KA. PORTER'S 'ROPE'(pp86-87)

In the following essay I will attempt to analyse how presentation of speech and though is used by the author of this story extract to add realism and draw-in the reader to the narrative. Though the question seems only to specify analysis via speech and thought presentation, I will of necessity add an investigation of narrative point-of-view. I believe this will be important because of the way the narrator's identity seems so obscured. Without P.O.V. the various mixtures of speech and thought presentation is confusing, and little can be retrieved on what is really going on in the extract, or why such a patchwork of speech-acts is used. The narrator never really settles down to one particular approach to dialogue, and to make anything of this I will find it necessary to analyse P.O.V. also.

The story is very close to being an official summary - similar in basic style to a professional observer's report. The author's continual hovering on the borders of NRSA, but never quite allowing the narrator to become fully committed to it, adds a tension to the narrative style which is introduced in the first paragraph and kept up throughout the extract.

Though Indirect speech is used to describe what the woman says to the man, the previous sentence describing his appearance makes the speech act more NRSA: 'because [description] she told him playfully that [indirect speech]' would be the more expected type of indirect presentation. That the woman's words are presented so brusquely indirect, with no indication of tone or intent, IS becomes almost NRSA. Porter's narrator thus seems to flirt with ambiguity, giving no real clarity of who the narrator actually is, or their subjective point of view on what is being related.

The extract as a whole contains mostly FIS, but it is interesting to note that all forms of speech presentation are used. This, as already mentioned, makes it difficult to determine the identity or point-of-view of the narrator - though not impossible, as for example:

The repetition of exclamation, included as if verbatim, serve to give some identity and life to the speaker, though the mildness of them, and the repetition seem to be used here to ridicule the speaker, as if the narrator and the receiver would never use such language. Here then is some clue to narrative identity.

Another such clue is given by:

Here, the point of view and speech presentation is confusing. The sentence appears FIS, but the addition of naturally throws everything into ambiguity. Who is it that thinks running a laundry is the natural response for lots of rope? If it is the woman, then that would imply an omniscient narrator, and so far the narrator has appeared local and human. If the narrator thinks a laundry is the natural response then the text begins to look more like a tale, with the narrator adding embellishments were applicable. This latter option also seems to make this sentence more NRSA, as ambiguity is thrown on what was actually said as the narrator mediates to make room for ridicule.

This apparent mediation of speech acts, and indeed the relation of scene itself, grows more apparent as the story progresses. FIS becomes sprinkled with FDS as things begin unfolding and the characters' city-slicker status takes hold.

Here, a stark contrast is set up in the speech presentation. Of the three clauses, the second and third are FDS, with the repetition of the word 'look' adding realism and emotion to what is said, and to the character. It also adds something to the character of the narrator and to the tone of narration. The sudden shift from the NRSA of the first clause to the FDS of the other two gives a burlesque tone to the quotation, if only from the polarity of the presentations. From this one can imagine the narrator parodying the speaker as the story is told to - perhaps, the village 'tea' set. The author seems to be skilfully using these switches in presentation to manipulate how the reader interprets the narration of the story, and who is narrating, and why.

This small insight into who the narrator might be is thrown obscurity again when they relate what is apparently a very intimate knowledge of the couple's relationship:

This is particularly confusing. Diectic usage in the extract's first paragraph ('he', 'they', 'the village') implies a local narrator speaking to a local audience, yet here is someone with apparent omniscience and omnipresence. The FDS of the first sentence is spoken indoors: how did the narrator overhear it? The straight narrational form of the second sentence implies knowledge of the couple even before they moved to the village (this scene takes place only three days after their arrival in the village). The NRSA of the third sentence is presented in the form of a disembodied dispassionate observer. It is difficult to determine here what exactly the author is trying to achieve or communicate in the story as a whole.

Other ambiguities in the extract revolve around where the narrator is located during the scene, and where exactly the scene is taking place. Deictic references like he, they, and the village, implies both the narrator and the listener/reader know who and where the scene is concerned with, i.e.: locals and non-omniscient. However, though the opening paragraph appears to set the scene outside by using proximal expression came out, and the locative fifty foot line hanging right before his eyes, allowing casual observation of the scene by any passer-by. This point of view suddenly changes to inside by the opposite proximal expression a little later on of came in, followed by a description of the interior. This subtle change of perspective suddenly throws the narrator's presence into question and ambiguity: if the narrator is not a disembodied entity, as suggested earlier, than how did they witness the interior scenes and not become enmeshed in them? Is the narrator omniscient and omnipresent or not? And if not, then how can presentation of thought acts (as with: "he was preparing to say...") be included or implied in the narrative? These small hints provided by a brief stylistic analysis serves to throw doubt on the reliability of the narrator, and add realism - if not to the story being narrated - to the narrative act itself.

The second paragraph reinforces the ambiguity of point-of-view and speech-presentation.

These choppy sentences are indicative of reportive NRSA as what was actually said seems to have been summarised, yet enough of the speaker's personality is left in to make it appear FIS. The first sentence seems certainly to have been spoken as the man responds to it in the next paragraph, but the second and third sentences, though possibly spoken, may be presentation of thought or shift in temporal perspective (flashback) respectively, or both! If the narrative point-of-view was itself less ambiguous, then this paragraph would be easier to analyse in terms of speech or thought acts. As it is, the author manipulates sense of realism and narrative reliability by obscuring the narrator's identity and presence.

I believe I have shown in this essay how (primarily) speech and though presentation, and (secondly) narrative point-of-view is used by the author to throw the identity (though maybe not the motive) of the narrator into obscurity. It is difficult to determine why this has been done, but I suspect from the deictic mechanisms of the first paragraph, that the narrator's identity is meant to be obscured only from the reader (a third party, or eavesdropper on the narrative act), and that the real audience for this narrative (fellow villagers) know exactly who the narrator is, so that further clarification is unnecessary. The story extract, I believe, gives what is almost a typical example of an unreliable narrator, the usual mode for a tall tale. Sudden (or perhaps: ambiguous) shifts of spatial perspectives from outdoors to indoors, movements from indirect speech to direct speech for the more colourful speech acts (implying embellishment rather than realism), and intrusions into the characters' thoughts from what has never been properly established as an omniscient narrator, leads one to suspect the story is told by a particularly imaginative 'gossip'. This interpretation, I believe, can be substantiated by the narrators satirical exaggeration of standard English for the few examples of FDS used in the extract: 'Gosh', 'Lord', 'Thunder'; and the naive depiction of the man not knowing if cool place existed in their little country dwelling, lends weight to a story dedicated to showing-up the foolishness of 'townies'., with the narration sufficiently disguised by the mixed speech presentation and obscure point-of-view to hide the identity of the satirising narrator from other 'townies' who may overhear.