Parenthetical asides from the narrator (as ) pepper . The hears of how the book�s is coming along as it is . The sees . The seems to, on the surface, present a difference between the narrator who is a character in the and the in parenthesis who is creating the novel. This may look like the is attempting to seize control of the book back from the . The is giving himself more exposure time, perhaps proving that he is alive and well and in control. However, this too eventually becomes part of the or the . The is, of course, fictionalizing himself by placing himself in a fictional . The is not in control because he is merely another character in the . Making the a thing of true fiction does have the surface structure of being a �perfect� poststructuralist (That is, it comments on the , fits in with the notion of �pleasure� over bliss, and has many levels of �truth� while still being understood as a novel). However, it is important to understand exactly who is fictionalized. The � � of the story does not necessarily draw any parallels with himself. makes no attempt to make the �real� externally. The in this situation is merely a slightly more complex narrator. The asides alone do not offer a compelling enough story that this speaker is indeed the �true� . A pretend is the only person who is fictionalized. The does not attempt to feature (much less comment on) the notion of a �true� .
takes the degree of to a greater level. The eventually becomes a character himself. He does not become a character in the sense that the narrator has reached the moment where he must be introduced into the story as in Rushdie�s work. The author as . is inset into the as the of the and not an original part of the story. The interacts with the characters and lives in the characters� world as the author of the novel. More so, he is hurt in this world and has lost the �power of god� he once had. The injury of the and the fall from such a high place seems to obviously mimic vision of the . Making the a character to be controlled by the world around him seems to be the ultimate poststructuralist coup. It is a diagram on the death. Yet, what real difference is there between this � � and a mere delusional first person narrator? Killing an �I� is not as hard as killing .