieters ae rove sent the following a imate end 1 note mie my Dearet rind eats amin he ational state tikes I pour int your only Boo ihc ta ever techn. dinon with ie, The aria deep srations which swell ‘veh the veh ematns of pleasure Inyo burting ear Ul you my dese Frsband one of the most amiable of men ve een rie aver mecha Ive never fou he east Feason to epen che day tha joined my band is person and amen fr from rsenbing Sipe cra, ol agreeable, ad jealous ‘moniter who think by eafining to secure te is man to ea Iason: fend uel config ad nota ploy thing or ren lve the woman hose oe hs companion. Neer pasty espe oug chy imply — Sat eaeh yl to the her by tms— ‘Nnancent maiden sunt nea sven) {chert venerable, and plese ol ad, iver the house jth ue_ebeie the de lige of oth young and olds ch ti toal he seighbourbood round, enero and arable w the poot— inom my husand ves nthing more than he dee eaters we more tha the lu dk intxiion (Wor ust all the ence of iow) plete ane rata a rahe Ihircion sften mates we Bash fr the unworthiness ‘ofr objet ana wh I could bette eying ‘tthe man whose ame I ear Te yall in one word, my dem, and 10 ron the whe, ny forme gala lover ‘Sow ny indulgent aay fod iecturned, and aight hae hed 2 Prince, without he fly {th Thm. Aaieu May yu be as bless Tam un set with that cou be more tppr. Fr those who believe in a “women’s language” thats “polite, emo. ional, enhusastc, gosip,talbative, uncertain, dul, and chatty," ‘or "weak, trivial, ineffectual, tentative, hesiznt, hyperpoie, euphe- ‘ia, and. marked by gossip and gibberiab,"” this text might be Tailed as penfect evidence. Its self-effacing writer, who bushes a her ‘awa “unworthiness,” noneeess cannot “say alin ove word"; rep titen, hyperbole, convolution, and grammatical anomaly are the per ‘ase serucres of her text. tt as heen argued Ut such self Hleprecating, certain, and verbose discourse, which wornen ie cer tain circumseances have supposedly been encouraged to adopt, aso tindermines is owe authority." Tot lets real that this rie was obliged to show the leer to her husbands note atthe boom of the Cadet enty tells that "the key (0 sheave letter, io read the frst znd then every alternate line” 1 cannot bests, my dearest Friend unless I pour into your fend bosom the vrioun deep scratone which swell ‘ny almost busing bear you my dear have been marie seven week, an event the day that oid x, my shard "gh, crus, ol, dingeeable, and jou) ale, his mal to we ab 3 [ly thing or mente he woman fem ough to obey iil 4, Ch roe, rari tage" Wome Longe i at sy EEE eh Bah aie and Net Rom Be Yrs Peg ea 1B Rosell nga Wie Pr ce oN ng Raw, ph Feat Pais of Marat Vie Z ‘Anancent siden mun, neu seventy, Ives tothe house with uabe the de sil toall the nego ded ror Tow my husband loves meting more than the gl snd i cation ‘ten ees me bh forthe wn ft the man whose mane Be frown the whole, my former gla oer ieveaured, and ight have had hi. Adieu may you bea lest 8 am un apes. thins If the surface luer is viwally 4 sunpler of what has pused for “women's language,” this “aubtext isan equally siking example what might stereotypically be cil "me anguage’ “capable, dinet, rational" *xrong" “Tore, ellicent, bm, authoritative, feriws effective, sparing and materful™ This narraco, writing for {ible eye, shows here angry, dcsive, judgment, aeatlyaeare ‘other hus’ deficiencies and her own ist opporturities, Beneath the putatively feminine woe of efisveself-ffuccinent fies the pir taney masculine voie of indignant xlaertion, which the wrker fae! nse the more pb ern of here. The oma lilferences between the lee, which share the same originating Te imle voi, ae clearly not difference in the sex of the naratr though they may be striitabl to diferences in the sex ofthe nar. tate, The ermine style" of the surface tn, that “powerless” non authoritative form ald “women’s language,” fre becomes,» Fowefily subversive mask for tling secrets tos woman under the atcha eyes of a man. In Irigaray’ terms, the surface leer ¢ “irupive nce" "incr delberately dp 4 *eminne™ Potion that i exaggerated it subversion by exposing the mecha ‘isms its own abjection (hereby revealing athe wane time is dependence upon "ihe words ofthe powerful. "The female vice {onl in oder eon” Tom “homes Lngage” became + ‘alelated response to alengtion and ceaorship, an evasion of ma teil test ete hy wil agus, however, chat this discourse is not imp Janguage"™or even, as some linguists would have a unvesa a 1 Itc nuage ofthe powerless"—ut the product of a particylar set of str Eniypes that become codified in Vitorian gender ideologies This Tenge is asecated pecically with the “dy” who maintains ber position through a consrous or unconscious discourse of devotion to the men who eontol her le. Itt las the language of somes than the language of wre: the woman in histext—‘be Independent bua Of female sexi fact represcoted by the voiee whose language ‘would be ealled “masculine.” In other words, in this blaandy dia fogzed Aiscoorse, both voices are Female; “Temale voice” is noc a “essence” ut varthle subject pesiion whose “I” is grammatically feminine. ‘The particular characteristics of any “female voit,” then, area function ofthe context in which that voce operates. This contex, moreover, i lest simple than it appears. Because the lectern delberately coded, the subtext makes the surface letter ern ‘only a fiction and the hividen message all the “truth.” In this ease “womens language” becomes code adopted to confuse a male "pub- li asi privately chat x, to ander woman —a woman can simply say what she means, But thie opposition deconstructs itself when ane ‘aks hove two such disparate narratives can produce 2 continuous tex. The uriculaion between surface and subtext, the syntactic hinge that Dinu and finally transforms the whol, i ast of negative construc tions thatthe decoding praces pares avay 1 have wr Found the es reason to epent ny basen i far fom resell, cast, {ie ii is asin treat 88 playing [etc py) he sys, ough wo dey ipl Tt tae to wah that could be more] Map “This negativity turns outta he more than the link between texts it Inakes the surface text not simply 2 proclamation of one woman’ ‘marital happiness but an indivedt indictment of marriage tel. 1 its negations the surface lll writen "for" the busbar describes ax hormative the kind of marriage the writer claims to hve escaped: fic statement about the speaker's good fortune implies @ norm in tehich brides repent cher tnartiges, husbands are monstrous, and Iromen are "plaything" oF “slaves” Thus, by saying what one mar~ Tage not the surface text shows whats narrator expected marriage {o be, While the subtext condemns one husband and laments one bride's Tate—suggeting that the writer has merely married the Pein Peis of Nee Vie “wrong” man—the surface leer condemns marriage elf presenting astypieal the condition that seem in the been te ial Te Subtest, wilh is portato a mierable Bride, thu becomes ils tration OF the surface text rier than its ates and is Biting thatthe evo versions meet only in shared dsatstacion im the single Fine that doesnot chang: I tannot be satised my date rien tien without the subtext, chen, the surface letter already double voiced, representing in one dacourse bth the uneriteal acceptance ‘one mariage and a critical rejection of mariage ill. This da blenes aio sneans tha the surface Jeter eat ax authoritaive as the hidden undertxe, that authoriey ress not simply in “men's language” Gobi in thie case ie axsertng only an individual, exper ental “wwah’), but also in the inizecion of a censored and stereo typically “feminine” form. Nor is this leuer simply 2 “palimpsst it which “surface designs conceal or obacure deeper, less acessle (and Jes socially accepable) levels of meaning." for this “surface desig” ams out to cary meanings atleast as disturbing as che subtext purport to protec. have explored this leter in some derail not reinforce notions bof discursive seaual difference but, on the contrary, (0 suggest the sompleity and specificity of (women's) narrative practices even in oviourly coved texts. Underscoring crucial differences of function and form berween “private” and "public" discourse, the Jeter rep events ts own formal practices as neither arbitrary nor spy rep resentation, but a response o situation imperatives produced by the relations of power that acs of telling entail, Narrative status, ‘omuact, and stance are revealed to be mistaly consti: the way in which narrators represen themacives, the Flatonships they Mruct with narrates, andthe ideological and affective postions they {ake are dyamic and interdependent elements In illustrating the Inticacies of marratve strategy in culture that censors feral voice, and the specficty of elfferent narrative constructions for diferent fudiences and purposes, the eter asks tote who would not be de ‘ceived “husbands” not only read beneath surfaces but to read 9 facesanew, not ony to read manifest “contr” ut to rea the content ‘of manifest "orm," Aud if the eter as private correspondence seems ‘0 figure the male athe dpe reader and the female ae the Hes! ie ie te hat en 4 Indio netheleuer aa pableocuments is science wide emi of ether sex who, presented ih the texts appeared in ‘Shan Gr co vend beyond the immediate context of teeter sien crcumstanceto uncestandtemale ingenuity arcuate tive Tilly, the publication of thier in sein dy where Aiea Ameri ae ite women weve becoming involved in aboiions srt fhe Phacepha ema AiStaver Scety was founded in 3g) sugges tha the reaonaip Betwen prinrhy and sivery inti inthe veferonce othe me a "real aye" may be more thar eal oth aes the problema Mistry of white women’s Spropriatin o avery by watlgy" and reminds ws that American sifant tha that ispased on the young bride Private wice (here, ince it samen am eat enn Pai of Henave Voce Z the voice of the bride addressing only ber closest female fiend bee feomes sn enabling strategy for wring what ix manifestly Farbidden x “public” narraive. To other compelingexpanaions for women's Foricl auociation with the novels formal se themtic plablity ithe time when women began writing in significane numbers ite vbaguousstats a erate, is feasibility a source of both income land discursive power—one must auely add the opportunites the hovel aor for creating voices on the margins of fein ad history thot both mask snd enable the mo challenging fictions af authority “This book begins wih dhe simlaneus “vt of the novel and epergencs of modern ender Meni the dightendy cnt fd ove toward wht may well be he wight of buh As Tata rate pesca roles elkoreg prtecion witaid ogy, val be asking what Toes of Wie have boen arable to ‘omen, ad to which women. a faneular moments My intention is to eaplore through apealy formal evidence the intercon of focal end and teal fore, reading cain apoty of aretive foie asa erties of ecg. Teer papion! the boos ate ce ednctnoilenmnd {cra in te ata of theo natin mode ih el, Pepin) clpaligerecal tal Cromer wee ach als Tepresents ot simply ast of techni dsincions bi a paral is efter cesarean pence ftir ecco pi a itanpenypraiairaperd psc Asoo fir a, buwever I wl be concerned mth two apts of aration that I conse of gener sifeacein the construction otexta auhorky than area pores hw trations lowed‘ Bat the Bi ticon between priate woe (ration directed tar 3 narater ‘ho a tial character) ar pubic vice (eration dred o- ata breech foto nia a mabgoaty to "ade The some isthe dion bata naruive cats hat doand hose hat or permit narrative self eterence by which {mean expt atenin the ac of aration ae ey hy bots gneed conns pe wee a tara Sctacference serve important role In Felting womens ces © discursive authority, ay Ts the erm adi oe tient raraive stations thre teteoiigeti, pu, and puenalyselfrterenal (Gerard Co Ses obey tat ereny neror eect an enng "> 6 Aircon suggests the move precise term Aetadigti for what is taditonally Called "third-person" narration ia which the narrator & wot a partie ipantin the Retional work and exists on a separate ontoogieal plane trom the characters") The mode Lam calling authorial i also "ex tradiegetic” and public directed (03 narratee mho i analogous 1 a Fendi audience." {have chosen the term thorn not to ixply nontolgical equivalence between narrator and author bucto sugges. that such a vole (rejpraduces the strucural and frictional sivaation ft authorship In other words, where 2 distinction herwcen the plied} author and a public, heterodiegevc narrator isnot textually Imarkedh readers are inte to equate the narator with the author tnd the narrate with themselves (or dheir historical equivalents). This ‘Conventional equilon gives authorial voice a privileged status among rarraive forms; a8 BaKitin states, we the discourse of a character fr a siplzed narrator in abays contingent “object of authori ut ‘ersanding," authoral discourse ened toward is own straight- Forward referential meaning." Moreover, since authori narrators exit outside narrative ine (indeed, “outside” fiction) and are not “humanized” by events they conventionally carry an authority ste perior to that conferred on charters, even on narrating characers Tsing the term “authorial"I mean a8 well evoke Franz Starve’ tlstineton in Narrative Situations inthe Novel between “auchoval” and “figural” modes: while authorial narrative permits what Lam caling narrative sel-teferenee i the figural” modell marravion is Fcalized through the perspectives of characters, and thus no reference to the ‘narator or the narrative situation is feasile. T wan tosggest asa major element of authori satus distinction between narrators who engage exclusively in acts of representation that who simply predicate the words and ations of Betonal cha fcters_and those who undertake “extarepresentational” acts reflec: tions, judgments, generalizations about the work “beyond” the ition, tect addreses tothe norrtec, comments on the narrative process st a a a ea Hears ay nee ef me ia a ‘Tr ilo Baby, Pl of Duet Pic, an ane Gar Enea (Min ae wtf ako Penis Pots of Novae Ve i allusions to other writers and texts 1 wil be ang the tern aoe aby or spy eutity¥0 refer to practic by whi hee trodiegete, publ solreferena warators perform these “extra presentational” Faneions noe acl reuived for telling tale 1 i speculating cha acs OF presentation make 3 mote inte ch tp dcrive autor than extrarepreseiatonal acy which expand the sphere of ftional author 10 honfctiona eerents a low the witer to engae, fom within the Retin nacre’ heray, Soci, sndntlletal detaes. On the other hand, a8 Shlonith moon: Kenan his oserved, when a nasatr “becomes mare over tis chances ing lyre ae diminise, since is erpre tno, judgement, gereralaions are nt alway compatble with {he norms of tempted author™ Estarepresrational ac ae especily cial w a poyglesic te novel bene they ene the narrator tvconarac the that Genet dese the foundation of versie” other wor, the recepion ofa novel rests on a implicit st of prints by which textuaeves (forex, character! behaviors) $rerendered plausible To the degre that a ex valves deviate fom éaltral gens an they wl to sore degree all ut the met = ‘mule of fctions) they must be exablshed (or inferred) for exch "arate instances that reader can consti the story aplawible and embe iin a "worl view." Ldelogcally opporional writers night wish, thetetore, to “taxied artes in onde ether tapos alernanetextual ideologies orto cstablish the writer through her author rarrator-eqivalen, a significant pata n temporary debater the more during those period when the novel tase of he ew ace eas fr wane nerve fn pubic 1 should nt be dict to understand why, wth differences Kind and incest according to time, place and rcumatance, women “writers adoption of vert authori hax ally nea tranagressing orth te ore! may oe ene i ws di hues bins en Ree ie Po ann Ma, 2D i ate, Re mt ty, sin Wnts in ag bygone eas ne Suara Yt Pat ea a severed rhetarical codes. J cures such as the gnes 1am exam Ning. where women's access 10 public dicousse has Been curtailed, it as been one thing for women simply to tll stores and another for their narrators to set themselves forth a authorities. Indeed, a thorial voice has been x9 converiionaly ausculine that female a horship docs not necessarily establish female wie: 2 starting fume of erties have referred inthe generic masculine © the nar ators of such novels as La Princesse de Cleves and Pride nd Pred.” Thus, on the ne hand, since a heterodiegetc narrator need fit be idemtfed by sex, the authorial move has allowed women access to Smale” authority by separating the narrating “from the female tualy, tis ofcourse in the explotaton ofthis pasty chat women, writers have used male narratorsand pseudonyms fact that may have profited individual writers or texts, but that havesurelyalo reinforced the andvocentrism of narrative authority). On the other hand, when ln authorial woice has represented itll a Female thas risked being “isiquaied. I is posible that women's wring has carried fuller public authority when its voi has not been marked as female “The narrators discuss in Pat [ofthis book have sought not simply to tel stories, but through avert suhoral practices to make them feltes (and, I presume, their authors) signifcanc literary presences, ‘After examining an eighteenth

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi