<doc.id=0213.a4>
<title> Analysis of the usage of narrator In Remembering Babylon by David Malouf </title>
When I read a novel, I seldom give the narrator much thought. Instead I focus on the story, the settings and the characters. But of course the way the story is told plays a big part in how the reader apprehends and interprets it. There are different kinds of narrators: first or third person, omniscient or limited omniscient and internal or external to the story. In this essay I am going to analyse the use of narrator in the novel Remembering Babylon by David Malouf. I will base my observations on a close reading of two passages: the opening paragraphs, to the line "'Do not shoot,' it shouted. 'I am a B-b-british object!" and the end of chapter 2, starting with the line "When darkness fell he crept close to the hut." 

In the first passage, where the three children are out playing in the paddock when suddenly they see this "thing" coming at them, the beginning is told almost like a fairytale: "One day in the middle of nineteenth centur...three children were playing at the edge of a paddock when they saw something extraordinary." This way of telling continues with a rather low and cheerful tone. We get to know more about what the children are doing but not much information and descriptions of the characters or the setting. For example, we don't get to know the children's names except for Janet. I get the distinct feeling that the narrator, who is a third person narrator, is external to the story and that he (I will call the narrator he, although it could just as well be she) is telling the story to me as a reader. He is also omniscient with access to all the character's minds. 

The telling then suddenly changes, I think, starting with the line; "Lachlan Beattie felt the snow melt at his feet." It is like the story doesn't really begin until now. From this point and forward the narrator uses a much more vivid language. Now all the different senses are used and everything is described in detail. I get the feeling that we see things through Lachlan's eyes. The referring to (what we later find out to be) Gemmy as "it" and "the thing" makes that feeling even stronger. But it is not Lachlan who is telling the story and we don't know who does. At this point it seems like the narrator has become limited omniscient with access only to the boy's mind and thoughts. The fact that we maybe are seeing the whole event through Lachlan's eyes brings us closer to the story; we feel like we are there. Usually the usage of a third person narrator makes distance to the reader. Since we know as little as Lachlan about what is happening, things get very exciting and we want to know what it is, this thing that the boy, who just a minute ago was lost in a game, first thinks is a black, or a bird and finally a scarecrow. The excitement increases right up to the point where "the creature" shouts "Do not shout, I'm a British object". 

The second passage begins with Gemmy spending the night outside a hut in a village with white people, whom he has been watching during the day. The narrator, who in the first passage had access to Lachlan's mind, here has access to the mind of Gemmy's. Not only the narrator's insight has switched from Lachlan to Gemmy, but now we also seem to see things from Gemmy's point of view. And again, as it did in the first passage, this makes us feel close to the event. We sympathise with him and share his anguish and confusion. For example when he creeps close to the wall to hear what the people inside are saying. "It was the words he had to get hold of. It was the words that would recognise him." Later we get to "see" the whole event from the first passage, but from the opposite side of the fence. This time we follow Gemmy as he is running towards the three children and how he, when he sees the boy point the gun at him, shouts "Do not shoot. I am a British object."

In first version of the event at the fence we of course fear for the safety of the children. We don't know what the approaching "thing" is. Things get exciting. When we then later get the second version, the one of Gemmy's, we understand that the whole thing was just as frightening to him as to the children. This time it is not as exciting but it explains what brought this incident on; why Gemmy ran to the fence. I think that the usage of narrator in this way makes us see things from different angels and brings us close to the story.
</doc>