A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S
FO LIA L IT T E R A R IA A N G L IC A 3, 1999
T om asz D obrogoszcz
GETTING TO THE TRUTH THE NARRATOR
OF JULIAN BARNES’S FLAUBERT’S PARROT
We make up a story to cover the facts we d o n ’t kn ow or can’t accept.
Julian Barnes A H istory o f the W orld in JO 1/2 Chapters
I t is an undeniable fact th a t a story ca n n o t exist w ith o u t a teller. A n y
n a rra tiv e stru ctu re m ust in troduce the voice o f a n a rra to r, th o u g h the levels
o f his perceptibility m ay vary, and in som e cases th e read er m ay be h ard ly
aw are o f his presence. T h e re are n a rra tiv e s in w hich th e p a tte r n o f
n a rra tio n is relevant only to the way o f presenting the story; in o th er
w ords, it m odels the discourse o f the n arrativ e stru ctu re. In som e cases,
how ever, the m an n er o f n a rra tio n is a crucial elem ent o f the n arrativ e,
m ean in g th a t an analysis o f the n a rra to r c a n n o t be neglected in the search
fo r the real m eanin g o f the piece o f w riting.
F laubert’s Parrot, a novel by Julian B arnes, certainly belongs to the
la tte r category o f narratives. T his p aper focuses o n the m a n n e r o f n a rra tio n
em ploy ed by th e a u th o r, aim ing to d e m o n s tra te th a t the n a r r a to r o f
F laubert’s Parrot - seemingly a figure o f m in o r im p o rtan ce fo r th e n a rra tiv e
- bears crucial relevance to it. I try here to investigate the reaso ns fo r th e
m ultiplicity o f n arrativ e m odels present in Ju lian B arnes’s novel. O ne o f
th e topics at issue is the balance between the digressions o f the n a r ra to r
an d the m ain body o f the story narrated .
T h e theoretical assum ptions o f the p ap e r are derived from v ario u s
A m erican stru ctu ralist critics. T h e a p p a ra tu s em ployed here is based m ainly
o n tw o w orks. O ne o f them is The Rhetoric o f Fiction by W ayne C. B o o th ,1
w hich is p ro b a b ly the first th o ro u g h and system atic p resen tatio n o f n a rra to r
typology. rl h e o th er is a m eticulous and exhaustive w ork by S eym our
C h a tm a n - S to ry and D iscourse.2 T h e concepts devised by the tw o critics
have proved rem ark ab ly helpful in the analysis o f Ju lian B arnes’s novel.
1 he n a r r a to r o( F laubert’s Parrot is an elderly w idow er, G eo ffrey
B raithw aite. A d o cto r by profession, he is a zealous en th u siast and an
a m a te u r b io g rap h er o f G ustave F la u b ert. A t first the novel read s as a w itty
and engrossing, th o u g h unprofessional, study o f th e life an d w ork o f the
F ren ch novelist. Several hints im ply th a t this biography is n o t being w ritten
by a professional scholar. F o r instance, the n a rra to r, instead o f keeping
strictly to the topic, involves him self in a series o f digressions co ncern ing
his ow n life. R are in the beginning chapters, the strayings o f the n a rra tiv e
a p p e a r m o re and m o re frequently, until the re ad er begins to feel th a t
F la u b e rt’s biography is no t the central topic a t hand . T h a t is to say, the
story ol G eoffrey B raithw aite and his wife Ellen, altho ug h possibly m istak en
fo r a set o f digressions, constitutes the core o f the n arrativ e. A t som e
point, the n a rra to r actually delivers a list o f his concerns, and the degree
o f im p o rtan ce he attaches to each o f them :
Three stories contend within me. One about Flaubert, one about Ellen, one abou t myself. M y own is the simplest o f the three - it hardly am ounts to more than a convincing proof ol m y existence — and yet I find it the hardest to begin. M y w ife's m ore com plicated, and more urgent; yet I resist that too. K eeping the best for the last, as 1 was saying earlier? I d o n ’t think so; rather the opposite, if anything. But by the time I tell you her story I want you to be prepared: that’s to say, I want you to have had enough o f books, and parrots, and lost letters, and bears, and the opinions o f [critics], and even the opinions o f D r G eoffrey Braithwaite. B ooks are not life, how ever m uch we prefer it if they were. E llen’s is a true story; perhaps it is even the reason why I am telling you Flaubert’s story instead.3
Indeed, the bulk o f the novel seems to be devoted to G u stav e F la u b e rt.
T h e n a rra to r is in no way enthusiastic a b o u t dealing w ith his sto ry and
the story o f his wife. T he first sparse digressions referring to this to pic are
inserted in the n arrativ e alm ost involuntarily. T h e im pression created is th a t
they are b u t obsessive th o u g h ts persistently h au n tin g the n a rra to r. H e d oes
n o t seem to be eager to share them with the re ad er and therefore the
in fo rm atio n is n o t conveyed in a straig h tfo rw ard way.
Even the basic and ap p aren tly n on-em b arrassin g facts are re p o rted by
the n a r ra to r reluctantly. W e do no t know his n am e until it is revealed,
forty pages in to the story, in a qu ite inventive digression. W hen th e
n a r ra to r m en tio n s the article he m ight w rite and publish, he provides the
2 Seym our Chatman, S to ry and Discourse. N arrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell U niversity Press, 1983).
3 Julian Barnes, Flaubert's Parrot (London: Jonathan Cape, 1985), p. 86. All subsequent references are to this edition.
re ad er with its title an d the nam e o f its a u th o r - th a t is, his ow n nam e
(41). T h e n a rra to r keenly (which does no t m ean frequ ently) uses different
so rts o f digressio n s to inform the re ad er a b o u t him self. A lth o u g h he
m entio ns th a t he is a d o c to r, n o t a critic, at the very beginning o f the
novel (13), he does no t re tu rn to th a t p o in t for a long tim e, alm ost as if
he w ould like the read er to forget it. If he rem inds us a b o u t his p rofession,
he does so only m arginally - it does no t seem to be his real purp ose.
W hen he refers to som e ethical issue, he adds, in parentheses, th a t his
views can be explained by his being a d o c to r (75). F inally, he prov ides us
w ith the full self-characterisation - using the form o f a “ p erson al ad v e r
tisem en t” he w ould write if he were to pu t one in a m agazine (95). T h e
n a r ra to r is aw are o f his ow n reluctance a b o u t disclosing certain m atters;
he puts fo rth an effort to m ask it, m ak in g use o f a q u o ta tio n fro m his
F ren c h m entor: “ G iving the public details ab o u t oneself is a b ou rg eo is
te m p ta tio n th a t I have always resisted” (94).
H ow ever, B raithw aite displays this kind o f hesitancy n o t only w hen he
speaks o f him self. A sim ilar situ atio n arises when he goes in to th e sto ry
o f his wife, Ellen. Judging from the frequency o f th e re m a rk s concerned
w ith her, we can see th a t she is very im p o rta n t for him long before he
says so directly. A t the beginning o f the novel, B raithw aite openly states
th a t his wife is d ea d , b u t he b o th ers n eith er to ex p lain an y d etails
concerning h er d eath , n o r to speak o f their life to gether. H e does n o t
re tu rn to this d ea th for a long tim e, alth o u g h an y careful re ad er m u st
perceive several allusions to it (e.g., “I never asked m y wife [th at question];
an d it’s to o late no w ” - p. 40). In th e course o f the n a rra tiv e we can
g radually co n stru ct, o r ra th e r approxim ate, the picture o f B raith w aite’s late
wife. T h ro u g h o u t this p a rt o f the novel, the n a r ra to r is co n stan tly w avering
- to tell o r n o t to tell. T h e re a d e r, co m in g a c ro ss th e re m a rk s:
“ I rem em ber . . . B ut I ’ll keep th a t fo r a n o th e r tim e” (76) o r “ M y wife . . .
N o t now , n o t now ” (105), sees B raithw aite stricken by deep inh ibitio ns.
T h e n arrativ e continues in this m od e until the th ird to last ch a p te r,
w hen G eoffrey B raithw aite announces th a t he is going to reveal th e w hole
tru th and directly discusses his wife’s story which u n d o u b ted ly co n stitu tes
his real perplexity. Indeed, even th o u g h the n a rra to r is im m ensely reticent
a b o u t his unfaithful (as we finally learn) wife, it can be easily sp o tted th a t
he is alm ost obsessed w ith adultery. T h e m a tte r is clearly explained in the
above-m entioned chap ter, b u t until the read er reaches this stage o f the
novel, he m ust suspect som ething w hen reading several persistently reappearing
rem ark s connected w ith betrayed m arriages. A dultery is fo r B raith w aite one
o f the w ords th a t are replaced by euphem ism s now adays, to g e th e r w ith
m adness and death (91). T alk in g ab o u t the invention o f rail-travel in the
n in eteen th century, he stresses the effect it had on fo rn ic atio n (109). H e
also finds infidelity am ong the w orst things one can discover a b o u t a wife
o r lover, next to “ lack o f love, m adness [and] the suicidal s p a rk ” (127).
Such passages instil the reader with a n o tio n th a t the n a rra to r m ay be
a betrayed h u sb an d w ho finds difficulty in accepting it. T his n o tio n is
su p p o rted in the ch a p te r dealing w ith E llen’s actual infidelity.
T h u s in F laubert’s Parrot we m eet a n a rra to r w ho is so inhibited and
reserved th a t he finds it im possible to speak in a straig h tfo rw ard way and
tackle the issue w ith which he is m o st concerned. Instead, he takes to
weaving a new story. T h e narrative is d om inated by this secondary digressive
story, w hereas the core m a tte r is rem oved to the b ack g ro u n d and only
m arg in ally dealt w ith, alm ost as if this were a kind o f digression. T h e
n a r ra to r responsible fo r this kind o f discourse is, fo r D avid L eon H igd on ,
“ th e reluctant narrator, w ho is reliable in strict term s, . . . b u t w ho has
seen, experienced o r caused som ething so tra u m a tic th a t he m u st ap p ro ach
the telling o f it th ro u g h indirections, m asks and su b stitu tio n s.” 4- Indeed,
even in the course o f his n a rra tio n , B raithw aite him self adm its th a t h e is
a “ hesitating n a r ra to r” (89). H e creates a discourse w hich, as a m a tte r o f
fact, leads him far from his genuine interest; actually the w hole n arrativ e
m ay be perceived as “ a fictional stru ctu re the n a rra to r has erected to
p ro tec t h im .” 5 H igdon claim s th a t the n a rra to r “ blam es his h esitatio n on
his typically reticent English n atu re , on his ow n em b arrassm en t, an d finally
on his fear o f unm asking him self as a cu c k o ld .” 6 T h e list m igh t be extended
to include a very sim ple, yet very im p o rta n t p o in t - a p o in t w hich show s
B raithw aite as a h u m an being: he does n o t feel at ease discussing the
suicidal d ea th o f his wife and the consequent, pervading suffering.
G eoffrey B raithw aite w ould m uch ra th e r discourse u p o n F la u b e rt, which
in fact he does. W riting a b o u t his favourite a u th o r is m uch easier fo r him
and, accordingly, m u ch m ore appealing. H e does n o t find enough strength
to resist the tem p tatio n im m ediately; therefore, the n arrativ e fo r its m ain
p a rt, alth o u g h quite rich in personal digressions, is basically devoted to
F la u b e rt. T h e re ad er finds o u t th a t, ironically, as a d o cto r, B raith w aite
suggests “ a new in tere st” to his newly widowed patien t (160); he sim ilarly
prescribes for him self the w riting o f F la u b e rt’s biography. H e claim s to
have “ som e rash devotion to a dead foreigner to sustain [him ]” (166),
a devotion which, he hopes, will n o t only provide a pastim e, b u t also keep
his obsessive th o u g h ts fa r from his m ind. In this case, how ever, the process
o f w riting does n o t seem to act as a p o ten t remedy: it does n o t bring th e
4 D avid Leon H igdon, ‘“ Unconfessed C onfessions’: the Narrators o f Graham Swift and Julian Barnes,” in: James A cheson, ed., The British and Irish N ovel Since 1960 (Houndm ills: M acm illan, 1991), p. 174.
5 Ibid., p. 180. 6 Ibid., p. 181.
sufferer m uch ease. As H ig d o n pu ts it, “ G eoffrey . . . creates a literary
investigation to escape his ow n fears.” 7 Y et the fears c a n n o t be th w arted
entirely, and the n a rra to r finally decides to share the “p u re sto ry ” o f his
wife with the reader. H ow ever, even the eventual confession docs n o t bring
B raith w aitc final consolation, and he resum es a discussion o f F la u b e rt. H e
finds it im possible to com e to term s with the m a tte r co ncerning his wife,
w ho, alth o u g h the only love o f his life, was in som e respects a perfect
stran g e r to him . B raithw aite adm its th a t very often he found him self
ig n o ra n t o f her m o tiv atio n s, as well as o f the system o f values she accepted.
Being aw are o f it all, G eoffrey sum m arises his conviction in a sentence:
“ M y wife: som eone I feel I u n d erstan d less well th a n a foreign w riter dead
fo r a h u n d re d years” (168).
Y et a n o th e r possible reason fo r the n a r ra to r’s co n cern w ith G u stav e
F la u b e rt is suggested by Jam es B. Scott. T h e critic stresses p erso n ality
differences betw een B raithw aite and his wife, p o in tin g ou t his stro ng,
p erh ap s even unhealthy need to u nderstand her. As the feeling is n o t
recip ro cated , G eoffrey is b o und to seek his way to h er h e a rt (a n d /o r m in d ),
w hich proves unachievable. B ut for him “ the search is all, an d if . . . the
search is thw arted by an im m ovable b arrier, th en the only altern ativ e to
life-w asting in ertia is a refocusing o f the quest . . . to w ard s F la u b e rt.” 8
H ow ever, such an in terp re tatio n , reasonable as it m ay seem, does n o t fit
the n a r r a to r ’s evident shyness, w hich this p ap e r has already n o ted . It is
tru e th a t B raithw aite perceives a special kind o f unity betw een him self and
F la u b e rt, but the obvious pro o fs o f his reluctance p resen t in the sto ry show
his real reasons for discussing the F ren ch w riter.
B raithw aite, w ho, according to H igdo n, escapes his fears by m ean s of
going in to F la u b e rt, feels aw kw ard largely because, ironically, “ his m arried
life has b u t p arro ted th a t o f F la u b e rt’s C harles and E m m a B o v ary .” 9
E xam ining this m a tte r in m o re detail, we find several striking sim ilarities.
G eo ffrey B raith w aite m irro rs C h arles B ovary n o t only in th a t he is
a betrayed h u sb an d . In b o th cases, it is only th e wife w ho is u nfaithfu l.
G eoffrey an d C harles share th e sam e profession, being d o cto rs. It m ay very
well be coincidental, bu t th eir wives have the sam e initials. F inally, b o th
M rs B raithw aite and M m e B ovary die in a sim ilar w ay - by co m m ittin g
suicide. All these details, un in ten tio n al as they m ay seem, have m o st
p ro b a b ly been carefully p lan n ed by B arnes, w hich is to som e ex ten t
c o rro b o ra te d by his sta te m e n t in an interview :
. . w hy a d o c to r?
. . . G eoffrey B raithw aite is a d o c to r like C harles B ovary, and his wife
7 Ibid., p. 180.
8 James B. Scott, “ Parrot as Paradigms: Infinite Deferral o f M eaning in F laubert’s P arrot," in: A R IE L : A Review o f International English Literature, 3 (1990): 61.
resem bles M m e B ovary.” 10 Even B raithw aite is allow ed to discover the
sim ilarity betw een E m m a and his wife, speaking o f her: “ D id she, like
E m m a B ovary, ‘rediscover in adultery all the platitud es o f m arriag e?’ ”
(164). N evertheless, the n a rra to r seems to deny any resem blance betw een
him self an d E m m a ’s h u sband. F o r such a devoted F la u b e rt en th u siast and
expert, it w ould n o t be possible n o t to notice the foregoing sim ilarities,
an d yet he does n o t provide a single reference to this m atter. F ollow ing in
the fo otsteps o f F la u b e rt’s ch a racter, and in th a t way becom ing “ F la u b e rt’s
p a r r o t,” is n o t a great h o n o u r for him. A gain, this reluctance prevails over
o p en n ess an d sincerity, h in d erin g him from d ealin g w ith his h ea rtfelt
anxiety. Because o f this, no n e o f the sim ilarities m en tio n ed abo ve are
po in ted ou t in the discourse, an d m ay elude a careless re ad er - which very
m u ch seems B raithw aite’s intention, alth o u g h it is clearly n o t B arn es’s.
C ertainly the story o f Ellen does n o t m irro r E m m a ’s life fu lly , it is to
a large extent original. Its depiction, however, is only frag m en tary and seen
th ro u g h the filter o f the n a r ra to r’s discourse. T h u s her story becom es ra th e r
a very subjective version o f her story, th e read er know ing only w h at the
n a r ra to r w ants him to know . Still, the n a rra to r, jud ging from the p a rt o f
his discourse th a t deals w ith F la u b ert, m ight be considered largely reliable.
H e is very precise and m eticulous in presenting th e life sto ry o f the F ren ch
novelist, and it has to be noted th a t for th e m ost p a rt th e facts he
describes, the dates, and the opinions o f the critics are based on the tru th .
T here are, obviously, passages o f unalloyed fiction which are only them atically
related to F la u b e rt’s biography, b u t they can be easily spotted and separated
from purely biographical m aterial. As for the descrip tio n o f F la u b e rt’s life,
the n a rra tiv e is c o rro b o ra te d no t only by the actual historical events (after
all, th e d ates and facts can be checked, and confirm ed, w ith the help o f
any professional biography). T o p ro v e even m ore au th en ticity , the novel
a b o u n d s in n um erous references to F la u b e rt’s letters, diaries, and q u o ta tio n s
from his fiction. C onsequently, the reader, positive a b o u t the details from
F la u b e rt’s life, tends to believe the n a rra to r also as far as his ow n p erso nal
m a tte rs are concerned. B raithw aite is presum ably h iding som ething; but
w ith h o ld in g the w hole tru th is n o t the sam e as lying. In o th e r w ords,
a re lu c tan t n a rra to r does n o t necessarily have to be an u n reliable o n e .11
10 Interview with Julian Barnes: Jean-Pierre Saigas, “ Julian Barnes n ’en a pas fini avec Flaubert,” in: La Quinzaine L ittéraire, Paris, 15-31 M ay 1986: 13: “A lors pourquoi un médicin? . . . G eoffrey Braithwaite est m édicin com m e Charles Bovary, et sa fem m e ressemble à M adam e Bovary.”
11 A definition o f an unreliable narrator has been provided by Booth: “ . . . I have called a narrator reliable when he speaks for or acts in accordance with the norm s o f the work (w hich is to say, the implied author’s norm s), unreliable when he does n o t.” B ooth , op. cit.,
P roviding incom plete in fo rm atio n in the form o f b rief digressions, or
even only in terru p tio n s o f the narrative, im pels the read er to actively seek
a p ictu re o f Ellen, given the insufficient assistance o f h er h usb an d . W h a t
d o we learn a b o u t her from the n a rra to r? T h a t by th e tim e o f th is
n a rra tio n she has died (13), th a t she was n o t a perfect wife (76), th a t her
eyes were greeny-blue (78), th a t she once visited F ran c e w ith her h u sb an d
an d developed a blister on her fo o t (84) . . . T h e n a r ra to r is n o t very
explicit; his reluctance serves as a stim ulus for o u r active reading and
c reatio n o f pictures and m eanings from his, ostensibly, in v o lu n tary hints.
O u r hypotheses are either confirm ed o r rejected in the c h a p te r “ P ure
S to ry ” , the one which is directly concerned w ith th e n a r r a to r ’s wife. T h u s,
fo r exam ple, the n a rra to r a t this p o in t verbalises his previous allusions to
E llen ’s infidelity (“ She was loved . . . by w hat I suppose I m u st agree to
call her lo v ers” - p. 162).
It has to be noted th a t the n a rra to r o f Flaubert's Parrot is well aw are
o f his function. G eoffrey B raithw aite is conscious th a t he is w riting a story,
a lth o u g h a t the beginning he adm its only th a t his “ p ro je c t” is concerned
with F lau b ert (12). Later on he confesses, as it has been already dem onstrated,
th a t in fact the n arrativ e is m ean t to deal as m u ch w ith him self and his
wife as w ith the F ren c h novelist. M oreover, several passages from the novel
suggest th a t the n a rra to r is also concerned w ith th e process o f w riting itself,
w hich seems to give the n arrativ e a m etafictional ch aracter. In th e course
o f n a rra tio n , he seems to show the read er th a t the w riting has n o t been
com pleted and tries to share w ith us his ideas a b o u t th e possible shap e o f
th e p a rts o f the novel still to be w ritten. H e foresh ado w s on e o f his last
c h ap ters, saying: “ It tem pts m e to w rite a D ictio n ary o f A ccepted Ideas
a b o u t G u sta v e ” (87), which sounds as if he were n o t sure w hat he will
finally w rite a b o u t.12 L ate r on, in one o f his digressions, th e n a r ra to r
re tu rn s to this idea saying: “I t ’s com ing along well, by the way, B raith w aite’s
D ictio n ary o f A ccepted Id e a s” (118). In this way, the n arrativ e focuses on
t its ow n structuring: the n a rra to r creates the im pression th a t he is w riting
th e said d ictio n ary parallel to the novel and is going to in tro d u ce it at
a la te r stage. A reference o f a sim ilar kind is m ad e ab o u t th e ch a p te r
“ L ouise C o let’s V ersion” (135). In B o o th ’s term s, G eoffrey B raith w aite is
a self-conscious narrator,13 an d the com m ents he provides the re a d e r w ith
could be described by C h a tm a n as an exam ple o f com m entary on the
d is c o u r s e d T h u s F laubert’s Parrot exhibits the features o f the w o rk sh o p
novel, alth o u g h it has to be adm itted th a t this aspect is ra th e r und erstated
12 This as well testifies to the hypothesis that the digressions about Ellen and about h im self are also presented as unplanned.
13 Cf. B ooth, op. cit., p. 155. 14 Cf. Chatm an, op. cit., pp. 248-253.
an d only very su b tly present. In fact, th e b o o k is n e ith e r F la u b e r t’s
biog rap h y n o r a text o n w riting a biography as such, bu t a study o f the
n a r r a to r ’s concerns, w orries, and fears.
B raithw aite, who is n o t a professional w riter, and fo r w hom it is
p ro b a b ly the first text he has w ritten, show s a t som e po in ts th a t he is
obsessed w ith w riting. T h e novel on F la u b e rt seems to be the realisation
o f his old hopes and dream s: “ I th o u g h t o f w riting boo ks m yself once.
I had the ideas; 1 even m ade notes. But I was a d o c to r, m arried w ith
ch ild re n ” (13). N ow , as he states, being old and w idow ed, he is able to
devote him self to w riting. H ow ever, the fact th a t he has lost his wife has
n o t only created the o p p o rtu n ity to write; as it has been show n, it has
provided m o st o f all the topic to w rite ab o u t. Still, the n a r r a to r ’s p re o c
c u p a tio n w ith w riting is undeniable. It is best seen p ro b ab ly in the ch a p te r
“ F in d ers K e ep ers,” where B raithw aite h u n ts fo r F la u b e rt’s secret letters
m ainly because he craves to publish them , to gether w ith his co m m en tary , o f
course.
B raithw aite is so m uch dedicated to F la u b ert, and so strongly fascinated
w ith the idea o f w riting, th a t a t one p o in t the tw o intense feelings com e
very close to each other. A ndrzej G ^siorek goes even fu rth e r, co nclud ing
th a t “ B raithw aite is m odelling him self on F la u b ert. H e a d o p ts F la u b e rt’s
ironic tone, m im ics his disingenuousness, and adjures the read er to m ak e
sense o f him ju st as he m ak es sense o f F la u b e rt.” 15 T h e critic ignores the
relu ctan ce o f the n a rra to r, p o in tin g ou t th a t the stru ctu re o f B raith w aite’s
u nen thusiastic confession is to reflect his search fo r a u to b io g ra p h ic al d a ta
connected w ith the F rench novelist. A s G eoffrey B raithw aite has to co nstruct
F la u b e rt’s biog rap h y bit by bit, he w ants the read er to share in his
difficulties. T here is a sim ilar lack o f in fo rm atio n concerning, and difficulty
in reco nstructing, B raith w aite’s biography. C o nsequently, the novel seems
to m ak e use o f tw o entw ined n arrativ es, so th a t „B ra ith w a ite’s a u to b io
graphical story, which leaves the tru th largely hidden, m irrors his biographical
a c co u n t o f F la u b ert, w ho rem ains as elusive as his never to be discovered
p a rro t.” 16 H ow ever, the reluctance o f the n a rra to r is so strongly co rro b o rated
by th e text th a t it c a n n o t be fully rejected, as G ^siorek seems to d o m ak in g
B raith w aite’s ac co u n t o f F la u b e rt’s life the m ain them e o f th e novel.
N evertheless, this does n o t m ean th a t B raithw aite is alto g eth er h esitan t
an d fa in t-h earted . In som e aspects which concern leading th e n a rra tio n , he
exhibits extensive pow er and effectiveness. H e is a very intelligent and
skilful w riter, displaying sophisticated wit, and using irony ingeniously. T h e
15 A ndrzej G ^siorek, P o st-w ar British Fiction. Realism and A fter (L ondon: Edward A rnold, 1995), p. 160.
n a rra tiv e is com p act and co herent, disregarding the fact th a t each successive
c h a p te r o f th e novel is co n stru c te d differently. A s G ^ sio re k p u ts it,
“ B raith w aite functions as the novel’s controllin g consciousness” an d “ [his]
q uesting and ab su rd figure . . . presides over proceedings, en surin g the
nov el’s fo rw ard m o m e n tu m .” 17 In o th er w ords, B raith w aite is a pow erful
and effectual n a rra to r, binding all th e varying sections o f his n a rra tiv e
together.
T h e n a rra to r o f F laubert’s Parrot guides the re ad er th ro u g h the text as
if leading him th ro u g h a lab y rin th o f actual and possible m eanings. T he
re ad er is to tally depen d en t on the n a rra to r, having to rely on his d igres
sive m eth o d o f telling the stories. M oreover, th e n a r ra to r is keen on
frequently re tu rn in g to the ideas he has already presented. T h e re ad er
experiences the circular stru ctu re o f the n arrativ e also on a large scale, as
the w hole novel is fram ed by the search fo r F la u b e rt’s p a rro t, w hich is
the startin g p oint o f the b iographic exp lo ratio n and also th e final episode
o f the bo ok. B raithw aite takes good care th a t the re a d e r’s curiosity should
n o t be easily satisfied, n eith er as far as F la u b e rt’s story is concerned n o r
in the case o f his personal confession. G qsiorek notices th a t “ the n a rra tiv e
is con stan tly re ta rd ed . . . by n um erous d isru p tio n s,” 18 it tak es a long
tim e fo r the n a rra to r to com e to the point. Y et the digressions from th e
d rift o f the n arrativ e directed to w ard s F la u b e rt usually have accessory
significance - they serve as com p o n en ts o f the o th e r sto ry related by
B raithw aite.
T h e n a rra to r o f F laubert’s Parrot, alth o u g h conscious o f his indecision,
his inability to deal w ith certain m atters directly, and the con seq u en t
tendency to beat ab o u t the bush, still realises his pow er as th e c re a to r o f
the novel. H e is perfectly aw are o f the fact th a t the re ad er has no o th er
o p tio n bu t to rely on him , and q u ite often m ak es use o f this ad vantag e.
H ow ever, B raithw aite also som etim es aspires after the re a d e r’s tru s t in spite
o f all circum stances:
. . . w hat know ledge is useful, what know ledge is true? Either I have to give you so m uch inform ation abou t m yself that you are forced to adm it that I could n o m ore have killed m y w ife than Flaubert could have com mitted suicide; or else I m erely say, T h at’s all, that’s enough. N o more. (97)
T h u s it becom es tra n sp a re n t th a t the n a rra to r, at least seem ingly, cares
fo r the re a d e r’s confidence, and is afraid o f losing his liking an d respect.
I t is tru e th a t he tells us no m ore th a n he w ants us to know . B ut facing
the possibility o f inventing the story fo r the reader, B raithw aite chooses to
be evasive, assum ing th a t avoiding the w hole tru th is b etter th a n telling
17 Ibid., p. 159. 18 Ibid., p. 159.
lies in stead. In o th er w ords, deciding n o t to tell to o m u ch, he w an ts to
be reliable in w hat he does actually tell.
A t the sam e tim e the n a rra to r realises th a t certain m a tte rs he discusses
inevitably evoke d o u b ts in the reader. T h e ch a p te r “ P u re S to ry ,” devoted
alm o st entirely to the relationship between B raithw aite an d his wife, is
an n o u n ced w ith the sentence: “T his is a p ure story, w hatever you m ay
th in k ” (160). It is obvious th a t the n a rra to r is n o t sure o f the re a d e r’s
tru st; he w orries th a t the re ad er m ay very well disbelieve him .
H ow ever, it is also tru e th a t in o rd e r to m ake us read th e novel in the
m a n n e r he has intended, the n a rra to r resorts to m an ip u latio n . As G ^siorek
p u ts it, th e n a rra tiv e is stru c tu re d “ in such a way th a t th e re a d e r’s
a p p ro a c h to it is effectively forestalled because it is directed d ow n certain
p a th s .” 19 B raithw aite carefully selects the clues he provides fo r the read er,
m ak in g sure n o t to auth o rise any personal in terp re tatio n . In fact, he often
does so openly, telling the reader th a t th e in fo rm atio n given to him m ay
be elusory o r m isleading: “ D o you know the co lo u r o f F la u b e rt’s eyes?
N o , you d o n ’t: fo r the sim ple reason th a t I suppressed it a few pages a g o ”
(95). H e w ants his n arrativ e to be un d ersto o d in a given w ay, so th a t he
can aro u se a planned reaction and be always positive a b o u t the re a d e r’s
ap p ro ach to his story. T herefore, w ithholding certain facts often replaces
inventing their substitutes, while all the tim e the text is u n d er B raith w aite’s
co n tro l. T h e aim o f the n a rra to r seems to be “ to p ro du ce th e term s in
w hich the text is to be re a d .” 20
Ironically, the m an ip u latio n is deepened by the n a r ra to r’s consciousness
o f th e fact th a t the reader m ay well realise th a t h e is m an ip u lated and
m isled. D espite his aw areness th a t the reader requires freedom o f choice,
th e n a r ra to r often seems to jeo p ard ise it. “ See how carefully I lo ok afte r
you. Y o u d o n ’t like it? I know you d o n ’t like it” (95). H ow ever, in view
o f the fact th a t B raithw aite w ould ra th e r n o t lose th e re a d e r’s confidence,
it has to be adm itted th a t m an y o f his efforts are p u t into reviving the
strained tru st. Indeed, having acknow ledged th a t the re ad er m ay n o t like
the co lo u r o f F la u b e rt’s eyes to be “ su ppressed” , B raithw aite soon decides
to reveal this in form ation. W hen, in the course o f relating his w ife’s story,
he confesses “I have to hypothesise a little. I have to fictio nalise,” he
hasten s to add “ th o u g h th a t’s n o t w hat I m ean t w hen I called this a p ure
sto ry ;” and to explain himself: “ I have to invent m y way to the tr u t h ”
(165). T h u s th e n a rra to r is show n as an am big uo us figure - a stro n g
c re a to r having strict co n tro l over the narrative, and a t th e sam e tim e
a re lu c tan t vacillator, h esitan t and hankering after th e re a d e r’s tru st.
1S Ibid., p. 161. 20 Ibid.
A lth o u g h the w hole novel is d o m in ated by th e p erso n ality of" its
n a rra to r, G eoffrey B raithw aite, it has to be noted th a t F la ub ert’s Parrot is
no t w ritten in an im m utable first-person, overt n a rra tio n .21 T h e division o f
the text into ch apters is followed by shifts in the m a n n e r o f n a rra tio n . F o r
Jam es B. S cott F laubert’s Parrot is n o t so m uch a novel as a “ trans-generic
prose te x t” 22 o r “ a m edley o f prose genres.” 23 H e co n te n d s th a t th e
“ ch ap ters are devised . . . in such form s as d ictio n ary entries, ex am in ation
questions, m etafictional ch a t w ith the reader, n a rra to ria l rem iniscence or
introspection, . . . speculative autobiography [and] chronological sum m aries.” 24
Indeed, the labyrinth o f m eanings B raithw aite co n fro n ts his read er w ith is
accom panied by a m aze o f form .
T h e novel begins in a fairly “ co n v en tio n al” way, w ith the first c h a p te r
n a rra te d overtly in the first person, alm ost as a kind o f a n a r r a to r ’s d iary
co n c en tratin g on his search for biographical d ata. It could well serve as
a startin g p o in t for w hat F laubert’s Parrot at th a t p o in t ap p ears to be
- a b io graphy, or, at least, a book on w riting a biography. T h e follow ing
ch ap ters m ay possibly confirm the a p p a ren t concern o f the novel, yet the
form seems no m ore conventional for this kind o f w riting. T h e life and
w ork o f F la u b e rt are show n from m an y d ifferen t, an d it h as to be
ad m itted , unusual perspectives. B raithw aite presents us his F ren ch m e n to r,
considering m an y co n tra stin g aspects: the anim als associated w ith him or
ap p e arin g in his life and w ritings (“ T he F la u b e rt B estiary” ), his a ttitu d e
to w ard s various aspects o f the railw ays (“T h e T ra in -sp o tte r’s G u id e to
F la u b e rt” ), his unrealised artistic plans (“T h e F la u b e rt A p o c ry p h a ” ), the
presence o f coincidence and irony in his life (“ S nap!” ), o r the charges
b ro u g h t against the w riter and his w ork (“ T h e C ase A g a in st” ).
Such a stru ctu re n o t only allow s for a new and lively p resen tatio n o f
F la u b e rt’s biography from a variety o f original angles. It also provides
a good o p p o rtu n ity for B raithw aite to exercise his ab su rd sense o f h u m o u r,
m ak in g use o f the ironical and the bizarre. T he weirdness o f this “ b io g rap h y ”
is tak en to extrem es in the chapters “ E xam ination P a p e r” and “ B raithw aite’s
D ictio n ary o f A ccepted Id e as.” T h e form er ch ap ter provides us w ith several
“ ex a m in a tio n ” topics concerned w ith F la u b e rt, a t first p u ttin g forw ard
serious issues o f the relation ship betw een art and life, and F la u b e rt’s
a ttitu d e to criticism , then investigating the F ren ch novelist from such
ab su rd perspectives as philately, phonetics, geography, th eatrical history,
econom ics, and astrology. In the latter ch a p te r B raithw aite a ttem p ts to
21 By “ overt narration” Chatman understands the manner o f narrating which enables the reader to recognise the voice o f the teller clearly. Cf. Chatman, op. cit., pp. 197-198.
22 Scott, op. cit., p. 58. 23 Ibid., p. 64.
p resen t F la u b e rt “ alphabetically” , tak in g pains to provide on e en try for
each letter. It is child’s play w ith such letters as F (F lau b ert, certainly) or
E (epilepsy), bu t X seems to cause a problem . B raithw aite, how ever, does
n o t hesitate to m ak e use o f “ xyloph one” , statin g th a t “ [t]here is n o record
o f F la u b e rt ever having heard th e xylophone. . . . P erhaps he heard the
glockenspiel in S w itzerland” (58).
T he technique o f looking at one concept from several different perspectives
becom es applicable in a special way in the ch ap ter “ C h ro n o lo g y ” , where
th e re a d e r is provided w ith th ree parallel ch ro n o lo g ic al su m m aries o f
F la u b e rt’s life. O ne o f them co n centrates on the highlights o f his artistic
career, the second one o n the m isfortunes th a t befell him , while the third
consists o f excerpts taken from the w riter’s books and diaries (focusing
especially on the com parisons th a t he used w riting ab o u t him self an d his
life). T h u s the biography o f the F ren c h novelist is show n th ro u g h different
fram es o f reference, which a t som e p oin ts m anifests itself in p resenting
som e p artic u la r events in his life from varied p oints o f view. T h e c o n tra st
o f the o pposing perspectives is m o st striking in the case o f tw o events: the
publishing o f his first novel and his death. T h e fo rm er occurrence is show n
b o th as a success and a failure:
1851-7 T he writing, pu blication, trial and trium phant acquittal o f M adam e B ovary. A succès de scandale, praised by authors as diverse as Lamartine, Sainte-Beuve and Baudelaire. (25)
1851-7 M adam e Bovary. The com position is painful . . . and the prosecution frightening. . . . [Flaubert] tells D u Camp that . . . he would buy up . . . all copies o f M adam e Bovary in circulation: ‘I should throw them into the fire, and never hear o f them again.’ (29-30).
T h e latter c o n tra st is even m o re conspicuous:
1880 Full o f honour, widely loved, and still working hard to the end, G ustave Flaubert dies at Croisset. (27)
1880 Im poverished, lonely and exhausted, G ustave Flaubert dies. (31)
Such diversified versions o f the biography o f the F ren c h w riter are
separated by no m o re th a n a few pages in the text. N o re ad er will fail to
sp o t the disparity.
T h e discourse in th e foregoing chap ters seems to be entirely un der
B ra ith w a ite ’s c o n tro l. Y et the c h a p te rs co n ta in passages in w hich th e
n a r ra to r has rem arkably reduced his presence (“ T h e F la u b e rt B estiary,”
“ T h e T ra in -sp o tte r’s G u ide to F la u b e rt” ), o r from w hich he h as even
w ith d raw n (“ C h ro n o lo g y ” , “ E xam in ation P a p e r”). In such nonnarrated
ex tracts the re ad er is left w ith b are in fo rm a tio n .25
25 The term “nonnarrated story” has been used by Chatm an in reference to the narratives in which the presence o f the narrator’s voice is drastically limited. Cf. Chatm an, op. cit., p. 147.
T h e biographical d a ta concerning F la u b e rt are conveyed in th e novel
in a variety o f form s. T h e ch a p te r “ F in ders K eep ers,” specu lating ab o u t
the possible relationship betw een the F ren ch novelist and the governess
Ju liet H e rb ert, seems to be a pure exam ple o f fiction w riting, even th o u g h
it is based o n events from F la u b e rt’s life. It could well be published
separately as a sh o rt story, having an independent closed co m p osition . T h e
ch a p te r “ E m m a B ovary’s E yes,” in its tu rn , is w ritten in a form o f an
arg u m en tativ e essay, as if a polem ic directed to a specified critic w ith whom
B raith w aite disagrees.
All those ch ap ters fit, to a greater or lesser extent, th e tra d itio n a l
p a tte rn o f biography. It has been d em o n strated , how ever, th a t th e m ain
concern fo r th e n a rra to r o f F laubert’s Parrot is n o t the F ren ch novelist. If
in the ch apters m entioned above the real p urpo se o f th e n a rra tiv e can be
guessed only from rare allusions, there are two ch ap ters dealing w ith it
m ore extensively. T h e already discussed chap ter, “ P u re S to ry ,” m ay be
treated either as one large digression discussing the n a r r a to r ’s p erso nal
m atters, o r, as seems m o re p ro b a b le in m y view, as the long-aw aited core
o f the n arrativ e. T h e ch a p te r “ C ross C h an n el” also deals, in its m ain p a rt,
w ith topics for w hich F la u b e rt is only a pretext. T h e n a rra to r retu rn s to
the form o f rem iniscence used in the first ch ap ter, b u t here the n arrativ e
is con stan tly in terru p ted by loose com m ents which, in fact, co n stitu te the
b u lk o f it. As B raithw aite feels it is to o early to disclose the m o st aw kw ard
details co ncerning his wife, the digressions are m ainly devoted to certain
social and philosophical issues, to the process o f artistic w riting as such
- w riting a b o u t the past in p articu lar, and to the co n tem p o rary n o tio n o f
language.26 T h e ch a p te r is also original in its form , since the n a r ra to r run s
the discourse as if directing it to a p artic u la r person, creating th e im pres
sion th a t he is ra th e r speaking th a n writing. T h e techn iq ue used com es at
som e points close to a record o f speech in the form o f dram atic m ono
logue'.27
Listen, 1 hope you w o n ’t think this rude, but I really m ust take a turn on deck; it’s becom ing quite stuffy in the bar here. Why d o n ’t we m eet on the boat back instead? T he tw o o ’clock ferry, Thursday? I’m sure I ’ll feel m ore like it then. A ll right? What? N o , you can’t com e on deck with m e. For G o d ’s sake. Besides, I’m going to the lavatory first. I can’t have you follow ing me there, peering round from the next stall. (90)
In this way B raithw aite introduces a n o th e r person betw een h im self and
the reader, w ho is in n o way inclined to feel identified w ith th e silent
in te rlo c u to r accom panying the F ren ch d o cto r on the ferry. B raith w aite,
26 T hose com m ents constitute in fact a very important part o f the book, but their further analysis would go beyond the scope o f this paper.
how ever, even in this very ch a p te r calls him self a n a rra to r (89), which m ay
seem som ehow inconsistent.
E ventually, the novel co n tain s a ch a p te r which is not n a rra te d by
G eoffrey B raithw aitc - “ Louise C o le t’s V ersion.” U sing the first-person
overt self-conscious n a rra tio n , the ch a p te r in question presents certain facts
from the life o f G ustave F la u b e rt from yet a n o th e r perspective - it show s
them as they m ight have been seen by the novelist’s m istress. Still, such
a perspective, cap tiv atin g as it m ay seem, is to a large extent artificial. T h e
snag lies in the fact th a t B raithw aitc announces in advance th a t he is going
to w rite such a ch a p te r in his bo ok. T herefo re this passage o f the n arrativ e
seem s to be yet a n o th e r m easu re to assuage th e n a r r a t o r ’s p an g s o f
conscience. B raithw aitc proves th a t he is well aw are o f the psychological
differences betw een m en and w om en. H ow ever, he c a n n o t let his wife speak
for herself and explain her p o in t o f view, it is too late since she is alread y
dead. Instead, B raithw aite tries to give F la u b e rt’s lover an o p p o rtu n ity to
speak her m ind.
F o r G ^siorek, “Flaubert's Parrot focuses its atten tio n on its m ultiple
n a rra tiv e m odels and invites the re ad er to see th a t their different ways o f
m app in g a subject - the biography o f F laubert, the historical p ast - constitute
it.” 28 T his view is su p p o rte d by the n a r r a to r him self, w ho c o m p ares
a bio g rap h y to a net, stating th a t it could be defined in tw o w ays - either
as “ a m eshed in stru m en t designed to catch fish,” o r “ a collection o f holes
tied to g eth er w ith string” (38). T hus, providing the in fo rm atio n a b o u t the
subject o f a biography from different perspectives m ay serve as an instrum en t
allow ing to get closer to the objective truth (if, indeed, there is any). T h e
m eth o d w hich takes advantage o f the “ n e t” m u st also consider its draw back s
- any m esh stru ctu re involves losing all the substance w hich slips aw ay
th ro u g h the holes.
H ow ever, devising Flaubert’s Parrot in such a way th a t it d econ structs
co n v en tio n al n arrativ e structures m ay serve still an o th e r purpo se. A s the
n a rra tiv e m ak es use o f a variety o f literary genres, the re ad er faces freq u en t
changes in the type o f discourse, and hence freq uen t changes in th e role
o f the n a rra to r. As Jam es B. Scott states:
T he ostensible writer o f the text, G eoffrey Braithwaite, plays a diversity o f literary roles - biographer, scholarly essayist, om niscient narrator, existential philosopher - and as such he underscores Barnes’s central premise that identity is a mercurial consequence o f discourse.29
Indeed, as B raithw aite alters th ro u g h the shifts o f discourse, his selfhood
becom es unsettled and qu estionable. H is identity depends on the kind o f
28 G^siorek, op. cil., p. 159. 29 Scott, op. cil., p. 58.
n a rra tiv e at h an d , and is subject to freq u en t changes. C on sequ ently , the
novel provides the read er with a single n a rra to r, but a n a rra to r w hose
p ersonality is never fully acknow ledged, since one o f B raith w aite’s identities
is c o n sta n tly su b stitu ted by a n o th e r, as in th e D e rrid e a n p ro cess o f
su p p lem en tatio n . P aradoxically, it is B raithw aite him self w ho causes the
changes, as he is responsible for the shifts in the m a n n e r o f w riting. T h e
re a d e r’s search fo r the real n a r ra to r’s identity m ay be said to m irro r
B raith w aite’s q uest for F la u b e rt’s p a rro t. It is im possible to d eterm in e
w hich one is auth en tic, or even if the real one can be a t all traced. T h e
tru e n a r r a to r ’s identity, if he has go t any, becom es lost in the lab y rin th
o f discourse m asks.
Flaubert's Parrot consists o f m any disconnected narratives which, altho ug h
linked to g eth er in the person o f the n a rra to r, belong to a variety o f prose
genres. Such a stru ctu re presents the life o f G u stav e F la u b e rt from different
perspectives, show ing v ario u s aspects o f his b io g rap h y . T h e re a d e r is
presented n o t only w ith different ways o f looking at the F ren c h w riter, b u t
also w ith different tru th s ab o u t him . T h u s F laubert’s Parrot, sim ilarly to
a n o th e r o f B arn es’s novels - A H isto ry o f the W orld in 10 1/2 Chapters,
dem o n strate s th a t there is no objective history. T h e novel show s th a t it is
im possible to p ro d u ce hom ogenous biography o f the F re n c h w riter - o r
an y hom o g en o u s biog rap h y fo r th a t m atter. Barnes uses the idea o f a net
to describe the search fo r biographical d a ta , in th e case o f this novel, and
th e search fo r the tru th in general. H e po in ts o u t th a t w hat we find is
alw ays frag m en tary an d incom plete, and th a t the search is in sep arab le from
th e feeling o f losing som ething.
H ow ever, the life o f F la u b e rt is only the surface co n cern o f this novel.
T h e core o f the n arrativ e lies in the n a r r a to r ’s digressions w hich, a p a rt
fro m reflections concerning a rt an d the process o f w riting in general, deal
w ith his ow n story, his fears and obsessions. T h e n a rra to r feels com pelled
to tack le his ow n personal story, to em b ark on his hopeless an d som ehow
in v o lu n ta ry quest for the tru th ab o u t M ad a m e B ovary, a b o u t F la u b e rt,
a b o u t Ellen, o r a b o u t him self. T h e ab solute tru th , in any case, is certainly
never to be fo und.
Departm ent o f English Literature and Culture U niversity o f Ł ódź
Tomasz Dobrogoszcz
W D R O D Z E D O PRAW D Y
N A R R A TO R W P A P U D Z E F LA U B E R TA JU L IA N A B A R N E SA
Opierając się na badaniach narratologicznych amerykańskich strukturalistów autor artykułu zajmuje się narracją w pow ieści Juliana Barnesa Papuga Flauberta. Zadem onstrow ano to, że w pow ieści, będącej na pierwszy rzut oka zbiorem szkiców i danych biograficznych na temat Flauberta, centralną postacją nie jest wcale francuski pisarz, lecz piszący o nim biograf-am ator. C o więcej, Flaubert stanowi temat zastępczy, bowiem tak naprawdę narratora nurtuje coś zupełnie innego, a m ianowicie fakt, że był zdradzany przez niedaw no zmarłą żonę. A rtykuł pokazuje pow olne, lecz uporczywe zmierzanie narratora d o prawdy, którą stop niow o odkrywa czytelnikow i, czyniąc to niechętnie, gdyż nie jest mu łatw o zwierzać się z bardzo osobistych problem ów . T ytułow ą papugą okazuje się nie tylko wypchany ptak dający niegdyś natchnienie Flaubertow i, lecz także sam narrator, którego życie pow iela stare schematy. Jego dążenie do osiągnięcia prawdy - czy to o Flaubercie, czy też o sobie samym - jest niem ożliw e do zrealizowania. Badając formę i strukturę pow ieści, autor artykułu udow adnia znaczenie dygresji narratora dla wym ow y całości tekstu.
