Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About the Writers' Blog
- Mary Ramsey Evans
- Richmond, VA, United States
- Welcome to the ENG 241 American Literature Blog. This blog creates a space in which students will begin to explore and discuss assigned texts outside the classroom. I will post a question/topic for discussion on selected dates (see class schedule) and you will be required to post a 300-word response. These responses should be written in standard English with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling, and demonstrate intellectual curiosity, a substantive understanding of the reading, and integration of your ideas with those of the author. Responses are due at the beginning of class on assigned days. Late responses will receive no credit. (Note that the blog will automatically stamp each entry with time and date.)
20 comments:
If I were to guess who narrated The Fall River Axe Murders, it would be John Vinnicum, the man who was written out of the script. The narrator obviously knows a lot about the layout of the household, which suggests that he is someone who is familiar with the Gordon house. For example, the narrator states that, “the only way to Emma’s room is through Lizzie’s,
there is no way out of Emma’s room. It is a dead end.” This description provides a quick visual image of the house that someone outside of the family circle would be unaware of. The narrator also states that “nobody
here is up and about, yet,” which implies that the narrator is someone who was in the household on the day of the murder because of the usage of the word “here”. There were only five people present in the Gordon household
on the day of the murder, and all of those people were described in the story except for one missing link…John Vinnicum.
Given the nature of the story, namely, crime, I would unhesitatingly assume that the narrator is some form of a detective. A detective is a seeker of incrimating evidence, rarely otherwise, and is assertive in his assumptions. The narrator Carter provides possesses both qualities. In literary terms, Carter provides a third-person omniscient character, just like Richard Wright provides in his work Native Son. The role of such narrator has no impact whatsoever on the characters within the story; he or she provide the reader with more than an insight into the story. He or she is ever-present, outlining detail by detail what is going on. It may be quite possible that the narrator is a neighbor, given that he or she provides details relevant to the neighborhod, "Its inhabitants have never come to terms with these hot, humid summers--for it is the humidity more than the heat that makes them intolerable; the weather clings like a low fever you cannot shake off" (177). The analogy that this particular narrator provides is too insightul, in tha sanse that it could only be explained in such a way had one been there to experience it, and hints at the idea that he or she lived or lives nearby. It may also be the same man, who suggested "write him out of the script" to void any suspicion that it was him who is recounting the story (179). There are a number of possibilities, however, the most important piece we have is that the narrator has to be someone so close to the characters to tell the events in such detail, leaving me to assume that it is very like the "old man...[who] is visiting, passing through...[and] is irrelevant" (178).
Angela Carter uses an unreliable third-person omniscient narrator to tell her short story, “The Fall River Axe Murders.” An unreliable narrator is seriously compromised and lacks knowledge about the events they are describing. Carter’s short story was published in 1986, ninety-six years after the Borden murders occurred. The narrator various events in such depth and detail that the reader immediately realizes that there is no way someone born forty-eight years after the murders took place could know that the maid, Bridget, “left the door open a crack in the hopes of coaxing a draught into the room” (179) or that Lizzie would trace the outlines of her face “with an uncertain hand as if she were thinking of unfastening the bandages on her soul” (189). The narrator also describes situations from the outside, at times making observations through the thoughts of different characters in the story, which makes the narrator third-person omniscient. After taking on the thoughts of Lizzie earlier, stating that Lizzie “sees herself with blind, clairvoyant eyes, as though she were another person” the narrator begins “speaking” the thoughts of Bridget when she refuses to “make a pie out of Miss Lizzie’s beloved turtledoves” (189). The narrator is clearly not a character that was present during the Fall River axe murders, however, the narrator is privy to information that no court documents or other sources of information could provide. This evidence suggests that the narrator is not only speaking from the third-person, but that they are also unreliable.
*I disagree with Carlo, who says that the narrator is a detective. I firmly believe that the narrator is not looking to solve the mystery of the Fall River axe murders, but already has their mind made up about who committed the crime. Similarly, I do not believe that the narrator is a neighbor because the narrator seems to know the inner thoughts of Lizzie and Bridget at various times throughout the story, leading one to believe that the narrator is an outside, fictional character used by Carter to belabor her personal beliefs about the Borden murders. For the same reasons that I believe the narrator is not a neighbor, I also disagree with Carter that the “old man…[who] is visiting, passing through…[and] is irrelevant” is the narrators; I believe the old man really is just passing through. Carlo makes some interesting suggestions about the identity of the narrator, but I disagree that any of his suggestions are correct.
I disagree with Carlo in his belief that the narrator may be a neighbor, because the person speaking knows much more than just simply a neighbor. When the narrator says that, “nobody here is up, yet” it implies that the narrator himself was actually there. I agree with Gabriella’s comment that Angela Carter created a third person omniscient narrator to describe the event in detail. Many of the statements within the story dive into the thoughts of Lizzie as well as the other characters, which no one could possibly know unless they were inside of their heads. Going along with what Gabriella mentioned, it is also very unlikely that a narrator ninety-six years after the occurrence of the Borden murders would know as much information as they do in this story.
-I believe the narrator of The Fall River Murders is possible a member of the family who did not live in the house. I am lead to believe this because the narrator knows so much about the family. They know such specific details about Lizzie's actual mother, the woman that their father married, and most of all the "robber" that took place in their house. I would be impossible for just some stranger to know so much about the incident. I believe they only people the family would have told the story to in such great detail would be other close members of the family. Also, i believe the narrator is a member of the family because of the way they talk about the murder. The narrator was obviously hurt by the death of theses people, so I am lead to believe they were very close to the victims, which is why they show so much conviction towards Lizzie.
-I have to dissagree with Carlo's point of view. I do not beileve the narrrator was a detective simply because of the way they talk about the events in the family's life's. The only way someone would know all of these intricate details about the family is if they themselves were apart of the family. The narrator seemed to know so many personal details about the various member of the Borden and I do not believe just any detective would be able to find out such details. LIke I pointed out before, the family would not reveal such personal information about themselves to just anyone, they would have to be some they can trust; and who is more trust worthy than a member of your family.
With such vast knowledge of the family, house and events that took place, I believe, like Stephanie, that the narrator was either a member of the family or very close to the family. The immense detail and descriptions surrounding Angela Carter's short story leads me to believe that it would be implausible for the narrator not to be connected to the family in some shape or form.
However, as the short story is fiction we are unaware if the detail is accurate or not. Gabriela points out that the story was published ninety-six years after the murder took place, this could indicate that Carter uses such vivid details as her writing style, and thus not all the descriptions given are true.
I do not necessarily agree with Carlo but I do believe that a detective would have sufficient knowledge to know the details used in the story. Detectives might even know more about the case than the family members. Such intricate details about the family could be obtained in court or through a series of interviews with the family members. Thus, the immediate rejection of his claim is rash.
Even though Carter never explicitly identifies the narrator of her short, she gives readers several “clues” that Lizzie Borden is the narrator. For example, some personal information that only the narrator would know, in this case regarding what women have to go through each month. How would anyone, but the person going through it know that they are feeling so uncomfortable and nauseous about the whole situation? Also, the first person isn’t used up until Lizzie Borden talks to Miss Russell. This makes the reader wonder if Lizzie narrates the story since she talks in the first person. She tells Miss Russell, “I am afraid…that somebody…will do something” (185), a key sentence because it helps establish the climax of the story, something a narrator and protagonist does. There are several characters and Carter could have easily used any of them to speak, but she doesn’t she used Lizzie Borden to create a bigger effect that she is the murderer. Carter wants to make a Lizzie not only as being guilty of a killing her father and stepmother, but also using her as a narrator of the process.
Though Carlo mentions good points why he thinks the narrator is a neighbor, I do not agree with him. Yes, a neighbor may know certain information regarding the Borden household, especially if they are nosy ones, but the story provides a lot of details, making it impossible for them to have known. The neighbors may have known about the robbery in the Borden household, but there are certain details such as how the rooms are set up, Lizzie Borden visiting Miss Russell, and Lizzie giving her graduation ring to her father. To be quite honest the narrator of this story is unclear. It can be anyone, but I do not believe it could have been a neighbor for the simple fact that the story is filled with tons of details only those living in the Borden house would know.
I am not sure who the narrator is, and it could be any number of people. I agree with Gabriela when she says that this weakens the argument. The narrator could have been as Carlo says the investigator or Neighbor, but I do not think this is entirely accurate as they posses details that are unlikely to have been discussed, or come out in the case. For example the thoughts of Lizzie Borden, or that she had her period. The narrator could have been the individual reomoved for added drama, but for the same reason it seems unlikely. I don’t think it’s the maid, Bridget as there are instances of knowledge that she would not posses. A possibility for the narrator is Lizzie herself but she does not use the first person, not totally out of the question, but also the description that are given show her as a disturbed individual prone to “somnamblist fits” (185), and I think that Lizzie would be more complementary to herself. This leads me to the conclusion that there is no set narrator, that the author gathers all the information into one source (the narrator) and displays the scene as if she were a God able to know everything about the situation, including all the thoughts and future intentions of everyone involved.
In my opinion, I think that Bridget the servant is the narrator of the
story. She had a complete knowledge about the house and all of its
inhabitants. She had an outside perspective, kind of, of all the events
that took place in the house. I could only imagine that it would be
unlikely for a servant who lives in the house to not know about the
potential sexual behavior between Lizzie and her father. The servant is
there to server which probably involves cleaning of clothes. That is why
it is possible for the servant to know of Lizzie’s cycle and discomfort of
her clothes. Bridget is the only person other than Lizzie who could know
of such details of the house along with having access to the entire house.
Lizzie couldn’t be the narrator, though she has the same knowledge and
access, because this story is told from an objective point of view.
I don’t believe that it could be a detective because a detective could not
have the knowledge of such details down to how specific they are described
in the story. The uncle could not have been the subject because he was
only there for a brief period of time. How could he have any type of
knowledge of such events. That just doesn’t make any sense to me. The same
theory applies to the rest of the inhabitants of the house. The key to
figuring out who the narrator of this story is looking at knowledge and
access. Bridget has to be the narrator.
While Angela Carter never flat out identifies a narrator she does leave some clues as to possible narrators. The use of the third person and to some extent omniscent, though the narrator seems to rely more heavily on their own bias then that of the others, confuses how the reader is to interpret the story. This may have been done on purpose in order for the narrator to attempt to distance themselves from the murders. Angela Carter specifically mentions an old man named John Vinnicum Morse who is in the house the day of the murder, yet Carter explicitly says, "Write him out of the script." (179) The reason for doing such an action is either the narrator is John or the narrator had no idea what John was doing there or is attempting to place blame on someone other than John. Also the narrator seems to know an incredible amount of detail regarding the house. However, Carter may also write him out because describing his presence would just complicate her argument that Lizzie did it. The other fascinating piece of the story is that the narrator has a vast knowledge of Lizzie's past experiences and of the family in general leading me to guess that narrator and possible murderer to be someone who is very familiar with the family.
I am not agreeing with Carlo, but I do think that his views are a definite possibility as the reader cannot truly determine who the narrator is. For all we know there may have been another person in the house who was not mentioned in order to hide the presence of them. While at the same time I agree with some of the others, that we cannot rule out John Morse, but I talked about that in my post. No matter who the narrator is they had a vast knowledge of the house and family and somehow Carter got a hold of this information and used it for her story. It is a curious perspective that Carter uses, but I do agree by not having a defined author the argument is greatly weakened for the reader has no faith in the narrators views which may seem overly subjective.
In “The Fall River Axe Murders” Angela Carter does not explicitly state the identity of the narrator. However, she gives us clues to who the narrator might in fact be and ultimately leaves it to the reader’s interpretation as the final judge. From the language of the text the narrator in personal opinion is either a person present during the time period of the murders, such as John Morse who is written out of the script or the narrator is Angela Carter herself. I personally believe the narrator is Angela Carter and that the language Carter uses is simply her own method to try and give a better visual picture of the situation in order for the reader to share in the thought of Carter. The narrator, Angela Carter, continually refers to Lizzie as “her” which would leave out any inference to Lizzie being the narrator. Also the other characters, Mr. and Mrs. Borden are referred to by their proper names, which would again leave out any inference to them being the narrator. Therefore, by simple process of elimination and through the language of the text I believe it is easy to deduce that Angela Carter is the narrator but is portraying the text through a third account method.
In reference to what Carlo said I would have to agree. The narrator, in this case Angela Carter, takes a third person role. Carter has no bearing on the characters of the story but through this third person account is able to give the reader finite details to portray the narrator as actually being there when the story is taking place. The details explained are insightful and thus gives the reader a clearer picture of the actions of the characters and the plot of the story.
I believe that the narrator of the story is John Vinnicum Morse. What leads me to believe this is on the bottom of page 178. The narrator is setting the stage for the upcoming action. The narrator calls Morse a visitor, just passing through, he is a chance bystander, he is irrelevant. The narrator is immediately telling you to ignore this Morse, trying to prove already that he has no connections to the events that are about to transpire. Carter makes it seem that the person who did the robbing also committed the murders. Both of the sisters had all of the money they could have ever wanted, Old Borden made sure he spoiled them. It seems unlikely that the girls would rob the house. Morse though is not getting an allowance from Old Borden, he is just living with the family. .
I agree with Sydney when she said the narrator is Morse. The narrator uses perfect language so that you are never to assume guilt with anyone but Lizzie. If Morse is the narrator and the murderer he would obviously place the blame on someone else. This narrator knows more about the family then a neighbor would. Especially since Old Borden was not a socially friendly man. I do not believe that the Borden family had many close family friends whom may have had access to the house. The Borden family locks all of the doors in their house. If someone were to commit this crime, it would have to be someone who knew where the key was.
Although never explicitly mentioned, it seems possible that narrator of
Carter’s story is Lizzie’s true mother. This would explain the nearly
omniscient point of view we are given. We cannot be lead to believe that
the narrator is Lizzie because the story is clearly constructed to paint
her as guilty. Why would Lizzie purposely portray herself as an axe
murderer? Although it is not intended to be literal, since Lizzie’s birth
mother died before the murders took place, Carter could have chosen her to
be the narrator as a stylistic choice. There is little textual evidence to
support this claim other than the seemingly omniscient portrayal of
Lizzie. However, the narrator does tell us that, “If mother had lived,
everything would have been different” (Carter 185). By suggesting that
Lizzie’s mother’s death adversely affected Lizzie’s well being, Carter
portrays Lizzie’s mother in a positive light. Perhaps this begins to
substantiate the claim that the narrator is Lizzie’s birth mother.
I disagree with Sydney that the narrator in John Vinnicum because he
would not know as much about Lizzie as the narrator seemingly does.
Although it is interesting that Carter added in the detail to write John
Vinnicum out of the story, I do not believe that he has any relevance
here. Vinnicum would certainly not know about some of the vivid details
given to us concerning Lizzie’s menstrual cycle. The saying is, “mothers
always know best,” so perhaps Lizzie’s mother has some type of maternal
advantage over anyone else concerning intricate details about Lizzie’s
personal life.
For all the dissenters, I wanted to make sure that you knew that I did not necessarily say the narrator of the story was a detective---he was only one of the probabilities that I explored. If you read my entire entry, I moved from the possibility of the narrator being a detective, to the possibility of him or her being a neighbor, to the possibility of him or her being John Vinnicum, whom I referred to as "the same man, who suggested 'write him out of the script' to void any suspicion that it was him..." in my previous entry.
I would not necessarily stick with him as the definite narrator, however, it could potentially be him. This does not, however, discard my belief that it could still be a detective who worked retrospectively to recount everything in such detail.
The narrator seems to know everyone in the Borden family very well especially Lizzie Borden. And he knows everything that I had happened in Lizzie’s family before the murder of Mr. Borden and his wife took place. This observation indicates that the narrator must have a very close relation with the Borden family. The only person who knows a lot about Lizzie and her family is Alice Russell who is one of Lizzie’s best friends. Lizze does not have a lot of friends so it is reasonable that Lizzie always goes to Russell for comforts. If this is the case, Russell absolutely fits the discription of the narrator for she knows Lizzie and her family very well.
I agree with Gabriela. Because of the fact that this story was published ninety-six years after the Borden murders occurred. The narrator could not possibly know the details of each thing happened in the family. Furthermore, the fact that the narrator sometimes thinks through the minds of different characters in the story makes the narrator a third-person omniscient.
The narrator seems to be one who lived and happened to be there in the house when such crime took place. Thus, the narrator can either be John Vinnicum or Bridget, the servant. This is due to fact that the story is recounted in a very descriptive manner with delicate details of the house (eg how certain rooms are set up) and knowledge of the Borden family. Ones from outside, for example neighbors or strangers, would not know such specific details.
I agree with Stephanie on the elimination of Lizzie herself as the potential narrator given that the story is told from an objective perspective. Also, I disagree with Carlo who claims a detective as the narrator. Though a detective would be able to find out about the structure and detail of the house, it is unlikely he/she would know such intricate details of the family. Moreover, how the story is narrated is not in a way to find out who the murderer was because the narrator already establishes Lizzie as the assassin.
Throughout this short story Angela Carter drops many hints on who the narrator is. She provides very personal information about every character and delivers a moment by moment chronicle of the fateful day when Mr. and Ms. Borden were murdered. The Author also persuades the reader throughout her story that Lizzie is crazy. It is in my opinion (as influenced by our teacher) that Lizzie Borden's alter ego is the narrator. Isela quoted lizzie in her conversation with Ms. Russell, “I am afraid…that somebody…will do something.” (185) In this conversation Lizzie talks in first person and she is also talking in a fantastically imaginative way that makes her seem out of her mind. The idea of this passage is to establish that she is out of her mind. She talks in the first person because the alter ego is narrating a conversation she had with Ms. Russell. The narrator in this story knows far to much about the family and the goings on within the house to not be family member and many hints such as this point us towards Lizzies alter ego.
I have to disagree with Carlo that a detective is the narrator. The narrator knows far to much about everything that is going on in the house as well as too many personal details about every character. Even the best of detectives cannot derive the kind of description of everything that was going on in that house in that house the days leading up to the murder, it had to be someone who knew everyone in the house very well.
I think that the narrator in the story is Lizzie, but not Lizzie the person, her other self. Lizzie, according to Carter, has split personalities and thus she can tell what Lizzie is thinking in the story and know what had happened during the murder. It says on one page that when Lizzie looked in the mirror she saw someone looking back at her and also it says that Lizzie watched herself comb her own hair. So that is why I think that Lizzie's other self is the one that is the narrator.
I would have to disagree with Matt in that Morse is not the narrator in the story. The fact that he was written out of the story is odd, however, that does not explain how Morse knows Lizzie's thoughts or the conversation between Lizzie and her friend. I think it is Lizzie's other self that is the narrator because of the mirror situation and therefore she is the narrator of the story.
Post a Comment