I can understand how theorists have come up with so many different terms for the same concepts, as well as so many different concepts for the same terms. It can be hard to assimilate the theory language of those who came before, especially when you have ingrained connotations for certain words that refuse to fit the accepted standard. There are a multitude of factors at work, like a scholar's understanding of writing or trends in genre or simply the evolution of language, all of which are environmental factors somewhat outside an individual's control. There's also personal bias and preference playing a role in how each narratologist chooses to define terms and term definitions.
That being said, this is kinda ridiculous.
It seems like each new narratologist we are introduced to wants to change the language of narratology. Granted, that is the easiest way to make your mark on a field: agree with a known scholar’s definitions, except… However, that causes a lot of discrepancies and resulting confusion. Even in our first few readings, there are issues. For example, Abbott defines narrative as "the representation of an event or series of events" (13). Fairly straightforward, right? If we then look at Bal, we'll see that he appears to be almost allergic is using narrative as a noun, pretty much only using it as an adjective. His most similar-looking noun form is narrative text, which is "a text in which an agent relates a narrative" (83), despite the fact that he has not before this point defined the noun form of narrative according to his understanding. A closer term by definition would be his use of story, "a [series of logically and chronologically related events] that is presented in a certain manner" (83). This contrasts with Abbott's definition of story, "the event or sequence of events" (15). The definitions keep going and circles and contradicting each other with little end in sight. I'm thinking about making a chart, or a theorist-to-theorist translation dictionary.
We had talked a bit in our discussion board posts last week about definitions of things like story and storyteller, with most people having different views. However, we are all new to this; we haven't read the scholarship and familiarized ourselves with the language. That was our starting point for understanding, knowing that it would change during the course. Unfortunately, you can't learn a new language when the alphabet changes every time you switch books, and it's not effective to learn a new theory when the scholars keep changing the language.
That being said, this is kinda ridiculous.
It seems like each new narratologist we are introduced to wants to change the language of narratology. Granted, that is the easiest way to make your mark on a field: agree with a known scholar’s definitions, except… However, that causes a lot of discrepancies and resulting confusion. Even in our first few readings, there are issues. For example, Abbott defines narrative as "the representation of an event or series of events" (13). Fairly straightforward, right? If we then look at Bal, we'll see that he appears to be almost allergic is using narrative as a noun, pretty much only using it as an adjective. His most similar-looking noun form is narrative text, which is "a text in which an agent relates a narrative" (83), despite the fact that he has not before this point defined the noun form of narrative according to his understanding. A closer term by definition would be his use of story, "a [series of logically and chronologically related events] that is presented in a certain manner" (83). This contrasts with Abbott's definition of story, "the event or sequence of events" (15). The definitions keep going and circles and contradicting each other with little end in sight. I'm thinking about making a chart, or a theorist-to-theorist translation dictionary.
We had talked a bit in our discussion board posts last week about definitions of things like story and storyteller, with most people having different views. However, we are all new to this; we haven't read the scholarship and familiarized ourselves with the language. That was our starting point for understanding, knowing that it would change during the course. Unfortunately, you can't learn a new language when the alphabet changes every time you switch books, and it's not effective to learn a new theory when the scholars keep changing the language.
Comments
Post a Comment