One issue that having so many different narrators creates is the conflicting points of view. We as readers must decide which narrator is more trustworthy in each situation. However, this is even more complicated when Darl narrates, as he seems to have some kind of omniscience or ESP. How he knows about events happening while he is not present is not explained at this point in the novel, and probably won't be. Therefore, as readers we must decide whether or not these seemingly clairvoyant sections are reliable or not.
The way that these sections are written it does not seem that he is retelling what he was told by someone else, someone who was present. Instead, he seems to be observing the scene much the same as a third person omniscient narrator would. The only difference is that his narration of what is happening far away is interspersed with bits of what his happening to himself, Jewel and the wagon. I think that if we can trust what we hear from narrator in this book, we can trust Darl as well. He seems to be Faulkner's way of putting an omniscient narrator into this book without disrupting the structure of narration by all the characters. If this is true, then perhaps these clairvoyant passages are in fact Faulkner speaking directly to the reader without the intermediary step of a character narrator.
Regardless of whether or not this is Faulkner's direct narration, there is little reason to distrust Darl. He seems to be one of the most objective of the narrators, and nothing he says about events when he is not present is incorrect, as far as we know. He is certainly less opinionated than Cora, who narrates everything against Anse. He and seems to be more reliable than Vardaman, who tells us his mother is a fish. Which narrator do you trust most? Is Darl's long-distance narration reliable?
I agree, and I think Darl's narration is trustworthy- even though he does seem to know everything, I think that's just a part of the mystery of the story. How does he know everything? The narrator seems to be speaking through him, giving us all the information, and I think that's just part of his character. There is probably a little more to Darl that isn't very obvious to us, or he is just very good at sneaking around, observing whats happening to him, and connecting the dots. I also do trust the other narrators too, nothing they say is blatantly false, it's just interspersed with their own opinions or confusions (Vardaman). But as a overall narrative, I think we can still understand clearly what the flow of the story is.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Darl is the most-trustworthy. I think the way he can know these things could be potentially the order of the perspectives. We get a chapter from Addie herself after she has died, and it is a flashback, but we don't know from what point she flash-backed from. So potentially, Darl's "omniscience" could just be his knowledge of something after the fact. I like the idea of Faulkner using Darl to tell us what's going on in other places, justified by how "weird," or "different," Darl is.
ReplyDeleteI think there are two main possibilities for Darl's seeming omniscience. First, there's the possibility that he is simply making things up based on what he does know, which doesn't seem that likely based on the accuracy of what he's narrated. Second, he could legitimately be some kind of psychic randomly inserted into the novel. I don't know whether Faulkner has any history or using supernatural elements in his books, but the possibility is there that Darl actually just sees these things. This point is somewhat supported by Darl's seeming weirdness, and the way people talk about him as different. Maybe he always has that strange look in his eyes since he's seeing other things. Maybe he is legitimately "crazy" and has visions. I doubt we'll ever get a concrete answer to this question in the book, but it is still very interesting to consider.
ReplyDeleteAdding onto that, we don't really have a choice... he's kind of the bridge that links everyone together, as he knows everything that's going on. Everyone else is kind of in their own world - Dewey Dell dealing with her pregnancy, Vardaman with his toy trains and confusion about his mother, Cash with his perfectionism and broken leg (though he does take up Darl's role to some extent after he's sent away to Jackson), Anse with his teeth and a frickin Ms. Bundren which rlly pisses me off like common seriously u can't just ughhhhhhhhhhhh this triggers me (though to be honest like we discussed in class love rlly wasn't a thing back then - marriage was more like a partnership. If that's the case, ig what Anse did was for the best...).
ReplyDeleteOne way to gauge Darl's reliability is the same way we gauge any fictional narrator's reliability: do the scenes and details he narrates ring true?
ReplyDeleteThe scene with Jewel and his horse, for example, seems thoroughly consistent with everything else we see of Jewel (and the horse) throughout the novel, and all these little details--the physical struggle, the whispering in the horse's ear--just seem "right." Or, the two scenes I drew attention to in class (and mentioned on my blog post on the same subject): Anse trying and failing to smooth the quilt under Addie's chin, as he saw Dewey Dell do, and then going out and trying to help Cash, and just making a bigger mess. We'd gain nothing from "doubting" such scenes, with no evidence to the contrary--but more than that, they *feel true* within this novel. There seems to be something of the "essence" of Anse, or Jewel, reflected here, and it's for these reasons, I think, that we grant Darl his "omniscience."