The third person narrative is perhaps the most popular form of narrative across art mediums such as film and literature. This seems to be primarily because of the fact that the third person narrative offers a lot of freedom to the author of the text (film being included under the category of 'text' as well).
In a first person narrative, there are serious limitations as to what content can be explored by the author, mainly because the author is restricted to approaching a given idea or story from a singular perspective. This does not mean that the text itself cannot have nuance or that it does not support multiple interpretations.
In fact, I feel like the focus of the first- person narrative makes it more effective in many cases than a third- person one. This is not something pertaining to the particular forms themselves, but rather to the widespread use of them in our culture.
One of the general ideas associated with a third- person narrative is that the narrator himself (yes, it can be "herself" or "itself" too, so don't bother calling me out on it) is an omnipresent, omniscient impartial being who simply narrates a given story impartially. Firstly, I'd like to address a fallacy associated with this idea which is that the fact that an omnipresent, omniscient being is even following the story of a select few people (presumably) or is interested in exploring a select few ideas, or that it is following the events on a planet- all of this makes the narrator partial, primarily because the story itself is taking a certain direction and it should be remembered that the story is given meaning because of this focus lent by the narration. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be such a focus, but rather that the pretense needs to be dropped for more meaningful narration.
The problem with the author playing God and us as an audience reading it as such is that his/her text then denies the role of Perspectivism and instead implies that the way we are shown the story is the way the story is, and not the way it is seen. Such a viewpoint reduces the role of nuance and is more or less redundant in its approach to narration. For example, look at the kind of narration used in 'Harry Potter'. The narrative shows us the story from many viewpoints but we can easily sympathize more with Harry and the rest of the 'good' side more than with the 'evil' side. This is mainly due to a lack of sympathetic qualities given to these 'bad' guys, and this may just be because we are not shown as much of the bad guys' story. After all, hiding or revealing information is what leads us to form our respective opinions on particular events and characters.
You could argue that the use of the 'good and evil' troupe is primary to what J.K Rowling is trying to communicate: that good will overcome evil despite many obstacles. But the problem here lies with the insistence of the existence of a binary morality; that the world is divided into 'good' and 'bad', and that certain actions are simply 'good' and others are simply 'bad', but such an approach destroys the complexities existing in our world, and how we understand situations differently dependent upon context. A person going on a killing spree we see as a psychopath, but make that person William Munny from 'Unforgiven' who is only avenging his dead friend and is anyway killing 'badder' people, and we root for the character in his bloody mission. It is our ability to interpret situations according to context that helps us understand a wide range of narratives that might deal with similar situations from various perspectives. So, arguing that only a single perspective exists is both redundant and fruitless in our aim to understand and interpret art.
Now the obvious response to my statements would be that the perspective is simply that of the author's, but this simply makes the author the God in the text and- as I'd written earlier- such a God or omnipresent and omniscient being will always be a partial one. We need to understand then that the narration in any work is only exploring another perspective and is not the perspective.
Looking at our earlier example of 'Harry Potter', the evident limitation with how the Third- Person narrative here is used is that the fact that there is a god's- narrative seems to justify the world with a binary morality more than the motivations and interpretations of morality of the characters themselves, meaning that more than it being that the 'good guys' are just interpreting Voldemort and his lackeys to be' evil', the narration itself suggests this to be the case. Now you could tell me that this notion is false and that the narrator never called a side 'good' or 'evil' but such obvious representation that is both physical (bad guys wearing black) and behavioral (good guys will help their friends) clearly shows us the agenda of the narrative. An author does not have to say something to imply it in his work. I'm not saying a god's narrative cannot be used effectively, but rather that it should be realized what the functionality of such a narrative implies. But ultimately, stories such as those in Harry Potter and The Lord of the rings is looking at the world from a Christian perspective where good and evil exist absolutely, where good people struggle with the temptations offered by the bad side but the bad people have no motivations to become good (yes, there are exceptions). These are narratives of the good, and more than the use of these symbols themselves, I find it more problematic that an author sides with the good as if trying to justify his moral sense.
Now it should be kept in mind that regardless of the fact that an idea is conceived only from a respective perspective, this does not mean that they are somehow less important or less valid than if the idea was objective. This is because our very understanding of objectivity is subjective, according to post- modern philosophy. For example, the existence of science in our world is also a matter of perspective, but it is largely accepted as truth by a majority of people. Similarly, the symbols of 'good' and 'evil' can be permeating in every aspect of the world that its existence and relevance is widely accepted and is almost absolute. Almost. It is important to not remove the hint of uncertainty in any reading. In this sense then, the narrator in a work such as Harry Potter can be at best, viewed as one who accepts the symbols of "good and evil" as true or important.
Some have pointed out to me that by a common understanding established between the author author and reader, the assumption of the absolute existence of values can help convey important ideas. In fact, in many older texts and works of fantasy like The Lord of The Rings series, it seems almost certain that the author both views the world and intends for his world to contain absolute values, reflecting the inspiration drawn from the ideas presented in the Christian Mythos in which the ideas about absolute existence of good and evil, and thereby of sin is essential to its central idea of salvation. But while I will agree that looking to both the inspirations and sources of these authors' ideas, as well as examining the social relations between the author and reader can be fruitful, I do not see the assumption of absolutes to be valuable or relevant in a post- modern reading.
On the other hand, in a work like The Gormenghast Trilogy, good and evil lie solely in perspective where one character may see another as 'evil' because of certain conflicts of interest. As an audience, we may still find some characters to be more sympathetic than others but this is usually not because the world itself suggests this to be the case.
Throughout many viewings and readings of texts, I have come across a few most prominent kind of narration forms that I will now discuss. It should be kept in mind that these forms aren't exclusive of one another, and may be used in conjunction with one another.
On the other hand, we see that a film like Birdman employs such a form of narration with greater self- awareness if it is supposed that the narrator is the character of Birdman himself/itself. This is an interesting exploration since you have a fictional character in the story being the narrator and since Birdman represents both the success and failure of Michael Keaton's character, so it tries to narrate the incident of the washed- up actor's seemingly last attempt at being successful in his career.
4) The partial god- narrative:
Now this is one we have already discussed in the earlier parts of the article. In such a narrative, the narrator is one who accepts certain symbols and interpretations of a person or community as the more relevant or true interpretation and narrates the story from this perspective. For example, in The Lord of the Rings, almost everyone on Middle- Earth despite conflicts wit each other accept Sauron and his army to be the embodiment of something evil. As such, you could say that the narrator is one of these people, in that he is narrating their ideas, desires, and fears. It makes it easier if the 'evil' side consists of mainly unthinking orcs and a giant eye with a power- complex. As such, it is easy to accept the 'good' side as good since there is no alternate argument for us to go by.
On the other hand, in an anime series like Trigun, this sort of narrative device is used to another effect. In it, the protagonist during the early parts of the show does not kill any 'bad' guy due to a naive sense of morality (which as we see leads to large destruction, though no loss of life) even though the 'bad' guys are usually portrayed as having no redeeming qualities.
We see the world as the protagonist Vash does who cannot comprehend why these 'bad' guys can't just be, well, 'good'. From Vash's and the good guys' side(yes, that's how we see it as well), the bad guys' motivations appear too shallow and not worth listening to and it's fine to leave them incapable of causing harm but well and alive, since they never made any sense or raised any points that threatened the good guys' sense of morality or identity in the first place and plus, they're physically weak enough to not cause worry. But by the end of the show when an equally valid and comprehensive argument backed by physical prowess (as it is to Vash in his context) is put forth by the main antagonist (this might only be so because we are for once, shown an argument) we see that Vash finds no other way but to kill him. This could be understood as a deconstruction of the 'good- vs-evil' troupe where the 'good' side is shown to be right by the literal elimination of the 'bad' side's argument. As such, it presents us with an interesting aspect of conflict since we as viewers who are told the story from the good side are also faced with the conflict faced by the protagonist at the end of the show.
Well, that's all for now. If I think of any others, I'll add them later.
In a first person narrative, there are serious limitations as to what content can be explored by the author, mainly because the author is restricted to approaching a given idea or story from a singular perspective. This does not mean that the text itself cannot have nuance or that it does not support multiple interpretations.
In fact, I feel like the focus of the first- person narrative makes it more effective in many cases than a third- person one. This is not something pertaining to the particular forms themselves, but rather to the widespread use of them in our culture.
One of the general ideas associated with a third- person narrative is that the narrator himself (yes, it can be "herself" or "itself" too, so don't bother calling me out on it) is an omnipresent, omniscient impartial being who simply narrates a given story impartially. Firstly, I'd like to address a fallacy associated with this idea which is that the fact that an omnipresent, omniscient being is even following the story of a select few people (presumably) or is interested in exploring a select few ideas, or that it is following the events on a planet- all of this makes the narrator partial, primarily because the story itself is taking a certain direction and it should be remembered that the story is given meaning because of this focus lent by the narration. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be such a focus, but rather that the pretense needs to be dropped for more meaningful narration.
The problem with the author playing God and us as an audience reading it as such is that his/her text then denies the role of Perspectivism and instead implies that the way we are shown the story is the way the story is, and not the way it is seen. Such a viewpoint reduces the role of nuance and is more or less redundant in its approach to narration. For example, look at the kind of narration used in 'Harry Potter'. The narrative shows us the story from many viewpoints but we can easily sympathize more with Harry and the rest of the 'good' side more than with the 'evil' side. This is mainly due to a lack of sympathetic qualities given to these 'bad' guys, and this may just be because we are not shown as much of the bad guys' story. After all, hiding or revealing information is what leads us to form our respective opinions on particular events and characters.You could argue that the use of the 'good and evil' troupe is primary to what J.K Rowling is trying to communicate: that good will overcome evil despite many obstacles. But the problem here lies with the insistence of the existence of a binary morality; that the world is divided into 'good' and 'bad', and that certain actions are simply 'good' and others are simply 'bad', but such an approach destroys the complexities existing in our world, and how we understand situations differently dependent upon context. A person going on a killing spree we see as a psychopath, but make that person William Munny from 'Unforgiven' who is only avenging his dead friend and is anyway killing 'badder' people, and we root for the character in his bloody mission. It is our ability to interpret situations according to context that helps us understand a wide range of narratives that might deal with similar situations from various perspectives. So, arguing that only a single perspective exists is both redundant and fruitless in our aim to understand and interpret art.
 |
| Clint Eastwood as William Munny |
Looking at our earlier example of 'Harry Potter', the evident limitation with how the Third- Person narrative here is used is that the fact that there is a god's- narrative seems to justify the world with a binary morality more than the motivations and interpretations of morality of the characters themselves, meaning that more than it being that the 'good guys' are just interpreting Voldemort and his lackeys to be' evil', the narration itself suggests this to be the case. Now you could tell me that this notion is false and that the narrator never called a side 'good' or 'evil' but such obvious representation that is both physical (bad guys wearing black) and behavioral (good guys will help their friends) clearly shows us the agenda of the narrative. An author does not have to say something to imply it in his work. I'm not saying a god's narrative cannot be used effectively, but rather that it should be realized what the functionality of such a narrative implies. But ultimately, stories such as those in Harry Potter and The Lord of the rings is looking at the world from a Christian perspective where good and evil exist absolutely, where good people struggle with the temptations offered by the bad side but the bad people have no motivations to become good (yes, there are exceptions). These are narratives of the good, and more than the use of these symbols themselves, I find it more problematic that an author sides with the good as if trying to justify his moral sense.
Now it should be kept in mind that regardless of the fact that an idea is conceived only from a respective perspective, this does not mean that they are somehow less important or less valid than if the idea was objective. This is because our very understanding of objectivity is subjective, according to post- modern philosophy. For example, the existence of science in our world is also a matter of perspective, but it is largely accepted as truth by a majority of people. Similarly, the symbols of 'good' and 'evil' can be permeating in every aspect of the world that its existence and relevance is widely accepted and is almost absolute. Almost. It is important to not remove the hint of uncertainty in any reading. In this sense then, the narrator in a work such as Harry Potter can be at best, viewed as one who accepts the symbols of "good and evil" as true or important.
 |
| Good Vs Evil |
On the other hand, in a work like The Gormenghast Trilogy, good and evil lie solely in perspective where one character may see another as 'evil' because of certain conflicts of interest. As an audience, we may still find some characters to be more sympathetic than others but this is usually not because the world itself suggests this to be the case.
Throughout many viewings and readings of texts, I have come across a few most prominent kind of narration forms that I will now discuss. It should be kept in mind that these forms aren't exclusive of one another, and may be used in conjunction with one another.
1) The Unchanging Narrator:
Now what I mean by the use of this term refers to when the narrator's use of symbolism and imagery remains the same, regardless of whether different ideas or character arcs are being explored. This is perhaps the most popular narrative form that's present in the third- person. You could almost say that the narrator is essentially a character in the text. The narrator in this case uses meaningful imagery and symbols to communicate his idea regardless of whether the characters themselves identify with these images or symbols. What I find interesting here is that there are at least two layers of perspectives present, one of the narrator and then of the narrator's perspective of the characters' perspectives. Reading it as a god's- narrative instead as we discussed earlier is not often used to effect. Most novels and films seem to prefer such a form of narration since it offers consistency to an extent as far as perspective is concerned.
When such a form of narrative is used, the narrator can often imply ideas and have a sense of awareness about a situation that the characters themselves do not have.
When such a form of narrative is used, the narrator can often imply ideas and have a sense of awareness about a situation that the characters themselves do not have.
2) The Adaptive Narrator:
The adaptive narrator on the other hand is one who chooses to explore a situation from the multiple perspectives of- usually- his characters. The finest example of this is Peake's Gormenghast books in which even the sense of imagery and tone changes when the narration focuses on different characters in the story. There are multiple perspectives being directly explored here, and there is also the reduced role of the narrator as a character. In film, an example that comes to mind is Inarritu's Babel in which tone, music, and color scheme all changes along with the different situations that are explored in a non- linear fashion.
Another example in film could be Koreeda's Wandarfuru Raifu in which multiple characters' recollections of the past are explored as each of them try to find a single important memory, and so it is all about a post- modern sense of individualistic meaning that this type of narration suits well.
You should keep in mind though that the narrator in this case can still convey an overarching idea that the characters themselves are not aware of through the contextualization of how these multiple perspectives make sense in a space of coexistence.
You should keep in mind though that the narrator in this case can still convey an overarching idea that the characters themselves are not aware of through the contextualization of how these multiple perspectives make sense in a space of coexistence.
3) The Titular Character's Sidekick:
In this case, the narrator (reminder: narrator, not author) more or less holds the opinions of the protagonist of the given text, and as a result even when you have 'beacon-of-good' protagonist and some other evil 'dude', the perspective of the evil dude is also explored from the perspective of 'good' moral impositions and all included. Most works today, especially modern fantasy works seem to make use of such a form of narration where we have a 'good' side and everyone else is judged or identified by the standards set by this 'good' side. Of course, it has been used differently as well. One example would be TV Show House M.D in which Dr. House's opinion that the world is a sad sorry place devoid of love and happiness is justified by the events that are shown to us in the show itself (unless you are taking into account the subversion of the entire show's premise in that last episode). It should be noted that this use of form is appropriate for the show, since it seems to support the narcissistic worldview of House himself since it seems that an objective narrative is only proving that House is right (most of the time, and only until that last episode of course).
On the other hand, we see that a film like Birdman employs such a form of narration with greater self- awareness if it is supposed that the narrator is the character of Birdman himself/itself. This is an interesting exploration since you have a fictional character in the story being the narrator and since Birdman represents both the success and failure of Michael Keaton's character, so it tries to narrate the incident of the washed- up actor's seemingly last attempt at being successful in his career.
4) The partial god- narrative:
Now this is one we have already discussed in the earlier parts of the article. In such a narrative, the narrator is one who accepts certain symbols and interpretations of a person or community as the more relevant or true interpretation and narrates the story from this perspective. For example, in The Lord of the Rings, almost everyone on Middle- Earth despite conflicts wit each other accept Sauron and his army to be the embodiment of something evil. As such, you could say that the narrator is one of these people, in that he is narrating their ideas, desires, and fears. It makes it easier if the 'evil' side consists of mainly unthinking orcs and a giant eye with a power- complex. As such, it is easy to accept the 'good' side as good since there is no alternate argument for us to go by.
On the other hand, in an anime series like Trigun, this sort of narrative device is used to another effect. In it, the protagonist during the early parts of the show does not kill any 'bad' guy due to a naive sense of morality (which as we see leads to large destruction, though no loss of life) even though the 'bad' guys are usually portrayed as having no redeeming qualities.
 |
| The Protagonist of 'Trigun', Vash. |
We see the world as the protagonist Vash does who cannot comprehend why these 'bad' guys can't just be, well, 'good'. From Vash's and the good guys' side(yes, that's how we see it as well), the bad guys' motivations appear too shallow and not worth listening to and it's fine to leave them incapable of causing harm but well and alive, since they never made any sense or raised any points that threatened the good guys' sense of morality or identity in the first place and plus, they're physically weak enough to not cause worry. But by the end of the show when an equally valid and comprehensive argument backed by physical prowess (as it is to Vash in his context) is put forth by the main antagonist (this might only be so because we are for once, shown an argument) we see that Vash finds no other way but to kill him. This could be understood as a deconstruction of the 'good- vs-evil' troupe where the 'good' side is shown to be right by the literal elimination of the 'bad' side's argument. As such, it presents us with an interesting aspect of conflict since we as viewers who are told the story from the good side are also faced with the conflict faced by the protagonist at the end of the show.
No comments:
Post a Comment