Substantiation

A turn so vivid and freeing as the first person, found after or in a third person novel, requires some annoyance overlooked on the part of the critic. For shaping purposes as the novelist finds themselves writing a first person narrative of experiences we must be keen on how these experiences are pulled from them. In a way the best form of first person narrative, for the sake of narrative progression and quickness, comes from the crime fiction world--So often we meet character's voice in interrogation, retrospective and resolute, but as one character can, like a human being, never have absolute objectivity of their course in a narrative, or indeed in the stream or thread of life we slide through or upon, the reader must not trust fully the character's chiming in, and in a sense the voice supposes the reader will account for this in a very confounding way: the reader is the interrogator. In Rashomon we are lead down a path into the woods. We revisit the drama through different characters and we must find which one we like best. The critic enjoys this specific choice. It seems Rashomon allows the viewer the chance to like a character as the endgame rather than approving of this character's sense of events, or the 'truth' of their perforce'd substantiations. In this breathlessness maybe the critic is being asked a question, one whose answer would relieve him of his momentary excitement. Which character's statement did you enjoy most? He now sees how much he enjoyed the text, but in seeking out why he comes only to excitement drowning out his parsing together pieces, a fracture of memory, but only on his part.