Focalization

Focalization

MIEKE BAL

The fragment reprinted below is part of the subsection on 'Focalization' in chapter 7 of Narratology, devoted to the analysis of the story level ( Genette's 'narrative'). Genette, in his Narrative Discourse, corrected preceding theories of narrative point of view, like those of Norman Friedman and Wayne Booth, separating the functions of focalizer -- who sees -- and narrator -- who tells. Bal refines Genette's theory of focalization, developing, for example, the difference between the subject and the object of focalization and assigning an autonomous role to the focalizer. This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of her theory. Her insistence that focalization is the most subtle means of manipulating the information presented to the reader and the most difficult to spot gives preeminence to a function that had consistently been overlooked by the critics until Genette ( 1972), thus opening up a whole range of possibilities for microscopic analysis of all kinds of narrative, including film, where focalization is carried out by the camera and the actors' gaze.

Narratology became the most accessible introduction to narratology in English soon after its publication in 1985. It is an attempt at formulating an overall theory of narrative, integrating previous work by structuralist critics in the areas of action sequences, the trait analysis of characters and setting, temporal structures, point of view, narrative voice, the addressee, and so on. There are other books in the same line, such as Mieke Bal own Narratologie, published in French in 1977, Prince Gerald Narratology and Steven Cohan and Linda Shires Telling Stories.

Difficulties

Whenever events are presented, they are always presented from within a certain 'vision.' A point of view is chosen, a certain way of

seeing things, a certain angle, whether 'real' historical facts are concerned or fictitious events. It is possible to try and give an 'objective' picture of the facts. But what does that involve? An attempt to present only what is seen or is perceived in some other way. All comment is shunned and implicit interpretation is also avoided. Perception, however, is a psychological process, strongly dependent on the position of the perceiving body; a small child sees things in a totally different way from an adult, if only as far as measurements are concerned. The degree to which one is familiar with what one sees also influences perception. When the Central American Indians first saw horsemen, they did not see the same things we do when we see people riding. They saw gigantic monsters, with human heads and four legs. These had to be gods. Perception depends on so many factors that striving for objectivity is pointless. To mention only a few factors, one's position with respect to the perceived object, the fall of the light, the distance, previous knowledge, psychological attitude towards the object; all this and more affects the picture one forms and passes on to others. In a story, elements of the fabula are presented in a certain way. We are confronted with a vision of the fabula. What is this vision like and where does it come from? These are the questions that will be discussed in these subsections. I shall refer to the relations between the elements presented and the vision through which they are presented with the term focalization. Focalization is, then, the relation between the vision and that which is 'seen', perceived. By using this term I wish to dissociate myself from a number of current terms in this area, for reasons which I shall now explain.

The theory of narration, as it has been developed in the course of this century, offers various labels for the concept here referred to. The most current one is point of view or narrative perspective. Narrative situation, narrative viewpoint, narrative manner are also employed. [ . . . ] All these typologies have proved more or less useful. They are all, however, unclear on one point. They do not make an explicit distinction between, on the one hand, the vision through which the elements are presented and, on the other, the identity of the voice that is verbalizing that vision. To put it more simply: they do not make a distinction between those who see and those who speak. Nevertheless, it is possible, both in fiction and in reality, for one person to express the vision of another. This happens all the time [ . . . ]

The existing typologies have achieved solid respectability in current literary criticism. There must be an explanation for this: their evident usefulness. All offer interesting possibilities, despite the objection just mentioned. I am of the opinion, however, that their distinctions should be adapted to the insight that the agent that sees must be given a status other than that of the agent that narrates.

If we examine the current terms from this point of view, only the term perspective seems clear enough. This label covers both the physical and the psychological points of perception. It does not cover the agent that is performing the action of narration, and it should not do so. Nevertheless, my own preference lies with the term focalization for two reasons. [ . . . ] The first reason concerns tradition. Although the word 'perspective' reflects precisely what is meant here, it has come to indicate in the tradition of narrative theory both the narrator and the vision. [. . . ]

There is yet another, more practical, objection to this term. No substantive can be derived from 'perspective' that could indicate the subject of the action. [ . . . ] Focalization offers a number of extra, minor advantages as well. It is a term that looks technical. It is derived from photography and film; its technical nature is thus emphasized.

The Focalizor

In Southern India, at Mahaballipuram, is what is said to be the largest bas-relief of the world, the seventh-centuryArjuna's penance. At the upper left, the wise man Arjuna is depicted in a yoga position. At the bottom right stands a cat [in the same position]. Around the cat are a number of mice. The mice are laughing. It is a strange image. Unless the spectator interprets the signs. The interpretation runs as follows. Arjuna is in a yoga position and is meditating to win Lord Siva's favour. The cat, impressed by the beauty of absolute calm, imitates Arjuna. Now the mice realize they are safe. They laugh. Without this interpretation, there is no relation between the parts of the relief. Within this interpretation the parts form a coherent narrative.

The picture is a comical one, in addition to being a real comic. The comical effect is evoked by the narrativity of the picture. The spectator sees the relief as a whole. Its contents include a succession in time. First, Arjuna assumes the yoga position. Then, the cat imitates him. After that, the mice start laughing. These three successive events are logically related in a causal chain. According to every definition I know, that means this is a fabula.

But there is more. Not only are the events chronologically in succession and logically in a causal relation. They can only occur through the semiotic activity of the actors. And the comical effect can only be explained when this particular mediation is analysed. We laugh because we can identify with the mice. Seeing what they see, we realize with them that a meditating cat is a contradiction; cats hunt, and only wise men meditate. Following the chain of events in reverse, we also arrive at the next one by perceptual identification. The cat has brought about the event for which he is responsible because he has seen Arjuna do something. This chain of perceptions also runs in time. The wise man sees nothing since he is totally absorbed in his meditation; the cat has seen Arjuna and now sees nothing more of this world; the mice see the cat and Arjuna. That is why they know they are safe. (Another interpretation is that the cat is simulating; this doesn't weaken my statements but only adds an element of suspense to the fabula.) The mice are laughing because of that very fact, finding the imitation a ridiculous enterprise. The spectator sees more. S/he sees the mice, the cat and the wise man. S/he laughs at the cat, and s/he laughs sympathetically with the mice, whose pleasure is comparable to that felt by a successful scoundrel.

This example, paradoxical because it is not linguistic, illustrates quite clearly the theory of focalization. We clan view the picture of the relief as a (visual) sign. The elements of this sign, the standing Arjuna, the standing cat, the laughing mice, only have spatial relations to one another. The elements of the fabula -- Arjuna assumes a yoga position, the cat assumes a yoga position, the mice laugh -do not form a coherent significance as such. The relation between the sign (the relief) and its contents (the fabula) can only be established by mediation of an interjacent layer, the view of the events. The cat sees Arjuna. The mice see the cat. The spectator sees the mice who see the cat who has seen Arjuna. And the spectator sees that the mice are right. Every verb of perception (to see) in this report indicates an activity of focalization. Every verb of action indicates an event.

Focalization is the relationship between the 'vision,' the agent that sees, and that which is seen. This relationship is a component of the story part, of the content of the narrative text: A says that B sees what C is doing. Sometimes that difference is void, e.g. when the reader is presented with a vision as directly as possible. The different agents then cannot be isolated, they coincide. That is a form of 'stream of consciousness.' Consequently, focalization belongs in the story, the layer in between the linguistic text and the fabula. Because the definition of focalization refers to a relationship, each pole of that relationship, the subject and the object of focalization, must be studied separately. The subject of focalization, the focalizor, is the point from which the elements are viewed. That point can lie with a character (i.e. an element of the fabula), or outside it. If the focalizor coincides with the character, that character will have a technical advantage over the other characters. The reader watches with the character's eyes and will, in principle, be inclined to accept the vision presented by that character. In Mulisch Massuro, we see with the eyes of the character who later also draws up a report of the events. The first symptoms of Massuro's strange disease are the phenomena which the other perceives. These phenomena communicate Massuro's condition to us, they tell us nothing about the way he feels about it. Such a character-bound focalizor, which we could label, for convenience's sake, CF, brings about bias and limitation. In Henry James's What Maisie Knew the focalization lies almost entirely with Maisie, a little girl who does not understand much about the problematic relations going on around her. Consequently, the reader is shown the events through the limited vision of the girl, and only gradually realizes what is actually going on. But the reader is not a little girl. S/he does more with the information s/he receives than Maisie does, s/he interprets it differently. Where Maisie sees only a strange gesture, the reader knows that s/he is dealing with an erotic one. The difference between the childish vision of the events and the interpretation that the adult reader gives to them determines the novel's special effect.

Character-bound focalization (CF) can vary, can shift from one character to another. In such cases, we may be given a good picture of the origins of a conflict. We are shown how differently the various characters view the same facts. This technique can result in neutrality towards all the characters. Nevertheless, there usually is never a doubt in our minds which character should receive most attention and sympathy. On the grounds of distribution, for instance the fact that a character focalizes the first and/or the last chapter, we label it the hero(ine) of the book.

When focalization lies with one character which participates in the fabula as an actor, we could refer to internal focalization. We can then indicate by means of the term external focalization that an anonymous agent, situated outside the fabula, is functioning as focalizor. Such an external, non-character-bound focalizor is abbreviated EF. In the following fragment from the opening of Doris Lessing's The Summer before the Dark we see the focalization move from EF to CF.

a A woman stood on her back step, arms folded, waiting.

Thinking? She would not have said so. She was trying to catch hold of something, or to lay it bare so that she could look and define; for some time now she had been 'trying on' ideas like so many dresses off a rack. She was letting words and phrases as worn as nursery rhymes slide around her tongue:

for towards the crucial experiences custom allots certain attitudes, and they are pretty stereotyped. A yes, first love! . . . Growing up is bound to be painful! . . . My first child, you know . . . But I was in love! . . . Marriage is a compromise. . . . I am not as young as I once was.

From sentence two onwards the contents of what the character experiences are given. A switch thus occurs from an external focalizor (EF) to an internal one (CF). An alternation between external focalizors, between EF and CF, is visible in a good many stories. In The Evenings, Frits is the only character that functions as focalizor. Therefore, the two different focalizors are EF and CF-Frits. A number of characters can also alternate as CF focalizor; in that case, it can be useful to indicate the various characters in the analysis by their initials, so that one can retain a clear overview of the division of focalization: in Frits' case, this would mean the notation CF (Fr). An example of a story in which a great many different characters act as focalizor is Of Old People. However, the characters do not carry an equal load; some focalize often, others only a little, some do not focalize at all. It is also possible for the entire story to be focalized by EF. The narrative can then appear objective, because the events are not presented from the point of view of the characters. The focalizor's bias is, then, not absent, since there is no such thing as 'objectivity,' but it is unclear.

The Focalized Object

In Of Old People Harold is usually the focalizor when the events in the Indies are being focalized; Lot often focalizes his mother, mama Ottilie, and it is mainly because of this that we receive a fairly likeable image of her despite her unfriendly behaviour. Evidently, it is important to ascertain which character focalizes which object. The combination of a focalizor and a focalized object can be constant to a large degree (Harold-Indies; Lot-mama Ottilie), or it can vary greatly. Research into such fixed or loose combinations is of importance because the image we receive of the object is determined by the focalizor. Conversely, the image a focalizor presents of an object says something about the focalizor itself. Where focalization is concerned, the following questions are relevant.

What is focalized by a character F? It need not be a character. Objects, landscapes, events, in short all the elements are focalized, either by an EF or by a CF. Because of this fact alone, we are presented with a certain, far from innocent, interpretation of the elements. The degree to which a presentation includes an opinion can, of course, vary: the degree to which the focalizor points out its interpretative activities and makes them explicit also varies. Compare, for instance, the following descriptions of place:

b Behind the round and spiny forms around us in the depth endless coconut plantations stretch far into the hazy blue distance where mountain ranges ascended ghostlike. Closer, at my side, a ridged and ribbed violet grey mountainside stretches upward with a saw-tooth silhouette combing the white cloudy sky. Dark shadows of the clouds he at random on the slopes as if capricious dark-grey pieces of cloth have been dropped on them. Close by, in a temple niche, Buddha sits meditating in an arched window of shadow. A dressing-jacket of white exudation of bird-droppings on his shoulders. Sunshine on his hands which lie together perfectly at rest.

( Jan Wolkers, The Kiss)

c Then we must first describe heaven, of course. Then the hundreds of rows of angels are dad in glorious shiny white garments. Everyone of them has long, slightly curly fair hair and blue eyes. There are no men here. 'How strange that all angels should be women.' There are no dirty angels with seductive panties, garterbelts and stockings, not to mention bras. I always pictured an angel as a woman who presents her breasts as if on saucers, with heavily made up eyes, and a bright red mouth, full of desire, eager to please, in short, everything a woman should be. (Formerly, when I was still a student, I wanted to transform Eve into a real whore. I bought her everything necessary, but she did not want to wear the stuff.)

( J. M. A. Biesheuvel, The Way to the Light, 'Faust')

In both cases, a CF is clearly involved; both focalizors may be localized in the character 'I'. In b, the spatial position of the CF ('I') is especially striking. It is obviously situated on a high elevation, considering the wide prospect it has. The words 'around us,' combined with 'in the depths,' stress that high position. The proximity of the niche with the Buddha statue makes clear that CF ('I') is situated in an eastern temple (the Burubudur in fact), so that 'the round and spiny form' (must) refer to the temple roof. The presentation of the whole, temple roof and landscape, seems fairly impersonal. If the CF ('I') had not been identified itself by the use of the first-person personal pronoun in 'at my side' and 'around us,' this would have seemed, on the face of it, an 'objective' description, perhaps taken from a pamphlet or a geography book.

On closer analysis, this proves not to be the case. Whether the CF ('I') is explicitly named or not, the 'internal' position of the focalizor is, in fact, already established by expressions such as 'close by,' 'closer,' and 'at my side,' which underline the vicinity between the place and the perceiver. 'Behind' and 'far into' indicate a specification of the spatial perspective (in the pictorial sense). But more happens here. Without appearing to do so, this presentation interprets. This is dear from the use of metaphors, which points to the facts that the CF ('I') attempts to reduce the objects it sees, which impress it a great deal, to human, everyday proportions. In this way, the CF ('I') is undoubtedly trying to fit the object into its own realm of experience. Images like 'sawtooth' and 'combing,' capricious dark-grey pieces of cloth,' and clichs like 'mountain ranges' bear this out. The 'dressing-jacket of white exudation of bird-droppings' is the clearest example. Actually, the image is also interesting because of the association mechanism it exhibits. With the word 'dressing-jacket,' the Buddha's statue becomes human, and as soon as it is human, the white layer on its head could easily be dandruff, a possibility suggested by the word 'exudation.' The realistic nature of the presentation -- CF ('I') does 'really' see the landscape -- is restored immediately afterwards by the information about the real nature of the white layer: bird-droppings. Thus, what we see here is the presentation of a landscape which is realistic, reflecting what is actually perceived, and at the same time interpreting the view in a specific way, so that it can be assimilated by the character.

Example c exhibits to a certain extent the same characteristics. Here, too, an impressive space is humanized However, the CF ('I') observes the object less and interprets it more. It concerns a fantasy object with which the CF ('I') is sketchily familiar from religious literature and painting, but which it can adapt as much as it wishes, to its own taste. This is what it does, and its taste is clear. Here, too, an association mechanism is visible. From the traditional image of angels, implied in the second or third sentence, the CF ('I') moves to the assumption that angels are women. In this, the vision already deviates from the traditional vision, in which angels are asexual or male.

Against the image thus created of asexual male angels, the CF ('I') sets up, in contrast, its own female image, which by now has moved very far away from the image that we have of angels.

And even before the reader realizes that in doing so a link is made with another tradition, that of the opposition angel-whore, in which 'angel' is used in a figurative sense, the word 'whore' itself appears in the text. In this, the interpretive mode of the description manifests itself clearly. The solemn 'we' of the beginning contrasts sharply with the personal turn which the description takes. The humour is here based on the contrast between the solemn-impersonal and the personal-everyday. The interpretive focalization is emphasized in several ways. The sentence in quotation marks is presented as a reaction to the sentence preceding it. Here, the interpreting focalizor makes an explicit entrance. Later this is stressed again: 'not to mention' is a colloquial expression, and points at a personal subject, expressing an opinion: 'I always pictured an angel as . . .' accentuates even more strongly that a personal opinion is involved.

The way in which a subject is presented gives information about that object itself and about the focalizor. These two descriptions give even more information about the CFS ('I') than about the object; more about the way they experience nature (b) or women (c), respectively, than about the Burubudur temple and heaven. In principle, it doesn't matter whether the object 'really exists' in actuality, or is part of a fictitious fabula, or whether it is a fantasy created by the character and so a doubly fictitious object. The comparison with the object referred to served in the above analysis only to motivate the interpretation by the CF ('I') in both fragments. The internal structure of the descriptions provides in itself sufficient dues about the degree to which one CF ('I') showed similarity to and differed from the other.

These two examples indicate yet another distinction. In c the object of the focalization was perceptible. The CF ('I') 'really' sees something that is outside itself. This is not always the case. An object can also be visible only inside the head of the CF. And only those who have access to it can perceive anything. This cannot be another character, at least not according to the classical rules of the narrative genre, but it might possibly be an EF. Such a 'non-perceptible' object occurs in cases where, for instance, the contents of a character's dream are presented. Concerning the heaven in c, we can only decide whether that object is perceptible or not perceptible when we know how the fragment fits into its context. If the 'I', together with another person -- a devil, for instance -- is on an excursion to heaven, we will have to accept the first part of the description, until the sentence in quotation marks, as 'perceptible.' Thus, our criterion is that within the fabula there must be another character present that can also perceive the object; if they are the dreams, fantasies, thoughts, or feelings of a character, then these objects can be part of the category 'non-perceptible' objects. This distinction can be indicated by adding to the notation of the focalizor a 'p' or an 'np.' For a we end up with CF (woman)-np; for b, CF ('I')-p, and for c, CF ('I')-np. This distinction too is of importance for an insight into the power-structure between the characters. When in a conflict situation one character is allotted both CF-p and CF-np, and the other exclusively CF-p, then the first character has the advantage as a party in the conflict. It can give the reader insight into its feelings and thoughts, while the other character cannot communicate anything. Moreover, the other character will not have the insight which the reader receives, so that it cannot react to the feelings of the other (which it does not know), cannot adapt itself to them or oppose them. Such an inequality in position between characters is obvious in the so-called 'first-person novels,' but in other kinds this inequality is not always as clear to the reader. Yet the latter is manipulated by it in forming an opinion about the various characters. Consequently, the focalization has a strongly manipulative effect. Colette novel La Chatte is a strong case: the reader is manipulated by this device into taking the man's side against his wife.

In this respect, it is important to keep sight of the difference between spoken and unspoken words of the characters. Spoken words are audible to others and are thus perceptible when the focalization lies with someone else. Unspoken words -- thoughts, internal monologues -- no matter how extensive, are not perceptible to other characters. Here, too, lies a possibility for manipulation which is often used. Readers are given elaborate information about the thoughts of a character, which the other characters do not hear. If these thoughts are placed in between the sections of dialogue, readers do not often realize how much less the other character knows than they do. An analysis of the perceptibility of the focalized objects supplies insight into these objects' relationships.

Levels of Focalization

Compare the following sentences:

d Mary participates in the protest March.

e I saw that Mary participated in the protest March.

f Michele saw that Mary participated in the protest march.

In all three sentences it is stated that Mary participated in the protest march. That is a clearly perceptible fact. We assume that there is an agent which is doing the perceiving, and whose perceptions are being presented to the reader. In e this is an 'I', in f it is Michele. In d no party is indicated. Consequently, we assume that there is an external focalizor situated outside the fabula. This could be an EF or a CF ('I'), which remains implicit in this sentence but manifests itself elsewhere. We can thus analyse:

d EF-P

e CF ('I')-p

f CF (Michele)-p

The dash indicates the relation between the subject and the object of focalization. However, the difference between these sentences has not yet been expressed completely. Sentences e and f are complex sentences. The focalization, too, is complex. The analysis, as it is given here, only applies to the subordinate clause. In e it is stated that 'I' saw, and in f that Michele saw. Who focalized that section? Either an EF or a CF. We can only conclude that from the rest of the story. For e the possibilities are:

The first possibility exists in theory, but will not easily occur, unless the sentence is in direct speech, and the CF ('I') can be identified as one of the persons speaking (temporarily). In f only the first formula is possible: EF-[np CF (Michele)-p]. This is easy to see once we realize that a personal focalizor cannot perceive a non-perceptible object, unless it is part of that object, is the same 'person'.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this. Firstly, it appears that various focalization levels can be distinguished; secondly, where the focalization level is concerned, there is no fundamental difference between a 'first-person narrative' and a 'third-person narrative.' When EF seems to 'yield' focalization to a CF, what is really happening is that the vision of the CF is being given within the all-encompassing

vision of the EF. In fact, the latter always keeps the focalization in which the focalization of a CF may be embedded as object. This too is explicable in terms of the general principles of narratology. When we try to reflect someone else's point of view, we can only do so in so far as we know and understand that point of view. That is why there is no difference in focalization between a so-called 'first-person narrative' and a 'third-person narrative'. [. . . ] In a so-called 'firstperson narrative' too an external focalizor, usually the 'I' grown older, gives its vision of a fabula in which it participated earlier as an actor, from the outside. At some moments it can present the vision of its younger alter ego, so that a CF is focalizing on the second level.

One remark about the notation of these data. If we wish to include the question of levels in the analysis, we can do so in an elaborate manner, as I have done here. That is useful if we wish to know what the relationship between the various focalizors is like: who allows whom to watch whom? If, however, we are only concerned with the relationship between the subject and the object of the focalization -for instance, in e between CF ('I') and Mary, or in f between CF (Michele) and Mary -- then it is easier to remind ourselves of the fact that we are dealing with an embedded focalization, because at any moment the narrative may return to the first level. In that case, it is simple to indicate the level with a number following the F. For e this would be: CF2 ('I')-p and for f CF2 (Michele)-p.

If we summarize briefly what has preceded, it appears that the three sentences each differ one from another, in various ways. There is always one sentence which differs from the other two. Thus d differs from e and f in focalization level. Consequently focalization in d is singular and in e and f it is complex. And d and e differ from f as far as 'person' is concerned. In both cases it can be an EF or a CF ('I'). Finally, d and f differ from e because in e an EF cannot simply be assumed without doubt. This is only possible if the sentence is in direct speech.

We assume, therefore, a first level of focalization (Fl) at which the focalizor is external. This external focalizor delegates focalization to an internal focalizor, the focalizor on the second level (F2). In principle there are more levels possible. In these sample sentences it is clear where the focalization is transferred from the first to the second level. The verb form 'saw' indicates that. Such markers of shifts in level we call coupling signs. There are signs which indicate the shift from one level to another. These signs can remain implicit. Sometimes we are forced to deduce them from other, less clear information. In example b, the description of the view on and from the Burubudur, we needed the preceding passage to find the sign with which the shift was indicated explicitly. In c a whole sentence -- Then we must first describe heaven of course' -- is used to indicate that the internal CF is now going to give its own vision of heaven. Verbs like 'see' and 'hear,' in short all verbs that communicate perception, can function as explicit coupling signs.

There is yet another possibility. The external EF can also watch along with a person, without leaving focalization entirely to a CF. This happens when an object (which a character can perceive) is focalized, but nothing clearly indicates whether it is actually perceived. This procedure is comparable to free indirect speech, in which the narrating party approximates as closely as possibly the character's own words without letting it speak directly. [ . . . ] An example of such a 'free indirect' focalization, or rather, ambiguous focalization, is the beginning of the story 'Lady with Lapdog' by Chekhov.

g 1 The appearance on the front of a new arrival -- a lady with a lapdog -- became the topic of general conversation. 2 Dmitri Dmitrich Gurov, who had been a fortnight in Yalta and got used to its ways, was also interested in new arrivals. 3 One day, sitting on the terrace of Vernet's restaurant, he saw a young woman walking along the promenade; she was fair, not very tall, and wore a toque; behind her trotted a white pomeranian.

4 Later he came across her in the park and in the square several times a day. 5 She was always alone, always wearing the same toque, followed by the white pomeranian, no one knew who she was, and she became known simply as the lady with the lapdog.

This fragment as a whole is focalized by an external EF. In the third sentence a shift of level takes place, indicated by the verb 'to see.' In sentence 4, level one has been restored. But in sentence 5 it is ambivalent. This sentence follows the one in which it was stated that Dmitri meets the lady regularly. The description of the lady which follows would, according to our expectation, have to be focalized by that character: CF2 (Dmitri)-p, but there is no indication which signals that change of level. In the second part of the sentence focalization clearly rests again with EF1. The first part of sentence 5 may be focalized both by EF1 as by CF2. Such a double focalization, in which EF 'looks over the shoulder' of CF, we may indicate with the double notation EF1/CF2. Such a part of the story might be called hinge, a fragment with a double, or at any rate ambiguous, focalization in between two levels. It is also possible to distinguish between double focalization, which can be represented as EF1+CF2, and ambiguous focalization, in which it is hard to decide who focalizes: EF1/CF2. In g this difference cannot be established. In view of the development of the rest of the story EF1+CF2 seems most likely. [ . . . ]