Characters and Narrators in Narrative Communication: James Phelan's Rhetorical Poetics of Narrative

There are several reasons why James Phelan's contributions to narrative theory have proved, and continue to prove, influential. One of the reasons is suggested by the way in which, adopting and developing a rhetorical perspective, he shows that narrative is a powerful mode of exploration and communication. Linked to, and in actual fact inseparable from, this reason for the significance of Phelan's work is a critical practice that is pluralistic rather than dogmatic, engaging in and furthering conversations with other scholars rather than defending a given position at all costs. This kind of critical open-mindedness and generosity is connected with Phelan's readiness to test his concepts and theories by using them in narrative analysis. If he finds that there are important aspects of a given narrative—for example, Kafka's "Das Urteil" (Phelan, "Progression")—that his rhetorical approach to narrative cannot adequately explain, the story's interpretive challenge inspires him to modify and refine his version of rhetorical narrative theory.

Since the target essay by Phelan under consideration here is very rich, I will concentrate on his discussion of character, but I will link my observations on that concept to that of narrator. I will illustrate my points by briefly discussing the intricate ways in which the narrative functions and thematic implications of character and narrator blend into and mutually reinforce each other in W. G. Sebald's Austerlitz.

As Phelan acknowledges, the demonstration of the need to distinguish between the author of a fictional narrative and the narrator or narrators in that narrative was an important achievement of early narrative theory. Later disagreement about the terms we use in order to differentiate between different kinds of narrators should not prevent us from recognizing the critical gain stemming from this distinction. Yet it does not follow that the concept of the narrator is unproblematic. One of the problems is, as Phelan rightly notes in the target essay, that narrative theorists' focus on the narrator has tended to distract attention from the important concept of character.

Rhetorical narrative theory agrees with classical narratology that the concept of the narrator is indispensable. In Living to Tell about It, Phelan defines the narrator as "the teller of the story" (217). That his understanding of the narrator is different from that of classical narratology; however, becomes clear once we link this definition to that of narrative "as a rhetorical act: somebody telling somebody else on some occasion and for some purpose(s) that something happened" (18). This definition is also Phelan's starting point in the target essay. His understanding of the implied author not as a voiceless "it" or a set of implicit norms, but as "the streamlined version of the real author responsible for the construction of the text" (Living 5) also colors his understanding of the narrator, as does his interest in the authorial audience and the emphasis on narrative's ethical dimension.

In Living to Tell about It as in Experiencing Fiction, Phelan locates the implied author outside the narrative text. He does so in the target essay too, emphasizing "the author/implied author as a constant" and drawing attention to "the overarching issue of how the implied author uses the various resources of narrative communication at her disposal" (10). Partly as a result of my interest in narrative ethics, I am inclined to agree with this view. I would like to add, though, that regardless of whether the audience locates the implied author inside or outside the text, our knowledge and evaluation of the implied author is entirely dependent on our reading of the text. Thus, there is a sense in which the implied author, though positioned outside the text, is also within it. An unread novel has an author; a novel once read has an author and an implied author.

In the target essay, Phelan emphasizes the implied author's key role in narrative communication even more strongly than in Living to Tell about It and Experiencing Fiction. One reason why he does this is that, dissenting from the standard view of...