论文部分内容阅读
【AbstractUnreliable narration is one of the most popular concept in modern narratology. The paper takes American humor writer Max Shulman’s Love is a Fallacy as the text to analyze the ironic effect of unreliable narration from two aspects：The unreliability of narrator’s words and the unreliability of value judgment， which offers us a deeper understanding of the meaning and irony of the text.
【Key words】unreliable narration； fallacy； irony； value
1. Introduction
One of the features that distinguish modern fictions from traditional fictions is the application of unreliable narration. Different from most traditional fictions， the narrators in the modern fictions seldom have an absolute unified value system. Narrator is no longer the reteller of the author. The voice of narrator， implied author， and different characters enables readers to disbelieve the voice of narrator and guess the implicit real meaning behind the text， which will increase the intension in the work. The unreliable narration， just like a frosted glass， separates the implied author and readers apart， which will increase the dimensions of the interpretation of the text and enrich the meaning of the fiction.
The concept of unreliable narration was first put forward by Wayne Booth in 1961 in the Rhetorical Fiction. Booth judges a work by the criteria of ethics， believes， emotion and art reflected by the events， style， mood and techniques of the text. （Booth， 1961） Booth believes that the norms of the work are the norms of implied author. If the narrator’s norms of action are in accordance with the author’s， then the narration is reliable. Otherwise， it is unreliable （Booth， 1967）. Booth concentrates on two sorts of unreliable narrations：the unreliability of the event and the unreliability of value. Therefore， readers need to double-decode the text while reading：to decode narrator’s words and to infer what things really are behind the narration or what constitutes the correct judgment. （申丹， 2006）
Unreliable narration is an important narrative strategy. It tells stories at a distance from the author and forms a contrast between narrator’s opinion and implied author’s view to achieve the ironic effect. Just as Booth says， “when readers find the narrator’s narrated event and the value judgment unreliable， the ironic effect is achieved. The author is the producer of the effect， the reader the receiver， the narrator the target of ridicule.” （申丹， 2006）
2. Analysis of the unreliable narration of the work Based on the theories above， the paper will illustrate the unreliable narration through presenting the irony in Love is a Fallacy， a short story written by American humorist Max Shuman. The analysis starts from two aspects：the unreliability of narrator’s words and superficial irony of the text；the unreliability of value judgment and the underlying irony reflected from the text.
2.1 The unreliability of narrator’s words：superficial irony of the text.
Through the whole work， there are lots of unreliable narration that makes the whole story confusing and amusing. There are some binary opposition in the story.
2.1.1 The huge contrast of the image of Petey and “I”.
The narrator， as a first-year law-major student narrates a vivid and interesting story among three university students around “a raccoon coat”. At the beginning of the novel， the narrator describes himself like this：
Cool was I and logical. Keen， calculating， perspicacious， acute and astute—I was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a dynamo， precise as a chemist’s scales， as penetrating as a scalpel. And—think of it！—I only eighteen. （張汉熙， 王立礼， 2003）
In the short paragraph， there are too many commendatory words to show the perfectness of the narrator himself in an undoubted voice：“Cool”， “logical”， “keen”， “calculating”， “perspicacious”， “acute”， “astute”， “powerful” and “precise”；In addition， three parallel sentences further emphasize narrator’s shrewdness and rationality. The last sentence “I only eighteen” not only shows the complacent of the narrator himself， but also brings the readers endless association of his promising future and life. However， that seems not enough. The narrator compares his roommate Petey with himself：
Same age， same background， but dumb as an ox. A nice enough fellow， you understand， but nothing upstairs. Emotional type. Unstable. Impressionable. Worst of all， a faddist. Fads， I submit， are the very negation of reason. To be swept up in every new craze that comes along， to surrender oneself to idiocy just because everybody else is doing it—this， to me， is the acme of mindlessness. Not， however， to Petey. （张汉熙， 王立礼， 2003）
On the contrary to narrator himself， the description of Petey is full of derogatory words from which we can imagine two completely different persons in our mind. But the unexpected ending let readers wonder whether the narrator’s words are true or false.
2.1.2 The huge contrast of the image of Polly and “I”. From the very beginning of the story， “I” describe myself as a energetic and ambitious “sage” and evaluate the appropriateness for Polly to be “my girlfriend rationally and calmly：“I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated， entirely cerebral reason.” Because “in a few years， I would be out in practice. I was well aware of the importance of the right kind of wife in furthering a lawyer’s career. The successful lawyers I had observed were， almost without exception， married to beautiful， gracious， intelligent women.” （張汉熙， 王立礼， 2003） Clearly， all the reasons “I” need Polly are she is the necessary conditions of my success in the future. Although it sounds ridiculous to exchange one’s girlfriend with a raccoon coat， it does happen.
So what is Polly like in “my” eyes？“Gracious she was. Intelligent she was not.” So the narrator makes efforts to teach her logic to make her smart. Under the five days’ instruction of Polly， finally “I saw a chink of light” from her eyes. However， when the girl masters the logic and the narrator prepares to express his love， Polly refuses the narrator by applying the logical fallacy that the narrator taught her flexibly. Up to now， readers may begin to doubt：Can a girl who knows little about logic become intelligent enough to master the logic and apply it flexibly after five days’ instruction？The unreliability begins to appear as Polly constantly makes use of the logical fallacy she was taught before to refute “me” in the voice of parody. On the one hand， the theme fallacy is pushed to the foreground to be prominent；on the other hand， it forms banter and deconstruction to the “my” serious teaching of logic before. Here， the author expresses his opinion through Polly. Through Polly， the author implicitly expresses the narrator’s unreliability and presupposes the unexpected ending. In the end， Polly decides to choose Petey just because he has a raccoon coat which makes the whole story appear to be too abrupt for readers to believe. Until now， the reliability of evaluation of Petey and the author himself completely extinguished. The unexpected ending makes the whole story a ridiculous love farce. The readers’ accumulated expectation is suddenly destroyed as a result of the unreliability and vanity of the text which forms an intensive irony.
2.2 The unreliability of value judgment：the underlying irony of the text
From the ridiculous ending of the story， what readers see is just the superficial irony of the text. If readers go beyond the narrator’s utterance to infer the underlying meaning， it won’t be difficult to realize the deviation of value of narrator and the implied author to understand the irony at a higher level. Rimon-Kenan points out since there is discordance of the moral value between the unreliable narrator and the implied author， it is reasonable for readers to doubt the description or comment of the works. （Rimon-Kenan， 1983） Through the exhibition of great difference on value between narrator and the implied author， Shulman presents two levels of fallacy：the fallacy of love and the fallacy of the social value at that time in America which will dig out the deeper ironic meaning of the text.
2.2.1 The fallacy of love
Pure love should be the most holy emotion in the world. However， the love view of the three university students and their ways to acquire love are ridiculous：“My” enthusiasm toward Polly is not out of true love， but out of the rational calculation；Petey’s love becomes too fragile in front of temptation of material. He even decides to get the fashionable raccoon coat he has longed for a long time at the cost of his girlfriend. The purity and holiness of love suddenly disappear；As to Polly， she suffers from the disgrace of being exchanged but still insists her choice of Petey only because he has a raccoon coat. To the love views of different characters， the implied author implicitly expresses his disagreement. The title of the novel “love is a fallacy” is the most direct evidence.
2.2.2 The fallacy of social value
When readers find the narrator unreliable， they tend to experience a process of inference：To infer the existence of unreliable narration through the narrative utterance or a larger narrative context；And then find out the specific style of unreliable narration and associate the unreliability with the inference of the narrator to reflect on the communication among implied author， narrator and readers（谭君强， 2006）. If we analyze the unreliable narration in such a process， we will find the conflict lies not only in love， but also in a larger aspect. To express the doubt of the implied author and not to interfere the consciousness of the narrator， the author makes use of the preface before the novel. Literally， the preface is an introduction of the novel’s writing style and the theme of the novel. But we are not difficult to realize the reference of Charles Lamb and Ruskin （both of them are British writers whose focuses are mainly on the criticism of society and politics） suggesting the novel involves further exploration of the social value at that time in America. The explanation of the theme—“the following essay which undertakes to demonstrate that logic， far from being a dry， pedantic discipline， is a living， breathing thing full of beauty， passion and trauma.” （张汉熙， 王立礼， 2003） forms a paradox with the narrative text. “Full of beauty， passion and trauma” is the comment of the author which conveys the disappointment and anxiety reflected by the disappointing characters. Preface can be seen as an exterior narrative strategy through which the author juxtaposes the preface and the text and establishes a close relationship between them to lead readers to think about the underlying intention of the author and avoid the superficial understanding of the story. Readers are easy to find out the twisted social value of people at that time in America：The blind enthusiasm toward fashion， the pursuit of material comforts and vanity， and the improper method to achieve success……Different fallacies make up a picture of restless and materialistic “social fallacy”， which involves the acute observation and questioning to the American social value fallacy. Until now， the deviation of value judgment between the implied author and unreliable narrator is revealed；Deeper ironic meaning is dug out：the fallacy not only exists in a single person， but also in the whole society.
3. Conclusion
From the analysis above， we have analyzed the novel from the view of unreliable narration. We find unreliable narration is an effective way to present irony in works. The unreliability of narrator’s words and value show the conflict between the implied author and narrator which form the ironic effects from different aspects. The superficial irony and the deep irony interact to deepen the theme of the work and make the work more intensive and attractive.
References：
[1]Rimon-Kenan Shlomith.Narrative Fiction：Contemporary Poetics[M].New York：Methuen，1983.
[2]Wayne C.Booth.The Rhetorical Fiction[M].Chicago University of Chicago Press，1961.
[3]申丹.何為“不可靠叙述”？[J].外国文学评论，2006（4）：133-143.
[4]谭君强.从《狂人日记》看可靠的叙述者与不可靠叙述者[J].云南民族大学学报，2009（6）：112-115.
[5]王小琼.《爱情是谬误》叙事风格解读[J].青海民族大学学报，2011（3）：110-113.
[6]张汉熙，王立礼.高级英语第二册[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2003.
作者简介：张悦（1992-），女，黑龙江齐齐哈尔人，首都师范大学英语语言文学硕士在读，研究方向：英语教学。
【Key words】unreliable narration； fallacy； irony； value
1. Introduction
One of the features that distinguish modern fictions from traditional fictions is the application of unreliable narration. Different from most traditional fictions， the narrators in the modern fictions seldom have an absolute unified value system. Narrator is no longer the reteller of the author. The voice of narrator， implied author， and different characters enables readers to disbelieve the voice of narrator and guess the implicit real meaning behind the text， which will increase the intension in the work. The unreliable narration， just like a frosted glass， separates the implied author and readers apart， which will increase the dimensions of the interpretation of the text and enrich the meaning of the fiction.
The concept of unreliable narration was first put forward by Wayne Booth in 1961 in the Rhetorical Fiction. Booth judges a work by the criteria of ethics， believes， emotion and art reflected by the events， style， mood and techniques of the text. （Booth， 1961） Booth believes that the norms of the work are the norms of implied author. If the narrator’s norms of action are in accordance with the author’s， then the narration is reliable. Otherwise， it is unreliable （Booth， 1967）. Booth concentrates on two sorts of unreliable narrations：the unreliability of the event and the unreliability of value. Therefore， readers need to double-decode the text while reading：to decode narrator’s words and to infer what things really are behind the narration or what constitutes the correct judgment. （申丹， 2006）
Unreliable narration is an important narrative strategy. It tells stories at a distance from the author and forms a contrast between narrator’s opinion and implied author’s view to achieve the ironic effect. Just as Booth says， “when readers find the narrator’s narrated event and the value judgment unreliable， the ironic effect is achieved. The author is the producer of the effect， the reader the receiver， the narrator the target of ridicule.” （申丹， 2006）
2. Analysis of the unreliable narration of the work Based on the theories above， the paper will illustrate the unreliable narration through presenting the irony in Love is a Fallacy， a short story written by American humorist Max Shuman. The analysis starts from two aspects：the unreliability of narrator’s words and superficial irony of the text；the unreliability of value judgment and the underlying irony reflected from the text.
2.1 The unreliability of narrator’s words：superficial irony of the text.
Through the whole work， there are lots of unreliable narration that makes the whole story confusing and amusing. There are some binary opposition in the story.
2.1.1 The huge contrast of the image of Petey and “I”.
The narrator， as a first-year law-major student narrates a vivid and interesting story among three university students around “a raccoon coat”. At the beginning of the novel， the narrator describes himself like this：
Cool was I and logical. Keen， calculating， perspicacious， acute and astute—I was all of these. My brain was as powerful as a dynamo， precise as a chemist’s scales， as penetrating as a scalpel. And—think of it！—I only eighteen. （張汉熙， 王立礼， 2003）
In the short paragraph， there are too many commendatory words to show the perfectness of the narrator himself in an undoubted voice：“Cool”， “logical”， “keen”， “calculating”， “perspicacious”， “acute”， “astute”， “powerful” and “precise”；In addition， three parallel sentences further emphasize narrator’s shrewdness and rationality. The last sentence “I only eighteen” not only shows the complacent of the narrator himself， but also brings the readers endless association of his promising future and life. However， that seems not enough. The narrator compares his roommate Petey with himself：
Same age， same background， but dumb as an ox. A nice enough fellow， you understand， but nothing upstairs. Emotional type. Unstable. Impressionable. Worst of all， a faddist. Fads， I submit， are the very negation of reason. To be swept up in every new craze that comes along， to surrender oneself to idiocy just because everybody else is doing it—this， to me， is the acme of mindlessness. Not， however， to Petey. （张汉熙， 王立礼， 2003）
On the contrary to narrator himself， the description of Petey is full of derogatory words from which we can imagine two completely different persons in our mind. But the unexpected ending let readers wonder whether the narrator’s words are true or false.
2.1.2 The huge contrast of the image of Polly and “I”. From the very beginning of the story， “I” describe myself as a energetic and ambitious “sage” and evaluate the appropriateness for Polly to be “my girlfriend rationally and calmly：“I wanted Polly for a shrewdly calculated， entirely cerebral reason.” Because “in a few years， I would be out in practice. I was well aware of the importance of the right kind of wife in furthering a lawyer’s career. The successful lawyers I had observed were， almost without exception， married to beautiful， gracious， intelligent women.” （張汉熙， 王立礼， 2003） Clearly， all the reasons “I” need Polly are she is the necessary conditions of my success in the future. Although it sounds ridiculous to exchange one’s girlfriend with a raccoon coat， it does happen.
So what is Polly like in “my” eyes？“Gracious she was. Intelligent she was not.” So the narrator makes efforts to teach her logic to make her smart. Under the five days’ instruction of Polly， finally “I saw a chink of light” from her eyes. However， when the girl masters the logic and the narrator prepares to express his love， Polly refuses the narrator by applying the logical fallacy that the narrator taught her flexibly. Up to now， readers may begin to doubt：Can a girl who knows little about logic become intelligent enough to master the logic and apply it flexibly after five days’ instruction？The unreliability begins to appear as Polly constantly makes use of the logical fallacy she was taught before to refute “me” in the voice of parody. On the one hand， the theme fallacy is pushed to the foreground to be prominent；on the other hand， it forms banter and deconstruction to the “my” serious teaching of logic before. Here， the author expresses his opinion through Polly. Through Polly， the author implicitly expresses the narrator’s unreliability and presupposes the unexpected ending. In the end， Polly decides to choose Petey just because he has a raccoon coat which makes the whole story appear to be too abrupt for readers to believe. Until now， the reliability of evaluation of Petey and the author himself completely extinguished. The unexpected ending makes the whole story a ridiculous love farce. The readers’ accumulated expectation is suddenly destroyed as a result of the unreliability and vanity of the text which forms an intensive irony.
2.2 The unreliability of value judgment：the underlying irony of the text
From the ridiculous ending of the story， what readers see is just the superficial irony of the text. If readers go beyond the narrator’s utterance to infer the underlying meaning， it won’t be difficult to realize the deviation of value of narrator and the implied author to understand the irony at a higher level. Rimon-Kenan points out since there is discordance of the moral value between the unreliable narrator and the implied author， it is reasonable for readers to doubt the description or comment of the works. （Rimon-Kenan， 1983） Through the exhibition of great difference on value between narrator and the implied author， Shulman presents two levels of fallacy：the fallacy of love and the fallacy of the social value at that time in America which will dig out the deeper ironic meaning of the text.
2.2.1 The fallacy of love
Pure love should be the most holy emotion in the world. However， the love view of the three university students and their ways to acquire love are ridiculous：“My” enthusiasm toward Polly is not out of true love， but out of the rational calculation；Petey’s love becomes too fragile in front of temptation of material. He even decides to get the fashionable raccoon coat he has longed for a long time at the cost of his girlfriend. The purity and holiness of love suddenly disappear；As to Polly， she suffers from the disgrace of being exchanged but still insists her choice of Petey only because he has a raccoon coat. To the love views of different characters， the implied author implicitly expresses his disagreement. The title of the novel “love is a fallacy” is the most direct evidence.
2.2.2 The fallacy of social value
When readers find the narrator unreliable， they tend to experience a process of inference：To infer the existence of unreliable narration through the narrative utterance or a larger narrative context；And then find out the specific style of unreliable narration and associate the unreliability with the inference of the narrator to reflect on the communication among implied author， narrator and readers（谭君强， 2006）. If we analyze the unreliable narration in such a process， we will find the conflict lies not only in love， but also in a larger aspect. To express the doubt of the implied author and not to interfere the consciousness of the narrator， the author makes use of the preface before the novel. Literally， the preface is an introduction of the novel’s writing style and the theme of the novel. But we are not difficult to realize the reference of Charles Lamb and Ruskin （both of them are British writers whose focuses are mainly on the criticism of society and politics） suggesting the novel involves further exploration of the social value at that time in America. The explanation of the theme—“the following essay which undertakes to demonstrate that logic， far from being a dry， pedantic discipline， is a living， breathing thing full of beauty， passion and trauma.” （张汉熙， 王立礼， 2003） forms a paradox with the narrative text. “Full of beauty， passion and trauma” is the comment of the author which conveys the disappointment and anxiety reflected by the disappointing characters. Preface can be seen as an exterior narrative strategy through which the author juxtaposes the preface and the text and establishes a close relationship between them to lead readers to think about the underlying intention of the author and avoid the superficial understanding of the story. Readers are easy to find out the twisted social value of people at that time in America：The blind enthusiasm toward fashion， the pursuit of material comforts and vanity， and the improper method to achieve success……Different fallacies make up a picture of restless and materialistic “social fallacy”， which involves the acute observation and questioning to the American social value fallacy. Until now， the deviation of value judgment between the implied author and unreliable narrator is revealed；Deeper ironic meaning is dug out：the fallacy not only exists in a single person， but also in the whole society.
3. Conclusion
From the analysis above， we have analyzed the novel from the view of unreliable narration. We find unreliable narration is an effective way to present irony in works. The unreliability of narrator’s words and value show the conflict between the implied author and narrator which form the ironic effects from different aspects. The superficial irony and the deep irony interact to deepen the theme of the work and make the work more intensive and attractive.
References：
[1]Rimon-Kenan Shlomith.Narrative Fiction：Contemporary Poetics[M].New York：Methuen，1983.
[2]Wayne C.Booth.The Rhetorical Fiction[M].Chicago University of Chicago Press，1961.
[3]申丹.何為“不可靠叙述”？[J].外国文学评论，2006（4）：133-143.
[4]谭君强.从《狂人日记》看可靠的叙述者与不可靠叙述者[J].云南民族大学学报，2009（6）：112-115.
[5]王小琼.《爱情是谬误》叙事风格解读[J].青海民族大学学报，2011（3）：110-113.
[6]张汉熙，王立礼.高级英语第二册[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2003.
作者简介：张悦（1992-），女，黑龙江齐齐哈尔人，首都师范大学英语语言文学硕士在读，研究方向：英语教学。