The "Unreliable Narrator" in Mrs. Dalloway
It's post number two, and today we'll be talking about Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf! Specifically, I'd like to focus on Woolf's use of an omniscient, floating narrator that seems able to jump into anyone's mind at any point in time.
When we enter someone's mind, we see their exact thoughts and opinions, with nothing else influencing or affecting it. We know only what they know, we see only what they see. It's a very confining view in some ways, and it's very obvious that the information we are receiving is likely unreliable and heavily biased by the person whose mind we're occupying. In stories with only one POV, it's somewhat easy to forget that the narrator isn't an omniscient, all-knowing, always right being. In Mrs. Dalloway, the unreliability of all the narrators is thrown into your face and forces you to make your own assumptions and opinions on characters' personalities.
The way that their minds are laid out for us to pick through and compare with the thoughts and ideas of the people around them works wonders for truly bringing the characters alive - complex and real, breathing people. The reader is no longer just directly being told what they're like, or even shown through their actions - they can make all of their own inferences about characters' personalities and thought processes just through observing how they view the world and the people around them in comparison to others and the person themselves. And a key aspect of this puzzle-solving method of figuring out a character is that readers can come to wildly different conclusions about the characters' personalities, and neither would be wrong.
Personally, an example I think of is how Clarissa thinks of herself versus how Peter thinks of her. When seeing what Clarissa spends more time thinking about and where she lays the importance in who she is, I mostly ended up with the picture of a woman trying her best to fit that perfect and kind hostess role, but who has some insecurities about herself and a decent bit of denial. In her own mind, she comes off as a bit vapid, not all that intelligent, the picture-perfect hostess and nothing else. She even said directly, "not that she thought herself clever, or much out of the ordinary. How she got through life on the few twigs of knowledge Fraulein Daniels gave them she could not think" (8). And later, "Her only gift was knowing people almost by instinct" (8). This isn't exactly the most flattering of pictures to paint of oneself, but so early in the novel, I accepted it. It didn't seem outlandish that this really was the majority of Clarissa’s personality, I actually thought it pretty likely and expected. Yes, I admit I entered the novel with a pretty biased opinion of her.
Then I read Peter's view of her - and suddenly, I have a wildly different view on Clarissa, as well as the beginning of a suspicion that Clarissa has a tendency to massively sell herself short and not notice her better qualities. As Peter puts it, "She had a perfectly clear notion of what she wanted. Her emotions were all on the surface. Beneath, she was very shrewd - a far better judge of character than Sally, for instance... making a world of her own wherever she happened to be... it was Clarissa one remembered" (74). This - plus all the times that Peter refers to Clarissa as cool and cold, nearly calculating - seems in such direct contrast with the woman I saw in Clarissa’s own mind. Objectively, it actually makes sense that these personality traits would be present in a good hostess, and that being a hostess isn’t a simple and easy thing that anyone can do. But Clarissa never really touching on how much mental sharpness and intelligence it takes to do what she does well, and so it never really crossed my mind. Of course - Peter himself is unreliable. How much of his view of this cold, calculating woman is because he thinks her cruel for rejecting him? Regardless, can it really negate the fact that when you think about it critically, Peter’s depiction of Clarissa is a lot more likely than Clarissa’s own depiction of herself?
Other instances that stood out to me was the way Peter glossed over Septimus and Rezia in the park as two youths having a quarrel. This had a profound impact on my view of his character, especially after just having been in both of their heads and seeing the shell-shock Septimus is experiencing and the terrified helplessness Rezia feels.
The last one I want to mention here is Peter's thoughts about how he knew Clarissa found Richard to be "the most original mind she'd ever met” back in their Bourton days (I’m realizing that all of these are about Peter in some way)(73). The pages and pages we've spent in Clarissa’s mind gives absolutely no indication that she even likes Richard beyond a vague fondness for one's husband, and it paints the picture of Peter being insecure and hung up on Clarissa a lot more vividly to me than any of the blatant examples of Peter's feelings. Or maybe this means Clarissa really did care about and feel passion towards Richard at one point, but ended up sort of growing out of it?
The way we jump from character to character, the way Woolf subtly presents each of their thoughts on the same topics and on each other, all helps to make the novel incredibly engaging and give life to her characters. All of the unreliable narrators she presents ultimately mesh together into much more reliable and telling pictures of each of the characters and the world around them. It’s even kind of fun to try and catch all these instances and piece together a more well-rounded view of everyone.
Yeah the way we get each character's perspectives on each other really messes with my head. The first time the narrator switched, to the perspective of that truck driver, I was beyond confused. But now that I'm used to it I really enjoy the effect. I love the idea that Clarissa is an unreliable narrator simply because of insecurity. When you think about it, that contradicts the idea that any narrator can be reliable if they're a real human? In general that's how I'd describe the narration style, human, which makes it twisty and confusing
ReplyDeleteI also really really enjoy the incredibly realistic and effective use of different points of view - they have a way of completely subverting our expectations and preestablished view of a situation with just a slight change in language or a focus on something else in the situation. I definitely also noticed the moment where Peter describes quite a bit more connection and warmth between Richard and Clarissa than I would have ever expected from the way Clarissa had glossed over their marriage in her sections. I'm inclined to believe both of them, though leaning towards Clarissa, for a more objective look at her and Richard. While they may have had that spark and interest long ago when they first met, and Peter could have been accurately describing the situation, Clarissa too could be correct for not mentioning it much as the marriage could have grown stale and disconnected in later years. I do think, however, that it's quite likely that Peters high opinion of Clarissa and jealousy for Richard could have made the encounters between the couple seem much closer than they really were.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way that Woolf transitions between these different points of view, we see very small moments where the characters interact or even just see each other and then we're moved into a whole different character. And I agree that it gives a better sense of the world and how the characters are actually presented to the public - we get to see the characters like strangers in a park would see them. Peter's memories of Clarissa and Richard's relationship in the past could also be skewed by the fact that he was in love with Clarissa and so possibly magnified any interaction she had with Richard. When Clarissa is looking back we don't get a lot of positive memories of her and Richard's past or their early love, which she probably would mention at some point considering she spends multiple pages talking about her and Sally's past.
ReplyDeleteI love this post, and I'm a huge fan of the type of narration presented in this novel. I think it's, in this particular circumstance, more effective and informative than a traditional narrator would be because we can still piece together the characters, but also get the deeper thoughts and ideas running through each character's head. I also like how you bring up Peter's lack of reaction to Lucretia and Septimus. That scene really shows how out of it he is, and how self-centered. If there is any moment that proves how lost he still is in the past, that scene is it.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting post to read, since I hadn't really thought too much about the validity of the narration, rather than just sort of accepting it. I think each character's perception of themselves and of others are equally valid because they show how each person impacts one another, and how these impressions compare to the image the characters have about themselves. I think these details and differences are all pretty important as we construct our views on each character. For example, that scene you mentioned about Peter dismissing Rezia and Septimus' struggle as a simple "quarrel" between youths shows how although he thinks of himself as a very perceptive and analytic person, Peter can often be wildly incorrect about a person/situation.
ReplyDeleteMaxine, this is such a great post! I love the way Woolf writes this novel--she really forces us to live in the characters' heads and experience the story from their POV, except that, with the introduction of multiple characters, our perceptions of the story can get pretty complicated. Each character has a highly distinct and individual voice, too, which is so incredible. Erin pointed out that this is a very "human" way of writing a novel, which is definitely true. In real-life interactions with others, we don't get an omniscient narrator to tell us exactly what's going on at every second of the day. All we have to go off of is our own consciences and what we can glean from watching/listening to others.
ReplyDelete