We often take narrators of texts, especially of fictional works, for granted. We don’t think to question the authority of the person (or ‘intelligence’) relating the stories we read; we’re usually so caught up in plots or themes that we don’t see past what’s written on the page. However, analyzing less explicit aspects of a text often offers a whole new realm of interpretation. Examining the authority of the narrator is one extremely useful way to discover a text’s real roots. Considering how we know what we know, or even more insightful, how the narrator knows what he/she knows, is a useful analytical technique to employ when trying to comprehend the intricacies of a work. Many times this level of analysis is required in order to ascertain a text’s true meaning, and sometimes such examination even affects how we perceive the resolution of the surface plot. This issue of epistemological indeterminacy is especially valuable to think about when analyzing Benito Cereno¹ by Herman Melville. This novella is literally packed with meaning, but the reader has to dodge a plethora of obstacles and trip-wires to grasp the true meat of it. It is a story about deception, and it tries to deceive its readers the whole way through. One of the biggest ways Melville tries to trick his audience is by choosing to let Captain Delano act as the ‘detective’ figure in the text. Captain Delano occupies the typical ‘outsider’ role in the plot, which leads us to expect him to solve the mystery. However, he turns out to be much more problematic and much less reliable than he first appears. Instead of untangling the confusion in Benito Cereno, Captain Delano’s character only increases the ambiguity of the novella, and challenges the integrity of the readers’ own assumptions and beliefs.

Captain Delano’s stable affect is a large part of the foundation of deception that the entire story rests on. Unlike the other characters in the text, Captain Delano isn’t immediately painted with intrigue; he has a relatively neutral demeanor compared with the other main characters. Melville doesn’t directly assign him any highly distinguishable qualities that would allow the reader to categorize him and define his potential as a participant in the plot. He is described as "good" (Melville, 36, 47, 51…) dozens of times over the course of the story, and Melville also frequently parades him as an "honest" (46, 73…) man. These adjectives don’t add a lot of detail to our impression of the captain, but they do generally portray him as a well-strung, even-tempered person. He appears to be fairly self-sufficient and immune to deception.

This description doesn’t say much about Delano (although keen readers may find the connotations of "undistrustful" intriguing), yet it has a very positive spin. His "undistrustful good nature" is at the heart of what makes him so acceptable and likable. He’s not cynical, but it’s evident that he is somewhat grounded. He’s a pretty balanced person who leads as straight a life as he can, and we get the feeling he’s not someone that will lead us astray. Once we’re coaxed into liking him, our own analytical skills become dulled. Because we experience the events and situations of the plot through the captain’s senses, and because we generally like his personality, we don’t think to question the validity of his judgments. If we fall into this trap, we risk missing all the key nuances and hints scattered throughout the story, and may be shocked at the end to learn of our faithful guide’s ineptitude.

Captain Delano has unconscious racial biases that taint the way he sees the world, and because we experience the events of the novella through his eyes, these prejudices also skew our perspective. He doesn’t believe he holds any biases; he thinks of himself as a liberal and proper man. He considers his perceptions of African Americans to be righteous, and he’s even proud of his ‘open-minded’ perspectives.

He proudly describes his "genial" attitude toward blacks as though it emphasizes his accepting, tolerant nature. By firmly believing he has a mature, noble perception of blacks, he also tempts the reader to adopt his perspective. He doesn’t use blatantly racist terminology, and he seems to have a relatively positive outlook. However, his preconceived notions are obviously problematic. Even in the above citation, where he thinks he’s being very fair and tolerant, his ignorance shines through. Comparing black people to dogs could not be considered correct under any circumstances. Even in 1799, when this story takes place, this comparison wouldn’t have been viewed as particularly open-minded. But he seems to have a consistent tendency to compare African Americans to animals:

This stunning passage contains more proof of Captain Delano’s impossibly prejudiced perspective than the rest of the novella combined. He apparently thinks black women are pretty to look at (like does are), but are only useful because they give birth. He describes the woman’s child as a "fawn" who can only "grunt", as if he were depicting the runt of a litter of pigs. Neither of them act in human ways; the child "[clambers] upon her", as if the mother is a tree the child is trying to climb; and the woman is portrayed as "slumbering", like a bear in hibernation. Elsewhere in the novella, we learn from the captain that "[blacks are] too stupid" (63) to hatch and execute any sort of conspiracy to take over the ship. To think that it is our narrator who utters these slanderous, prejudiced remarks! The whole story is being filtered through these eyes. These are large warning signs telling us to be as "shrewd" (63) when reading this work as Captain Delano suggests the white race is.

In addition to being blinded by his core racial biases, Captain Delano also has poor analytical skills which prevent him from noticing many helpful hints that appear in the course of his experience which would enlighten him (as well as the reader) as to the true nature of his dilemma. His strong prejudices definitely contribute to his oblivion, but the effect they have on his perspective is intensified by his lack of analytical skills. He often offers his interpretation of odd scenarios, but his perspectives almost never reflect the true nature of the situations. The explanations he proposes are frequently fairly simple, and don’t even come close to accurately representing the reality of what’s happening. Captain Delano is unable to recognize the blatant symbolism when Babo, the ‘slave,’ uses the Spanish flag as a shaving bib on Benito Cereno:

This is a painfully obvious sign of Babo’s domination over Benito Cereno. Nobody with any amount of dignity would use their country’s flag as a shaving bib unless something was wrong. One would especially expect a captain of a ship to be much nobler than that. Captain Delano is curious why Cereno is allowing this to happen, but it doesn’t cause him to reconsider the entire situation. Instead, he just comes up with a simple, unfounded explanation which further accentuates his strong racial biases. He cannot assimilate this scene into his perception of what’s happening on the San Dominick. Another instance where Captain Delano completely misreads flaming symbolism happens when Babo physically supports the dilapidated Benito Cereno. "As master and man stood before him, the black upholding the white, Captain Delano could not but bethink him of the beauty of that relationship which could present such a spectacle of fidelity on the one hand and confidence on the other" (45). Babo has his ‘master’ completely under his control in this passage. We get the impression that if he were to let go of Don Benito, the captain would fall flat on his face. However, Captain Delano doesn’t see it that way. He mistakes deceit for "fidelity" and powerlessness for "confidence". He cannot interpret the situation accurately because his analytical skills are impaired by his impossible biases. This example clearly illustrates why he is such an unreliable narrator. We can’t trust him to recognize the truth in all situations; he is not objective enough to be fully trustworthy. His own identity taints the way he analyzes his experiences, and therefore the reader is at risk of being deceived into believing slanted information.

Benito Cereno can be enjoyed on many different levels. The main plot is intriguing and original; the average reader may enjoy getting tricked by Captain Delano’s ignorance. However, when we consider exactly why we are susceptible to deception, we come to some interesting conclusions. We realize that we automatically assume the captain to be trustworthy because of our preconceived notions about the types of people that can and can’t be trusted. We are also forced to question our own perceptions of race, if indeed Delano fools us. This novella calls into question our very structures of belief. The naïve captain serves as a reminder to us to always be alert and open-minded, because even if we think we have an objective perspective on reality, we probably don’t. Everybody is ignorant about some things, and ignorance breeds bias. The ambiguity Delano adds to this story is crucial to the overall message the text tries to convey: we shouldn’t believe everything we’re told without first passing it through our own analytical framework.