Julien on the one hand is living in a world of modern narrative, post-Napoleonic, which represents a society into which history has been thrown in. For Mm. Rênal, this episode has to with love and jealousy, implicating the possibility of rivalry and adultery.
ADD A BIT MORE
Julien continually and persistently conceives himself as the hero of his ‘own text’. He creates fictions, including ones about himself, the result of which is inauthenticity and error. It is for this reason the Julien, as a narrating device is unreliable and prone to error.
Julien chooses to intimate models that are inappropriate and during his seduction of Mme Rênal he continues to do so. It is his loyalty towards these model figures that spoil what Mme Rênal finds most pleasing and attractive. It is then that the narrator begins to agree that Julien should continue to follow his models, even though everything is telling us (as readers) that this is not the case. In a word what made Julien a superior being was precisely what prevented him from enjoying the pleasure that had come his way.
The narrator poses as a figure of paternal authority in the narrative. The narrator acts as a voice of judgement, judging Julien in relation to his models, measuring his distance from them, noting his failures to understand them and his false attributions towards their success models. The narrator is constantly referring to the worlds of misunderstanding and missed chances between the characters. The narrator can at times be obtrusive and not only acts as the voice of judgement but also as the voice of consciousness.
The paternal narrator seeks to restrain Julien yet he also admires him through the deployment of his father’s great and worldly wisdom.
The narrative mode of Stendhal’s novel appears to be serial, and gives the impression of a perpetual flight forward, constantly self-inventing at each moment.
The narrator appears to be disinterested in judging what has happened in the past, and appears more concerned with what is happening at present or what has just happened.
There is the suggestion throughout the narrative moment that things may not be what they seem, but may be otherwise, and this is due to the narrator’s games of outmanoeuvring the protagonist, Julien.
The plotted narrative is a deviance from our transgression of the normal, a state of abnormality and error, which alone is narratable.
Narrative instability is demonstrated with the figure of the monster, a figure of transgression, desire, deviance and instability that is the figure of Julien’s project. The monster has the conjoined figure of politics as plot and plot as politics. The plot itself, narrative design and intention is the figure of displacement, which eventually leads to a change of position.
Julien is the observer whose presence authenticates the narrative, but the observer is also being observed. There are recurrent reminders of Julien’s inadequacy, his prejudices and the limits of his comprehension
However varied and fluid this shifting of narrative angle may be, it does reveal a dominant pattern. During the beginning of the book, the author appears as a stranger observing forms of politeness and modesty, yet by the end he has become an acquaintance and is no longer upholding such formalities.
Neither Stendhal nor the narrator so overtly appears to stage-manage events; Julien’s fatal act indeed inaugurates a period of diminished narratorial intervention. One cannot get around the problem or the effect by claiming that Julien’s narrative fills in the details that are torn off from the newspaper story, which provides us with a fuller motivation for crime and execution. The details of the motives for the crime and execution, are exactly what frustrate us, as readers.
Knowledge or at least narrative intelligibility offers power and the means of using it in the form of intimidation.
Talk about another character whose internal monologues is the next greatest out of the three central characters
As Mathilde rises to the bait of which M de Frilair comes up with a version in which jealousy constitutes the motive for Julien’s crime. Julien supposedly acted out of jealousy for Mme de Rênal’s new religious adviser. And as Mathilde rises to this bait, Stendhal remarks: “Enfin l’abbé de Frilair fut sûr de son empire.” The intelligible narrative of jealous passion begins to bring in returns for its narrator, as it sparks off another tale of jealousy in its reader.
Julien’s thoughts are expressed as short, quick illuminations of narrative, used to convey the essential dynamic curiosity and restless mobility of his character.
Julien is a highly dramatic character, and this can create a flaw in his narration. Highly dramatising an event or feeling will often distort what has happened, and creates an image of something, which may no have necessarily taken place as it has been described. Julien is almost used as a narrative device, placed at the climax of a scene to give greater immediacy.
Julien often attempts to interpret people and situations, and more often than not he does not expand on these attempts. On one occasion where he appears to be speculating rather widely, is when he encounters Mathilde at the ball. This speculation involves a series of monologues, all of which lead him to the final question of: “M’aime t-elle?” This statement demonstrates that Julien is not necessarily involved in Mathilde’s character but more in himself, and is keen to discover her feelings towards him.
These speculations are often clouded by Julien’s preconceptions, and this consequently leads him astray.
Julien as a character is prone to expressing differentiated judgements on someone throughout the novel. His relationship with Mme Rênal echoes this, and his opinion of her changes from the beginning of their relationship, to which is then followed by the crisis of her sons illness: “Elle est beau être noble, et moi le fils d’un ouvrier, elle m’aime…Je ne suis pas auprés d’elle un valet de chambre chargé de fonctions d’amant.” As their relationship develops, so too does his love and affection for her, and this is demonstrated by the contrasting statement that he made earlier on in their relationship: “Elle est bonne et douce, son gout pour moi est vif, mais elle a été élevée dans le camp ennemi.” Julien’s tendency to react in a class-conscious manner and referring to her in this way as if she is not good enough for him infers his childish attitude and consequent unreliable voice as a narrative device. It also demonstrates a slight ignorance to his character, which is a flaw when acting as the narrative voice.
I have discussed at length the character of Julien Sorel and his chracter’s voice, but there are two more central characters to this novel and they are Madame de Rênal and Mathilde.
Mme Rênal has by far the fewest interior monologues, out of the three central characters. Although this does not denounce her as a less important character than the other two but simply means that there is no need for Stendhal to portray her thoughts because they are expressed in her every action. It is her straightforward character that shows that she has nothing to hide, and is therefore a much more reliable character than that of Julien. It is perhaps Julien himself that proves to be her downfall, and in entering a relationship with him it proves to be the beginning of her end.
Conclusion
Stendhal presents characters thoughts from different perspectives, moving flexibly from one to another, often without transition. The most distinctive method Stendhal uses is to present the characters thoughts more directly, as a form of inner speech, known as the interior monologue.
