= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on Rationality Quotes October 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (532)
Why do you say (work, author) for a narrator? And what if the narrator is a character in the book, but technically not "speaking" at the time?
And I think there is an obvious reason - namely that more attributions is more cumbersome and distracting, although I'm not sure that is a overly compelling reason.
Admittedly, in such a case attributing it to the author is more justified. But the author-as-the-narrator saying something still isn't necessarily the same thing as the author saying something: there is the technique of an unreliable narrator, for instance.
The narrator can also have a personality that's distinct from the author's, even a personality that the author would personally find repulsive. I wouldn't like it if people attributed what I wrote in Musings of a Vampire to me without clarifying that these aren't actually my views.
I'm not sure what you mean. Example?
In The Plague, by Camus, the narrator is the protagonist of the story, which isn't revealed until the end.
In To the Lighthouse, by Virginia Woolfe, the narrator is continually shifting between all of the main characters.
In those cases, (work, author) and (character, work, author) would both be fine. The main thing is making clear that these aren't necessarily the views of the author.