Watson's narration encompasses the collective stories of the three main male characters and their characterization of Irene Adler. Therefore, her failure is also theirs and indicates a broader failure of male discourse to correctly identify and codify Woman. Keeping in mind the theory of optics as well as the narrative structural models of secret stories as a guide, we can conclude that Watson, and therefore male discourse, fails as an accurate observer because the information he gets not only are unreliable, but come from misperceptions of male speech. Although varied, the majority of secret stories have an active narrator, who provides continuous commentary throughout. Hattige provides a perfect example of such a commentary with a lengthy preface by the translator. The text as written for the English reader has a preface which raises questions as to validity. As an initial comment on the story, the translator describes a glaring problem regarding the reliability of the narrator. The first is the assertion that the publisher simply translated a novel he had read. In this way, the actual author is once removed from the narration and is therefore safe from attacks and censorship. What this also accomplishes is the margin of error credited between the author and the translator. The preface even admits that the translator may not have succeeded in fully translating the story. He states "how well I did it, let the reader judge." This statement suggests the possibility of mistranslation which can have immense ramifications, as mistranslated words and phrases significantly change their meaning. Hattige's narrator moves from "translator" of the preface to...... middle of paper...... Letter from H-Gg, Esq." Eighteenth-Century Fiction 17.2 (2005): 207-30. Print. Earla Wilputte argues that Haywood's letter is a parody rather than a serious petition from a Jacobite supporter. She responds in a general manner to criticism that identifies Manley as a conservative and therefore considers his writings favorable. to the Jacobites She also takes up Paula Backschudei's argument about Haywood's ironic narrator supporting her argument using secondary experts and a primary document from Haywood's writings as she shows some contradictory aspects of the primary documents regarding the. prince and the telling of her story, she does not sufficiently address opposing ideas regarding the seriousness of the story or the motivation she might have had for writing against the Jacobites..