• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.55 no.6
• /
• pp.993-1011
• /
• 2009

Generally, the parts narrated by Esther in Bleak House has been considered less convincing and reliable than those by the anonymous narrator for some problematic qualities in her character and narration. However, Esther's narrative shows Dickens' masterly depiction of emotional deprivation, the psychic consequences of the Victorian sexual repression on its victim. Therefore, to restore the reliability of Esther's narrative is the prerequisite for claiming its value as an appropriate locus of the meanings of the text. On the other hand, the anonymous narrator is not so omniscient as he has been regarded. As the chapters proceed, his omniscient power and authority is conspicuously weakened, and even transferred to other characters such as Esther and Mr. Bucket. This shows that the identity of the omniscient voice is unstable and that Dickens does not intend his voice to be the sole center of meanings of the text. In short, these two narratives are the necessary partners in imagining and understanding the society in its wholeness. Alternating and sometimes intersecting each other throughout the novel, these opposing viewpoints make us see the contradictory multi-leveledness of the Victorian society. The equality of them implies Dickens' notion that more than single unified voice is needed to portray ideological conflicts of his age.

• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.625-649
• /
• 2011

Even though "An Outpost of Progress" and Heart of Darkness were based upon Joseph Conrad the sailor's same experience in Congo Free State, their narrative strategies are quite different. The realistic representation of "An Outpost of Progress," with which Conrad was not satisfied at all, was converted into the modernistic narrative strategy of Heart of Darkness so that the sympathetic power of the story should be improved. The conservative value system of realism is expressed by the omniscient author in "An Outpost of Progress," whereas the frame narrator of Heart of Darkness is proved to be an unreliable one whose norms and behavior are not in accordance with the implied author. The glorious history of the British Empire, which was proudly presented by the frame narrator at the beginning of Heart of Darkness, was strongly opposed by Marlow, another narrator, who said that the British Empire had been "one of the dark places of the earth" when ruled by the Roman Empire. The feeling of the frame narrator was uneasily changed into the gloomy mood when he described the Thames as the flow which "seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness" at the end of Heart of Darkness. Similar to the straightforward narrative strategy of representation in "An Outpost of Progress," the realistic approach of Part I in Heart of Darkness is considered by Conrad as insufficient to reveal the darkest truth of imperialism, which was declared by Kurtz as "The Horror! The Horror!" Thus Conrad uses the Chinese-box structure, in which Kurtz' episode is enveloped by Marlow's tale which is enclosed by the frame narrator's story, in order to penetrate into the mind of ordinary readers in the novelist's age of New Colonialism, while attacking the ideology itself of imperialism instead of critisizing its inefficiency and individualism.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.287-308
• /
• 2015

Biographical film is a genre narrativizing the actual person and history, and reproducing the character and history in a biographical film is in a dimension different from a film focused on a fiction. Discussion between these methods of narrative composition and image reproduction in a biographical film is also, in line with artistic/aesthetic problems and ethical/philosophical theses of the film text. This study discusses the phase of the way of reproduction of the actual person, $Xi{\bar{a}}o$ $H{\acute{o}}ng$ in the biographical film, The Golden Era and the time she lived in a biographical film and how the audience's discussion of the film and socio-cultural discourse differ depending on their attitude towards the cinematic introspection of the text. The narrative structure, the method of image reproduction and cinematic devices of the film, The Golden Era are completely off the point of the general format of the traditional biographical film. In The Golden Era, $Xi{\bar{a}}o$ $H{\acute{o}}ng$ and the history which she lived in did not revive depending on an omniscient subject's selective statement and meta-film structure. Ann Hui removed general, mythic images of $Xi{\bar{a}}o$ $H{\acute{o}}ng$ formed in the field of traditional Chinese culture and reproduced her through multilateral visions of a real, fictional narrator. Each spectator's judgment and interpretation of the film intervene in the multi-layered and sparse descriptions of the actual person's images and the era of the characters. Through this, it is possible to approach the uniqueness and authenticity a historical character, $Xi{\bar{a}}o$ $H{\acute{o}}ng$ and to have an opportunity of multi-layered reflection on how to secure a critical distance and make a perception in historical judgment.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.156-173
• /
• 2010

This study analysed the narrative of and , two history documentary broadcasted on KBS, in terms of story-telling and discourse. And it also examined whether TV as mass media could provide an alternative interpretation against the dominant historical awareness. As a result, both programmes showed limitations on representing subversive point of view to the dominant ideology. At the story-telling level, firstly, they represented in a way of male-hero narrative though they were describing the history of woman, and while representing woman as a public figure they eliminated her feminity and individuality. Secondly, before evaluating woman as a historic figure they previously appreciated her appearance in a male-point of view. Thirdly, although they were telling the story of woman in a political view, they focused on love triangle, therefore failed to make her as a public figure. The discourses of both programmes were anchoring the existing historical interpretation instead of offering an alternative historical imagination. The narrator who were telling history at the studio in a omniscient viewpoint took a role as a meaning definer, placed at the highest rank in the hierarchy of discourse structure. Especially in , the dramatized images to cover lack of visual data helped anchor the patriarchal narrative and reduced the possibility of subversive interpretation on historic figure.