The concept of focalization was introduced into narratology by Genette (2010, 121–124; 213–220) and distinguishes the question 'Who sees?' from the question 'Who speaks?'

Genette had previously criticized existing approaches to questions of narrative mode (e.g., Stanzel's famous 'typological circle' of narrative situations) for mixing the central and fundamentally distinct questions of the 'voice' and the 'perceiving focus' or 'viewpoint' of a text. Thus, the question 'Who speaks?' puts the focus on the speech act of a narrator or textual character. The question 'Who sees?' or 'Who perceives?" (i.e., focalization), on the other hand, deals with questions of spatial, ideological, epistemic, or moral standpoint, consequently the subjective 'window' to the textual world (cf. Jahn 1996), which often leads to the 'emotional or ideological core' of the passage in question (de Jong 2014, 69). For Genette, focalization is clearly separated from the spatial-visual standpoint (point-of-view) of a narrative instance. He understands it as the restriction of the narrator's knowledge compared to the acting characters (i.e., zero focalization = no restriction of knowledge and the narrator instance knows more than the text characters; internal focalization = the narrator instance only says what the characters can know; external focalization = the narrator instance says less than the characters can know). Bal (2017, 132–153) and de Jong (2014, 47–72), on the other hand, proposed a broader understanding of focalization that basically subsumes all aspects of the 'subjective point of view' under the question 'Who sees?' and thus brings it to bear as a flexible analytical tool of modern as well as classical texts.

The focalization of a text passage can either be explicitly indicated by direct markers (i.e. expressions of seeing, perceiving, etc.) or implicitly inferred from the context. Analogous to the narrative instances of a text, focalization can also be distinguished between that of the primary narrator (primary narrator-focalizer) and that of a textual character (secondary narrator-focalizer) (cf. de Jong 2014, 48–50). In the first book of the Aeneid, when the protagonist, guided by Venus, climbs a hill to look over Carthage under construction (miratur molem Aeneas, magalia quondam, miratur portas strepitumque et strata viarum, 1.421-422), both levels become apparent. The double reference to amazement (miratur; miratur) indicates a character focalization of Aeneas, while the explanation on the mud huts formerly standing there (magalia quondam) clearly belongs to the narrator's knowledge. The case is particularly complicated when the focalization of a character – as also in the above example – is 'embedded' in the speech act of a higher-level narrative instance (embedded focalization; cf. on this de Jong 2014, 50–56). In this case, it is often not clear whether the references to the perception/assessment of a corresponding fact are to be assigned to a character or the (primary) narrator. This is a case of inherent ambiguity, the classification of which often requires extended textual co(n)texts. In some cases, the ambiguity of focalization is even recognizable as a narrative strategy: the second book of the Metamorphoses, for example, tells the story of the nymph Coronis (2.542-632), the beloved of the god Apollo, who is mistakenly suspected of promiscuity by the latter and killed in anger. After her death, the god himself performs the mourning rituals: He douses her with incense and performs the 'unseemly last honors' (iniusta iusta, 3.627). On the one hand, the term 'iniusta' reflects the perception of the god who regrets his deed. On the other hand, one can also see in it an 'intrusion' (cf. de Jong 2014, 53) of the narrator who condemns what is indeed an 'unjust' act of violence in its rendering of the story.

back