Psychological characteristies of the omniscient narration

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Psychological characteristies of the omniscient narration

.

The topicality of the research. Studying narrative levels of graphic novels, it is naturally to be located in the field of narrative studies and it will attempt to mould a narrative method suitable for studying of graphic novels, for studying of the world of image. As there is not any established method exists yet, this thesis we'll begin by combining various theoretical researches from the field of traditional narrative studies, such as Seymour Chatman and Gerard Genette, with various views on visual narration and researches of studying comics. A basic structural analysis of «Watchmen» (1986) by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons is the initial goal, and later chapters will attempt at more detailed analysis of the various narrative aspects of a graphic novel. It is important to point out right at the beginning that in the context of this study, the general terms of traditional narrative study are not directly applicable, but must be reconsidered and possibly redefined when applied. Therefore, terms such as narrative studies poorly, as no single narrator can be extracted from the story appearing in a graphic novel, as the images are not «narrated» in a way traditional written novels are. It is more useful to borrow the term «narration» from the field of film studies. Still, in this thesis the terms from narrative studies will be applied from the point of view of comic book narration and its requirements.

Comics do not have an omniscient narrator in the same way that traditional literature does, no all-knowing all-seeing power behind the action. As discussed in previous chapters, comics do use focali- zers and narrators and point-of-view shots, which are an integral part of the narration of the graphic novel. One could argue that the omniscience of narration takes place in the visual depiction of the narrative when no focalization takes place and the images merely illustrate the actions from a clearly outside point of view.

The review of recent researches. The researcher Seymour Chatman [1, P. 11] has resorted to film studies and calls this type of storytelling «Hollywood aesthetics», where the narration becomes «invisible» and the focus is on the events instead of the narration. According to Chatman, the reader is «pulled in» to the story, and only after a visible break in the narrative structure does the reader once again become aware of the narrative structure and the discourse it applies and consequently use different interpretational tools. The question is not this simple, however. According to John Morreall, an omniscient narrator is one who knows about «events occurring at any time or place, in complete detail, and not just about public events but also about the private thoughts and feelings of the characters» [1, p. 13]. This statement does not hold when discussing the narration in Watchmen, as for example the traditional thought balloons depicting private thoughts are not shown at all to the reader.

So, the tasks of our research are:

1. To analyze the narration of «Watchmen» and to show the role of the implicit omniscience.

2. To describe psychological characteristics of the omniscient narration.

3. To propose psycholinguistic aspects of narrative discourse.

The main material of the research. The argument is that every story has its point of view, so there must be someone telling the story from that point of view. Watchmen creates an interesting dilemma here, for who is the person behind the collection of appendices? Who is the mysterious «we» that presents the excerpts from the various sources, some of them clearly of very private nature? The events are «filtered through» by a consciousness, which according to G.Genette makes the idea of «omniscience» impossible, as an omniscient narrator knows everything, past, present and future - with no need to have a point of view or a presentation of the events in a chronological order [2, p. 43]. At this point I was obliged, in order to continue the research, to assemble the ideas of the «hie- rarchy of discourses» that reveal and conceal the amount of knowledge available to the reader by presenting the events of the story through «less knowledgeable» agencies such as various characters. Thus, we do not know any more about the plot by Adrian Veidt than Rorschach and Nite Owl investigating it, as the events have been filtered through their experiences; at least that would be the case had not the appendices with their information. As the readers are equipped with the appendices, the readers are in possession of more knowledge than the characters, which positions the reader in an interesting position in the hierarchy of discourses in «Watchmen». The fact that these hierarchies exist mean that choices are being made for the reader of the comic, events are presented in one way rather than another, which is the essence of narration itself. Every panel is a deliberate scene shown to us for a purpose of the narrative, the gutter closing every panel. So who shows us the scenes, gives out the small clues to solve the mystery, who allows us a sudden access to the memories of the characters? Are these questions even relevant when discussing a medium as visual as comics? Our personal answer to the problematics of an omniscient narrator is to appeal to the author and his/her creative control, transferring the omnipotence to the author. S.McCloud, on the other hand, transfers this process to the reader, who creates and controls the narrative via acquiring knowledge divided by the text [3].

Naturally, the problem of omniscience is far more extensive to be thoroughly dealt with it in the present thesis, so let me just present the briefing of my point of view on this problem. Getting deeper into the matter of the question we may problematize the religious undertones linked with the term, as the usual analogy that is made between the author/narrator and God, and the basis for the idea is what I refer to a «Perfect Being Theory». The main problem in theology is the question of the compatibility of omniscience and free will, both which I claim are taken for granted as necessary and desirable. The idea of a «perfect being» is literally put to test in «Watchmen», for th e character of Dr.Manhattan IS as close to God as a character can be: he is «omniscient» in a sense, for he knows all events past, present and future, and omnipotent as he potentially has the power to destroy the world (or save it). But omniscient characters and narrators differ greatly in their «readiness to share their unlimited knowledge with the reader». Dr.Manhattan does have access to Laurie's thoughts, as shown to us in the dialogue between him and Laurie in Chapter VIII:

«Jon? Oh Jesus, I... I, I mean they said you'd gone. They said you were on Mars... »