Infidel wrote:Because omniscient narrators don't give opinions and because the cognitive limitations jab doesn't fly with omniscient narration,
I'd argue the "cognitive limitations" comment was the NICEST POSSIBLE WAY to state the obvious that Stanley is, bluntly, a tool. And not in the Titanic sense (which is the joke, of course). This isn't an opinion. It's empirically true. Everything we've seen of Stanley since the beginning has proven this simple fact: Stanley is, indeed, cognitively limited. Not opinion. Fact.
That itself doesn't sound like it's Parson's internal narration. We don't even know that he knows about Stanley not paying for the support plan, and not to mention that the whole thing is a little backhanded at Parson as well as Stanley (i.e. the implication that Stanley ended up with Parson because he was cheap, not because Parson was, in fact, the perfect warlord. More he's the bargain basement perfect warlord).
So since our narrator takes stabs at both Stanley and Parson (presumably for the sake of new readers) it's safe to say that the narrator is, in fact, by your own logic, neither of them. And it's not Maggie because she's busy, so busy she can barely acknowledge Parson's arrival.