O ίσκιος του ενδεχόμενου στο αφηγηματικό σύμπαν του Γ. Bιζυηνού
MetadataShow full item record
Please note: this article is in Greek. This paper deals with aspects of fictional representation and modes of understanding reality in Vizyinos’s mature narratives. It maintains that Vizyinos’ writing broke with the 19th century modes of representation, namely romanticism (the historical novel) and the kind of “realism” which was developed under the premises of ethografia. Introducing new ways of delving into the characters’ inner life, Vizyinos’ narrative techniques challenged representation which rendered reality as either a transparent direct naturalness or a mediated reflective relationship between actuality and art (verisimilitude). Employing Genette’s narrative typology this approach argues that transparency is associated with zero focalization in which the omniscient narrator has an absolute authority and control over the character’s actions and inner thoughts. Consequently, in narratives of sorts, human existence is rendered transparent through the narrator’s penetrating viewpoint. Reversely, in Vizyinos writing the internal focalization manifests itself through the alleged incapacity of an autobiographic narrator to offer a complete account of events and thoughts of the past. To construct his retrospective representation the narrator draws upon the characters’ experience expressed through their personal and momentary testimony upon the thoughts and the actions of the past. The proximity between narrator and character and the latter’s subjective point of view set the terms of an ellipsoid narrative structure unsettling the tradition of naturalness and verisimilitude. Thus, contradiction and suspense become the main characteristics of this narrative in which subjectivity is unsettled, often reduplicated and opaque. Accordingly, the enigmatic titles, the intricate plot and the characters’ ambiguous presence in the narrative turn the quest for truth into an obstructed race. Dealing with the fluid and ambiguous consciousness of the inner world, representation, here, works for the moment of uncertainty; it enacts a multi-perspective world of potential versions of truth, putting at stake reality and verisimilitude. The shadow of contingency looms over this ellipsoid narrative and by revealing and concealing at the same time facts and thoughts it creates an enigmatic atmosphere reinforced by titles such as “Who was my brother’s killer” or “My mother’s sin” or “Moskof Selim”.