In this story, the narrator often speaks directly to the readers, assuming we're incredulous about the utopian nature of Omelas, anticipating and addressing our logical objections, and even inviting us to imagine aspects of Omelas in any way we want to.
Because this story is told to an imaginary listener who actively questions the information and actively fills in the details about it, we realize that the narrator is making certain assumptions about who she's...
In this story, the narrator often speaks directly to the readers, assuming we're incredulous about the utopian nature of Omelas, anticipating and addressing our logical objections, and even inviting us to imagine aspects of Omelas in any way we want to.
Because this story is told to an imaginary listener who actively questions the information and actively fills in the details about it, we realize that the narrator is making certain assumptions about who she's talking to. A narratee emerges: an invisible person to whom the narrator is telling the story.
The narratee, then, is someone who has no prior knowledge of Omelas and holds a skeptical attitude toward it. In contrast, the narrator has extensive knowledge of it, with access to all kinds of details about the festival, the system of government, the horrible abuse of the child, and the citizens' thoughts, feelings, and reactions to that abuse. The narratee is told about the shifting nature of Omelas and the flexibility of some of its finer details (which makes sense when readers consider Omelas a representation of any human society) and the narrator even has knowledge about this looseness of attributes in Omelas.
In addition, the narratee is an educated person whom the narrator treats with a respectful tone. We can tell because the narrator uses sophisticated diction ("magnanimous," "paradox," "poignancy") and never belabors any points, keeping the story moving swiftly and assuming the narratee has no need for too much explanation. In inviting the narratee to imagine aspects of Omelas in any preferred way, the narrator implies that the narratee is equally skilled in imagining realistic details.
Lastly, the narratee is a rational, mature adult, and the narrator treats him or her as such. The narrator gives descriptions of the hypothetical drug use and sexual promiscuity in Omelas without having to add any commentary like "Don't do this at home, kids." She also holds back no details in the horrible description of the abhorrent child abuse there, knowing that the narratee can handle it. Most importantly, the narrator respects the logical mind of the narratee, asking only after the description of the child abuse: "Now do you believe in them? Are they not more credible?"
No comments:
Post a Comment