The Narrator isn't omnipotent at all, Danielle Sison

I have assumed that the 3rd person narrator is all knowing, it knew every intimate thought and detail of each character. I was shocked when the narrator asked questions about the character.

"Even so the way he rushed into his decision seems rather odd to me. Could it perhaps conceal something else, something deeper that escaped his reasoning?" ( p194)

This comes to play with one of the main motifs of the book: opposites and duality.

The narrator then becomes an important symbol also. It's suppose to be all knowing and omniscient, but how can he truly be a 3rd person narrator if it itself, must ask questions about the characters? The narrator is not truly all knowing, therefore he cannot truly be 3rd person. It is either you are all knowing or you're not. But in yet, he is a combination a duality of opposition. It is a 3rd person narrator who is not all knowing.