N a r r a t i v e8 3The passage is supposedly spoken by Henderson, the book’s hero.
Yet Henderson is a rough- and- ready American who might well
exclaim ‘King, hey’ or ‘What’s the guy’s hurry?’, but would hardly
speak in poetic vein of the yellow light becoming grey by contact
with the stones. Nor is he likely to write prose as relatively formal
as ‘Examining my situation I found a small passage cut from the
granite.. .’ This is a hybrid narration, in which Henderson’s own
voice is woven into the more sophisticated tones of the author
himself. The novel’s linguistic scope would be too limited if it
could not reach beyond the consciousness of its main character. Yet
it needs to let his own style of speaking come through as well.
I have said that omniscient narrators are assumed to know every-
thing there is to know about their stories, but there are occasional
exceptions to this rule. A narrator, for example, may feign ignorance
of something in his tale. In a mediocre detective story entitled The
Footsteps at the Lock, one of the characters lights up a cheap ciga-
rette, and the rather snobbish author pretends not to know what
brand it is. I say ‘pretends’, but it is not as though he really knows
but is concealing the fact. If the reader is not told the brand, there
isn’t one. We have here a species of that rare phenomenon, a brand-
less cigarette (I leave aside the knotty question of roll- ups). You can
have cigarettes of this kind in literature, just as you can have a grin
without a cat, an Albanian- speaking ostrich or someone who is
simultaneously drinking whisky in Birmingham, England and
performing brain surgery in Birmingham, Alabama. Real life is less
pleasantly diverse in this respect. As Oscar Wilde remarked, art is a
place where one thing can be true, but also its opposite. It is more
economical than everyday life. One thinks of the final sentences of
Samuel Beckett’s novel Molloy: ‘It is midnight. The rain is beating
on the window. It was not midnight. It was not raining.’