Seminar Paper

322 ­ Seminar Literature

Novels of the Nineties

Summer Semester 2006

A Dead Narrator?

in Charles Higson′s Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen

by

Andreas Raab

Date of Presentation: May, 4th 2006

---

Seminar Paper

A Dead Narrator?

SS 2006

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. The

Author and General Aspects of the Novel 3

3.

The Novel′s Narrative Strategies and Techniques 4

3.1. Characterisation 6

3.2. Reliability 9

4.

A Dead Narrator? 12

4.1.

The Purpose of Dead Narrators 12

4.2.

A Dying Narrator 13

4.2.1.

A Flashback of His Life 13

4.2.2. An

Interior

Monologue 14

4.2.3.

The Circle of Life 14

4.2.4. Thinking

Reasonably 15

4.3.

A Dead Narrator 16

4.3.1.

A Story From Hell 16

4.3.2.

When Soul Meets Body 16

4.3.3. Consistently

Grotesque 17

4.4.

A Living Narrator 17

4.4.1.

The I of the Book Cannot Die in the Book 17

4.4.2.

Survival of the Fittest 18

4.4.3.

A Fib, a Hoax, a Lie 19

4.4.4.

He Is Not Pronounced Dead 20

4.4.5.

He Wipes the Slate Clean 20

5. Conclusion 22

6. Bibliography 24

6.1. Primary

Sources 24

6.2. Secondary

Sources 24

7. Index 25

Andreas Raab

1/25

---

Seminar Paper

A Dead Narrator?

SS 2006

1. Introduction

The plot of Charles Higson′s novel

Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen

published in 1996

is fairly straightforward. In the first chapter of the book the protagonist or anti-hero

of the novel, who is telling the story at the same time, stabs Mister Kitchen with a

candlestick during a quarrel they have while Mister Kitchen is visiting the

protagonist to buy his car. In the course of the text the anti-hero then desperately tries

to get rid of the (more or less) dead body, a task that becomes both his destiny and

burden. Whenever the protagonist seems to get one step closer to dispose of Mister

Kitchen, he is thrown back at least two steps due to a consistent unfortunate

concatenation of events. Finally, all of the protagonist′s bad luck combined with his

inability to a make plans that work literally lead to his downfall. It is this ending of

the novel that raises the most challenging question since the protagonist′s further fate

is up to the respective reader′s interpretation. In addition, the reader not only never

gets to know the narrator′s name, but he/she also does not know his motivation for

telling the story. However, these matters basically revolve around the central

question whether the protagonist dies or stays alive at or after, respectively, the end

of the novel.

The main aim of this paper is, therefore, to examine whether the story is or can be

told by a dead narrator. This problem will be discussed by means of relating it to and

embedding it into a general analysis and description of the novel′s narrative

techniques. Since the topic of this paper is narratological in its character and since

there is an obvious relation between the subject-matter of this essay and the novel′s

narrative situation, this is of crucial importance to fully grasp the issue and to discuss

it comprehensively. Thus, this paper is basically divided into two main parts. The

first part presents a general overview of the novel′s narrative techniques and

particularly focuses on characterisation in the novel and on the reliability of the

narrator. In the second part of this essay some readings that either support or oppose

the fact that the story is told by a dead or dying narrator are specified. All these

interpretations will be based on evidence from and related to the text itself. On the

whole, this essay will encourage different approaches to answer the underlying

question of this essay, namely whether Charles Higson′s novel

Getting Rid of Mister

Kitchen

features a dead narrator.

Andreas Raab

2/25

---

Seminar Paper

A Dead Narrator?

SS 2006

2. The Author1 and General Aspects of the Novel

The British writer, actor and comedian Charles Higson was born in 1958. He first

gained greater publicity as one of the main authors and performers of the sketch

show

The Fast Show

, which was successfully broadcasted from 1994 to 2000 on

BBC Two. Between 1992 and 1996 Charles Higson penned four novels:

King of the

Ants

in 1992,

Happy Now

in 1993,

Full Whack

in 1995 and

Getting Rid of Mister

Kitchen

in 1996. In 2004 he wrote a series of James Bond books, featuring the young

Bond and concentrating on the teenage spy′s schooldays at Eton. Most recently

Charles Higson is working on and starring in the sitcom and

Fast Show

spin-off

Swiss Toni

on BBC Three. Humour and comedy have always played a central role in

Charles Higson′s work, noticeably shape his novels and are vital elements of

Getting

Rid of Mister Kitchen

as well.

On the whole, the genre of the book can be best described as a farce that blends

surrealistic elements with slapstick comedy. The

farcical quality is mainly obtained

from the novel′s story line that jumps in fast-paced action from one to the next rather

unlikely (and even absurd) situation. Besides, `the exaggeration of the protagonist′s

actions and his highly improbable drug abuse are typical features of a farce′

(Oppolzer, 74).

Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen

also contains a lot of black humour or

black comedy, in the sense that topics usually treated seriously are handled in a

satirical manner.

I had to be civil to the man. I′d already killed the last guy who came

to buy the car, I didn′t want to get aggressive with this one or the

police might spot a trend. (Higson, 21)

This sort of humour may sometimes even be regarded as tasteless because `[it] does

not recoil from taboos either′ (Mädl, 33). On the other hand, black humour may have

a cathartic function in the sense that laughing about serious topics can ease problems

and worries of life. In addition, `violence and brutality are also predominant [in the

book] and the protagonist′s effort to dump the body is [extremely suspenseful]′

(Mädl, 5). Consequently, it can be argued that the novel also includes features that

are typical of thrillers.

1 Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Higson, May, 30th 2006.

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/charles-higson, May, 30th 2006.

Andreas Raab

3/25

---

Seminar Paper

A Dead Narrator?

SS 2006

Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen

consists of 20 chapters and it contains a lot of

references to mythology and literature. Some themes that can be found throughout

the novel are death, religion and anonymity, reoccurring motifs are, for instance,

cars, drugs and dogs. However, the most noticeable repeatedly appearing element of

the novel is the narrator′s obsession with weather forecasts. The anti-hero refers to

them whenever possible; for instance, he replies during a conversation at a party to

the following statement of a woman:

`I think people should believe in ghosts.′ [with]

`Why?′, I asked. `You might as well believe in Father Christmas, the

weather forecast, virgin birth and economic recovery.′ (Higson, 163)

3. The Novel′s Narrative Strategies and Techniques

In general, the story of the book is told by a first-person (or homodiegetic) narrator in

retrospective. Since the narrator is at the same time the main character of the book he

is an I-as-protagonist (or autodiegetic or quasi-autobiographical) narrator. `It is only

at the beginning that the author briefly moves to an omniscient levels and betrays his

superior knowledge of events due to take place.′ (Winkler, 31) Here the narrator

states that `[he] blame[s] the whole thing on the weather forecast′. (Higson, 2)

However, what the "whole thing" is remains unclear and up to the reader′s

speculation. `Even though the narrating self is very present and permanently

comments on the situation′ (Winkler, 31), the narrative distance gets small in the

further course of the book. Narrating self and experiencing self are extremely close

and the knowledge of the reader is mainly limited to the perceptions of the

protagonist while experiencing the events. The whole story line is presented through

the eyes of the main character; therefore, the focalization is internal and fixed. In

fact, the protagonist appears in every scene2 and the reader is entirely restricted to his

inside perspective and point of view.

Even though the events are mainly recounted chronologically, there are also

instances of analepsis and prolepsis in the novel. On some occasions the first person

narrator reveals experiences from his past, which relate to the story, for example:

2 Cf. Mädl, 21.

Andreas Raab

4/25

---

Seminar Paper

A Dead Narrator?

SS 2006

The stupid thing about it was that it had happened to me once before.

It was about five years ago, maybe six. [...] In those days Carrie had

still been working as an interior designer, and I′d still been going out

with her. (Higson, 138)

On the other hand, some future occurrences in the novel are anticipated or at least

hinted on at earlier stages of the text. However, it is mainly up to the reader to

interpret the clues the narrator gives3 ­ mostly without being aware of them4 ­ in

order to find out what is inevitably to come. Thus, from the description of the dog on

page 60 of the book `a Rotweiler, a devil dog, huge and mean and ugly′ (Higson, 60)

it can be concluded that this beast will play a crucial and even partly antagonistic role

in the course of the novel.

Even though the whole story is mainly told in hindsight, there are several instances

where the tense switches from past to present. This is especially true `[w]hen [the

narrator] talks about general topics like religion, history, society, identity, nationality

and food[, where] he always switches to the present tense5′ (Winkler, 49). This

gnomic (or generic) present emphasises that the attitude of the narrator has not

changed. Furthermore, several instances of historical present occur in the novel to

signify a climax6.

The narrated (or story) time of the novel is roughly one day, which, as also discussed

later in this essay, may even be the last day of the protagonist′s life. Considering a

discourse (or narrative) time ­ depending on the reader, of course, ­ of roughly five

hours, events are nearly presented isochronously. This may also be influenced by the

author′s experience as a script writer, which also explains why the novel is written

like a film script. However, there are also examples of slow down, for instance when

the narrator describes the pictures in Adrian′s flat7 and of speed up tempo, for

instance, when the protagonist is driving with his car from one setting to the next8.

The language of the book is colloquial, informal and rude for most of

its parts, yet sometimes even offensive9. `Probably′, I said. `But sooner or later some

bunch of marauding foreigners are going to come over here and obliterate us.′

(Higson, 115) The whole text seems like an oral story, a narrative device referred to

3 Cf. Mädl, 26.

4 Cf. Mädl, 29.

5 Cf. Higson, e.g. 4.

6 Cf. Higson, e.g. 219.

7 Cf. Higson, 67.

8 Cf. Higson, e.g. 144.

9 Cf. Mädl, 97

Andreas Raab

5/25

---