The narrative structure of The Woman in White presents the reader with a number of potential interpretations of Walter Hartright’s intentions—from attempting to reestablish Laura’s identity to trying to avenge his rightful property. In the first chapter of the novel, Walter deceives the reader by stating that “the story [is] here presented…by more than one witness…to present the truth always in its most direct and most intelligible aspect” (Collins 5). One key piece of information that Walter leaves out until later in the novel is that he will be the one collecting all of these narratives and, presumably, editing them to fit his purpose. According to Pamela Perkins and Mary Donaghy, Walter, through his role as editor and chief narrator, “is in fact manipulating the narrative for his own ends” (392). Therefore, Walter is not presenting the truth and clearly has ulterior motives.
Walter’s motives can be understood through his representation of the “facts” that he portrays in the novel. Throughout his narrative, he presents information as though they had just occurred and as though he has the same amount of information as the reader. However, in the Third Epoch, Walter reveals that he “[has] paused and rested for a while on [his] forward course” and admits that he is “looking forward to the happier time which [his] narrative has not yet reached” (490). Due to his previous attempt at disguising his motives, Perkins and Donaghy argue that Walter’s “voice is far from reliable despite its pretense of objectivity” (396). This act of concealing his fundamental role in the text creates the initial doubt about his intentions in collecting all of this information that supposedly revolves around “the woman in white.”
If Laura is reestablished in society and Count Fosco and Sir Percival Glyde have been avenged by the time Walter collected this narrative, then his motives must lie in something else. Perkins and Donaghy claim that Walter only presents his retribution against Sir Percival to “persuade his readers that his investigative skills are unequaled” (398). Perkins and Donaghy reference Walter’s continual need to be justified in his actions by readers and other characters. His self-conscious nature reveals that Walter’s actual intention in narrating this story is a self-justification of why he deserves his new position in society, and it is an act of pride rather than of selfless love.
Walter fails in presenting himself as the hero, because, according to Perkins and Donaghy, his “shortcomings” prove that Marian is the “strong and capable figure” in the novel (398). Count Fosco even admits that his “fatal admiration for Marian restrained” him from preventing his demise” (628). Marian controls the entire plot of The Woman in White even though Walter tries to claim all the responsibility. Therefore, Wilkie Collins goes against Victorian gender constructions in The Woman in White through the flawed narrator and editorial figure of Walter and his representation of Marian as the strongest and most trustworthy character in his novel.
I really like this idea of Marian being the hero of Collin’s novel. The thing that seems bizarre, though, is how Marian’s voice is essentially eliminated from the second half of the text. Structurally speaking, Marian is only a filler narrator while Walter is away. Do you think that it is possible that Perkins and Donaghy are analyzing the text through a more modern, American lens? Perhaps Walter is a hero because he more righteously ascended the socio-economic ladder than his antithesis Sir Percival. This could possibly make more sense during the Victorian era because social mobility, something we take for granted in modern-day America, was more difficult to come by. So perhaps if we read Walter’s story through a Victorian lens, it may appear that kind, generous, righteous men deserve the aristocratic titles like Sir more than the deceptive and selfish men like Sir Percival and so Walter’s inheritance of the Limmeridge Estate would be a triumph fit for a hero.
I agree with your sentiment that Walter edits the narrative and is very deceitful about the extent to which he does so. However, unlike Donaghy and Perkins, I disagree that he is deceptive that he is the one collecting the narrative- even the “Preamble” as they refer to it clearly states that it is the narrative as begun by Walter Hartright, in which he says that it is an account he collected. I definitely agree with you that Marian is the most compelling character in the novel, although she does become rather flat in the latter half of the novel.