As someone new to the study of narrative, I am frustrated by the discrepancies in definitions between narratologists. If narratology is the science of literature, an idea repeated often throughout our readings, then shouldn't there be clearly defined concepts for narratologists to work with? Imagine the chaos if chemists did not agree upon the foundational chemistry concepts.
Narratologists seem to agree on the bases of their study; they want to study the events within a story. However, each narratologist has their own interpretation and definition of concepts such as fabula, plot, sjuzet, and story. The various interpretations are not wildly different, either. They are just different enough. How I see it, narratology has a decent foundation but everyone within the field is working with different colored and sized bricks.
I think it finally clicked for me once I read Barbara Hernstein Smith's "Narrative Versions, Narrative Theories." She recognizes the complexity of the field due to the multitude of dualistic concepts. In her words, narratology is "afflicted" by these. I feel so, too. However, my frustration diminished as I continued to read Hernstein Smith.
Hernstein Smith also believes that every retelling of a narrative creates a new narrative with unique goals (143). Our interpretations are essentially new versions of the narrative. Wouldn't that mean that every time a narratologist defined a concept, she was adding to the collection of versions or retellings of that concept? We might find ourselves reading a collection of 345 variants ofCinderella narrative theory.
Narratologists seem to agree on the bases of their study; they want to study the events within a story. However, each narratologist has their own interpretation and definition of concepts such as fabula, plot, sjuzet, and story. The various interpretations are not wildly different, either. They are just different enough. How I see it, narratology has a decent foundation but everyone within the field is working with different colored and sized bricks.
I think it finally clicked for me once I read Barbara Hernstein Smith's "Narrative Versions, Narrative Theories." She recognizes the complexity of the field due to the multitude of dualistic concepts. In her words, narratology is "afflicted" by these. I feel so, too. However, my frustration diminished as I continued to read Hernstein Smith.
I emphasized a bit earlier that no narrative version can be independent of a particular teller and occasion of telling and, therefore that we may assume that every narrative version has been constructed in accord with some set of purposes or interests. (142)If we follow this idea that narratives are unique based off of who is telling and who is receiving, then it makes sense that the concepts of narratology are slightly different based on the narratologist's definitions. Everyone interprets stories differently. Everyone summarizes differently. So everyone works within their interpretations of the concepts.
Hernstein Smith also believes that every retelling of a narrative creates a new narrative with unique goals (143). Our interpretations are essentially new versions of the narrative. Wouldn't that mean that every time a narratologist defined a concept, she was adding to the collection of versions or retellings of that concept? We might find ourselves reading a collection of 345 variants of
Comments
Post a Comment