Warren writes: " Notice, for example, how many times he has to resort to
phrases such as 'I feel' or 'I believe' in his last post. Not a very
convincing critique of the concept"

This is a very interesting understanding of my use of "I feel and I
believe".  Warren apparently questions the reliability of my argument
because of the use of these modest interjections. Had he been more familiar
with the history of rhetoric and had he been a bit more familiar with the
ways in which writers try to give validity to their position by assuming a
modest pose. This is done repeatedly by William Bradford in "Of Plymouth
Plantation" The narrator repeatedly questions the validity of what he is
saying and even appears to argue against himself at points only to give the
impression that his viewpoints are most reliable because he questions them
himself. William Bradford defines himself throughout the text as a
questionable narrator, always inviting us to regard his views with some
reservation, but also in order to create a higher truth, an awareness that
human awareness is limited. There is thus a religious conception here of
human frailty because no man can see the whole picture as God does.   This
is a rhetorical device by which he establishes the  authrority  of his text.
I'm not sure why that makes the statement more untrustworthy or less
scholarly simply by interjecting  some personal sentiments. Warren wants to
classify sentence structures without actually reading the sentences.He wants
to study syntax without semantics. All this I'm sure has a great tradition
and I would certainly not stand in the way of such a pursuit.  The purpose
of my responses has been to see the issue from other perspectives and to
ruminate on the many possible directions such analyses might follow.  If a
narratological study of the unreliable narrator does not take into account
the social, political, race, gender, nationality or age of the narrator than
how can all the ironies be examined?  That Jane Wyman is a shy woman who is
attracted to an accused man in Stage Fright and accepts his story as truth,
as  listening woman, should seem to be a central issue in the study of the
unreliable narrator here, I believe.


 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Buckland, Warren" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 4:39 PM
Subject: the tradition of unreliable narration


> One of the problems with the discussion on 'unreliable narration' is that
some participants do not acknowledge that a tradition exists in which the
concept was developed and refined. Any attempts to transcend that concept
(or any other concept) needs to acknowledge that tradition, to understand
its agenda, and to know what level it is operating at.
>
> Ron T. has failed to acknowledge that tradition. He simply wants to
reinvent the wheel, and call 'unreliable narration' something that belongs
to other debates. To criticise a tradition, one first needs to understand
it. Nietzsche said it perfectly when he wrote that 'the atheist must become
a priest before he or she can attack religion'.
>
> Film studies has a history and a tradition. This constant process of
reinvention, of not acknowledging the tradition, is what gives film studies
a bad name. This is why people like Alan Sokal can make fun of the
humanities, because many humanities scholars such as Ron T. are simply
working in their own corner trying to reinvent the discipline. He uses a
narratological concept to try and answer non-narratological questions. The
structure of an unreliable sequence does not change if the narrator is black
or a woman. This may have interesting cultural or social implications (as
studies of the 'female action hero' have already demonstrated), but they do
not affect the structure of the narration. The effectiveness of any concept
is based on its precise delimitation, and narratology has produced a
precise, delimited definition of unreliable narration.
>
> Ron T. criticises the concept of unreliable narration without
understanding its range, scope, purpose, or agenda. Notice, for example, how
many times he has to resort to phrases such as 'I feel' or 'I believe' in
his last post. Not a very convincing critique of the concept. In the end,
the concept of 'unreliable narration' is simply unsuitable to the questions
Ron T is asking. (Part of the research process involves being able to use
the right concept for your research question.)
>
> Warren Buckland
> Film Studies
> Chapman University
>
>