This dissertation puts forward new alternatives approaches by examining narrative commonicative theories and their applicabilities on the contemparary metafictional works. The arguments are debated in direct reference to Genette’s narrative communicative frame. The scope of the study is confined into the relation between the writer and narrator and its possible implications of this bond on metafictional narratives. The relation between the writer and narrator is being argued in graphs by examing and illustrating the fictional innovations and abnormalities on Ian McEwan’s Atonement. On the whole, it is drawn a factual picture of the narrative jamming on Ian McEwan’s Atonement which clarifies the points arisen questions open to debate the unreliability on the communicative and textual levels among the writer, narrator and reader. The graph drawn on the whole consequently underpins the premise that narrative process and innovations may distort the realibility of a work as the ideological intentions and cultural interpretations can do as well as it clarifies the tussle between the writer and narrator throughout the narrative process.
Bu tez, öyküsel düzeyde iletişim teorilerini ve bu teorilerin modern metakurgusal çalışmalardaki geçerliliğini inceleyerek bunlar üzerine alternatif görüşler getirmektedir. Ortaya konulan yeni öneriler Genette’nin öyküsel iletişim tablosu temel alınarak tartışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın kapsamı yazar ve öykü anlatıcı arasındaki ilişki ve bunun metakurgusal anlatımlardaki muhtemel sonuçları ile sınırlı tutulmaktadır. Yazar ve öykü anlatıcı arasındaki ilişki Ian McEwan’nın Keferat romanı yapısal düzeyde incelenerek kurgusal yenilik ve anormalliklerin tablolar halinde ortaya koyulması suretiyle tartışılmaktadır. Neticede varılan noktada; yazar, öykü anlatıcı ve okuyucu arasında yazımsal ve iletişimsel seviyede güvenilirliği tartışmaya açan sebepler tablolandırılarak Ian McEwan’nın Kefaret romanındaki öyküsel anlatımdaki sıkışmanın somut bir resmine ulaşılıyor. Elde edilen bu resim, yazar ve öykü anlatıcı arasındaki yazımsal süreç boyunca devam eden mücadeleyi gün ışığına çıkardığı gibi bir eserin güvenilirliğini ideolojik amaç ve kültürel yorumlama kadar yazımsal süreç ve farklılıklarında etkileyebileceğini Ian McEwan’nın Kefaret romanıyla desteklemektedi


Narrative capability is one of the most distinguished gift given to human beings which dwell on each individual in various levels of experience and types of discourses. Theorists put forward a large number of naratives to discuss. What makes the narrative perception so profound issue stems from it having a pivotal role in shaping our world. The aim of this dissertation is to argue the implications of “the narrative jamming”1 upon the narrator and the reader which distorts the verisimilitude of the accounts of the narrator and writer running parallel. This premise will be underpinned by a narrative analysis of Ian McEwan’s “Atonement” Jean-Paul Sartre, in his famous work “Existentialism is a humanism”2 asserts that “Man makes himself” by underlining the morality that is choosen by the mankind. I will adopt this view to “narrator makes its writer” He also claims that “ you are what you live” I will also call it “ you are what you write”. In this regard although these statements seem inextricably interwoven, sometimes you are not able to be what you write. But in which cases does this happen? Is this a direct consequence of the narrrative jamming we experience every day consciously or unconsciously? Roland Barthes explains this natural affinity as follows;

“Narrative starts with the very history of mankind; there is not, there has never been anywhere, any people without narrative; all classes, all human groups, have their stories and very often those stories are enjoyed by men of diffirent and even opposite cultural backgrounds: narrative remains largely unconcerned with good or bad literature. like life itself, it is there, international, transhistorical, transcultural.”

This quotation inspired many researchers on their works as a starting point to the depths of the narrative discourse however, I will be hesitant and barely inclined to agree with that it being “like life itself” as long as and only if the mankind themselves narrates this premise. The reason what causes me to have serious reservation about this point is the same with the notion what led me to have recognized the dual role of the narrative within the entire span of the history of mankind. The narrative is the key player in our life with its dual role as a means of communication with the present and as a device of imitation of the past which also paves the way for the prediction and creates the power of determining or constructing the future. All these come to happen through the triangular interaction which is composed of the narration, the narrator, and the reader. Thus, as the quotation suggests above, narrative can not be confined into a group of writers or some leading intellectuals of a certain elite. It encompasses the whole of the society and spans nearly a complete life from the onset of the childhood to the adulthood for each individual. Some believes even the period of infancy can be conceived within this process.

Let’s have a look at the incident In Ian McEwan’s Atonement, in which Briony Tallis’s pretence of being drowned takes place in the river is a corroborative evidence to this notion. This example directly brings us to the focul point of the ongoing dispute on reliability of the narrator by extention usually the author itself. Many questions arise in the very heat of this argument. To what extent can the narratives be versions of reality? Whose voice is it we hear of? Does the narrator narrate everthing? Can the Subjective identiy be reconstructed ? what is the role of the Narratee amid these debades? All these arguments stem from the uncertainity of the posture what the narrator adopted towards the narrated and the narratee at the exact time of narrating. Here, the narrative time interferes with the core of the problem as another indelible compenent. In order to grasp the argument lets remmber Briony Tallis as an author who just reached the age of 77 in 1999 who finished her last novel, its origin derived from her chidhood and its earliest version from January 1940. As it is clearly seemed, It nearly spans a complete life. But the point is the resulted implication being that “ it will also inevitably span the whole narrative time” from the very beginning of the narrating to the final sentence which will mark the end of the narration. However, we do not know precisely how long it took for Ian Mcewan to finish his novel, but by his novel Atonement he is projecting the very epitome of this process. This instance is mapping the whole history of the narrative but in a way in which many questions arise from the time gaps between the different acts of narrating all along the different acts of writing time. Is it plausible for the narrator to remain the same person while its author is still getting older ? How can an author adopt itself to the continuum mechanics in the diegesis3 of the narrator ? If the narrator is not the one who writes and the writer is not the one who narrates according to the structuralists whose narration is it we read? These are absolutely absorbing questions as relatively much as controversial. These arguments scattering over the subsequent chapters with their relevant subpoints will be debated in direct references to Atonement.

Roland Barthes claims that the conceptions seem to have been formulated so far which determine the point of view are inadequate to the question “ who is the giver of the narrative?” He points out that the bulk of the problem is embedded in the codes in which the narrator’s and the reader’s presence can be detected within the narrative itself in “two different system”4: personal and apersonal (impesonal). He adds that although this approach may come in handy its efficacy is limited. He underlines the insufficiency of the linguistic marks hence it may be sometimes a faking practice and can mislead us in a text written in third person, in fact which is in the first person. 
He is totally right on his stance because, in many occasions, to eliminate the present of the person who is speaking apparently remains controversial on itself especially in paratexutal narrations as it was in the case of Atonement. This fact will lead us to seek thee answers not along the tortuous fields of the narratolgoy but absorbing. On Atonement. Ian McEwan on his work truely provides for such an attempt an extensive field of study in narration hence it has this built-in paratextual structure.


“Long ago when animals and human beings were the same, there were four brothers who went about doing good.
Coming to the Squamish Indians one time, they were persuaded by the chief to stay a while in his village. Knowing the wonder-working powers of the brothers, the chief said to them, “Won’t you bring the salmon people to our shores? We are often short of food. We know that salmon is good, but they never come to our waters.”….”
There are various form of narrative in the history of mankind. The quatation above from an American Indian legend is a testiment of the ubiquity of the narrative to how it come to have known long before the theories of narrative is brought by Russian formalists and French structuralist such as Vladimir Propp (1968), Claude Levi-Strauss (1977), Roland Barthes (1977), Gerard Genette (1985) and post structuralists such as Umberto Eco(1979) and Jean Francois Lyotard (1979). Due largely to the extensive and influential fields of narrative in the daily life, it is hard to make a definition in concrete terms for narrative. Furthermore, we need much of its definition for a deep understanding. Narration is a part of the world we all personally understand and each of us virtually rebuild in response to what we perceive, remember and predict. In other words narration is versions of reality. Tales, novels, films, essays, cartoons, stories all of these are written in a specific narrative level by a narrator according to the different purposes. Narrative is also a human tendency and desire. This intrinsic attempt may be rooted in the curiousity of man for the unknown. Curiosity and cognitive endeavor is promoted by the lingustic intuition of each language and cultural legacies. Narratives can also be classified beyond the written and oral narratives known popularly but the core of the narrative remains unchange whatever we integrate or subtract from the narrative we have certain principles on constructing a narrative applicable to its all forms. We can see narrative in visual gestures, phisical activities and we can read it in talks as a part of daily causal conversations, ceremonies, movies, even in the classroom. Another form of narrative activity can be read in musical arts such as jazz, piano, classical music, folksongs, rock and roll ..etc. Pictorial arts can also be read as a form narrative such as family photographs, diagrams, models, drawings, oil paintings. They can be suprisingly quite effective and convenient to convey the mystic, complicated and historical tales as a primitive form of narrative such as the cave painting given below;
Table 1.1.Magura Cave Paintings: the beginning of The Early Bronze Age
This cave painting survived from prehistoric times 15.000 years ago tells us the dancing women, hunting men, disguised members of the commune, large variety of animals, suns, stars, instruments of labour, and plants. 
We have an occasional celebration whose characters participate in it, furthermore we have a painter who narrates the past according to a specific point of view. Lets remeber our Squamish legend. We have had again characters and a particular event. The narrative similiarity between the Squamish legend and the Magura cave painting is that both are purposely functional and designed for the medium of past experiences.But however, when we took an insight to both and look into them closer, some structural differences come into view. For example; The Squamish legend tales us the plot in temporal time sequences whereas the The Cave painting indicates a stable moment captured from a particular occasion. The narrator of the Squamish legend is omniscient third person and the author of the legend is unknown as long as we do not recognize the story teller as a transitory author. As to the Cave painting, the narrator is the painter.
The reason why I chose these two instances of narrative before Ian Mcewan’s Atonement is to help clarifying the problems and complications of the popular approaches which are well recognized by the overwhelming majorty of the literary critics. These approaches center on the premises in which the author and narrator diverges from each other on narrative level by being labelled as some one who writes the story and the other who reads the story to the reader. This view especially become popular and reinforced by the proclamation Roland Barthes made in his essay “The Death of The Author” as follows
“ No doubt it has always been that way. As soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view
to acting directly on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins”
Roland Barthes appearently made an assertion but was and is still being regarded as a proclamation rather than a simple assertion from the immideate publication of his essay onwards. And since then, the relation between the author and narrator has been underestimated or hasnt been studied enough by the schoolars. Now lets return to the cave painting and imagine how it is constructed by its painter until the final composition
and become a painter simultaneously of our own canvas. first we draw a layout then draw an open moor and proceed with animals. We decide to make some supplementory changes and adding a gloomy sky and stars. Hunters and dancing women come next and goes on this way. If we figure out this process in our own accord, each of us will experience different phases of stagnation. These stagnations, willingly or compulsory, will determine what the paintbrush will cover next on our canvas. In other terms, We will have to make a nexus of the objects and feelings according to what we read on the currrent composition on hand. We will look at the incomplete work, we will make a choice between the possible options and we will have to provide a cohorence between the thoughts we have and the course of the events what the work indicated. Most importantly in the end we will have been affected by this incomplete work by making a compromise between the world we built and the world on which we work. This seemingly means that we will have to become the narratee “reader” from the first brush apply on to end. This is the first intervention which occurs in the act of narrating and I am suggesting this momentous intervention is not being made directly by the narrator or the writer itself but being made in a higher level than the narrating and writing levels because it encompasses two apart point of views which are of the reader and author. We become the first reader of our work by each intervention and each time the course of the events is changing from an angle of reader-author.  
In this regard, neither narrator nor writer are the writer or the narrator in clasical terms of what we recognized as the writer or the narrator until the completion of the work. This is resulted by a tussle between the narrator and the writer throughout the work as follows in Iac McEwan’s Atonement
“ But now I can no longer think what purpose would be served if, say, I tried to persuade my reader, by direct or indirect means, that Robbie Turner died of septicernia at Bray dunes on 1 June 1940, or that Cecilia was killed in September of the same year by the bomb that destroyed Balham Underground stattion” ( page 350 ) In this quatation, the question I will tackle is that
We see in this paragraph the narrator reveals itself but more signifacantly by including the reader into it as a justification to her stance as a writer. At the moment she confides her anxiety and concern she also reveals a higher level than the narrator and writer by implying how she become entangled with such a sense of indecisive steps on her tortuous path. 
These moments can be usually seen at the each beginning and theend of the work which are the moments that the intensity of the involment is most distinguished and elequent because of the fresh attempts and need to change the mood of the distance and focalization of the narrator by the author. Our fragment was from the end of Atonement when narrator introduces itself suprisingly as a writer of the work to the reader with some sheer resentment to the reader and the publishers as if she tries to shirk her responsibilities or forget her life time failure on belated work. She directly tends to join the reader not to the main plot of the story but in a implied manner connects the reader to the process of writing by revealing the roles and influences of the reader on herself throughout the novel and her own life. Now this time lets look at the following fragment from the beginning of Atonement;
“In a story you only had to wish, you only had write it down and you could have the world; in a play you had to make do with what was available: no horses, no village streets, no seaside. No curtain. It seemed so obvious now that it was late: a story was form a telepathy. By means of inking symbols onto a page, she was able to send thoughts and feelings from her mind to her reader’s” 
As it seems, our foculizer or narrator freakly changes the distance and the foculization shifhts to different level. Our hetero diegetic 3rd person omniscient narrator suddenly turns into 1rd person narrator but again omnisciently. The narrator directly addresses to the reader and the reader finds itself as a direct addressee by a delicate sense of rhetorical substitution of the pronoun “you” which indicates both the reader and narrator.
It refers to an unreal condition and the balance of the time distance is being distorted but this can not be explained by the foculization because the foculization occurs within the diegesis of the characters not the reader and narrator although the distance can be changed within the diegesis of the narrator as it becomes in the final coda of Briony added at the end of Atonement.
“If you only had write it down you could have the world” It becomes;
“If we only write it down we can have the world”
Now a zero condition comes up with the pragmatic signals- the narrator addresses an addressee using the second person pronoun “you”We are forced to draw an inference having face to face with narrator in a strange manner we can not easily define the narrator in the sense we got used considering the previous and subsequent mood on the novel. I will later show the differences between the focalization and this case of shift. But firstly asking the question “who is speaking to the reader? I will propose a different kind of narrator and communicative level in response to the argument and try to define the characteristics and principles of them. I will call this new voice “ trans or internarrator” and will term this specific involment where the internarrator emerges as “the jamming” and its level “prediegetic level”One can understandably claim that the jamming appears to be some kind of autobiographical fiction. I will respond that is not the case by reminding them how the distance and the voice of the narrator prevail at the beginning in the narrative level of autobiographies and how the narrator introduces itself to the reader is clear and elequent. Lets remember Charles Dickens’ David Capperfield or Great Expectations and Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis. All revelations manifest themselves in the settling of background and in the course of the unfolding plot definetly not on the narrative level. But this doesnt mean in these authobiographical fictions there is no trace of the transnarrator. Of course there is and have to be traces of the transnarrator at the points where the jamming can be detected. But the differences come up in the way what autobiographical analysis is concerned with the past of the author by drawing analogiesbetween the characters, narrators and author’s own life. But in our case, the matter what concerns us is not the past of the author but is the present existence and involment of the author and I will debate these possible complications of the presence of a internarrator by analysing Atonement as a model of jamming in the distance, foculization and voice of its narration. I will also apply the jamming and the transnarrator to Gerard Gennette’ three narrative level; intradiegetic, metadiegetic and extadiegetic In response to Roland Bartnes’s assertion “ the death of the author” which is hold in high esteem for a long time, I suggest that it is time to reverse this mythic commonplace during the postmodernism by the indelible changing attitudes of the writers towards to the authorships. The tradition what the writers try to conceal and exclude themselves from the narrative was regarded as a special talent and gift to confuse and startle the reader since the onset of the written narrative but in time after as every tradition pervails enough and complete itself according to the codes of the culture pertains to its own era, this attitude start to leave its function to another counter attitude. The table below show the traditional communication of the narrative instance;  
table 2

In this frame there are three levels of communication. First level between the author and reader is “extratexutual” level. The later two levels is “intratextual” level which is one between the narrator and addressee and the other is between the characters themselves. The questions is here whether we can add an additional level by transposing the communicative frame and if possible where the transnarrator should be positioned? Also I am sure that “Implied author and reader”7 had come to mind already pages ago before this question. As a fact of matter but, I deliberately saved this highly controversial argument to the chapter two before plumbing the technical terms getting harder. Since the preconceptions of which conceive the implied author as a reader-generated entity Implied author and implied reader seems to have assessed wrong and excluded from narrative frames without having developed terminologically sufficent, Iwould prefer to say in fact “without giving a chance, focus and attention ineavatable no means of finding a place in such an anticipation” Now lets have a deeper look at our arguments on narrative analysis of Atonement and see what Ian McEwan presents us in order to test our claims and how the attitude of distancing and concealing the writer itself from the reader is changing into “ the desire of the writer is to come back to its reader, is to resurrect its importance and thus reveals itsself to the reader after his/her long enduring absence by stylistics and pragmatics codes left behind herself /himself. 

1.2.Narrative level
Ian McEwan’s Atonement with its complex stroy line will present us a practical field of study which will encompass all narrative levels. Narrative level is an analytic device which help us to distinguish the relations between the characters and narrators in a story within main plot or different embedded stories within another story. Narrative levels Gerard Genette introduced are composed of three different levels. These are “extradiegetic level”, “intradiegetic or digetic level”, and “metadiegetic level”. We will also need to understand the concept “matric” (see table 3). First is extradiegetic level; it is the level of narrative’s telling and by definition it must be external to at least one diegesis. The second is intradiegetic or diegetic level; it is the level of characters so it describes how the characters interact with each other and this level must be embedded in a extradiegetic narrative. The third one is metadiegetic level; it is embedded within the intradiegetic level and is the part of diegesis. This level is usually misunderstood and it is the part of level when a character start to tell a story as it happens on Atonement. I will analyse there different passages from the novel for each level in order to deternine the framework of Atonement on narrative level. This will help us to see what kind of technics and strategies were applied on the course of story by Ian McEwan and to find on which narrative level jamming occurs if there is any involvement of writer on narration. But , we should to learn about narrative matrix in advance so we will be ready for our analysis on Atonement.


Matrix is an important frame for us in order to understand the complex narrative instances and narrative shifts such as presented in the story line of Atonement. let us have a look at this table below and answer the questions;

Who is the one who takes photo? Whose photo is taken? Is any body else who takes the whole picture? How can we differentiate the actuality of the real photographer from its reflections without having present if our photographers is pictured by some one else? These questions becomes more challenging problems when you begin to read a story within another story and after all if you realize towards the end of it in fact all you read was a part of another story of some one else. In such circumstances, the original narrative level – the last level which is understood by the final revelation – becomes a “matrix narrative” and the story what you have previously read and told by the former narrating character becomes “embedded or hyponarrative” The word “matrix” goes back to ancient times and originated from the latin word “womb” and according to the Oxford Dictionary it means that “the cultural, social, or political environment in which something develops:” and “ late Middle English (in the sense ‘womb’): from Latin, ‘breeding female’, later ‘womb’, from mater, matr- ‘mother’” A matrix narrative must include a hyponarrative which means an intradiegetic narrator will participate in extradigetic level of the story. This is the hardest and momentous part for a writer to create these levels in a harmonious relation between the narrators and characters. Ian McEwan presents us the matrix narrative and hyponarrative with this beginning of the first paragraphe below; 

“WHAT A STRANGE time this has been. Today, on the morning of my seventy-seventh birthday, I decided to make one last visit to the Imprerial War Museum library in Lambeth. Is suited my peculiar state of mind. The reading room, house right up in the dome of the building, was formerly the chapel of the Royal Bethlemen Hospital – the old Bedlam. Where the unhinged once come to offer their prayers, scholars now gather to ressearch the collective insanity of the war ” We immideately discover that who speaks to us so far throughout the story as a 3rd. person heterodiegetic omniscient narrator who knows everthing is in fact a delusion and not was it but only a covert form of our latent narrator. Furthermore, we also realize that we know a lot about our new narrator since the three parts what we read was just telling the story of our new narrator. The first what we need to do is to draw the frame of these three parts and final coda. The paragraph below I cited from the Prologue of “The Name Of The Rose” Umberto Eco and I will use its frame in order to show the complications on the frame of tAtonement by comparing and applying them.

“Perhaps, to make more comprehensible the events in which I found myself involved, I should recall what was happening in those last years of the century, as I understood it then, living through it, and as I remember it now, complemented by other stories I heard afterward—if my memory still proves capable of connecting the threads of happenings so many and confused. In the early years of that century Pope Clement V had moved the apostolic seat to Avignon, leaving Rome prey to the ambitions of the local overlords: and gradually the holy city of Christianity had been transformed into a circus, or into a brothel, riven by the struggles among its leaders; though called a republic, it was not one, and it was assailed by armed bands, subjected to violence and looting”

The change is temporal considering the rest of the novel but, let us suppose this is all. We have five “I” , one “my” which project a vocal quality of a homediegetic first person overt narrator who has a limited capacity until the lines which start with“ In the early years…”. The rest of paragraph is told by the third person heterodiegetic narrator. Homodiegetic narrator who takes part in action starts to tell according to his memories something else who does not take action but narrates everthing omnisciently by knowing the reasons of the actions, the correct sequences of the events and of course as a covert narrator. But I need to remind once more according to the whole of the prologue the narrator level does not change but I deliberately cited from The Name of the Rose in order to show that there is also temporal diegesises independently from the primary levels. In fact it could start with a character saying directly “let me tell you a story” or “ okay then, tell me your story” but for a deeper understanding such a tentative and specific example will be more practical in our frame below.


In the first narrative instance A; N1 is the extradiegetic level and narrator is the extradiegetic narrator. It has a homodiegetic voice. S1 is the intradiegetic level which means the world of the characters. When our narrator who is present in action begin to tell a story, S1 intradiegetic level changes into S2 as a metadiegetic level and becomes a hyponarrative in other words “story within story”. N2 is the first person heterodiegetic narrator who is absent in action and also N2 level becomes a matrix. This frame is pretty simple and can be easily applied to all embedded narrative instances.

On Atonement now, we will face with a narrative instance and frame their complexity comparatively raisen by a notch. On Atonement there are three parts and a final coda at the end of the novel so we must carefully determine which paragraphes must be taken and would be exquistely beneficial on our frame. And besides, we have also different frame options since we have now four different parts of narrative insntances on hand. But we have two distinctive parts and I will draw narrative frame according to these parts. As to paragraphes, I will cite one paragraph from both parts and the first of these paragraps will be the beginning sentences of the first paragraph of the part one. The second paragraph will come from the last closing sentences of the last paragraph and novel in the final coda. These two paragraphs also have special bonds between them that the disriminating readers immideately will notice how The trials of Arebella straddles a thin narrative line between diegesis of the first three parts and the diegesis of the final coda. Here is the first paragraph below from the beginning of the novel.

“THE PLAY- for which Briony had desinged the posters, programs and tickets, constructed the sales booth out of a folding screen tipped on its side, and lined the collectipon box in red crepe paper- was written by her in two – day tempest of composition, causin her to miss aa breakfast and a lunch. When the preparations were complete, she had nothing to do but contemplate her finished draft and wait for the appearance of her cousins from the distant north “

n our frame; N is a covert and omniscient third person heterodiegetic narrator. There is no metadiegetic level. Everthing seems to be causal. Our narrator appears to have the capacity for insight into the minds of the characters and knows everthing and have an access into the thoughts of the characters. While everthing is going on its way, we surprisingly come across with a title “LONDON, 1999”. First impression on the reader is a possibility of a flasfback or a more possible time lapse. Let us have a look at the closing sentences of the last paragraph in the coda below and see how the reality is different.

“I like to think that it isnt weakness or evasion, but a final act of kindness, a stand against oblivion and despair, to let my lovers live and to unite them at the end. I agve them happiness, but I was not so self-serving as to let them forgive me. Not quite, not yet. If I had the power to conjure them at my birthday celebration…Robbie and Cecilia, still alive, still in love, sitting side by side in the library, smiling at The Trials of Arabella? It’s not impossible”

Now we are getting the whole picture in order to be able to draw a complete narrative frame of Atonement. But the things will be getting harder this time in compare with our first narrative instance. Let us define what it is like.

It seems likely a pretty easy one on way coming. N is a homodiegetic narrator on extradiegetic level and also is a overt narrator. We can also say that the capacity of the narrator is rather limited with a indecisive tone. N 2 is the intradiegetic level and this time narrator also exists as a character who directly takes action in the intradiegetic level. Now according to our narrative principles we are supposed to merge our two instances frame into one frame as follows

We have now a matrix narrative and hyponarrative. N1 is the extradiegetic level on the first person homodiegetic voice. N2 is the intradiegetic level and our intradiegetic N2 narrator is also a homodiegetic narrator which has taken action in narrative as a characer. However we should pay attention to the fact that N2 is changing into heterodiegetic covert narrator in the act of telling the story of Briony in the intradiegetic level on the complete frame so in the intradiegetic level the homodigetic narrator coexists with the heterodiegetic narrator according to the final frame in normal circumstances. However, as I have just mentioned above, the reality is suprisingly different and the whole frame is a misguided attempt to draw as we do not have normal circumstances on Atonement which can easily apply to the narrative frame in such way. Normally, we could conclude that Atonemet is a metefictional novel which is told by a homodiegetic first person and overt narrator in which has another story embedded which is told by a heterodiegetic third person and covert narrator. But this conclusion will be wrong by definition as the frames have one serious oversight which is forgetten in the schemes of the events.

The oversight which is omitted to mention is the fact that we have never a narrator or a character on the coda who starts the act of telling a story or the act of writing a story. Therein lies the problem. Our homodiegetic narrator can narrate a story becoming a heterodigetic narrator in the intradigetic level but in this case it does not and the complications of this shortcoming brings some questions as a fact of matter. We know that Briony is the writer of the first part – the first three parts- of the novel but as we do not have any transitional moment which indicates the metalepsis- narrative change- So one can suggest that the narrator of these three parts is in fact not the heterodigetic but is the same homodigetic narrator of the Coda and vice versa; the narrator of the Coda is in fact not the homodigetic but is the same heterodiegetic narrator before the Coda.

It is now time to remember the picture of narrative matrix. Whose narrative did we read before the Coda if we have a writer and narrator in the intradigetic level who does not tend to start to tell the story to us? The more importantly then, who read the first part to us as a heterodiegetic narrator? Let us remember well on any narrative level; intradiegetic, extradiegetic or metadiegetic all narrators have the privilige to change the narrative voice. This is essential part of all narrative instances for this reason, the same principle can be hypothetically applied to this case by any one who examines these two main parts- the parts before the coda and the coda itself- In order to highlight the problem let us imagine a moment where the narrator of the narrative X and the writer of the narrator of the same narrative X come accross with each other within the same narrative level or diegesis. Could you figure out how it would be like? It sounds like a travelling in time.

If we had a time travelling machine, we could have gone to see ourself in a different time independently from where we exist at present in other words, if we have a travelling device in narrative levels, we could see then by whom we are told will be us. Can it be possible to come accross in the same narrative level? You will remember that I mentioned by underlining the specific reason on my aim to choose The Name Of The Rose before Atonement. In narrative of The Name Of The Rose, our narrative instance was an example of Metalepsis in which the narrator shifts a level and tries to communicate with its reader. But the narrative voice did not come accross with its writer in the same narrative level. In fact we can explain this paradoxical situation in a more simple frame for example; you can tell a story to your friends about an incident what you have witnessed as an outsider or taking part in it two days ago. You become a narrator of the story what you have just told to your friends. But, this happens only within the diegesis what you will create in other words in your own imaginary world. On the other hand, the incident what you remember can not belong to the same diegesis because as a narrator you were in the extradiegetic level whereas you were present, you were in the intradiegetic level as a chracter who takes place in it. So it is imposible for you to exist in the narrative level. However, on Atonement now let us have a look at again the frames below what happens in fact this time by discriminating and labelling who where is.

This frame can be accepted only on condition that the narrator will never takes action in the intradiegetic level. The first or the third person pronouns such as “ I, my,he,she..” do not determine the real narrator. The only thing which can determine whether a narrator is homodiegetic or heterodiegetic is the relation of the narrator to the relevant text. It means that if a narrator is present in action, it is homodiegetic; on the contrary, if it is not present in action, it is a heterodiegetic narrator. We should not forget at this point our writer is Ian Mcewan so we exclude him from the narrative frame and also we have only two narrative levels. But when we labelled the chracters according to the coda we will face with a different framework.

So we can draw such a frame on the base of this principle as follows according to the revelation on the coda.

it seems like everthing unusually changed. We have a homodiegetic narrator now. As you remember well, a homodiegetic narrator can tell a story in a heterodiegetic voice and vice versa. But the problem is that on the coda we face with author Briony as a homodiegetic narrator in which level? Let us see how we can combine the frame of the coda with the frame of the first part of the novel to arrive at a final frame of the novel. Here is new frame of the coda this time its characters labelled below.

Now, our paradox is how our homodiegetic narrator of the coda if it is the author of the first part can be a heterodiegetic narrator in the extradiegetic level? The paradox stems from the fact that the author Briony in the instance 1 is also the same character in the intradiegetic level of the coda. This means that a character turns into the diegesis of narrative level in which it is told. It sounds implausible. Normally a character in the same narrative level can change its narratavie voice from homodi

Now let us examine very carefully once more the instance 1 of the first part and answer the following questions.
1. Where is the third person heterodiegetic narrator of the first part we read in the novel throughout the first three parts according to this frame?
2. Can the world 2 “embedded world” be placed in a extradiegetic level above the world 1 ? If it can be on Atonement
a) whose narration did we read in the fisrt part and in the coda?
b) Is there any one else who can involve in extradiegetic level?
c) How can the world 2 be above the world 1?
d) Can it be possible that an extra-level exists above the extradigetic level?


  1. Aristotle (1969), “Poetics” translated by Ingram Bywater oxford at the clarendon press

2. H.Porter Abbot (2008), “The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative”, second edition Cambridge University Press) pp 01-24, 67-79

3. Roland Barthes (1968), “The Death of The Author

4. Roland Barthes (1975), “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative” ( The Johns Hopkins University Press pp 237-272

5. Donald Braid (1996), “Personal Narrative and Experiential Meaning” (The Journal of American Folklore) pp5-30

6. L.B. Cebik (1986), “Understanding Narrative Theory” ( History and Theory, Vol,25) pp.58-51

7. Umberto Eco (1990), “The Name of The Rose” ( Warner books edition)

8. Gerard Genette (1972) “Narrative Discourse” (Cornell University Press) pp 212-263 Ian McEvan (2002) , “Atonement” (NAN A. TALESE)

9. Oddee, (2008) Prehistoric Cave Paintings (published under Amazing Art)


11. Schmid, Wolf (2010), “the living handbook of narratology”: “Implied Author”,

12. Paragraph 2. In: Hühn, Peter et al. (eds.): Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.

13. The first People – The Legends,


15. The Internet Encylopedia of Science,


17. Amar Yacobi (1981), “Fictional Realiability as a Communicative Problem” (Poetics Today, Vol.2 pp 113-126

You may also like

yorum bırak

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.