Betteredge cannot help but be biased in my opinion. He is an old Englishman that has long been set in his ways and his views of the world around him. He defends those who he has come to know rather than allow Sgt. Cuff's objective process of elimination and skepticism determine where guilt lies. However, due to his senesibilities and obvious personal attachments that he has with the other characters, the story he tells can only be held somewhat reliable. His defense of Rosanna is admirable, but it also inhibits the story's development, and in some cases threatens to stop it altogether, i.e. the way he tries to get Cuff to leave the conversation with Mrs. Yolland. Fortunately his own natural curiousity prevents him from ruining Cuff's investigation and helps the story along
I believe Mr. Betterege to be a reliable narrator as far as the circumstances surrounding the nature of his writing, the Moonstone. He has a very personal perspective in his writing because he had worked (and had been faithful to) for Mrs. Verinder for so long a time. He also had a way of listening to the people involved, that others may have just neglected. Although he would not sway from the opinions he held for his employers and family, he was always willing to listen to the other side of the story without it affecting how he felt and therefore reiterate it clearly to his readers. Gabriel Betteredge believes himself to be an objective narrator, but he really isn’t. He often states that no matter what the outcome is or what other people say about Rachael or Mrs. Verinder, he will always possess a high opinion of them. He continues throughout his narration with his bias intact, but always making them clear to his reader, so they too will understand the stance in which he has taken in his writing.
As far as the first third of the book, Betteredge is pretty objective about the events leading up to and following the disappearance of The Moonstone. But, if this is as far as you’ve read, you must question his objectivity regarding Rachel and Rosanna Spearman, who are the two characters who have a definite motive to steal the diamond. Rachel is completely uncooperative with the police and Sgt. Cuff, but why should she be? Sgt. Cuff suggests that Rachel herself has stolen the Moonstone herself to pay her debts. This explanation makes a lot of sense, for why else would she not want to help in the investigation? In addition, Betteredge and Sgt. Cuff know that Rosanna has a criminal history as a thief, so she’s should at least be a suspect. Betteredge, though, says that the reason why he resists suspecting Rachel is because he has “superiority to reason” (166). He is in agreement with Lady Verinder that “[Rachel] is absolutely incapable of doing what you suppose her to have done” (163), just because she and he knows Rachel’s character. Betteredge is so devoted to Rachel that he nearly beats up Sgt. Cuff. Betteredge “seized the Sergeant by the collar of his coat, and pinned him against the wall” (133), because he realizes that the Sgt. has withheld information about Rachel to him. Regarding Rosanna, Betteredge is “determined to give [Cuff] no information to the prejudice of Rosanna Spearman” (119) because Betteredge pities Rosanna, and Rosanna has done a good job for the family. I think that Betteredge is incapable of being objective of the two most suspicious characters (up to this point) in the book.
The narrator is somewhat reliable, but he is not omniscient and can only know what he observed. He is not really objective because he allows his narration to follow his emotional strand of thoughts. His description of his daughter and the Lady are completely biased towards them, as well as his opinion of Rosanna is also skewed because he has complete faith in her new innocence after a life of crime, and truly makes the reader feel a deep sadness at her death (even though suicide is usually sad no matter who it is). His description of his wife is completely horrible. The only reason he married her is because Selina, "being [his] wife, couldn't charge for her board, and would have to give [him] her services for nothing" (11).
Mr. Betteredge is trying to be as objective as possible. In the beginning of the book, he writes that he will do his best with respect to the readers. It is very difficult to be objective when things come from memory because we only remember what we want to remember and our memories are affected by emotions tied with them. As objective as he would like to be, he is too closely related to the story to be objective.
I personally like Gabriel Betteredge's narrative better. Maybe it's because he gives into that urge to take a part in a mystery. He can't fight his curiosity and part of it is because he truly believes that Rachel is innocent. I believe she has something to do with the missing Moonstone, but I don't want to believe Betteredge's rosy view of the young lady. Betteredge's account would also have us believe that Rosanna did not love Mr. Franklin Blake, but we know to look past his early beliefs because he also lets us know the other sides of the story that come from other characters like his daughter Penelope. Mr. Betteredge is obviously biased in his telling of the story, but at least he includes those little bits and pieces that let us form our own opinion of what we think is going on. Betteredge doesn't know all the facts, so the reader is just as in the dark as he is. I enjoy finding out little clues here and there just like Betteredge did, but I am able to form my own opinions rather than relying on everything that Betteredge believes must be right.
Conner, I like your take of the story. I think everything that you mentioned is true. Betteredge is obviously biased, and if it weren't for his own curiosity, he could seriously hinder the search for the missing Moonstone.
I also like that you mention Betteredge's loyalty to those he knew and his hesitancy to put faith in someone he just met, even if that person was employed to help solve the case.
I would say that Betteredge is not a reliable source in establishing the events that lead up to the missing Moonstone. His effort of wanting to be objectional is impossible because he has established relationships with many members of the house and trying to see things from the outside in is not helping Sgt. Cuff.
I believe Gabriel is not a reliable narrator because he is so closely connected to the Verinder's and the other servants in the house. I think he very much wants to be objective, but it is impossible to be completely opjective in this case because of his bias towards so many of the characters. He has worked for Lady Verinder and Rachel for so long and has become very loyal to them and he trusts them, making it hard to ever consider them guilty of theft.
Response to Claudia: I agree with you that I like Gabriel Bettedge’s narrative simply because he can’t help but get involved in the mystery. He says more than once that he’s got “detective-fever.” You have to try to figure things out yourself this way. No, he’s not objective, but if he was, I guess that would ruin the story. He puts his own personality into it and that makes it more entertaining as well.
"Maybe it's because he gives into that urge to take a part in a mystery. He can't fight his curiosity."
I totally agree with this! His narraration was so interesting and fun. He seems to be such a fun character because of his curiosity. He calls it the "detective fever." He really wants to get to the bottom of things, but he alone can not, whether it be because of his bias or something else.
Ignoring for the moment the argument that no narrator is reliable, We are dealing with a character in a novel. A character which is human and prone to error, on top of this the novel is also one of the first mystery novels, and following along the lines of general rules about crime fiction, the narrator cannot be reliable for if he were, then the reader would know all the facts and solve the case before the characters did thereby potentially ruining the illusion of the "detective". But that's all mechanical in nature and theory to boot. What's interesting is that it's Betteredge's own admission to his faults as a human that seems to draw the reader into trusting him implicitly. But it's these very admissions that explain clearly that he is still a character in a novel and, while writing this after the fact, is prone to his human nature. True, this does not necessarily mean that the narrator is unreliable for simply being human, but that's all the more reason to doubt the reliability of the narrator. As Windy and Allison have both pointed out, his is not an objective view due to his personal relationship with the matter at hand. While it's possible to contend that lack of objectivity alone does not mean a narrator is unreliable, he can still put for the facts as well as his own opinion. But in this case, his opinions take the forefront in some parts of the retelling, often drawing attention away from some of the facts. In addition, being a character in the novel means he must follow the rules of being a character in a novel, i.e. being in only one place at a time, interaction between characters is limited to dialog (either during or after the fact), and he is expected to change as a character might change during some form of conflict. (None of which are absolutes, just general rules of characterization). Summed up, he is a character, he is human, and his narration is told after the fact requiring him to remember events that may not have happened exactly as he remembers them.
Betteredge cannot help but be biased in my opinion. He is an old Englishman that has long been set in his ways and his views of the world around him. He defends those who he has come to know rather than allow Sgt. Cuff's objective process of elimination and skepticism determine where guilt lies. However, due to his senesibilities and obvious personal attachments that he has with the other characters, the story he tells can only be held somewhat reliable. His defense of Rosanna is admirable, but it also inhibits the story's development, and in some cases threatens to stop it altogether, i.e. the way he tries to get Cuff to leave the conversation with Mrs. Yolland. Fortunately his own natural curiousity prevents him from ruining Cuff's investigation and helps the story along
ReplyDeleteI believe Mr. Betterege to be a reliable narrator as far as the circumstances surrounding the nature of his writing, the Moonstone. He has a very personal perspective in his writing because he had worked (and had been faithful to) for Mrs. Verinder for so long a time. He also had a way of listening to the people involved, that others may have just neglected. Although he would not sway from the opinions he held for his employers and family, he was always willing to listen to the other side of the story without it affecting how he felt and therefore reiterate it clearly to his readers.
ReplyDeleteGabriel Betteredge believes himself to be an objective narrator, but he really isn’t. He often states that no matter what the outcome is or what other people say about Rachael or Mrs. Verinder, he will always possess a high opinion of them. He continues throughout his narration with his bias intact, but always making them clear to his reader, so they too will understand the stance in which he has taken in his writing.
As far as the first third of the book, Betteredge is pretty objective about the events leading up to and following the disappearance of The Moonstone. But, if this is as far as you’ve read, you must question his objectivity regarding Rachel and Rosanna Spearman, who are the two characters who have a definite motive to steal the diamond. Rachel is completely uncooperative with the police and Sgt. Cuff, but why should she be? Sgt. Cuff suggests that Rachel herself has stolen the Moonstone herself to pay her debts. This explanation makes a lot of sense, for why else would she not want to help in the investigation? In addition, Betteredge and Sgt. Cuff know that Rosanna has a criminal history as a thief, so she’s should at least be a suspect. Betteredge, though, says that the reason why he resists suspecting Rachel is because he has “superiority to reason” (166). He is in agreement with Lady Verinder that “[Rachel] is absolutely incapable of doing what you suppose her to have done” (163), just because she and he knows Rachel’s character. Betteredge is so devoted to Rachel that he nearly beats up Sgt. Cuff. Betteredge “seized the Sergeant by the collar of his coat, and pinned him against the wall” (133), because he realizes that the Sgt. has withheld information about Rachel to him. Regarding Rosanna, Betteredge is “determined to give [Cuff] no information to the prejudice of Rosanna Spearman” (119) because Betteredge pities Rosanna, and Rosanna has done a good job for the family. I think that Betteredge is incapable of being objective of the two most suspicious characters (up to this point) in the book.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator is somewhat reliable, but he is not omniscient and can only know what he observed. He is not really objective because he allows his narration to follow his emotional strand of thoughts. His description of his daughter and the Lady are completely biased towards them, as well as his opinion of Rosanna is also skewed because he has complete faith in her new innocence after a life of crime, and truly makes the reader feel a deep sadness at her death (even though suicide is usually sad no matter who it is). His description of his wife is completely horrible. The only reason he married her is because Selina, "being [his] wife, couldn't charge for her board, and would have to give [him] her services for nothing" (11).
ReplyDeleteMr. Betteredge is trying to be as objective as possible. In the beginning of the book, he writes that he will do his best with respect to the readers. It is very difficult to be objective when things come from memory because we only remember what we want to remember and our memories are affected by emotions tied with them. As objective as he would like to be, he is too closely related to the story to be objective.
I personally like Gabriel Betteredge's narrative better. Maybe it's because he gives into that urge to take a part in a mystery. He can't fight his curiosity and part of it is because he truly believes that Rachel is innocent. I believe she has something to do with the missing Moonstone, but I don't want to believe Betteredge's rosy view of the young lady. Betteredge's account would also have us believe that Rosanna did not love Mr. Franklin Blake, but we know to look past his early beliefs because he also lets us know the other sides of the story that come from other characters like his daughter Penelope. Mr. Betteredge is obviously biased in his telling of the story, but at least he includes those little bits and pieces that let us form our own opinion of what we think is going on. Betteredge doesn't know all the facts, so the reader is just as in the dark as he is. I enjoy finding out little clues here and there just like Betteredge did, but I am able to form my own opinions rather than relying on everything that Betteredge believes must be right.
ReplyDeleteConner,
ReplyDeleteI like your take of the story. I think everything that you mentioned is true. Betteredge is obviously biased, and if it weren't for his own curiosity, he could seriously hinder the search for the missing Moonstone.
I also like that you mention Betteredge's loyalty to those he knew and his hesitancy to put faith in someone he just met, even if that person was employed to help solve the case.
I would say that Betteredge is not a reliable source in establishing the events that lead up to the missing Moonstone. His effort of wanting to be objectional is impossible because he has established relationships with many members of the house and trying to see things from the outside in is not helping Sgt. Cuff.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe Gabriel is not a reliable narrator because he is so closely connected to the Verinder's and the other servants in the house. I think he very much wants to be objective, but it is impossible to be completely opjective in this case because of his bias towards so many of the characters. He has worked for Lady Verinder and Rachel for so long and has become very loyal to them and he trusts them, making it hard to ever consider them guilty of theft.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Claudia:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that I like Gabriel Bettedge’s narrative simply because he can’t help but get involved in the mystery. He says more than once that he’s got “detective-fever.” You have to try to figure things out yourself this way. No, he’s not objective, but if he was, I guess that would ruin the story. He puts his own personality into it and that makes it more entertaining as well.
Response to Claudia:
ReplyDelete"Maybe it's because he gives into that urge to take a part in a mystery. He can't fight his curiosity."
I totally agree with this! His narraration was so interesting and fun. He seems to be such a fun character because of his curiosity. He calls it the "detective fever." He really wants to get to the bottom of things, but he alone can not, whether it be because of his bias or something else.
Ignoring for the moment the argument that no narrator is reliable, We are dealing with a character in a novel. A character which is human and prone to error, on top of this the novel is also one of the first mystery novels, and following along the lines of general rules about crime fiction, the narrator cannot be reliable for if he were, then the reader would know all the facts and solve the case before the characters did thereby potentially ruining the illusion of the "detective". But that's all mechanical in nature and theory to boot. What's interesting is that it's Betteredge's own admission to his faults as a human that seems to draw the reader into trusting him implicitly. But it's these very admissions that explain clearly that he is still a character in a novel and, while writing this after the fact, is prone to his human nature. True, this does not necessarily mean that the narrator is unreliable for simply being human, but that's all the more reason to doubt the reliability of the narrator. As Windy and Allison have both pointed out, his is not an objective view due to his personal relationship with the matter at hand. While it's possible to contend that lack of objectivity alone does not mean a narrator is unreliable, he can still put for the facts as well as his own opinion. But in this case, his opinions take the forefront in some parts of the retelling, often drawing attention away from some of the facts. In addition, being a character in the novel means he must follow the rules of being a character in a novel, i.e. being in only one place at a time, interaction between characters is limited to dialog (either during or after the fact), and he is expected to change as a character might change during some form of conflict. (None of which are absolutes, just general rules of characterization). Summed up, he is a character, he is human, and his narration is told after the fact requiring him to remember events that may not have happened exactly as he remembers them.
ReplyDelete