Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Unnatural in E A Poes The Oval Portr

    Uploaded by

    Hayk Pogosoff
    15 views25 pages

    Original Title

    The_Unnatural_in_E_A_Poes_The_Oval_Portr

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views25 pages

    The Unnatural in E A Poes The Oval Portr

    Uploaded by

    Hayk Pogosoff

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 25
    DE GRUYTER Jan Alber, Per Krogh Hansen (Eds.) BEYOND CLASSICAL NARRATION TRANSMEDIAL AND UNNATURAL CHALLENGES NARRATOLOGIA. Contents JAN ALBER & PER KROGH HANSEN, ‘atroduction: Teansmedial and Unnatural Narratology ‘WoLr ScHMID ‘The Selection and Conctetization of Elements in Verbal and Filmic Natration ew 15 JaN-NOBL THON “Towacd a Transmedial Naseatology: On Natritors in Contemporary Graphic Novels, Featuce Films, and Computer Games -nssmnnn 25 MATTHIAS BRUTSCH From Tronic Distance to Unexpected Plot Twists: Unreliable ‘Narration in Literature and Film .. 37 (GUNTHER MARTENS & HELENA ELSHOUT Nasatosial Strategies in Drama and Theatre: A Contribution to ‘Transmedial Narratology 81 BrNotr HENNAUT Building Stories around Contemporary Performing Arts ‘The Case of Romeo Castellucci’s Trugedia Endogonida. 7 Nora BERNING ‘Narrative Journalism from a Transdisciplinary Perspective: ‘A Narratological Analysis of Award-Winning Literary Reportages wo... 117 Markus KUHN ‘Web Seties between User-Generated Aesthetics and Self-Reflexive Narration: On the Diversification of Audiovisual Narration on the Internet ... 137 vI Contens FELICITAS MEIFERT-MENHARD ‘Bmergent Narrative, Collaborative Storytelling: Toward Natratological Analysis of Alternate Reality Games ... 161 YOKO TSUCHIVAMA Photography and Narrative: The Representation of the Atomic Bomb in Photographs of Nagasaki from 1945 t0 1995 .cnnnnnencene 179 MALGORZATA PAWLOWSKA Musical Nerratology: Aa Outline. 197 PER KROGH HANS Flow-Stoppers and Frame-Breakers: The Cognitive Complexities of the Film Musical Exemplified by Lars von Tsier’s Dancer inthe Dark... 21 HENRIK SKOV NIELSEN ‘The Unnatural in EA. Poe's “The Oval Portrait” 239 JAN ALBER Postmodernist Impossibilities, the Creation of New Cognitive Frames, and Attempts at Interpretation... 1 261 Notes on Contributors HENRIK SKOV NIULSEN (Aachos Universi) ‘The Unnatural in E. A. Poe’s “The Oval Portrait”! Introduction: Aims of the Article Jn this essay I want to frst briefly ptesent my approach to unnatural nas: vatives and unnatural natzatology, and secondly to engage moze thorough. jy in specific reading whece 1 ty t0 demonstrate some of the analytical consequences of what I call unnaturalizing reading steategies. Numerous articles, panels, anthologies and books on the subject of unnatural nazzatology have appeared in recent years since Brian Richard- many colleagues in unnatural nasmatology (Maria Mikeli, Brian Richard: fon, jan Alber and Stefan Iversen to mention just a few) and by myself for that matter, has been either desctiptive/empizieal/ deductive by listing and Gescribing a hoge amount of unnatural narratives, or theoretical/meta- theoretical by accounting for the assumptions and theoretical consequenc: eof an unnatural approach. These approaches differ from one another; yet they are complementary and supplementary, Compacatively few até Zee and papers, however, have dealt in depth and in detail with the intes- pretational consequences for particular texts that an unnatural teading hight have. This article is an attempt to answer—at least partially, on my owe behalf, and for one specific text—some of the questions we have Often encountered, and quite reasonably so; questions Like “what differ: cave does it make>”, “how does interpretation change with an unnanural spproach?” The text I wish to read is Edgar Allan Poe's “The Oval Por. tuie” and needless to say Lam only able to deal with some aspects of Unnatural nazratology and with some of the intespretational consequences ina specific text. Many of the consequences and assumptions are, howey, cr, general and generalizable, and I hope to indicate how. Fist ofall I will say a feor words to frame the approach and the zeading. TT rwth w thank Stefan Iversen, Stefan Kjeckepnard and Rikhe Andersen Ksaghund foc thee tray rable comments on an eae version ofthis aie 2 Horexample Albe: 2005 Reitn 2011; Albee and Heinze 2011 240 ent kov Nikon What is Unnatural Narratology? For me, the expression “unnatural narratives” first and foremost takes on ‘meaning in relation to what it is not: natural narratives. By natural nacra- tives I refer to natratives that have been designated as such by influential ‘arrative theorists. Most prominently the term “natural” has been applied to natrative theory by Monika Fladernik in Towards a ‘Natural’ Nartolgy, Here, she describes the term as follows: Natrol narato is» teem that has come to define “natuslly occuting” sorte ling] Whst wll be called ata maratie in this book inches, min, sponta. ‘eous conversations storyteling a term which would be more appcopriste but is sather unwieldy. (Fadernik 1996: 13) ‘This is the ist and most important of three different meanings that feed into the term “natural carratology”. Its source is Labov and linguistic discourse analysis. The second meaning of the term “natural” cones from “Natitich- keitstheorie” which uses the tezm to “| designate aspects of language which appear to be regulated and motivated by cognitive parameters based on iat’s experience of embodiedness in a real-world context.” (ibid: 17). Whereas both of these two meanings function as descriptive denominators of a certain, kind of narrative or language, the third one is on a completely different level and refers to the readers’ racion towards certain types of narrative, literature or discourse. It comes from Cullet and his use of the term “naturalization” to designate readers’ efforts to make the sirange and deviant seem aetaral and thus to familiarize it “Culler’s naturalization in particular emisaces the fanil- arization of the strange” (bid 31) Itis exactly this shift of focus that interests ‘me here: fom a description of a particular type of text, language or nazrative and towards a specific eaderly approach and reaction to narrative. In another text, fom 2001, Fludemik writes: “When readers read narrative texts, they project reablife parameters into the reading process and, if tall possible, treat the text as a real-life instance of narrating” (Fluderaik 2001: 623). I think it is ‘worth noting, frst, that as a descriptive statement as opposed to a normative Statement about what readers shoud do, it hardly covers all readers, aor all ay readers; and second, that even if this is what many readers tend to do, we are ‘not obliged to repeat the projection ata methodological level. Familiatization, os what Culler calls natutalization and Fludernik natrativization, is a choice, and whether the choice is conscious or automatic, it remains a choice and not 4 necessity. A different choice in the form of un-naturalizing interpretation is equally legitimate and sewaeding in many texts. Iwill ry to demonstrate ths ia elation to “The Oval Poztait” Generally speaking for me then, unnatural narratives are a subset of fictional natratives that—ualike many realistic and mimetic natratives— ‘cue the reader to employ intexpretational strategies thet are different from “The Unnaruel in A. Poe's “The Oval Porte” aa thove she employs in non-fictonalized, conversational storytelling sis Ose ‘More specifically, such nartaives may have temporalities, sof AGrkls, mind representations or acts of actation that would be physical- Ipelogically, snemonically oF psychologically impossible 8 implausible in Fad soeyteling sitations. An unnanucal approach, however, allows Re reader to construct such situations as authoritative, reliable or mates a eae deaings of the fictional universe, This also goes to show that if he meader constructs something strange within the fictional universe 65, tay. a dream or a hallucination then, for me, that would not coun #8 St Twbich in turn goes to show that naturalization os familiarization, for me, annihilates the unnatural tne at aarrtology, in tue, isthe iovestigation of these strategies ad their interprettional consequences and more broadly the effor fo SiMe the aaa neal and interpretive principles relevant to such unnatusal nazmatives- Tee’ Sheane that for me all uanataral natratves are fictional but only come What Difference Does it Make? My contention here as elsewhere is that it makes a considerable difference Mee Spe interpretation—for lay readers as well as for professionals ter ther we naturale and “project rablife parameters into the reading reir nd, if a all possible, tzeat the text as a real-life instance of narra. vig” as Flodernik has it, or whether, conversely, we apply ‘he principles of 28 * rl nacatology ia the form of un-naturiizing reading strategies 19 that sense, unnatural narratology generates different readings because MO aan aeeting reading isan interpretational choice that, unlike natralizing teadings, does not assume that ral world conditions and limiatons have fo apply to all Gctional narratives when it comes to logic, Physics time, enunciation, framing etc. Tf interpret the words in a 300-page dialogue novel with a charse- ter nanaiot, oF_-on a smaller scale—the shorter rendering of + dialogue that took place 50 years ago a8 only appearing to be verbatim account Te an vo ovekiumate but naturalizing choice. If we believe instead that Oy tre part of the invented act of natcation, we can aso believe that the dia Togues are verbatim accounts and can thus base interpretations © the aes ver caving some words rather than others. In making this equally legitimate choice we would alto be following the principles of unnatural veBrrnology because we would make an intespretational choice that i un- 42 ene Sov Nilsen aaturalizing in the sense that it is not imiting the narrative possibilities 19 aa mmremnonically possible or plausible in real-world narration. For me “Iie meane that unnaturalizing approaches generate seadings that are Que oie ane From prevalent axtseal and naturaizing readings. Unnataraizing eading is an intespreational choice based on theoretical sssumptons (ad Specially on dspuing/ questioning certain theoretical assumnpvons) From an ‘point of view, we need not impose real-world neces- sities on all fictional narratives. We need not put all narratives into comms- sae nal :odels based on real-life storytelling situations. 1 test this 1s. Rampton and demonstrate in deal what difference it makes by ComDESHE eiong, nauraling) reading and an un-oaturaliving close reading of the ame short text, .e. “The Oval Portsnie” by Edgar Allan Poe. Reading Poe Naturally Several good readings of Poe? story already exist Emma Kafalencs, for Scampi has recently published an excellent study of the ale in Black- Sra Companion to Narrative Theory. 1 wil use tis study as the main e3as- ple of a aatacal reading, and briefly go through the msjot pois and in OFS Zafalenog Focus is specifically on the effects of sequence and seieiding, I do not mean to imply that everything one can add fe Feat caing has 10 be wonatura, ofthat Kafalenos bereelf woud aa neoe uch to add in other contexts or ifthe focus was different. In, aoe HT gunt to compare assuraptions and the interpretations they fad stead The belief that both ways ae legitimate and profitable, though they ‘vill probably appeal to different readers and diferent nasa theorists. Pitalence tikes her point of departure in the long quote in Poe's soy fom a solame about paintings and thei histories, teling us the story bout the oval portait and about the girl it portzys. This quote i also the end of wpe ele Neafalenon compazes readers’ likely reactions to the quote ands the a adon a2 af independent text 10 “our interpretation of exactly the causal efhen we zead ft #5 an embedded segment in Poe's story” QOS, 254), She ends hes analysis ofthe embedded quote about the pleeful git that azacualy dies while her pictue i being painted by conchding that it opeas een te of equilibsium that is thea destroyed by 2 whole series of disesp- She events (bid: 256) from her mariage to the painter over hes being pane, ae err Centual eat, Cental, disruptive events inchude in Kalaleno®’ oo cat “the gil grows dispizted and weak” Gbid) and “painter won’ f- ‘opaize that hei killing the i by painting ber” (id). Fotis weaim of Poe scholaship one can mention Gross Thompson, nd Bassa. “The Unnatual in H, A. Pos’ “The Oval Porte” m3 Kafalenos then turns to analyze the ways in which the quote’s embed- ding in the story in its enticery effects the reading; she concludes hee anal- ysis by stating that what we and the character narrator read in the quote Actually functions to stabilize his expesience and to make his interpretation of the picture’s appalling life-likeliness more reliable to the reader (ibid.: 262): “the circumstances in which the picture was made can be under~ stood to explain the natrator’s experience” (ibid: 262). Kafalenos ends her paper by having successfully demonstrated that: Poe's complete story shapes reader interpretations of the effects of the git’ death very differently than the quoted parsgraph docs. (..] Because the portait Js represented only through ckphrasis, readers can question the accuracy of the satstor’s scarcely believable perceptions and conceptions [...] Toes, because eaders can join the narrator in reading the words of the quoted paragsaph, we ‘an substitute our experience for his and zead the pastage a he presumably does: as evidence ofthe accuracy of his perceptions. (bid. 265-266). What we have, thus, is an interpretation that resolutely deals with some- thing strange and “scarcely believable”, Le. that the “life-lkeliness of ex- pression is appaling” (ibid: 262) and a reading that explains how readers are led to believe that what seems strange and unbelievable is probably true. The seemingly unreasonable experience of the nazsator should hardly bbe dismissed as unreliable, this reading claims, because it is a “natural” cause of the circumstances of the picture and the gid it depicts. “The ceading works well and convincing in its own sight. It addresses and accounts for the central feature of the story and does not explain it away as the result of a hallucination ot the excessive use of opium which ‘would detract a lot from the stosy and its title which seems to throw the spectacular portrait rather than a particular hallucination into reliet. Remarkably Kafalenos does not question something that might be seen as more fundamentally strange and uonatural, the very fact that the itl is supposedly killed deeaise she is depicted. Not only is this fact quietly accepted. For the reading to work this incident has to be acknowledged, rot just as some old wive's tale or as a figural explanation in some history bbook, but as something real enough to explain the extraordinary features of the portrait. It is a necrary pact of the explanation, It is aot my inten- tion to say that this is an uaeeasonable move. On the contrary, I believe it js a comect description of what the story cues readers to believe and of how most readers will construe the story. I mention it instead partly be- cause even as it serves to explain something stcange and unnatural, it re- mains itself unaacural, and partly because it is the oaly point or assump- tion (unmentioned as itis) that would, in my view, have to be changed in Kafalenos? interpretation have to be changed if the story was a non- fictional real life story, and if, consequently, “The Oval Portenit” was 4 244 Heaik Sho Nica portrait of a rea, living person. Insofar, that is, a8 we don’t accept “death by painting” as @ real world danger. Unnaturalizing Assumptions and Interpretations In the following I wish to conduct an unnaturalizing reading by asking ‘what assumptions can be added in an unnatural framework, and, recus- sively which assumptions we don’t necessarily have to apply if we don’t impose real world restrictions. I will divide the analysis into fous, increas- ingly unnatural subject areas. It is not a systematic overview of unnatural narrative assumptions but mther a pointing out of the features that are relevant for the specific text in order to show what difference an unnatural reading makes. A fundamental assumption in my reading is that “The ‘Oval Portrait” deals with relations between life and art in many ways and stages the encounter between life and art on maay levels, In the following four sections, therefore, I descsibe the ways ia which the tale: a) sefers to -myths about the relation between life and art, b) stages this encounter also as an encounter with another Poe-text, c) jramer the relation between life and act, d) makes this relation significant not only in the story world, but also at the level of narration and of the natrator. a) Reference to Myths “The story goes to great length to establish that in spite of what it calls, with a highly unusual word, the “life-likeliness” of expression, the picture does not at all look like a teal person—it is far too artful: ‘Least of all, could it have been that my fincy, shaken ftom its half shamber, bad ristaken the head for tat of living person. I saw at once the peculiarities of de- tig, ofthe vigaring, and of the frame, must have instantly depelled such idea— rust have prevented ever its momentary entertainment. (Poe 1845: 264; Poe's italics) Jn that context it is worth noting that the story contains Jo descsip- tions/depictions of the gies that of the portcait and that of the art book. [As for the latter, the lines quoted from the book really do not resemble the kind of description of a painting one would expect to find ia an art ook. Rather it reads like unusually pure pulp fiction. As if the description “a maiden of rarest beauty and not more lovely than full of glee” wasn’t already enough of a cliché it is even carefully repeated ad verbatim after just a couple of lines, as if it were a quotation from a quotation from a quotation. This is emphatically not real life but rather a fictional cliché, Least of all the description could be mistaken for a real living person. The Bitlis as she is described and portrayed in the book is nor the living and “The Unnatucl ia H. A. Poe's “Phe Oval Porat” 45, real contesst to the artificial, but herself a highly marked by artificiality. ‘The contrast is not only between life and art, but also between different kinds of representation and their consequences. "This is relevant for the way in which the story refers more to myths about att than to teal life. Specifically the tale can be read as a reversal of the Pygmalion myth (Ovid 1986: X, 243-297). Pygmalion creates life out fof act. The painter in “The Oval Portrait”, in turn, creates att out of life ‘when his wife dies ia the process of his creation of the art work. In this reversal “The Oval Portrait” comes very close to another Ovidian myth about the relation between art and life and death: the myth about Orphe~ us, The myth about Orpheus tells us how Orpheus had the chance to save Eurydice from death, but did not succeed because he turned and gazed at her too early. Poe's text is filled with gazes: the reading of the book about the painting is described by the words “[..] devotedly I gazed.” The paint: dng of the gicl is revealed when the candelabra is moved for a quick “glance,” which is replaced by closed eyes, which in turn is replaced by « more sober “gaze.” The painter, for his part “..] would not see [..]” (Poe’s italics), that the git! dies during his work; he seldom turns “his eyes from the canvas [..?. Not until the end, at the moment of completion, when he has finished his work of att, does he look at his wife and then with a ges- ture that repeats Ozpheus and has the same result: [bo] for one moment, the painter stood entranced before the work which he had A Ouphss but in the nex, wile be yet gized, he grew tremulous and very pal, ind aghast, and ceying wit a loud voice, “This i indeed 1 itself” tured sud- denly to segard his beloved:—Sée wa dead (Poe 1845: 265; Poe's italics) “The Oval Portrait” is also an ocular portrait—a portrait of sight and the eye. At the very end the attist turns, like Ozpheus, “suddenly to regard his beloved”, He turns his gaze away from the painting, from the portrait to that which is represented, to life. He turns at the moment he has given the stroke that completes the portrait, that gives it life, makes it alive, makes it similar, but as though it were a result of his turning, this is also the mo- ment of the woman's death and therefore of the portraits noa-similacity. “The painter thus repeats Ospheus’ feat. His art has the same goal, to bring, to Life, and his gaze and turning the same result, to kill. When Orpheus tums around, Busydice sinks back to the kingdom of the dead, and when the painter tums around the girl is dead. Blanchot sees this turning 2s non-incidental but as a condition of true art: But not to tum toward Euryice would be no less untrue. Not lok would be ia- Beeliy co dhe measuscess, imprudent force of his movement, which does not waat Bnrycce in her daytime tach and hes every appeal, but wants hes inher noc ‘al obocusty in her stance, with her closed body and sealed face—rants to se her 246 ‘ot when she is visible, but when she is invisible [..] and waats, not to make her live, but to have living ia het the plenitade ofer death, (Blanchot 1982: 172) ‘As the “art book” describes the gil, she is of “rarest beauty,” but as the first-person narrator sees her in the painting, she is of “immortal beauty”. The picture has at once killed her and guaranteed her an immortality which is also in a certain sense Eurydices’, They are both kept alive in death, or in Blanchot’s words: the plenitude of her death is living in her To write literature, in Blanchor’s view, is to assume Orpheus’ gaze. The life that maintains itself in death is located in literature and the word. Lit erature and the word kill and preserve: “In speech what dies is what gives life to speech; speech is the life of that death, itis ‘the life that endures death and maintains itself in it” (Blanchot 1995: 327)* J Blanchot coacheing words can bo interpreted a chit vation of «sentence that isl ens foar vations in heer teat "Litre andthe Right to Det” where ise" endaes dest and maintain Sai i" (1995: 322). This al sentence il 2 aration on Hels wore nthe pcfice 0 The Phono Spit which ead sf lows "Death hat shat we wat to eal ths non achat, of a things the most (real, snd to hold fst hat dead cequices the penetsrength, Lacking seen, Beouy hats the Undertandng for aing of bee what ft caonoe do Bot the ie of he Spite not he eta she fen death an eps tal atone by derstaion, bot lather the ie that enduces it and rainns tel in” (log 1977-195 Hegel 1986 36, 1a Hoge the sentence says someting in addio to al of Blanchot foo spestions: the Hie that eadares death and rointin elf ini te Be of th Spr dor Leben der Grit “his Mein death and ds Hl of the spit ae important m Poe's et Ta his fou va tiny Blanchot localizes thi if hat eas si mans lin dea nem, words, in language In Poe's et ire Sat of ofthe itd paisngs Dat ae the place for "iin death” bat secondly previ engage word, etre 5) To Ovid sae that Enyce mt fern tothe underword at « ret of Ope gaze “Te toned bie eyer—and eight the sgped sory. And th, dying gu, ade 00 cemphint (oe what completa ehe eve se wat love? [1 (986°, 1-61). ay. {Ger cannot blame Orphen for his geet loves love tht i not only dectuctve bot SBove al self-destocve is clear inthe payer andthe promise with which Orphese ‘moves the shadows and Woods pics: She too, when pening yeas rach their dete, Sl own youe re The favor that ase Is but eajoy he lov; a the Fates Wal sot epaove be, my sso is clear [orto serum say two det ive you cee? Soto te mute ofhissdag: he ang, ‘Anal the bloodless pets wep oe}. (8, 37-48) Crpheos doesnot oly sve wth hires, bt with hi secs e would rather ive a ein death with Eucydice tan lve a fein the ight of day without her—aod Gt ‘is rao gente tobi, since he Aled by the macade wt is nal long mou tong snd then nied wit Bury. ta Ovid, Ope desrucive move is iextiably ‘hound up with the seidestnetve When Orpheus sums toward Gurdce he lio taro toward the kingcora ofthe dead. So pets the most posi topic inthe wor isnt the ‘eat of» benutfal woman after al, bot exther the death ofthe pes, the death of te ‘erred lover ‘The Unnatua in KA. Poe’ “The Oval Porte” 247 In this reading we do not have any access to what might have been a real giel that we can then oppose to her representation ia art, What we do hhave access to, is instead two different depictions/representationss one ‘written, one visual. The waitten in the art book—as far as the description of the girl before she is depicted goes—is the zepeated expression of tuiviality. The visual representation is apparently a master piece. Neither can be mistaken for real persons, and both are artificial, but whereas the former petsifies a cliché, the latter immortalizes beauty. In that sease Poe's text uses the references to Greek myths life and art to convey a concep- tion of art ia which the relation is a dangerous and unnatural one where the depicted is not left untouched by the depiction, but where; on the contrary, arti literally a matter of life and death. b)_ Reference to other Poe Texts Jn the article “Natural Authors, Unnatural Nactation” I have argued that standard narsatological model of the relationship between nasrator and author has served to naturalize the understanding of fictional nacratives and of fictionality in the sense that fictional narratives are understood along the lines of everyday reports since a nactator supposedly reports ‘what he or she “knows”, In its attempt to understand fiction as a form of communication from @ natrator, narcatology has rarely devoted much attention to the author. My main argument in the article is that the real author is the narrating agent who can invent what no-one knows and nar- rate what no-one (except the author herself) communicates. By acknow!- edging this, zeadess can moze easily account for uncisguised inventions and transgressions of communicational models as they frequently occur throughout literary history. When communicational models are trans- sgressed and techniques of fictionality (zero focalization, etc) are employed, these phenomena cannot helpfully be acknowledged ot explained by as- suming the existence of a narrator distinct from the author. Instead they are techniques (or what Phelan calls resousces [Phelan forthcoming al) at the disposal of the teal author—not of a nartator modeled on everyday aoa-laventive, reporting language. Tn this section I will pick up on the question about the relation be- tween unnatural aastation and the real author, not with a specific view to transgressive or inventive techniques, but rather to the ways in which Poe creates references and echoes between two texts that significantly refer ‘more to each other than to real life. In his forthcoming “Rhetoric, Ethics, and Nacrative Communication”: Or, from “Story and Discourse to Au- thors, Resources, and Audiences” James Phelan signals already in the tide exactly the kind of shift that interests me here—a shift to an interest in the thetorical resources of the author, In the article Phelan argues that occa- 248 Henaik Stow Nieken sion, paratext, narrator, characters, FID etc. are not indispensable ele~ ments in a narrative communication model, but are all resources at the optional disposal of the (implied) author. Phelan goes on to demonstrate that this shift has considerable consequences: [Let me turn now to demonstrating some of the practical consequences of the re- vised mocel.Istatt with the increased importance it gives tothe implied author tea teler. In Chatman’s model, the implied author outsources just about every- thing to the natator ot to the nonnazeated mimesis. Io miy model, the implied aa- thor typically does not tell diectiy but he or she does more than outsource the teling, ts my focus on the channel of narrative structure suggests, Put mors posi- tively, my claim is that the implied author is the grand conductor of nastative communication, the agent who secks to make all the sesources work together ‘And sometimes the conductor's arrangement of those resousces makes her role in the medated communication especially prominent. Consider one more exam- ple from Eddie Coyle: The fist sentence of the lat chapter, “Jeckie Brown at even sat with no expression on his face” (179), echoes the very Brat sen tence of the novel: “Jackie Brown, at twenty-six, said with no expression on his face that be could get some guns” @). The echo contibutes gubstantally to the communication ofthe ethics of the tol: A year lates, facing his fitst conviction, {nfeeng that Eddie Coyle is responsible fr his sitting there, Jackie Brown is es- sentially the sarme toagh guy—though now he sits in silence rather than making ‘Seals. Who is responsible for the echo? Given that Higgins makes minimal use of the narrator between Chapter 1 and Chapter 30 and typically restricts his funetion to stetghtlorward seporting of who is speaking and of a small number of other events, I find it implausible to attsibute that responsibilty to the aerator: Such Sn atsbution would give him a strange and sudden cleventh hour self ‘consciousness t males mach more sense £9 undesstand the echo as coming only from the implied Higgins (Phelan forthcoming a 71) Ja the following I argue that it makes sense also to heat not only inteatex- tual echoes but also echoes and references actoss texts that contribute substantially to the meaning of each text in ways that makes it even more implausible to attribute the responsibility to an intratextual nasrator$ ‘Three years before “The Oval Portrait” was printed in The Broadoxy Journal avery similar text called “Life in Death” appeared in Graharas Ladys “and Genileman’s Mayasine. The genesal tendency has been to describe the two texts as basically two versions of the same text—or even as the same text ‘with two different titles as in the bibliographical notes to The Cansplte Poems ‘and Stories of Edgar Allan Poe, “Fist Printing: Grabams Lagy’s and Gentleman's “Magazine, 20 (Apel, (1842)), 200-201, as “Life in Death”” (1079). T am cex- tainly not going to argue that the two texts ate completely different tales ot have nothing in common. Instead, I claim that what they have in common 7 Aauably these econe- textual references are also arguments in favor of speaking simsly {ibur dhc cel author ivtead of abot imped authors which ace always Linked 10 single texts and hence cannot be responsible fo echoes betwen cifeeat text, “The Unnatural in B, A, Poe's “The Oval Pore” 249 and how they establish it, is significant and that we can profitably examine this significance in relation to the choices of the author, In the very same issue of Graham's Magazine from April 1842, where “Life in Death” is printed, one finds, some 50 pages later, a litle text by Poe, a preliminary review of Nathaniel Hawthorne's Tiise-Tald Tals. Al ready at the beginning Poe explains: 'An accident has deprived us, this month, of our customary space for seview, and thus nipped in the bud a design long chexshed of treating this subject [the tale] in detail taking Mr. Hawthorne's volumes 28 a text. In May we shall endeavor to catry out ovf attention. At present we ae forced tobe bef. (Poe 1842: 298) ‘The volume was supposed to have contained a longet, actual review of Hawthome’s Twice-Told Tals, writes Poe. In the following issue of Gre- ‘ham’s Magazine, the last issue edited by Poe, this review is actually pub- lished. In his review of Hawthorne, Poe presents a series of demands to bbe met by the successful tale: [J the unity of effect or impression isa point of greatest importance. [.] A still literary artist has constructed a tle. Tf wise, he has not fashioned his thoughts to accommodate his incidents, but having constructed, with deiberste care, 2 certain unique of single effec to be wrought out, he then invents euch in- cidents—he then combines such events a5 may best aid him in establishing this preconceived effect. If his very intial sentence tends not to the outbringing of this effect, then he has failed in his Gest step, In the whole composition these should be no word writen, of which the tendency, director indcec, i aot to the ‘one preestablished design. (Poe 1842c) ‘Along with this review and poetics, Poe's own tale “The Mask of the Red Death” is brought in the May issue, a tale in which all of Poc’s demands for the successful tale are met. There is alignment between theory and practice. On the other hand, “Life in Death,” which is brought in the issue in which the review should have appeared, does not seem to meet many of these demands. In the article “The Ironic History of Poe’s “Life ia Death”: A Literary Skeleton in the Closet,” Richard W. Dowell writes about this relationship between review and text. Dowell ventures to make the qualified guess that for various unflattering reasons Poe does act fin- ish his review of Hawthorne; as a tesult, he does not publish “Mask” ei- ther, which was written to appear along with this very review. Poe is therefore in a great rush to produce a substitute text for the Apsil issue, which is why “Life in Death” is as bad as itis: “By any standard, “Life ia Death’ is a weak tale, By Poe's own exacting standards of unity, brevity, and originality, itis a failure (...)” (1971: 478). This is faisly plausible, but ‘ot entirely. I cannot accept the idea that “Life in Death” is “a weak tale” and, as concerns originality, a pure fiasco. The question of originality can, I think, fruitfully be examined in the context of a previously unnoticed, almost inexplicable peculiarity exactly in Poe’s assessment of Hawthorne’s 250 Herik Show Niceen originality. When the longer seview of Hawthosne appears in the May issue, Poe writes: {the natue of osiginaliy, so fr as regards ts manifestation in letes s Dut Tiberfey understood. The inventive or orginal mind as frequently ciplas it Tain novelty of ove as in novely of matter, Me. Hawthorne is oxiginal at al points. (Poe 1842c; Poe's italics) Itis difficult to find this viewpoint consistent with the words in Poe's third and final discussion of Twie-Told Tales five years Inter, in which Poe ‘writes: “The fact is, that if Me. Hawthorne were zeally original, he could hot fail of making bimself felt by the public. But the fact is, he is nor oxigi- fal in any sense” Poe 1847; Poe’ italics). Without the pretension of en- tiely clearing up this peculiarity I think it Gnds some explanation in the review of Hawthorne that actually appeared ia the April issue together with “Life in Death.” In what appears to be an exceptionally well-disposed Jind sympathetic review, the objections nevertheless seem to inadvertently take up more space than the positive comments, As for the title of Haw- thome’s collection Poe makes the following shrewd comment: Mr. Hawthorne's volumes appear to us misnamed in fwo respects. In the fre they should not have been called “Twice-Told Tales”—for this is « ste einich wal not bear mtn. If in the Gest colected edition they were twice-told, SPeourse now Shey tie thrice told, May we lie to heat them told a hundsed tives! In the second place, these compositions are by no means afl “Tales.” (Por 1842b: 298; Poe's italics) Hawthorne's ttle does not bear repetition, writes Poe in the issue where “Life in Death’ is printed for the first time. On a superficial level this is a cwitticism bordering on slanderousness; on another level it is a serious Objection: Hawthorne's stories, Poe seems to imply, are not essentially trerce-told. They are merely sepeated, merely reprinted, and it is aot qua feptinting that a story can qualify as twice-told, because in that case, 26 ‘Poe emphasizes, it could soon be thrice-told and so forth. It seems to me. ‘very likely that Poe stages his own alternative to Hawthorne's version of Twive-told tales as a past of his very repudiation of Hawthorne's use of the Sgenre” and thus situates a trae “twice-told tale” in precisely the issue ahere he writes about Twie-Told Tale. “Life” and “Portrait” are among ther things about reality and ast, about life and portrait and they stage these relations not just within each of the tales but also in their interrela- tion. Beyond a couple of major changes in the beginning and ending, Poe makes countless small cortections, s0 that almost every single sentence is fold in a different way—is in short twice told. “Portrait” bas “Life” likeness, but the likeness is based on difference as much as on identity. By publishing “Life in Death” Poe tells a tale that isto be told twice, the se- Pond time three years later, and a tale that does not run into the paradox Poe's “he Oval Poste” 2st “The Unnatualia 8 of calling itself twice told, but that ir twice told. The two tales are each Sbout the relationship between original and reproduction, With “Life in Death” and ‘“The Oval Portrait” Poe creates a narrative that is both one ‘ead two, and that does not just bear repetition, but thematizes it on all fevels. Ia particular the relationship between the two titles seems to bear spitness to this. Poe creates a narrative that in all Ukelihood imitates Haw- thome’s “Edward Randolph's Portrait” thematically, but that is original in jt twice-told structure where Hawthorne's original is merely a seprint. Poe's tale is original by transgressing frames and narrative voices normally limited to single, autonomous texts and in making form and theme corre: spond so intimately in this treatment of relations between original and copy, life and portrait in this very transgression and across this configura: tion of texts. [would characterize this as weakly unnatural because it does not amount in iesfto cteating a physically or logically impossible universe, but it does reward the reader that employs interpretational strategies that are ddfferent from those she employs in non-fictionalized, conversational storytelling situations since that reader cin see correspondences that are fnvivible to the reader that treats each of the texts as if it was a real life instance of narration attributable to the nazrator and limited to the nasra- tors knowledge, choices, frame, narration, and resources. In the next sec- tons, Igo on to aegue that much is unnatural about frames and narration alco faside each of the texts and thus turn again to “The Oval Portrait” to analyze these two topics én the text ©) Frame and Framing “Taming to frame and fearing frst, one can take the point of departare in the simple fact that there are two portsits: the oval portrait of the gil and “The Oval Poctrait” of the character natrator watching and reading about the oval portrait of the gid. The narrative describes how the book de- scribes how the painting depicted the gitl “The Oval Portrait” is aot un- equivocaly a portzit of the gel, but also and perhaps moze importantly a portrait of the first-person nartator, These two portaits, it turns out haze almost every single feature. ‘Kafalenos’ focus on embedding is certainly apt, since the tale is charac~ terized by embedding on so many levels. In a natural framework there has to be a cleat hierarchy between levels when embedding is in play. One level fr story will have to embed and include and surround another story or $88 tment, fa that sense the story “The Oval Portrait” can be seen as embedding the story about the gil and her picture and (in a more loose sense of the word embedding) “The Oval Portrait” embeds the oval portrait. ‘The pecu- liar structure of Poe's story, however, is that almost every word that de- 252 ensik Stow Nien scribes the oval portrait is equally accurate about “The Oval Portrait”. Simi- larly, almost everything that charactesizes the gil in the porteait seems to hold equally tre for the character narrator in “The Portrait”: (DAs Kafalenos mentions, we never get a chance to return to the per- spective of the gitl, because she dies. Similarly we never return to the perspective of the character narrator, because that story ends at the same dead point without return’ @) The two characters share many features. They ate both in a te- mote, dark “turret”, seemingly lit by the same kind of candles. The de- scription of the character's room corresponds to the description of the room in which the giel was painted and died. I will even go on to say that it is a reasonable assumption that this is not just a similar 00m, but she coom in which the girl was depicted. Not just because of the similarities bat because of the simple fact that the portsait is hang- ing here, thus literally having a connection to the room. @) The gisl in picture and the character in the story are both in des- perate, life-threatening conditions when they are depicted. @ The two portraits correlate and find completion at the seme time and with the same words in the end. Hence, there is a sense in which the embedded is not surrounded by what supposedly embeds it If one is the mise en abyme of the other, both end abruptly in the same abyss. (©) When the depiction is completed the depicted has disappeared in the story as well asin the picture (except exactly as depicted). The giel and the character have both disappeared as something that exists in- dependently of being depicted, as something outside the depiction. ‘The points here about frame and framing range from weakly to strongly ‘unnatural. Starting at the weak end, the similarities between the git) and the protagonist are uncanny and unlikely at the least, and as mentioned it is an uanataral and explicit assumption here that che girl is indeed a victim of death by depiction. It is strongly unnatural if we go on to conclude from the five points—as I will right now—that from an unnatural point of view “The Oval Portrait” is constructed in such a way that the framed frames the frame and the embedded embeds the embedding in the sense that the embedded description in the book comes to embed the framing description of the character reading the book. From the viewpoint of the character and the beginning, the book and the description is embedded, Dut feom the viewpoint of the book and the end, what little we sead about 7 Woe iz a master of exploring the effect of frame aacmaives thet do not serum to thee amework, Among somerous examples “Berenice” and “The Black Cat” ean be me tioned, ‘The Unnatural in FA. Poe's “The Oval Port” 253 the character in the beginning is really just a vague background for netaleptic sepetition in which the depicted character in the dark weet (Character in story a= wel 25g in picture) vanishes so that all that’s eft {he depiction. In that sense, the story, like the portrait is vignette I sys about the porteit thatthe depiction of the gel “[..] melted imperceptibly fn the vague yet deep shadow which formed the background of the whole”. “Aguin, quite the same is true for the depiction of the character, whose ponicon in the narrative is anything but clacly framed. A vignette io gen, Pel is characterized by not being distinctly demarcated by a frame, and thus “The Oval Poruait, like the oval portrait, is, in that sente, itself a Vignette where the ft-person narrator impercepubly disappears out of ihe teat and melts into the background of the whole, so that we never Tetum to the introductory situationt. In the next section I go on to exam- jhe this vanishing of the narrator and the elation between narrator and narration. 4) Narrator, Narration and Enunciation Ta a natural framework we would have to assume that the character nara: tor must have survived since we have the tale, and that therefore this fate is (the oaly) one the protagonist does not share with the git. Kaflenos, accordingly, seems to take it for granted, and talks about the response the portrait as “minor distraction during recovery” (264). The protagonist, however, is not just wounded but in a “desperately wounded condition.” But can narration take place if the nasrator dies in the process? The answer to that question compels me to revisit some points from an eatly article of mine called “The Impersonal Voice in Firs Pecton Narrative Fiction” which played a role in the emergence of unnat- tural natratology along with work by Maria Mikel, Jan Alber and Brian Richardson, Jn the article I argue that in first-person narrative fiction the limits of the protagonist's voice in such areas as knowledge, vocebulary, and memory is sometimes steikingly transgressed and that ths is neither 3 ‘Mistake nor something foreign to the genre, but on the contrary, a matter Of utilizing possibilty fundamental to it. The general point that goes beyond any specific example is that the reader is faced with interpsets. Sepal choizes in these kinds of narrative. In an unnatural frameworks first person nafratives can be unnatural in the sense that they designate and eefer to n character with the first person pronoun “I” without necessarily tanatng from that character. If we assume, then, as an unnatural reading FT ts same hs even tut forthe “at book" about the wor in which esas that they a= ‘Yague and qusine” ike the porta itel 254 lenie Skow Nielsen strategy that the possibilty of transgresting the limits of personal voice Tegurding knowledge, vocabulasy, memory, and co forth, is presents We speed noe seotict out interpretations to what would be possible or plau- sible in aetoral narration. From an unnatural point of view, we need nor immpose real-world necessities on all fictional narratives. We need not Pt a TPegeratves into communicational models based on real-life storytelling Unoations, Unlike standard interpretations of “natural nasratives” che simfer can assume about some unnatural Grst person nasratives that the protagonists designated by the pronoun “I” but not enunciating “The natrating “voice”, in that case, does not emanate from the charac~ ter but invents « story, including the first person and his of her imitations, life and death. ‘This means that I go on to assume that the protagonist aieser not just all the superficial circumstances with the gi, Dut also che sat raciel one: that, like her, the protagonist is destroyed in and by the May process of the being, portrayed. That is unnatural coo—fret of al {gain because of the death eause, but also because it meane shat the char- seeer is seen, not asa living person, but as depicted, as part of a portait as part of the sory “The Oval Porat”. From 4 natural point of view } 26 Pime this has to be at best insignificant and at worst an annoying Jeconstructivistic postmodern platitude. From an unnatural perspective it esos Uke the result of a careful construction that cues us to realize thay Se might miss what the text tells bout the relation between life and set it ae aaiake the character for a living person and if we don’t sce that “--] the peculacties of desiga, of the sigetig, and of the frame, must have Jpattnily dispelled such idea”. In this intexpzctation, the reader is left in the sement of completion—just ike the painter and the character—in front bf the portait of a dead. The very last word is “dead” and the st is sk Tence. From out of that silence, behind the words “She was dead” an ua. natural ear might hear the three words Poe's Valdemar made so famovs: the words “Tam dead”. Conclusion, Comparison, and Interpretation For me the teal author is a necessary part of a chetosical model for natural we anatural narratives and the concept of a narrator (as someone dis- aoe om authors and characters) s supesfvous and misleading in ie- Uogal as well 2s nonfictional stories. Positing a narrator to help under- Sand a fictional narrative as a report about something that the narrator Supposedly kaows or sees or expeciences and hence as a litera) commer: aaaremnct Hom the nazrator (cf. Walsh 2010: 39) amounts to assuming that cae rrome, Le, the narzator, is telling a story that is not fictional and that “The Vantaa B.A. Pads “The Oval Por” 258 can therefore, on its own level, be intexpreted as ifthe rules of non-fiction ‘were in play. Iti, in a sense, a way of conceiving of fiction as framed non- fiction (cf. Walsh 2007: 69). By assuming instead that a narrative is the fictional invention of the author, the reader assumes that she is invited to interpret the story as invented and independent of the real world. That is the reason fictions can contain unnatural events, minds and acts of narra~ tion. My argument against the narrator and for teadings that sre un aturalizing in the sense that they resist applying real-world limitations to all narratives is therefore nat at all a move towards incomprchensiveness, mysteriousness ot non-communication. Nor is it a move beyond thetori- cal intezests in the means, ends, purposes, and occasions of narratives. Tnstead, itis an attempt to reframe these very questions about communi- cational techniques, purposes, means, and ends and to attribute them to the appropriate agent in order to show the relevance of un-naturalizing readings and in order to not unnecessatily limit interpsetations to what is possible in literal communicative acts and in representational models. In ‘effect, my proposals are completely compatible with thetorical models like James Phelan’s—especially in later versions such as in (Phelan forthcom- ing a). ‘Compated to readings that assume that readers try to tzeat all narra- tives as real world instances of narration this approach makes it easier to explain why intertextuality and other extratextual references potentially add a meaning to the understanding of a text. My claim is not pragmatic ‘and analytical claim that natural readings will not discover or recognize such references but a metatheoretical claim that this very recognition sits uncomfortably with a framework that assumes that natration has to be report and hence has to attribute it to an agent at the ontological level of the story world. ‘Naturalizing assumptions include but are not limited to assuming that it is a given that a chatacter narrator has to have survived the ‘events he or she tells about. that “T” has to refer to the speaker. that there has to be a hierarchy between frames. — that a character narrator cannot authoritatively tell what other people think—especialy if they are not present, or tell what happened in a place where she is not present herself ‘These claims have in common that they work from an assumption that the rules and constraints of real-life narration have to be in place. Even if I believe that such assumptions are sometimes misguided, I do not want to claim that they are self-evideatly weong, neither in general nor in the specific ease of “The Oval Portrait”. On the contrary: naturalizing and un- 256 end Show Nielsen naturalizing options will necessarily stand ia an agonistic relationship to tach other, so that it is always a matter of competing interpretations. This is not something to regret. Instead it is an oppostuaity to emphasize that rratutalizing readings arc options and interpretational choices as opposed to the idea that itis natural or necessary to naturalize Tt seems to me that naturalizing readings will appeal to readers who like explanations and who waat textual inconsistencies and ambiguities to be finally resolved. At the same time some readers, like me, might think that many natural readings will tend to disambiguate what is presented in the text as ambiguous. In “The Oval Portrait” that would again hold true for the question about the fate of the protagonist, and for the relation between narrative levels, but also—and this is where I want to end—for the very identity of the protagonist and for just a basic outline of what setwaly happens in the crucial moment of the narrative where the charac- ter narrator looks at picture and finds it appalling. ‘Let us examine these two last questions on the basis of two assump- tions that are not prohibited in an unnatural framework: = Nothing in an unnatural framework prevents us from assuming as an cexceptionality thesis and as opposed to zeablife instances of nazeating that the framed in the form of the picture and in the form of the book description itself frames the story about the protagonist and thus also descsibes the fate of the protagonist. — Nothing in an unnatural framework prevents us from assuming as ¢n exceptionalty thesis and as opposed to real-life instance of narrating ‘that we can read words that the character narrator cannot tel?" ‘As 2 result of these assumptions I said above that we can assume that protagonist shares fate with the gitl and dies dusing depiction, so that the final words “She was dead” holds true for the protagonist as well as for the gil in the portrait. But why not go on assume that the protagonist is accurately described not just by the word “dead”, but also by the word “che?! This would mean that the words—notably in the third person— “She was dead” hold true on all levels. Every single one of the eadings of the tale that I know of, including Kafalenos’ and including Bassein’s femi- nist reading takes for granted that the protagonist is a man, The text gives To my *Navoriving and Un-atuntiving Reading Streit ocaleaon Revisited” 1 point out dat such eases ae infact no at alli, But rey common en decussarange of 10 aE ak Sah Cpl eve ey wt comme and pec pining a de uen nth coi ny lm spon re Se a dnall dean of har pene ea Se itt poe vowed et x we 11 TERRA ne Andaa Keg wo Bt poled as poet fr ne, ‘The Unnatural in EA, Poe's “The Oval Ports” 257 us no evidence to the fact. Pethaps we assume that the gaze has to be ale, like the painter’s. It is aot impossible, but the truth is, I think, much ‘mote shockingly appalling. It appears if we assume that the wounded characteris, of at least might be, a girl I will acknowledge right away that this assumption is unproved and probably unprovable, but have to add that so is the assumption that itis @ man. In addition there are a number of reasons that makes it seem more likely. First of all it entails that the ‘numerous structuctl similarities between character in story and git in pic- ture extend and go all the way. Secondly it helps explain a core event ia the tale: We never actually and exactly hear what is 50 absolutely shocking about the experience of the picture. Even if we might not notice it, this is ‘actually a case of paralipsis in which crucial knowledge possessed by the character is withheld from the reader. Let us throw 2 final glance on the ‘crucial passage: But the action produced an effect altogether unanticipated. [..) I glanced at the pictare hurtiedly and then closed eny eyes. Why I did this was not at fst appas- tent even to my own perception, But while my lids remained thus sbut, In over in my mind any zesson for so shurting them. It was an impulsive moment to guin time for thought—to make sure that my fancy had not deceived me—to calm and subdve my fancy fora more sober and certain gaze. In a very few moments I looked fixedly atthe parting. That I now saw aight I could not and would ‘not doubt; [..] Thad found the spel of the picture i an absolut lif-ikeliness of ‘expression, which, at Gist string, Gaully confounded, subdued, and appalled Is this a man who is agitated because of the lifelikeness of the painting? Oris this a woman who is shocked to the point of disbelief by unexpect- edly, impossibly seeing herself portrayed in “the oval portrait”. I want to back down a litde bit on the claim that this +a women, and I don’t want to re-disambiguate what remains in the story itself ambiguous". Whether this is a gicl seeing herself in the picture, or, even mote uonatural, a male character seeing himself transformed to woman in the picture, or simply just an indeterminate protagonist seeing him/herself depicted in the pic~ ture, it seems to me that the protagonist is teapped in an appalling impos- sibility. The turret is a trep. The “chateau had been temporarily and very lately abandoned.” The book about the pictures is not accidentally found at some shelve, but “had been found upon the pillow” which seems more 12 Indeed, a couple of tings might spel spins the iden thatthe peotoaist sx worn. Fn “Late in Death” itis e=pily stated tat e/sb has lot blood in “the affay withthe baa~

    You might also like