Herman’s concept of double deixis p

Herman’s concept of double deixis provides an adequate explanation of the on- tological mechanics of the use of the second-person narration in the “Questions for Discussion,” but there is more to say about the context of the address in Figurski. Since the questions parody typical academic practice, some of the instructions would be appropriate in a particular context and therefore be particularly relevant to a certain type of reader. Thus, the “you” of the study questions refers neither to an individual “you,” nor to a generic “you,” but instead to a specific type of “you” who is engaged in an academic study of Figurski.In his examination of second-person narratives Phelan advocates reintroducing Rabinowitz’s elapsed concept of the “ideal narrative audience” in order to characterize instances of “you” that appeal to or signal the existence of a particular type of nar- ratee. Rabinowitz defines the ideal narrative audience as the audience for which the narrator wishes he were writing. . . . This . . . audience believes the narrator, accepts his judgments, sympathizes with his plight, laughs at his jokes even when they are bad. I call this the ideal narra- tive audience, that is, from the narrator’s point of view. In John Barth’s End of the Road, the authorial audience knows that Jacob Horner has never existed; the narrative audience believes he has existed but does not entirely accept his analyses; and the ideal narrative audience accepts uncritically what he has to say. (134)