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 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 does 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Author and General Aspects of the Novel
3. The Novel’s Narrative Strategies and Techniques
3.1. Characterisation
3.2. Reliability
4. A Dead Narrator?
4.1. The Purpose of Dead Narrators
4.2. A Dying Narrator
4.2.1. A Flashback of His Life
4.2.2. An Interior Monologue
4.2.3. The Circle of Life
4.2.4. Thinking Reasonably
4.3. A Dead Narrator
4.3.1. A Story From Hell
4.3.2. When Soul Meets Body
4.3.3. Consistently Grotesque
4.4. A Living Narrator
4.4.1. The I of the Book Cannot Die in the Book
4.4.2. Survival of the Fittest
4.4.3. A Fib, a Hoax, a Lie
4.4.4. He Is Not Pronounced Dead
4.4.5. He Wipes the Slate Clean
5. Conclusion
Research Objective and Thematic Scope
This paper aims to examine whether Charles Higson’s 1996 novel Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen is or can be narrated by a deceased character. By analyzing the work's specific narrative strategies and techniques, the research investigates the ambiguity surrounding the protagonist's fate at the end of the novel and explores various interpretive frameworks regarding the narrator's status.
- Narrative techniques and first-person homodiegetic narration
- Characterization and the reliability of the narrator
- Interpretative theories of the "dead," "dying," and "living" narrator
- The impact of genre, grotesque elements, and satire on the reading experience
- The role of the reader in decoding textual ambiguity
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. Characterisation
Regarding the discussing of how the other characters and the protagonist in particular are characterised in Getting Rid of Mr. Kitchen, the first interesting thing to note is that the name of the protagonist is never mentioned throughout the whole text. Although the reader finds out a lot of details about the main character and his life, the protagonist never literally introduces himself or refers to his name, which is also not mentioned in any other context or by any other character. This namelessness can represent a depersonalisation of the anti-hero due to the crime he commits and his excessive drug abuse. In addition, the protagonist could simply symbolise other rich, urban males in their 30s with the qualities of yuppies.
‘This is Johnny’, he said, passing me a glass.
‘Johnny isn’t my name’, I said.
‘As if Margaret fucking cares’, he said. ‘As if anyone cares. As if it really mattered’. (Higson, 149)
However, the fact that the protagonist remains nameless also acts as a counterbalance or even contradiction to his very self-absorbed personality and, thus, also further foregrounds the grotesque character of the entire piece of fiction.
Chapter Summary
1. Introduction: Presents the plot of Charles Higson’s novel and establishes the central research question regarding whether the narrative is told by a dead narrator.
2. The Author and General Aspects of the Novel: Provides biographical context for Charles Higson and discusses the genre of the novel, focusing on its farcical and dark comedic elements.
3. The Novel’s Narrative Strategies and Techniques: Analyzes the use of a first-person, autodiegetic narrator and examines how specific techniques influence the reader’s perception.
4. A Dead Narrator?: Explores the central thesis by categorizing potential interpretations of the narrator as dead, dying, or living through textual evidence.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes that the ambiguity of the ending is a deliberate structural choice, leaving the ultimate interpretation of the narrator's state to the reader.
Keywords
Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen, Charles Higson, dead narrator, homodiegetic narrator, narratology, first-person narrative, unreliable narration, characterization, grotesque, satire, death, literary interpretation, postmodern fiction, anti-hero, narrative ambiguity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this seminar paper?
The paper explores the narratological question of whether the protagonist and narrator of Charles Higson’s novel Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen is dead, dying, or alive while telling the story.
What are the central thematic fields covered in the text?
Key themes include the reliability of the first-person narrator, the use of grotesque and farcical elements, social satire, the role of memory, and the ambiguity of literary endings.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The primary goal is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the novel’s narrative techniques to determine how different readings can support the theory of a "dead narrator."
Which scientific methods are employed in this analysis?
The author uses a literary-critical and narratological approach, analyzing specific text passages against theoretical frameworks concerning narrative distance, characterization, and reliability.
What specific topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines narrative strategies, the protagonist's lack of a name, the narrator's questionable reliability due to drug and alcohol use, and theoretical justifications for interpretations of a dead or dying narrator.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Essential keywords include narratology, first-person narrator, dead narrator, unreliable narration, grotesque, and literary ambiguity.
How does the protagonist’s drug abuse affect the reliability of the narrative?
The author argues that the protagonist's heavy drug and alcohol consumption blurs his perception of time and reality, suggesting that the reader should treat the narrator’s claims with skepticism.
What role does the "Survival of the Fittest" theory play in the novel?
The protagonist frequently references Social Darwinism, viewing himself as superior. The paper discusses how this philosophy might paradoxically contribute to his potential downfall at the end of the story.
Why does the paper categorize the narrator as "dying" rather than just "dead" or "living"?
The author introduces this category to account for scenes that occur before the actual moment of death, allowing for theories that reconcile the act of narrating with the protagonist's severe physical injuries.
- Quote paper
- Andreas Raab (Author), 2006, A Dead Narrator in Charles Higson’s Getting Rid of Mister Kitchen, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/125575
