Must a narrative be realistic or true to life? Is it the authors responsibility to construct a believable narrative, complete with a realistic structure? These are among the many questions explored by Wayne C. Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction. The work is considered to be something of a landmark text in respect to narrative theory. To date, the text is best remembered for how it marks the first appearance of the now-familiar term "unreliable narrator" (211). In the decades since the work was first published, Booth's term has been vigorously applied to a wide range of texts spanning centuries, genres, and mediums. Scholars who use the term generally do so in order to defend or refute a theory regarding a narrator's trustworthiness or validity as a storyteller. Although the narrators in question vary as widely as the texts that they live in, it is important to note that few groups are seen as unreliable in their narration of a story's events as are child and teenage narrators. Teenage and child narrators who have borne the brunt of this stigma include such iconic figures as Huckleberry Finn, Holden Caulfield, and myriad others centered in a field of debate and inquiry. Yet this article is not about Holden or Huck. Neither is it intended to weigh the merits of Booths rhetoric nor those whose writings were influenced by his. Rather, the essay is centered on the short fiction of Ernest J. Gaines; I explore the response to the author's use of first-person child narrators in "A Long Day in November" and "My Uncle and the Fat Lady." The purpose? To consider them in the context of "unreliable narrators" and explore how and why select Gaines scholars and characters in the pieces identify his narrators as such. More precisely, I focus on the possibility that such claims, whether accidental or deliberate, illustrate a cultural bias rooted in an ageist ideology. Subsequently, I enter into brief discussions of a youth lens as a remedy and why Gaines's fiction is of significant use in this debate. Prior to doing so, it is worthwhile to open with a history of narrative unreliability. Booth situates the unreliable narrator and unreliability in general as a consequence of either deliberate irony--in some cases referring to it as "deception"--or as a matter of "inconscience" on a narrator's part. He attributes the latter term to Henry James, describing how it refers to a "narrator [who] is mistaken, or [who] believes himself to have qualities which the author denies him" (159). Booth further insists that the author is the person who determines how a narrator is perceived by an audience. He goes on to stipulate that readers are often in "collusion" with the author, complicit and eager in their shared judgment of a narrator. Together, author and readers critique a narrator by "agreeing upon the standard by which he is found wanting," especially "when the narrator shows ignorance of matters of fact" (304). The eagerness readers experience arises from the agreed-upon judgment, in turn eliciting a "pride in [their] own knowledge" and the opportunity to simultaneously exclude and "ridicule" the subject in question (304). Author and audience thereby exert a prejudice and superiority over fictional narrators of various backgrounds and narrative techniques. For first-person narrators, especially those of a younger age, this pattern is doubly damning as it already has a cultural system of ageism and a corresponding language to rely upon. Few scholars make this as apparent as does William Riggan, author of Picaros, Madmen, Na'ifs, and Clowns. Unlike Booth, the scholar discusses specific categories of first-person narrators-referenced in the work's title--and why they are particularly suspect. Initially, he indicates that, barring "any obvious errors of fact," the first person features an intrinsic realism which complies with readers' "natural tendency" to believe in a narrator and what the narrator conveys to an audience (19). Riggan attributes this to a "personalization" of such narrators and the intimate nature of a contract that readers enter into, subsequently prompting readers' belief in narrators' credibility. …

中文翻译：

---

“但是我还是一个小男孩，对此我该怎么办？”：在欧内斯特·J·盖因斯短篇小说中将儿童视为叙述者

叙述必须真实或真实吗？作者的责任是构建一个具有现实结构的可信的叙述吗？这些都是韦恩·布斯（Wayne C. Booth）在《小说修辞学》中探讨的众多问题之一。就叙事理论而言，该作品被认为是具有里程碑意义的文字。迄今为止，由于它是如何标记现在熟悉的术语“不可靠的叙述者”（211）的首次出现，人们对该文本最为记忆深刻。自该作品首次出版以来的几十年中，Booth的术语已广泛应用于跨世纪，流派和媒介的各种文本。使用该词的学者通常这样做是为了捍卫或驳斥有关叙述者作为讲故事者的可信性或有效性的理论。尽管所讨论的叙述者与其所居住的文本相差甚远，但必须指出的是，很少有人会像儿童和青少年叙述者那样对故事的事件进行叙述。受到这种污名首当其冲的少年和儿童叙述者包括诸如哈克贝利·芬恩，霍尔顿·考菲尔德以及其他以辩论和探究为中心的标志性人物。然而，本文与霍顿或哈克无关。既不打算权衡布斯修辞的优点，也不打算权衡那些受到他影响的作品。相反，本文的重点是欧内斯特·J·盖恩斯的短篇小说。我探索了作者在“十一月的漫长的一天”和“我的叔叔与胖女人”中使用第一人称儿童叙述者的回应。目的？在“不可靠的叙事者”的背景下考虑他们，并探索如何以及为什么选择盖因学者和作品中的人物将他的叙事者如此。更确切地说，我关注的是这样的可能性，无论是偶然的还是故意的，都说明了植根于年龄主义意识形态的文化偏见。随后，我就青年镜头作为一种补救方法以及为什么盖恩斯的小说在这次辩论中具有重要意义进行了简短的讨论。在这样做之前，值得先介绍一下叙述的不可靠性。由于故意的讽刺（在某些情况下称为“欺骗”），或者由于叙述者的“不道德”，Booth将其放置在不可靠的叙述者和不可靠的位置。他将后一个术语归因于亨利·詹姆斯，描述了它是如何指代“叙述者（谁错了，或者谁认为自己具有作者否认的品质”）的方式（159）。布斯还坚持认为，作者是决定观众如何叙述叙述者的人。他继续规定，读者经常与作者“勾结”，同谋并渴望他们对叙述者的共同判断。作者和读者一起通过“同意被发现的标准”来批评叙事者，特别是“当叙事者对事实的无知时”（304）。渴望的读者体验来自于商定的判断，从而引发了“对自己知识的骄傲”和同时排斥和“嘲笑”所讨论主题的机会（304）。因此，作者和观众比具有各种背景和叙事技巧的小说叙述者具有偏见和优越感。对于第一人称叙事者，尤其是年轻的叙事者，这种模式是双重的，因为它已经具有一种年龄主义的文化体系和相应的语言作为依托。很少有学者像皮卡洛斯（Picaros），《狂人》（Madmen），纳伊夫斯（Na'ifs）和小丑（Clowns）一书的作者威廉·里根（William Riggan）那样清楚地表明这一点。与布斯不同，这位学者讨论了作品标题中提到的特定类别的第一人称叙述者-以及为什么他们特别令人怀疑。最初，他指出，除非存在“任何明显的事实错误”，否则第一人称具有一种内在现实主义，与读者“相信叙事者”和“叙事者传达给观众的东西”的“自然倾向”相符（19）。Riggan将其归因于这种叙事者的“个性化”以及读者签订的合同的亲密性质，从而促使读者相信叙事者的信誉。…