Character: The Narrator (Scottish Highers English): Revision Notes

Character: The Narrator

Introduction to the narrator

The narrator in "The Existence of the Hermit" is never named or given a distinct identity. Despite this anonymity, the narrator plays an essential role in shaping how readers understand the story. The narrator functions as the voice of the village, filtering events through the collective perspective of the community. This means that everything readers learn about the hermit and the three incidents comes through someone who is deeply embedded in village values and attitudes.

The narrator appears capable of observing events and commenting on them with some objectivity. However, this apparent detachment is misleading. The narrator strongly identifies with village opinions and represents the very values that the hermit rejects by choosing to live in isolation. This creates a tension at the heart of the story: readers see the hermit through the eyes of someone who fundamentally opposes his way of life.

The collective voice

One of the most distinctive features of the narrator's voice is the repeated use of "we". The narrator does not speak as an individual but as a representative of the entire community. This collective voice appears throughout the story and reinforces the idea that the village thinks and acts as one unified group.

The narrator attempts to find out information about the hermit but fails, which frustrates the community. The narrator expresses judgemental attitudes that the whole village shares, such as in the comment:

"Naturally he never went to church"

The word "naturally" here reveals an assumption that everyone should attend church. The narrator presents the hermit's absence as obviously wrong, something that needs no explanation because it violates what the community considers normal behaviour.

The hermit's independence and self-sufficiency make him competent, but this does not earn him respect. Instead, his very existence irritates the village. The narrator conveys this constant awareness of the hermit in the line:

"In the long winter nights, in the long summer days, we knew that he was there."

This quotation uses repetition of structure ("In the long...") to emphasise the relentless nature of the hermit's presence in the villagers' minds. The simple statement "we knew that he was there" shows that the hermit does not need to do anything for the village to feel disturbed by him. His mere existence is enough to unsettle them.

The narrator's response to the three incidents

The narrator describes the three incidents involving village members (the old man, the schoolmaster and the bachelor) in what seems like a neutral, non-reactive manner. When recounting how the old man suddenly abuses his wife after decades of marriage, the narrator comments only that this is "odd". This understated language appears to show restraint, but it also reveals a lack of deeper emotional engagement with the suffering of the wife. The narrator observes but does not truly respond with the moral concern the situation deserves.

Similarly, when describing the schoolmaster, the narrator uses simple, direct language:

"very vain man"

The narrator explains the village's passive acceptance of the schoolmaster's behaviour:

"none of us ever contradicted him since we all wanted to lead quiet lives"

This explanation seems reasonable on the surface, but it reveals a community that prioritises conformity and avoiding conflict over honesty or challenging bad behaviour. The phrase "quiet lives" becomes a way of justifying moral cowardice.

Understated criticism

Although the narrator's tone often seems mild, the criticism of certain characters is actually quite harsh when examined closely. The narrator's comments about the schoolmaster include:

"he had forgotten that after all he was only a schoolmaster in a very small school"

"there were many people who were cleverer than him"

These statements appear factual and calm, but they cut deeply. The narrator reduces the schoolmaster's inflated self-image by reminding him (and readers) of his limited status. The phrase "after all" suggests that the schoolmaster should have known better than to think highly of himself. The observation that many people were cleverer than him is presented as an obvious truth that the schoolmaster failed to recognise.

The bachelor receives similar understated criticism. The narrator describes his transformation from:

"neat and elegant" to "ragged and dirty" with a "straggly beard"

The narrator also notes that he:

"allowed… to go to rack and ruin"

The word "allowed" places responsibility on the bachelor for his decline. The narrator does not express sympathy for whatever caused this breakdown but instead implies that the bachelor chose to let himself deteriorate. This shows the narrator's tendency to judge harshly while maintaining a calm, reasonable tone.

The hermit's disappearance and the narrator's interpretation

When the hermit leaves, the narrator describes finding the door open:

"door…,was wide open as if he was inviting people to see that he had gone"

This interpretation reveals something important about the narrator and the village. Rather than accepting that the hermit might simply have left the door open without thinking about them, the narrator suggests the hermit deliberately left it open as a message. The phrase "as if he was inviting people" shows that the village cannot believe the hermit is indifferent to them.

They find it easier to imagine that the hermit cares enough about the village to send them a defiant message than to accept that he genuinely does not care what they think. This exposes the village's self-importance and their inability to comprehend someone who truly exists outside their social expectations.

The unreliable narrator

The narrator's reliability comes into question most clearly at the end of the story. The narrator claims:

"We succeeded in blotting him entirely out of our minds"

However, almost immediately, the narrator looks forward to a future time:

"we won't remember anything at all about him, thank God"

This makes the narrator unreliable because what they say does not match the evidence their own words provide.

Apparent insight versus actual complicity

The narrator often seems reflective and philosophical, as if capable of standing back and examining the village's behaviour with some critical distance. The narrator can describe how villagers react and even question some of their responses. However, this appearance of insight has clear limits. The narrator never fully steps outside the village mindset or challenges its fundamental values. The narrator recognises that the hermit is harmless but still accepts and justifies the village's rejection of him.

This creates a tension between understanding and complicity. The narrator understands what is happening but participates in it nonetheless. The narrator sees the problem but does not oppose it. This makes the narrator complicit in the treatment of the hermit, even while appearing to reflect critically on events.

Universalising the village's response

The narrator frequently makes general statements about "human beings" as if the village's response to the hermit represents universal human nature. By framing envy, resentment and fear as unavoidable aspects of being human, the narrator reduces both personal and communal responsibility. This rhetorical strategy allows the village to see its behaviour as natural and inevitable rather than as a moral choice that could be questioned or changed.

When the narrator suggests that "human beings" naturally respond with suspicion to those who are different, this presents the village's hostility as beyond their control. It removes agency and moral responsibility from the villagers, suggesting they cannot help behaving this way. This is a form of self-justification that the narrator uses to defend the community's actions.

Normalising conformity

Although the narrator claims not to judge the hermit, the language repeatedly normalises conformity and presents deviation from social norms as problematic. The phrase:

"naturally he never went to church"

shows an assumption that church attendance is the norm and that not attending requires explanation. The word "naturally" suggests the hermit's absence from church is what anyone would expect from someone like him, reinforcing the idea that he is fundamentally different and therefore wrong.

References to leading "quiet lives" appear throughout the narrator's account. These references reveal an underlying belief that avoiding conflict and maintaining social harmony are more important than honesty, individuality or moral courage. The narrator does not challenge these assumptions but quietly reinforces them through repeated use of such language.

The narrator's tone and its implications

The narrator's tone throughout the story is calm, reasonable and measured. This creates a disturbing effect because acts of cruelty, personal breakdown and social exclusion are described without emotional intensity or moral outrage. The narrator recounts the old man's sudden abuse of his wife, the schoolmaster's humiliation and the bachelor's disintegration with the same even tone used to describe ordinary events.

This restraint in tone mirrors the emotional restraint of the community itself. The village does not express strong emotions openly; instead, feelings are suppressed beneath a surface of politeness and reasonableness. The measured tone makes the moral implications of events more disturbing because it suggests how deeply these attitudes are embedded in village life. Cruelty and exclusion are presented as normal, unremarkable aspects of community existence.

Selective sympathy

The narrator shows sympathy for some characters but not others. The suffering of villagers receives acknowledgement and even understanding. The narrator can see why the old man might feel frustrated, why the schoolmaster feels insecure, why the bachelor struggles. However, the hermit's inner life is never considered or explored. The narrator makes no attempt to imagine what the hermit thinks or feels, what motivates his choices or what he might need or want.

This imbalance highlights the narrator's bias. Empathy is reserved for those within the community, even when they behave badly toward others. The outsider remains unknowable and therefore expendable. The narrator's selective sympathy reveals that moral consideration depends on social membership. Those who belong to the village deserve understanding; those who reject the village do not.

Relief at the hermit's disappearance

At the end of the story, the narrator's relief at the hermit's disappearance exposes the limits of their earlier reflection. Despite recognising that the hermit represents a "challenge" to the village, the narrator ultimately supports the erasure of his memory. The desire to forget is framed as gratitude rather than guilt:

"thank God"

This phrase suggests that the hermit's departure is something to be grateful for, a blessing. The narrator does not express regret or acknowledge that the village might have treated the hermit unjustly. Instead, forgetting him is presented as desirable and good. This reveals an unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths about conformity, fear and intolerance. The narrator prefers to eliminate the challenge rather than learn from it.

Overall assessment of reliability and morality

The narrator is partially reliable but morally compromised. The narrator provides valuable insight into village psychology and can articulate how the community thinks and feels. Readers learn a great deal about the village's values, fears and social dynamics through the narrator's account. In this sense, the narrator is a useful and informative guide.

However, the narrator's acceptance of communal values prevents them from fully questioning the injustice done to the hermit. The narrator never challenges the fundamental assumption that conformity is good and difference is threatening. The narrator participates in the collective hostility toward the hermit while maintaining a veneer of reasonableness and reflection.