Skip to main content

The Reader in Tristram Shandy ; Metafiction or Metanarrative

Sterne’s novel, Tristram Shandy is unique in that it is much ahead of its time in its post-modernist approach to the narrative technique, and in its according of the reader a special consolatory status. Tristram Shandy is an auto-referential novel in which the tale per se is less important than the narrative method, the fictive matter less important than the manner of telling it, and the reader’s concern with the events less important than the narrator’s causerie with the reader. The presence of an intruding self-conscious narrator and a perpetually present implied reader makes it what critics generally call a metafiction or Meta narration’ since the narrator discusses with the reader his narrative and artistic techniques. That Sterne considers a narrative to be a communication between the reader and the narrator is brought to the fore in his own statement: ‘Writing, when properly managed is but a different name for conversation’ (ii,xi). 

‘The protagonist of Tristram Shandy, one might argue, is the Reader’, observes J. Paul Hunter in his essay ‘Tristram  Shandy and the Art of Interruption’. The narrator begins by drawing  the reader’s sympathy to his tale by declaring, ‘Believe me, good folks, this is not so inconsiderable things as many of you may think it’ The central role of the reader of ten elicits from the author an adulatory address: ‘your worship’ and ‘your reverences ‘.The range of addresses varies from chapter to chapter, sometimes even from passage to passage, from ‘Sir’ to ‘My  Lord’, from ‘dear Sir’ to ‘your worship’, from ‘gentle reader’ to the more intimate ‘my dear Garrick’. Sometimes the references are gently playful or even slightly satirical, as when he addresses the reader as ‘Sir Critick ‘or as ‘you gently with the greate beards’. On numerous occasions the reader must is a lady, a ‘madam’, and often addressed by  the more famimate ‘dear girl’ or ‘Jenny’, thought some critics argue that he is more condescending or even insulting when addressing the female reader.  

‘The truest respect which you can pay to the reader’s understanding’, declares Tristram, ‘Is to halve this matter amicably, and leave him some things to imagine in his turn, as well as yourself. The writer’s role in this creative partnership is to take up the burden of a vast quantity of apparently subsequent and inconsequential detail, and simultaneously to find emotional, if not rational, coherence. The reader’s ability to process this detail hinges upon his growing emotional and intellectual response to the writer. The narrator and reader progress from ‘slight acquaintance’ to ‘familiarity’ to ‘friendship’, as the reader proves willing to accept the writer’s aberrations. ’As we jog on, either laugh with me, or at me, or in short, do anything-only keep your temper’. The ideal relationship between the reader and the narrator is of amused tolerance, a ‘good-humoured of the inevitability of error and the likelihood of mutual responsibility for it’.

Although the narrator often praises the reader’s imagination as when he refers to the painting of Raphael ‘which your connoisseurship knows is so exquisitely imagined, that even the particular manner of the reasoning of Socrates is expressed in it’, he is often disputatious and even didactic. He asks the reader,’ And pray who was Tickletoby’s mare?’ Tristram asks the reader to educate himself by reading:’ Read, read, read, read, my unlearned reader, read’. He adds that if he lacks the knowledge to understand words so simple, he certainly will fail to ‘penetrate the moral’ of the rest of the work. He emphatically points out that his purpose is to educate and train the reader, for ‘all good people, both male and female, .may be taught to think as well as read’.

Sterne repeatedly manipulates the reader by deliberately disappointing expectations of narrative from which one has developed through prior reading. By unexpectedly departing from conventional narrative forms in the epic and the novel, Sterne insists that reader’s allegiance to them is a sign of preference for convenient artifice to inconvenient reality. He subverts the Roman critic when he remarks that he has ‘begun the history of myself….as Horace says, ab Ovo’. He further reveals his awareness that Horace ‘does not recommend this fashion’ of opening at the beginning, for Horace supports Homer’s habit of beginning in medias res, or in the ‘middle of things’. His declaration to reader is emphatic: ‘Ishal confine myself neither to his rules, nor to any man’s rules that ever lived’. He thereby compels the reader to attune himself to the Shandian narrator.

The attraction of the novel is therefore lies in wondering not only what the narrator is going to do next, but also in wondering in to what  role he is going to trick the reader-whose sex, status, and point of view are changeable at the writer’s whim. The reader is threatened and intimidated, coxed and cajoled into becoming a willing confidant and even accomplice.

Ref: 1. History of English Literature- Albert, 
      2. The Concise Cambridge History of English Literature
      3. Encerta


Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Samuel Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare: Points to Remember

E ighteenth-century writer Samuel Johnson ((1709-1784) is one of the most significant figures in English literature. His fame is due in part to a widely read biography of him, written by his friend James Boswell and published in 1791. Although probably best known for compiling his celebrated dictionary, Johnson was an extremely prolific writer who worked in a variety of fields and forms. Chief Critical Approaches of Dr. Johnson are: Johnson tried teaching and later organized a school in Lichfield. His educational ventures were not successful, however, although one of his students, David Garrick, later famous as an actor, became a lifelong friend.

Aristotle’s Theory of ‘Poetic Imitation’: Salient Features of Theory of Imitation and Contrast with those of Plato

  “Mimesis, then, or imitation is, in Aristotle’s view, the essential in a fine art. It is that which distinguishes creative or fine art from all other products of the human mind” - THE MAKING OF LITERATURE (SOME PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF ANCIENT AND MODERN THEORY)   BY R. A. SCOTT-JAMES In Aristotle’s view, poetic imitation is an act of imaginative creation by which the poet draws his poetic material from the phenomenal world, and makes something new out of it.  Plato and Aristotle on Poetic Imitation: It was Plato, not Aristotle who invented the term ‘Imitation’. In Platos’ view, a work of art is no more than an imitation of imitation. He argues that a carpenter can make no more than an imitation of the reality, and the bed he makes is once removed from the truth. But, the painter’s bed is, argues Plato, twice removed from the truth. Read More Drama It is an imitation of imitation. In like manner the poet too creates only a copy of a copy,

Critical appreciation of Rabindranath Tagore’s Gitanjali (NO. 50) – “I had gone a-begging from door to door in the village path”

Gitanjali (NO. 50) Rabindranath Tagore I had gone a-begging from door to door in the village path, when thy golden chariot appeared in the distance like a gorgeous dream and I wondered who was this King of all kings! My hopes rose high and methought my evil days were at an end, and I stood waiting for alms to be given unasked and for wealth scattered on all sides in the dust. The chariot stopped where I stood. Thy glance fell on me and thou camest down with a smile. I felt that the luck of my life had come at last. Then of a sudden thou didst hold out thy right hand and say `What hast thou to give to me?' Ah, what a kingly jest was it to open thy palm to a beggar to beg! I was confused and stood undecided, and then from my wallet I slowly took out the least little grain of corn and gave it to thee. But how great my surprise when at the day's end I emptied my bag on the floor to find a least little gram of gold among the poor heap. I bitterly w