ABSTRACT Title of Document: BRITISH MODERNIST ... - DRUM

Whereas Genette’s discussion of homodiegetic external narration centers on firstperson
narrative, which Barthes had argued was absurd or impossible, 23 Frobisher’s
homodiegetic external narration is in the third person. That is, the possible absurdity
of homodiegetic external narration is fully externalized: the self is not simply outside
of the self’s own thoughts, but outside of its own body. Narrative theory traditionally
gives narrators a certain power over the story, but unlike Maggie Verver, who is able
to control her own story by narrating it, Frobisher, in narrating his own movements,
cedes whatever power over them he might have had left. External narration of the self
splits not only mind but body, eliminating any hierarchical connection between the
two. Of course, this homodiegetic external third-person narration is itself contained
within homodiegetic internal first-person narration, creating a multi-leveled
polyautonarration. An older Frobisher remains the first-person narrator of the
protagonist’s story, narrating the actions and thoughts of his younger self without
resort to free indirect discourse or interior monologue, mimics his younger self’s
attempts at objectivity. The diegetic doubling of the self is then, in turn, a further
iteration of the split that occurs between diegetic narrator and protagonist. To narrate
oneself is to create two selves. To multiply the self is to diffuse control of the self. It
23 Barthes in his “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives” divides all narration into
“personal” and “apersonal.” Third-person narratives are either personal or impersonal depending on
whether a sentence may be translated into the first person with a simple substitution of pronouns.
Barthes argues that the sentence, “the tinkling of the ice against the glass appeared to give Bond a
sudden inspiration” cannot be so translated due to the impersonal nature of the verb “appeared”
(Barthes 283). The verb “appeared” implies external narration: the narrator does not know whether
the glass gave Bond an inspiration, whereas an internal narrator would know (or, rather, narrate)
Bond’s true internal state, which cannot, from an internal point of view, be a matter of appearance.
Of course, this line of argument implies a sort of unity and certainty about the internal self, a
perfect knowledge of one’s own mental state by virtue of the internal point of view. The
Unfortunates, as we see here, does not ascribe to this view of the self or the consciousness.
193