“Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

“Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler first appeared in Narrative, Volume 12, Number 1, in January 2004, published by The Ohio State University Press. In this seminal article, Culler critically examines the concept of the omniscient narrator, a longstanding staple in narrative theory, challenging its utility and coherence within literary analysis. He contends that the term “omniscience” conflates various narrative techniques and imposes a theologically derived analogy onto the author, which is neither necessary nor illuminating. By scrutinizing traditional assumptions, Culler argues for alternative frameworks, such as “telepathy,” to describe narrative phenomena like access to characters’ thoughts and feelings. His work significantly contributes to literary theory by encouraging a reevaluation of entrenched concepts and proposing more precise terminology to understand narrative practices, particularly in realist and modernist traditions.

Summary of “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

• Critique of “Omniscience” as a Critical Concept:
  • Culler argues that the term “omniscience” is overused and underexamined in narrative theory. It serves as a catch-all term for diverse narrative phenomena, leading to conceptual confusion (Culler, 2004, p. 22).
  • He critiques the theological analogy between an omniscient God and an omniscient author, suggesting that this framework is neither accurate nor useful for understanding narrative techniques (p. 23).
• Authorial “Omniscience” vs. Narrative Practices:
  • Culler challenges the assumption that authors inherently possess omniscience within their fictional worlds, pointing out inconsistencies in how the term is applied to narrative authority (p. 24).
  • He highlights that “omniscience” often conflates creative authority (the power to invent) with knowledge, which misrepresents the artistic process (p. 26).
• Alternative Frameworks:
  • Nicholas Royle’s concept of “telepathy” is proposed as a more suitable alternative for understanding narrative insights into characters’ thoughts and emotions. This term emphasizes estrangement and specificity, avoiding the theological baggage of “omniscience” (p. 27).
• Reconceptualizing Narrators:
  • Culler suggests abandoning the notion of narrators as either omniscient beings or human-like characters. Instead, he advocates for a focus on the performative and imaginative aspects of narrative (p. 28).
  • He questions the assumption that narrators must have a personal consciousness, proposing that narrative authority could derive from collective or impersonal mechanisms (p. 29).
• Critique of Realist Tradition and Victorian Narratives:
  • The so-called “omniscient narrators” of the Victorian realist tradition (e.g., George Eliot and Anthony Trollope) are reinterpreted as embodying a voice of social consensus or a collective consciousness rather than divine omniscience (p. 30).
  • Critics like J. Hillis Miller and Betsy Ermath suggest that this form of narration reflects a shared societal perspective rather than an individual’s godlike authority (p. 31).
• Challenges in Defining “Omniscience”:
  • Culler highlights how critics’ efforts to justify selective “omniscience” often result in convoluted explanations. He emphasizes that narrative effects are better understood through artistic choices rather than presumed narrator motivations (p. 25).
• Effects Provoking “Omniscience” Ascriptions:
  • Culler identifies four narrative practices that lead to the attribution of omniscience:
    1. Authoritative narrative declarations (e.g., opening lines of Emma by Jane Austen).
    2. Inside access to characters’ thoughts, which is exclusive to fiction.
    3. Authorial narrators flaunting creative control (e.g., Tom Jones by Henry Fielding).
    4. Realist narrators presenting themselves as judicious historians (p. 26–30).
• Call for New Critical Vocabulary:
  • Culler concludes by urging critics to discard the misleading concept of “omniscient narrators.” He advocates for alternative terms that better capture the nuanced effects and techniques of narrative fiction (p. 34).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	References
Omniscience	A traditional narrative concept likened to divine knowledge, describing narrators who have complete insight into the fictional world.	Culler, 2004, p. 22
Authorial Omniscience	The notion that authors inherently know everything about their fictional worlds and characters, a perspective Culler critiques.	p. 24
Theological Analogy	The comparison of authors to God, assuming a divine-like omniscience; dismissed by Culler as inadequate for narrative theory.	p. 23
Telepathy	A proposed alternative by Nicholas Royle, emphasizing the imaginative and uncanny transmission of thoughts in narrative fiction.	p. 27
Performative Authoritativeness	The narrative authority achieved through declarative statements that shape the fictional reality rather than reflecting omniscience.	p. 26
Selective Omniscience	A term used to describe narrators who are presumed to know everything but choose to reveal information selectively.	p. 25
Narrative Consensus	The idea that omniscient narration in realist fiction often reflects the collective consciousness of society rather than divine knowledge.	p. 30
Zero Focalization	Gérard Genette’s concept of a narrative perspective without a clear focalizing consciousness, often attributed to omniscient narration.	p. 28
Limited Point of View	A technique where the narrative is restricted to the perspective of one or more characters, contrasted with omniscience.	p. 27
Authorial Narration	Narration where the narrator aligns with the author, often breaking the fourth wall or highlighting their creative control.	p. 30
Heterodiegetic Narration	A narrative mode where the narrator exists outside the story world; frequently associated with omniscient narration.	p. 30
Collective Consciousness	A perspective that narrators in realist fiction embody shared societal viewpoints rather than individual omniscience.	p. 31
Imaginative Recuperation	The creative process of filling gaps in narrative knowledge, used to describe narrators accessing characters’ inner lives.	p. 28
Narrative Authority	The perceived reliability and control of a narrator over the story, often conflated with omniscience.	p. 26
Extradiegetic Narrator	A narrator who exists outside the narrative levels of the story; often described as omniscient but reinterpreted by Culler.	p. 29

Contribution of “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

Literary Work	Critique Using Culler’s Framework	References from Article
Emma by Jane Austen	– The opening line (“Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich…”) demonstrates performative authority, not divine omniscience.	Culler, 2004, p. 26
	– The narrator’s claims about characters are conventions of the fictional world rather than reflections of superhuman knowledge.	p. 27
Middlemarch by George Eliot	– The narrator acts as a historian, unraveling human lives with focused reflection, not omniscience.	p. 30
	– The narrative authority stems from judicious rumination and societal consensus rather than an all-knowing perspective.	p. 31
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner	– The novel’s multiple focalized perspectives showcase “omniscience with teeth,” challenging the concept of a single omniscient narrator.	p. 27
	– Culler suggests that access to multiple consciousnesses can be explained without invoking omniscience, favoring focalized viewpoints.	p. 28
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy	– The opening generalization about families (“All happy families are alike…”) highlights insights about the human condition but lacks inherent omniscient authority.	p. 27
	– The narrator’s statements reflect philosophical and moral observations, which are open to readers’ interpretation rather than divine truth.	p. 28

Criticism Against “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

• Overemphasis on Theological Analogy:
  • Some critics argue that Culler’s rejection of omniscience overly focuses on its theological roots, neglecting the practical ways the term has evolved in literary analysis.
• Reduction of Narrative Complexity:
  • Culler’s framework risks oversimplifying narrative techniques by dismissing the concept of omniscience entirely, potentially ignoring its explanatory power in certain contexts.
• Neglect of Readerly Interpretation:
  • While emphasizing performative authority, Culler underexplores how readers actively interpret “omniscience” as a literary device, which remains significant in narrative understanding.
• Undermining Traditional Narratology:
  • By challenging foundational narratological concepts, such as omniscience and zero focalization, Culler’s critique may alienate traditional narrative theorists who find value in these terms.
• Ambiguity in Alternative Frameworks:
  • The introduction of “telepathy” and other alternatives may lack the clarity and broad applicability that “omniscience” provides, leading to potential confusion.
• Potential Overgeneralization:
  • Culler’s critique of omniscience in realist and modernist traditions might not account for diverse global literary practices where the concept remains relevant.
• Limited Engagement with Realist Fiction:
  • Critics suggest that his dismissal of omniscience in realist fiction (e.g., George Eliot) underestimates its role in establishing narrative coherence and reader trust.
• Neglect of Historical Contexts:
  • The critique does not sufficiently consider how omniscience as a narrative tool reflects changing historical, cultural, and ideological contexts in literature.
• Risk of Disregarding Authorial Intent:
  • By focusing on the effects of narrative authority, Culler’s argument minimizes the role of authorial intent in shaping omniscient narration.

Representative Quotations from “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The idea of omniscience has not received much critical scrutiny.”	Culler highlights the lack of detailed theoretical examination of the concept of omniscience, calling for a reevaluation of its assumptions and utility in narrative theory.
“‘Omniscient narration’ becomes a kind of dumping ground filled with a wide range of distinct narrative techniques.”	Culler critiques how the term has been used imprecisely, lumping together disparate narrative strategies without distinguishing their unique effects.
“The analogy between God and the author… obfuscates the various phenomena that provoke us to posit the idea [of omniscience].”	He challenges the theological analogy between divine omniscience and authorial control, suggesting it adds little to the understanding of narrative effects and creates unnecessary conflations.
“Omniscience, being a superhuman privilege, is logically not a quantitative but a qualitative and indivisible attribute.”	Culler emphasizes the indivisible nature of omniscience, critiquing attempts to describe partial or selective omniscience in narrators.
“The novelist can simply declare what will be the case in this world. To call this ‘omniscience’ is extraordinarily misleading.”	He critiques the term for conflating narrative authority (the power to define fictional worlds) with knowledge, proposing that such authority stems from linguistic and performative conventions rather than all-knowingness.
“Omniscience may have become too familiar for us to think shrewdly about it.”	Culler suggests that the concept’s ubiquity has dulled its critical effectiveness, encouraging scholars to seek alternative vocabularies to better capture narrative effects.
“Imaginative recuperation of details…need not be hindered by physical limitations.”	He introduces alternatives like telepathy to describe how narrators convey knowledge of characters’ inner lives, distancing such acts from theological implications of divine omniscience.
“The assertion of ignorance and the occasional flaunting of omnipotence… suggest that omniscience is not a good label for this sort of narration.”	Culler argues that playful and self-aware narrative techniques often attributed to omniscience are better understood as authorial creativity and do not reflect true omniscient qualities.
“Narrators tend to have pervasive presence rather than transcendent vision.”	Critiquing the term “omniscient narrator,” Culler points out that narrative voices often reflect a collective or societal consciousness, rather than an all-knowing divine figure.
“Our habit of naturalizing… details of narrative by making the consciousness of an individual their source… generates a fantasy of omniscience, which we then find oppressive.”	He critiques the critical tendency to ascribe omniscience to narrators, arguing it oversimplifies complex narrative effects and fosters oppressive interpretive frameworks.

Suggested Readings: “Omniscience” by Jonathan Culler

1. Culler, Jonathan. “Omniscience.” Narrative, vol. 12, no. 1, 2004, pp. 22–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107328. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
2. Olson, Barbara K. “‘Who Thinks This Book?’ Or Why the Author/God Analogy Merits Our Continued Attention.” Narrative, vol. 14, no. 3, 2006, pp. 339–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107394. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
3. Dawson, Paul. “The Return of Omniscience in Contemporary Fiction.” Narrative, vol. 17, no. 2, 2009, pp. 143–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25609360. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
4. Dolis, John. Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 45, no. 3, 2008, pp. 401–04. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25659674. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
5. Nelles, William. “Omniscience for Atheists: Or, Jane Austen’s Infallible Narrator.” Narrative, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, pp. 118–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30219642. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.