Skip to main content

Their Eyes Were Watching God: The Narrator

The point of view in Their Eyes Were Watching God seems to be from an omniscient third-person narrator, who seems to be completely unconnected to everyone else in the story. The most basic and obvious interpretation of this would be that the narrator is detached from the story and only exists to provide the reader with information and descriptions on what is going on. This is generally the most "safe" and reasonable interpretation of any third person omniscient narrator in a story. However, I believe that it goes deeper than this. I believe that the narrator is supposed to be a representation of Janie, most likely being an aged-up Janie reflecting on her past. The "omniscient" aspect of the narrator could be explained by her understanding the full story later on in life as she looks back on it. This would make sense because as far as I can remember, the narrator never says or does anything that would be impossible for Janie to either figure out or hear from people who were involved in the events.
An alternative version of this interpretation would be that the narrator is almost like a copy of Janie. What this means is that the narrator is purposefully written to be very similar to Janie but isn't actually her. This would make sense because by making the narrator similar to the main character, I believe the story flows better and we get to understand Janie better as a result. It also makes the story more engaging to read. But by making the narrator separate from the main character, you can throw in elements of omniscience that help the reader understand what is going on in the story much better.
Both of these arguments seem valid in my eyes, and I really only hold onto the idea that the narrator is some version of Janie, whether that be her future self reflecting on her past or a narrator that shares her personality and character.

Comments

  1. Ian EvensenNovember 24, 2021 at 1:05 AM

    This interpretation is really cool! Personally, I think the idea of the narrator being an older version of Janie makes the most sense. The narrator tells the story in a way that shows Janie's development and personal growth--an older version of Janie could've been able to realize this by reflecting on her personal experiences. I also like your idea that the narrator is someone very similar to Janie, in which case the narrator may be able to tel the story by reflecting on Janie's life in ways that Janie couldn't. I hadn't really thought about who the narrator of this book is until now, so great post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. EllaNovember 30, 2021 at 5:39 PM

    This is an interesting read. I personally disagree that the narrator is an older Janie, but I do see it as a valid interpretation. While reading the book I was almost reminded of movies that open and close with a narrator reading a story or describing events that become the main plot of the movie. (That might be a confusing way of putting that). I envision an old seasoned member of the community who's respected and considered "all-knowing" -- a heralded figure in the community.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MitchellDecember 3, 2021 at 8:46 AM

    There is an interesting phenomenon, which we didn't get a chance to look closely at in class, wherein the "external" narrator gradually starts to narrate more and more in vernacular dialect, almost as if she's "learning the language" of her characters as the story progresses. Henry Louis Gates makes this point in the Hurston documentary, and I'm not sure how that would fit with your idea of the narrator as an "older Janie," but it does work with the idea of the "anthropological" narrator who is intimately familiar with the community being depicted but also outside it, observing, "explaining" it to a reader who may be outside that community. The reader has to learn the language of the community while reading the book as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. EliasDecember 3, 2021 at 9:17 PM

    I think your theory here is really interesting, I love how you connected the dots about the range of the narrator's knowledge. This certainly makes me think differently about the book. I feel like this makes the whole story feel more personal, it is unequivocally Janie's story, Janie's life, and this drives that all the way home. I have to say I like the idea of future Janie more than alternate universe Janie but regardless dope idea, and nice post.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Significance of Dana's Arm

At the beginning of Kindred , we are thrust into a confusing situation with Dana explaining that she lost her arm on her last trip. Obviously, this does not make sense at first, but by the end of the book we see the events leading up to the loss of her arm. But the question remains of why she lost her arm, both from a narrative perspective and from a story perspective. In class, we talked about how Butler herself said that she had Dana lose her arm because she couldn't come back whole from an experience in that time period. It needed to have some sort of permanent mark on her character, and she decided to represent this by her losing a limb. However, I believe that there is another interpretation. Her losing the part of her arm that was grabbed by Rufus represents her cutting off part of her past/bloodline. Throughout the entire story, she has had a kinder view of Rufus because he is her ancestor and because she has seen him grow up. But when she decides to kill him, she is putting...
7 comments
Read more

Mumbo Jumbo: History, Fiction, or Mythology?

 In class, we discussed whether the alternate history presented in Mumbo Jumbo  was historical, fictional, or mythological in nature. I personally think that it existed in between all three of these categories. The usage of Egyptian mythology and historical/religious settings and characters makes it so that placing Chapter 52 and Chapter 52 in a definitive category difficult. Some people may say that it is easy to say that it is not historical because none of these events have been documented or have any basis in reality as far as we know. However, under a postmodernist interpretation - specifically either Maza or Doctorow - one can argue that these chapters represent their own view of history. Maza would say that the lack of evidence does not disprove it, but rather makes this as a valid alternative account of historical events. On the other hand, Doctorow would say that the "fictional" nature of the characters and events does not make it less real, pointing towards the fund...
4 comments
Read more

What Really is Invisibility?

The idea of "invisibility" is key to the novel Invisible Man , which comes as no shock to anyone who actually read the book (or read the title). However, we are never presented with a concrete definition of what "invisibility" truly means. We know that certain characters are described to have it, such as the narrator, Dr. Bledso, Brockway, and Rinehart to list a few. While we get somewhat of a description of the invisibility of each of these characters, I believe that the Rinehart sequence gives us the most insight into what invisibility really means. The narrator describes himself as invisible in the prologue and gives quite a lot of information on the foundation of invisibility. He says that, "I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids -- and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, ...
1 comment
Read more