"The third person narrator, instead of being omniscient, is like a constantly running surveillance tape"
About this Quote
Vachss’s line turns a supposedly godlike literary device into something colder, flatter, and more accusatory. The classic third-person omniscient narrator promises mastery: a mind that can slip into any character, explain motives, interpret events, even hint at fate. A “constantly running surveillance tape” does the opposite. It records. It doesn’t care. It doesn’t forgive. It just accumulates evidence.
That swap matters in a Vachss context because his fiction and advocacy orbit systems that harm the vulnerable and then hide behind polite narratives. Surveillance is the logic of institutions: cops, courts, bureaucracies, predators, all invested in what can be proven rather than what can be felt. By likening narration to tape, he’s arguing for a prose ethic that rejects consoling interiority. You don’t get the luxury of “understanding” everyone; you get the hard, time-stamped fact of what happened and who stood by.
The subtext is a critique of omniscience as a kind of moral alibi. When a narrator claims to know everyone’s secret reasons, cruelty can get laundered into backstory. Surveillance refuses that laundering. It also implicates the reader: a tape makes you a watcher, not a confidant. Watching is not neutral; it’s a stance with consequences. Vachss is pushing writers toward a style that feels like testimony, where the authority comes from relentless observation and the discomfort comes from realizing observation alone doesn’t equal justice.
That swap matters in a Vachss context because his fiction and advocacy orbit systems that harm the vulnerable and then hide behind polite narratives. Surveillance is the logic of institutions: cops, courts, bureaucracies, predators, all invested in what can be proven rather than what can be felt. By likening narration to tape, he’s arguing for a prose ethic that rejects consoling interiority. You don’t get the luxury of “understanding” everyone; you get the hard, time-stamped fact of what happened and who stood by.
The subtext is a critique of omniscience as a kind of moral alibi. When a narrator claims to know everyone’s secret reasons, cruelty can get laundered into backstory. Surveillance refuses that laundering. It also implicates the reader: a tape makes you a watcher, not a confidant. Watching is not neutral; it’s a stance with consequences. Vachss is pushing writers toward a style that feels like testimony, where the authority comes from relentless observation and the discomfort comes from realizing observation alone doesn’t equal justice.
Quote Details
| Topic | Writing |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Andrew
Add to List
