© 2000 Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion / Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses

Picturing the prophet:Focalization in the

book of JonahBENJAMIN LYLE BERGER

Benjamin Lyle Berger (2140 Cadboro Bay Road, Apt. 308, Victoria, BC V8R 5G7; e-mail:bberger@uvic.ca) is a graduate of the Department of Comparative Literature, Religion, andFilm/Media Studies at the University of Alberta.

Summary: This article approaches the book of Jonah from a narrato-logical perspective in an effort to understand the way in which thestory is presented to a reading audience. This emphasis on the presen-tation of the text combined with an affirmation of the inadequacy ofthe concept of "point of view" leads to a consideration of focalizationtheory and focalization in the book of Jonah. The theoretical positionsof Genette, Rimmon-Kenan and Sanders are applied to the book ofJonah with a resulting consideration of instances of perceptual, psy-chological, ideological, and embedded focalization. The author con-cludes that the book of Jonah is focalized in a bifurcated manner withan omniscient but ideologically uncommitted external focalizer, allow-ing for a free manipulation of time and space as well as a panoramicpresentation of the psychological aspects of the narrative, and instancesof embedded focalization, which provide a number of ideological per-spectives. Ultimately, the reader is left to construct an interpretationof the text using these multiple ideological perspectives set in the con-text of the larger picture provided by the external focalizer.

Résumé : L’auteur de cet article aborde le livre de Jonas dans uneperspective narratologique et s’efforce de comprendre la façon dontl’histoire est présentée aux lecteurs. L’accentuation de la présentationdu texte ainsi que le caractère inadéquat du concept de «point de vue»

le conduisent à considérer la théorie de la focalisation et la focalisation

dans le livre de Jonas. Les positions théoriques de Genette, Rimmon-Kenan et Sanders sont appliquées au livre de Jonas. Nous considéronsalors les instances de focalisation perceptuelle, psychologique, idéo-

logique et enchassée. L’auteur conclue que le livre de Jonas a unefocalisation à deux branches. La première a un focalisateur externe,omnicient, mais idéologiquement non engagé; ceci permet une libremanipulation du temps et de l’espace. La seconde branche de cette

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

56

focalisation présente de manière panoramique des aspects psycholo-gique du récit et donne des exemples de focalisation enchassée quiproduisent plusieurs perspectives idéologiques. Finalement, le lecteurest invité à construire une interprétation du texte utilisant ces per-spectives idéologiques multiples situées dans le contexte du tableaud’ensemble fourni par le focalisateur externe.

The book of Jonah, despite its brevity, has generated an abundance ofwork by biblical scholars. Focussing on, among many topics, its comedic

qualities, satirical constructions and possible didactic lessons, commenta-tors have dissected, transplanted, infused and manipulated the body ofthis biblical text in an effort to come to a richer understanding of its prop-erties and possible effects. Yet the discussion concerning the possible rolesof the narrator of the book of Jonah, despite its key importance to under-standing the functioning of the text, remains surprisingly muted.’ Whilelittle scholarship has been done with respect to the narrator in the bookof Jonah (save some non-narratological consideration by Craig and Per-son), an understanding of the diegetic and extradiegetic function of thisfigure is central to an appreciation of the way in which the story of thebook of Jonah is presented.’ Central to the functions of the narrator is thenarrator’s role as the agent of focalization.’ Although the narrator of thebook of Jonah slips by much scholarly reflection on the text, an under-standing of the manner in which the narrator displays the diegesis to areader is a crucial component of the internal structure of the book thatreveals the narrator as an active and potent force with respect to the text.

Following a consideration of the theoretical debate surrounding the narra-tological term &dquo;focalization&dquo; and a survey of recent narratological inquiryinto the book, this article will examine the manner and effect of focalizationin the book of Jonah.

Theoretical considerations

Narratological work on the part of biblical scholars has not taken up theissue of focalization as a central consideration with respect to biblical nar-ration. Nonetheless, Adele Berlin, Meir Sternberg and Shimon Bar-Efrathave each contributed to the discussion surrounding &dquo;vision&dquo; in biblical

narratives. Due to space limitations, only these three biblical narratologi-cal perspectives will be discussed. These examples, however, are emblem-atic of the majority of scholarship on this subject. Adele Berlin discussespoint of view at length and provides a number of interesting observationswith respect to the biblical narrator. She notes that &dquo;it is generally acceptedthat biblical narrative is narrated in the third person by an omniscient(and reliable) narrator&dquo; (1983: 43). This question of the reliability of thenarrator and other characters is raised in a recent article by Y Amit (1992).Amit argues that, in biblical texts, God must have been understood as com-

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

57

pletely reliable for the original audience to accept the text. Indeed, inAmit’s view, God’s position is that against which all other ideologies in thetext are measured. Berlin adds that &dquo;far from giving a uniform, detachedpresentation of a series of events, biblical narrative employs a number oftechniques which give the reader a many-faceted perspective of the story&dquo;(1983: 44). Berlin understands biblical narrative as functioning much likethe narration of film. The narrator works as a kind of camera-operator,giving focus to certain events, zooming in on some aspects of the plot andproviding panoramic views of others. As such, Berlin recognizes the poten-tially multifocal nature of biblical texts as a product of shifts in point of view.Meir Sternberg contends that &dquo;whatever else point of view may be or

do, it entails a relation between subject and object, perceiving mind andperceived reality&dquo; (1985: 129). He states, simply, that &dquo;discourse renders aworld from a certain viewpoint&dquo; (1985: 129) and, on this basis, it is the

interplay between discourse, world and perspective that establishes pointof view.Shimon Bar-Efrat makes an important contribution to the &dquo;point of

view&dquo; discussion by noting that, although biblical texts are often controlledby the third person omniscient narrator, the characters are granted anopportunity to capture, if only for a moment, the textual perspective. Bar-Efrat notes that, although &dquo;the protagonist’s speech is always imbedded inthat of the narrator, who gives them the floor&dquo; (1989: 42), &dquo;whenever

characters use direct speech in the narrative, their point of view is, natu-rally, reflected&dquo; (1989: 41). The significance of this point lies in the recog-nition that &dquo;this way of narration expresses the narrator’s empathy for thecharacter whose point of view is adopted&dquo; (1989: 39).These narratological formulations from biblical scholars all address the

question of point of view and provide, to a greater or lesser extent, ameans of interpreting the role of the narrator in biblical text. Yet each ofthese perspectives suffers from a difficulty endemic to the analysis of nar-rative that was flagged by Gerard Genette’s observation that &dquo;most of thetheoretical works on [point of view] (which are mainly classifications) suf-fer from ... a confusion between ... the question who sees? And the ques-tion zuho speaks?&dquo; (1980: 186). Formerly designated &dquo;point of view,&dquo; therecognition that any story is told from a particular perspective becameknown as &dquo;focalization.&dquo; Genette saw the need to differentiate betweenthe expressed viewpoint of the speaker and the position from which thetext is displayed and so, accordingly, adopted focalization as a term thatappropriately encapsulated the latter aspect of narrative. Although hewould later lament the potentially restrictive nature of the visual connota-tions of the term, Genette’s contribution is recognized by subsequent nar-ratologists. Genette provided an articulation for the observation that &dquo;anytext ... that contains deictic4 information is thereby understood as ori-ented from the spatiotemporal position that these deictics imply&dquo; (Toolan1988: 67). The focalization is the view through which the diegesis is pre-

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

58

sented and is composed of both a focalizer and a focalized (this distinc-tion is not original to Genette’s theory but was an elaboration contributedby Bal). The focalizer is &dquo;not a ’person,’ not even in the same way that thenarrator or implied author is an agent, but rather a chosen point, a pointfrom which the narrative is perceived as being presented at any givenmoment&dquo; (O’Neill 1992: 333). The focalized is, simply, that which is con-sciously attended to by the focalizer.This seemingly neat classification gives rise to two significant distinc-

tions-that between external and internal focalizer, and that between thefocalized viewed from the inside and from the outside. The external focal-

izer is not a character participating in the diegetic stream. This focalizerrests above, or outside of, the fabula.~ The external focalizer is analogousto the third-person narrator and is, for this reason, often referred to as thenarrator-focalizer. In contrast, the internal focalizer, or character-focalizer,participates in the diegesis, viewing the events from within. Turning to thesecond distinction, the focalized; an object described only on the basis ofits visible properties is considered to be focalized from the outside, while anarrative that relates the inner workings, feeling, thoughts or impressionsof the object is focalized from within. This relatively intuitive basic schemeconstitutes the core of focalization theory.

Since the introduction of this framework, two general approaches toGenette’s theoretical stance emerged: one school (represented by MiekeBal, Michael J. Toolan, Patrick O’Neill and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan)calling for an expansion of the term beyond its apparently visual connota-tions to include cognitive, emotive and ideological orientations andanother school arguing for the complete rejection of the term. The latterperspective, most recently and powerfully represented by Chatman, con-tends that the elaborations that ensued after the coining of the term focal-ization have defeated Genette’s original purpose-to restrict the narrativefacets subsumed under one broad term. Indeed, Chatman contends thatthe visual connotations of focalization are entirely inappropriate because,absent direct participation in the narrative world, the external focalizercan never see-he or she only tells. Chatman proposes that the terms

&dquo;slant,&dquo; &dquo;centre&dquo; and &dquo;interest focus&dquo; be adopted to describe other narra-tive aspects previously described by &dquo;focalization&dquo; or &dquo;point of view.&dquo;Mieke Bal, on the other hand, recognizes an intuitive wisdom in the visu-

ality of Genette’s term. Bal argues that every diegetic event, insofar as it isdisplayed to the implied audience of the focalizer,’ is, if only figuratively,&dquo;seen.&dquo; Indeed, she holds that focalization is &dquo;the most important, mostpenetrating, and most subtle means of manipulation&dquo; (1997 [1985]: 116)within a given text. Rimmon-Kenan agrees with Bal and goes further byconstructing a more articulated framework with which to understand theplay of focalization within a text. Of contemporary theorists, Rimmon-Kenan offers the most refined mode of analysing a narrative’s focalizationand its concomitant effects. Rimmon-Kenan insists that &dquo;the story is pre-

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

59

sented in the text through the mediation of some ’prism,’ ’perspective,’[or] ’angle of vision’ &dquo; (1993: 71) that has an effect on perceptual, psycho-logical and ideological facets of the text.These facets devised by Rimmon-Kenan will be important in the follow-

ing analysis of focalization in the book of Jonah and, therefore, must be dis-cussed in some depth. With respect to the perceptual, Rimmon-Kenan dis-tinguishes between spatial and temporal effects. She notes that the externalfocalizer yields &dquo;either a panoramic view or a ’simultaneous’ focalization ofthis ’happening’ in various places&dquo; (1993: 77). The external focalizer alsofurnishes a panchronic view in which the focalizer &dquo;has at his disposal allthe temporal dimensions of the story&dquo; (1993: 78). The internal focalizer,on the other hand, is bound both by the character-focalizer’s spatial loca-tion and temporal orientation. The psychological facet of focalization is

divided into cognitive and emotive aspects. Cognitively, &dquo;the oppositionbetween external and internal focalization becomes that between unre-

stricted and restricted knowledge&dquo; (Rimmon-Kenan 1993: 79). While theexternal focalizer has unlimited cognitive access, he or she does not makesubjective evaluations of the events because he or she is not a subject ofthe diegesis. Thus, on the emotive level, &dquo;the ‘external/internal’ opposi-tion yields ’objective’ (neutral, uninvolved) v. ’subjective’ (coloured,involved) focalization&dquo; (Rimmon-Kenan 1993: 80). Finally, the ideologicalfacet of focalization is involved with the &dquo;norms of the text.&dquo; Whereas the

internal focalizer’s ideological position is centralised but not unquestion-able, &dquo;the ideology of the narrator-focalizer is usually taken as authorita-tive, and all other ideologies in the text are evaluated from this ’higher’position&dquo; (Rimmon-Kenan 1993: 81). It should be noted that, not formu-lated with religious texts in mind, this final distinction is questionable withrespect to biblical texts owing to the issues related to YHWH as a narrativecharacter (see Amit 1992).Though significantly more complex than the original theory of focaliza-

tion as proposed by Genette, this interpretative framework is of great po-tential use in that it can be applied to a given text in order to elucidate therelationship of a given focalizer to the text. Rimmon-Kenan’s theory is

particularly helpful when considering an external focalizer. Jose Sandersmakes a key observation from a cognitive-psychological perspective whenshe states that &dquo;the narrator, who is external focalizer, may permit embed-ded focalization by assigning a character in the story as a focalizer&dquo; (1994:32). This observation is similar to that reached by both Adele Berlin andShimon Bar-Efrat but emphasises the manner in which this sort of focal-ization is not just &dquo;internal&dquo; but embedded in the ideology of the externalnarrator. When providing direct quotations, &dquo;the narrator assigns theresponsibility for the validity of both the wording and the content of theinformation to the quoted speaker&dquo; (Sanders 1994: 38). Sanders’ key con-tribution is the recognition that at stake in all questions of focalization isthe authority of the position taken. Sanders defines perspective in the fol-

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

60

lowing way: &dquo;Perspective is the introduction of a subjective point of viewthat ascribes the claim of validity of the presented information to a partic-ular subject (person) in the discourse. A discourse segment is perspectivizedif its relevant context of interpretation is person-bound, embedded spacewithin the narrator’s reality&dquo; (Sanders 1994: 37). This particular defini-tion of perspective is an alternate articulation of the defining focalizationquestion, who sees?, in even the most self-interested of circumstances. Thus,the combination of Rimmon-Kenan’s refined artifice for analysis of theexternal narrator and Sanders’ recognition of the crucial role that pers-pective plays in narrative discourse provides a strong foundation from whichto consider the narrative structure the book of Jonah.

The narrator in JonahThe narrator of the book of Jonah is the primary focalizer of the text and,as focalizer, the narrator is positioned outside of the diegesis-a positionthat provides certain perceptual, psychological and ideological perspec-tives on the unfolding story. Yet the book of Jonah also contains a limitednumber of instances of the narrator-focalizer handing the focalizationover to an intradiegetic character. In the following section, a close consid-eration of the manner in which the narrator-focalizer presents the text willelucidate the specific functions of both the external and embedded focal-ization of the book of Jonah. In this way, focalization theory will be appliedin order to exhibit the structure and dynamics of the text.

Perceptual focalization

According to Rimmon-Kenan’s construction, the perceptual facet of focaliza-tion can be divided into spatial and temporal aspects. The narrator-focalizerin Jonah exercises power over both of these aspects. First, one can see thesimultaneous focalization of the narrator-focalizer who is able to view events

occurring in disparate or inaccessible locations without any manner of

explanation or justification. Jonah 1:5 has the focalizer shift from the pictureof the mariners throwing cargo overboard to a vision of Jonah descendedinto the depths of the ship, fast asleep: &dquo;Then the mariners were afraid, andeach cried to his god. They threw the cargo that was in the ship into the sea,to lighten it for them. Jonah, meanwhile, had gone down into the hold ofthe ship and had lain down, and was fast asleep.&dquo; This movement in spatialperspective is only possible via an external focalizer that is not bound to abody or rules of movement as a character-focalizer would be. A similar moveoccurs in 1:15-16 when, after Jonah is thrown from the ship, the focalizerremains with the mariners to witness them make vows and sacrifices:

1:15 So they picked Jonah up and threw him into the sea; and the sea ceased fromits raging.1:16 Then the men feared the LORD even more, and they offered a sacrifice tothe LORD and made vows.

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

61

This passage is pivotal in that it removes from consideration a possiblefocalizer other than the narrator. Perhaps, it could be argued, the narratoris merely giving voice to Jonah’s observations. In effect, the narrationwould be bound to the consciousness of Jonah. Yet Jonah is not, cannotbe, the focalizing agent in the text. This conclusion is supported by thefocalizer’s access to thoughts and feelings otherwise inaccessible to Jonah.With Jonah already descending into the water, it is impossible for him tobe watching the sailors carry out their rituals above, much less to describetheir internal states. The same reasoning cannot be employed to rule outYHWH as the focalizing agent owing to the omniscient characteristics at-tributed to YHWH.

At this point in the diegesis, the focalizer makes a fantastic display offreedom from spatial limitations-the focalizer reports Jonah’s speechfrom inside the belly of the fish. Indeed, the focalizer is able to move fromcharacter to character and from location to location with complete free-dom. The focalizer can also be viewed as executing a &dquo;zoom-in-zoom-out&dquo;movement in spatial focalization. Consider the following passage:3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and every-one, great and small, put on sackcloth.3:6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne,removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

The focalizer begins with a vastly panoramic view of Nineveh and thegoings on within the city. He is able to view the people in a general sense,&dquo;great and small&dquo; (3:5) alike. Suddenly, the focalization zooms in on theking of Nineveh and his actions. Thus, the external focalizer of the Bookof Jonah, not bound by rules of movement or spatial limitations, is able topresent the implied audience of the focalizer with both a broad and spe-cific view of the narrative world.

With respect to the temporal, the narrator-focalizer is able to transcendconventions of narrative movement. The opening verse of the book pro-vides the first instance of the focalizer’s manipulation or impact upon timein the diegetic stream. Jonah 1:1 provides a beginning to the book that isvery much in the middle of the action. The construction way(ye)hi debar-YHWH ’el- (and the word of the lord came to ... ) appears elsewhere inthe Hebrew Bible only when the narrative has already begun and the con-text of the story has been set. Hence, the focalizer brings the impliedaudience of the focalizer a picture of a story already in progress (see Sas-son 1990: 66-67) .The end of 1:10 demonstrates a somewhat different instance of tempo-

ral control on the part of the external focalizer. The narrator-focalizer’sstatement that &dquo;the men knew that he was fleeing from the presence of theLORD, because he had told them so&dquo; (1:10) reveals information about the

story after its proper diegetic-temporal place. This case of narrative

analepsis7 is an instance of the narrator-focalizer exercising control over

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

62

the sequence in which the diegetic events are revealed to the impliedaudience of the focalizer. The narrator-focalizer has, notionally, alreadyseen Jonah tell this information to the mariners but has withheld this factfrom the implied audience of the focalizer. A similar effect is achieved bythe character-focalizer in 4:2 when Jonah reveals his reasons for fleeing toTarshish in chapter 1. Conversely, Jonah 2:1 relates an instance of narra-tive prolepsis. The narrator-focalizer reveals that &dquo;Jonah was in the belly ofthe fish three days and three nights&dquo; ( 1:17b) . In this simple statement thefocalizer provides the implied audience not only with the length of timethat Jonah will be inside the fish, but, concomitantly, with the fact that Jonahwill, indeed, emerge from the fish. Thus, the narrator-focalizer revealsinformation to the implied audience of the focalizer that would, other-wise, only become apparent later in the diegetic timeline. While thesetemporal effects would be of no surprise to a re-reader of the text, theynonetheless demonstrate the atemporal nature of this external focalizer.

Psychological focalization :

The psychological facet of focalization plays heavily within the book ofJonah. While Rimmon-Kenan divides the psychological facets into cogni-tive and emotive aspects, in application these two aspects are closely inter-twined. As such, the separation made below is somewhat arbitrary and thelines between these examples can be blurred. As cited in the theoreticalportion of this paper, with respect to both the cognitive and the emotive,Rimmon-Kenan notes that &dquo;the opposition between external and internalfocalization becomes that between unrestricted and restricted knowledge&dquo;(1993: 79). Indeed, the external focalizer of the book of Jonah has unre-stricted access to the cognitive and emotive states of the characters withinthe narrative. Craig indicates that &dquo;the sharing of an inside view puts thereader in an elevated or privileged position&dquo; (1993: 143). Perhaps themost obvious case of this privileged emotional access is the triple attesta-tion of the fear of the mariners in Jonah 1: 5, 10 and 16. The fear in verse5 and the yir’ti gedôlâ (great fear) attributed to the sailors in verses 10 and15 are announced to the implied audience of the focalizer by the nar-rator-focalizer. This fearful state of mind would not be accessible to thefocalizer if not for his unlimited access to the emotions and thoughts ofthe characters. In 4:6 Jonah is described as &dquo;very happy&dquo; and, implied inthe statement that God erected the qiqayon to &dquo;save him from his discom-

fort,&dquo; he is shown to be uncomfortable. The only other instance of thistype of emotive revelation on the part of the narrator-focalizer occurs in4:8:

When the sun rose, God prepared a sultry east wind, and the sun beat down onthe head of Jonah so that he was faint and asked that he might die. He said, &dquo;It is

better for me to die than to live.&dquo;

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

63

Here, beyond the direct speech attributed to Jonah in which he states that&dquo;it is better for me to die than to live,&dquo; the focalizer provides insight intoJonah’s emotional state through, seemingly, direct access to his mind. Asomewhat anomalous instance of the psychological facet of focalizationoccurs when the narrator-focalizer states that the ship hisseba lehissaber

(was afraid of its breaking up) (1:4). Here the focalizer comments on thepsychological condition of the ship, which feared for its own breaking.This case transcends the normal boundary of the animate/inanimateacross which psychological considerations cannot normally move.On the cognitive side, two statements of intent, or rationale for certain

acts, are provided by the narrator-focalizer. In 4:5 the external focalizerstates that Jonah sits in the booth because he was &dquo;waiting to see whatwould become of the city.&dquo; Thus, the focalizer provides information fromthe inner workings of the character’s mind to explain his action. In thenext verse a similar provision on the part of the focalizer yields a some-what ambivalent claim to the limitlessness of the narrator-focalizer’s knowl-

edge. Jonah 4:6 indicates that YHWH caused the qiqayon to grow in orderthat it provide comfort for Jonah. Here, the narrator-focalizer seems tohave access to the intentions of YHWH. However, the rationale provided isshown to be false when the qiqayon is revealed as a didactic device

employed by YHWH. This reversal could be interpreted as either a reflec-tion of the limit of the focalizer’s knowledge or a dramatic device used toestablish a condition in which the events of Jonah 4:7 will constitute a sur-prise for the implied reader. Based on the previously demonstrated tempo-ral freedom of the external focalizer, the latter interpretation seems morereasonable. Indeed, Jonah 3:10 indicates that the focalizer has access tothe workings of God’s mind:

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changedhis mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and hedid not do it.

The implied reader learns not only that God has seen the repentance ofthe Ninevites (an instance of embedded focalization, discussed below),but that this is why God changes his plan which has been, indeed, to bringa calamity upon them.

Ideological focalization

Finally, the ideological facet of focalization expresses the norms, philoso-phies or world views of the text. As such, any representations of belief orphilosophical perspective on the part of the characters in the book ofJonah could be understood as ideological elements. In the case of thebook of Jonah, the narrator-focalizer remains neutral. This is not to saythat the ideological facet is absent from the book of Jonah. Rather, thepresentation of events from a detached external, though omniscient, pers-pective allows for the presentation of ideologies other than that of the nar-

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

64

rator-focalizer to compete for authenticity. As such, the book of Jonah fitsinto Rimmon-Kenan’s &dquo;more complex cases&dquo; in which &dquo;the single author-itative external focalizer gives way to a plurality of ideological positionswhose validity is doubtful in principle&dquo; (1993: 81).The predominant competing ideologies in the text are those of Jonah

and YHWH. The extent to which these ideologies are &dquo;doubtful&dquo; is highlydependent upon the assumptions of a given reading community. A com-munity committed to the infallibility of God would read the text as anexpression of God’s ideology against which Jonah’s is compared. When theYHWH of the text is also the God of personal or community belief, andtherefore uniquely an intra- and extra-diegetic character, God’s perspectiveis necessarily privileged. YHWH, in this reading, possesses the ideologyagainst which all others are to be judged. Indeed, given the omniscienceand omnipotence attributed to God in this mode of reading, YHWH cannoteven be ruled out as narrator-focalizer. From other reading perspectivesthese effects would, to a greater or lesser extent, disappear. A communitythat did not automatically favour YHWH’s perspective would likely readthe text more dialogically and as indeterminate with respect to ideologicalconclusions or possible message. In addition, a modern secular commu-nity reading from a stance that rejects God’s perspective out of handwould favour Jonah’s ideology. The central point here is that, consideringsolely the diegetic focalization, none of these interpretations is textuallyinscribed or favoured.

Thus, the ideological focalization of the text might be focalized fromYHWH’s perspective, from Jonah’s stance, or it might be bifurcated betweenthe two. In any of these cases, the view or focalization of the characters’ ide-

ologies is distanced from the implied audience of the focalizer owing tothe otherwise external focalization of the text. All events or words that

convey ideology are filtered through the narrator-focalizer’s detached andobjective (i.e., devoid of any ideological, cognitive or emotional evalua-tions) view. For example, Jonah 3:10 relates that &dquo;when God saw what theydid, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind aboutthe calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did notdo it.&dquo; This event conveys YHWH’s stance with respect to the deeds of theNinevites, namely forgiveness in the face of their repentance, but it doesso from the viewpoint of the narrator-focalizer. Even more explicitly, whenthe narrator-focalizer states that YHWH’s recanting &dquo;was very displeasingto Jonah, and he became angry&dquo; (4:1), it is the focalizer conveying thecharacter’s ideological viewpoint.The importance of identifying the ideologies in a text resides in the

&dquo;reality-constructing&dquo; function of the expression of these ideologies. AsAlthusser and others have noted, &dquo;in ideology ’men represent their realconditions of existence to themselves in an imaginary form’ &dquo; (1971: 153).This &dquo;imaginary form&dquo; puts the proponent of the ideology at the centreof the constructed reality. Therefore, whenever a narrator-focalizer relin-

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

65

quishes focalizing power to a character, that character is allowed to become,if only temporarily, the ideological centre of the text. As such, it becomes

crucial to examine those instances where the focalization is handed over

from narrator to character, external to internal, in order to establish theexistence of sympathy for any ideological position espoused within thetext.

Embedded focalization

Relying upon mental space theory as set forth in cognitive studies, JoseSanders constructs a scheme for recognising and understanding the func-tion of embedded focalization. Sanders remarks that &dquo;the narrator ...

may permit embedded focalization by assigning a character in the story asfocalizer&dquo; (Sanders 1994: 32). The significance of cases of embedded focal-ization resides in the fact that &dquo;the material within a perspective space[embedded focalization] is interpreted as valid or factual to the person towhom the space is bound, while only possibly valid outside this space&dquo;(Sanders 1994: 37). Thus, the embedded focalization is the narrator-focal-izer’s allowance of narrative space for a character to express a perspectiveand for an implied audience of the focalizer to evaluate the validity of thisstance. While Sanders remarks that all &dquo;he said&dquo; constructions are syntac-tic markings of embedded discourse (1994: 39-40), this definition conflatesGenette’s original, and important, distinction between who speaks andwho sees. As Rimmon-Kenan remarks, &dquo;speaking and seeing, narrationand focalization, may, but need not, be attributed to the same agent&dquo;(1993: 72). Therefore, while every case of quoted speech’ may, in someinterpretations, constitute a case of embedded focalization, this paper willconsider only those that clearly reflect a perspective, either visual or explic-itly ideological.There are several cases of embedded focalization in the book of Jonah.

First, and perhaps most obviously, is Jonah’s &dquo;psalm&dquo; in chapter 2. Jonahhimself reflects upon his internal state when he cries, &dquo;I called to the Lordout of my distress&dquo; (2:2). He provides his own view of plunging to thedepths of the ocean when he recounts that &dquo;the flood surrounded me; all

your waves and your billows passed over me&dquo; (2:3). Although the psalm ofchapter 2 is ambiguous as to intent and highly debated with respect tointerpretation, it clearly constitutes a case of the narrator-focalizer hand-ing the focalization over to a character in the text who focalizes throughdirect speech. On its face, the &dquo;psalm&dquo; may read as a pious treatise onGod’s mercy but, read in light of Jonah’s speech in 4:2, it could show

Jonah’s implicitly negative interpretation of this mercy. Alternatively, theembedded focalization may have the effect of ironizing Jonah in its con-

trast with the externally focalized diegesis (e.g., the disjuncture betweenJonah running away from God, wanting nothing to do with God, and thencrying, &dquo;how shall I again look upon your holy temple&dquo; (2:4). Both of

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

66

these, and many other, interpretations are possible implications of theembedded focalization of the psalm.The king of Nineveh’s speech in chapter 3 is another such instance in

which a disposition or perspective with respect to God is espoused in dis-course. The king provides a view of his own thought processes when hewonders, &dquo;Who knows? God may relent and change his mind; he may turnfrom his fierce anger, so that we do not perish&dquo; (3:9). Here, God’s mercyis viewed from a very different perspective than that constructed byJonah’s focalizations. A somewhat more subtle case is found in verse 3:10,cited above. Here, the verb &dquo;to see&dquo; is a lexical marker for a focalization

shift in which the implied audience of the focalizer is provided with YHWH’sview of the Ninevites and his subsequent thoughts. In combination withGod’s final speech in 4:10-11, an ideology of mercy, perhaps quite oppositeto Jonah’s, is revealed. Thus, the embedded focalizations in the Book ofJonah function to bring the implied audience of the focalizer in touchwith the varied ideologies that exist beneath the narrator-focalizer’s de-tached perspective. >

.. - j: ’ ’

Conclusions

The above analysis reveals a number of conclusions about focalization inthe book of Jonah. First, the narrator-focalizer, who predominates thefocalization of the book, relates the diegesis from an objective yet omni-scient perspective. The omniscience of the narrator-focalizer permits mani-pulation of time and space-a freedom that allows for a panoramic andholistic presentation of the narrative. In addition, this omniscience mani-fests itself in depictions of the focalized objects from zuithin, in Rimmon-Kenan’s terms (1993: 80-81), allowing for the portrayal of the cognitiveand emotive conditions and processes of the characters. This paper hasshown specific textual instances of each of these manifestations of the nar-rator-focalizer. On the other hand, this external focalizer does not seem totake an ideological stance. That is to say, solely on the basis of externalfocalization, no ideological perspective is favoured. Rather, much of theideology in the text is left to the readers to supply. Still, some of the ideo-logical aspects are expressed through limited instances of embedded focal-ization in which the characters, particularly Jonah and God, are handed thefocalization via direct speech or expressions of vision. Thus, what emergesis a narrative whose key events and characters are depicted in as completeand detached a manner as possible while embedded focalizations provideideological expressions that are not resolved except by the implied audi-ence of the focalizer’s interpretative efforts. The implied audience is facedwith both the neutral but omniscient diegesis as externally focalized andthe ideological embedded focalizations of the characters, and must cometo an interpretation of the text in the playground of these perspectives.

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

67

Notes

1 Scholarly work on the narrator in the Book of Jonah has been very slim indeed. Ken-neth Craig and Raymond Person include sections in their books dedicated to the narra-tion of the book of Jonah. Neither, however, adopts the narratological perspectives thattake into account theories of focalization. Both authors raise some interesting pointswith respect to the narration of the Book of Jonah that, where applicable, will be dis-cussed.

2 "Diegesis" is a term used to designate the narrated level of the text. "Extra-diegetic"events or agents are those that exist within the text but not within the narrated story.

3 Put simply, focalization is the "view" of the story provided to the reader.4 Also called a deixis, the deictic is "the linguistic term for all those elements of a lan-

guage that have a specifically orientational function. In English, such orientationalwords include this, that, here, there, now, then, I, you, tomorrow, yesterday" (Toolan 1988:263) .

5 The fabula is a precise term used in narratology to describe "a series of logically andchronologically related events that are caused or experienced by actors" (Bal 1994

[1985] : 5).6 The term "implied audience of the focalizer" will be used to designate the individual or

group for whom the focalizer is focalizing.7 The term "analepsis" refers to movements backwards in narrative time. This literary

device is also referred to as retroversion or flashback, the latter of which is commonlyrejected for its psychological connotations.

8 As there are no quotation marks in the Masoretic text, quoted speech is best recognisedby forms of the verb ’amar. Meier’s study offers an extended consideration of the discur-sive function of this verb (Meier 1992: 59 ff.).

References

Althusser, Louis1971 Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Translated by Ben Brewster. Bristol:

Western Printing Services.Amit, Y

1992 "The glory of Israel does not deceive or change his mind: On the relia-bility of narrator and speakers in biblical narrative." Prooftexts 12: 201-12.

Bal, Mieke1997 [1985] Narratology : Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2nd edition.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Bar-Efrat, Shimon

1989 Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond.

Berlin, Adele1983 Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond.

Buczkowski, Piotr and Andrezej Klawiter, eds.1986 Theories of Ideology and Ideology of Theories. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Chatman, Seymour1986 "Characters and narrators: Filter, center, slant, and interest-focus." Poetics

Today 7, 2: 189-204.Craig, Kenneth M.1993 A Poetics of Jonah: Art in the Service of Ideology. Columbia: University of

South Carolina Press.

Genette, Gerard1980 Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from

68

McAlpine, Thomas H.1987 Sleep, Divine & Human, in the Old Testament. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Meier, Samuel A.1992 Speaking of speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible. Leiden: E.

J. Brill.O’Neill, Patrick

1992 "Points of origin: on focalization in narrative." Canadian Review of Com-parative Literature 19: 331-50.

Person, Raymond F.1996 In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the

Book ofJonah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith

1993 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. New York: Routledge.Sanders, Jose

1994 Perspective in Narrative Discourse. Tilburg: Proefschrift Katholieke Univer-siteit Brabant.

Sasson, Jack M.1990 Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation.

Anchor Bible Series. New York: Doubleday.Sternberg, Meir

1985 The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Thompson, John B.

1984 Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity. Toolan, Michael j.

1988 Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. New York: Routledge.

at UNIV TORONTO on March 11, 2014sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from