{"id":150,"date":"2017-06-14T11:07:48","date_gmt":"2017-06-14T10:07:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/licor.hivolda.no\/?page_id=150"},"modified":"2017-08-17T11:15:31","modified_gmt":"2017-08-17T10:15:31","slug":"further-definitions-of-narrative","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/licor.hivolda.no\/?page_id=150","title":{"rendered":"Further definitions of narrative"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not all textbooks\u00a0on narrative agree on the checklist of characteristics\u00a0that determine if something is a narrative or not. Those that insist on such a detailed list, moreover, are likely to take issue with the fairly general definition we ourselves will be\u00a0using throughout this module. With this in mind, we have identified below four\u00a0of the main criticisms that could be levelled against our definition of narrative, along with our brief responses to them. The fourth and final criticism includes a list of some of the most common additional qualities narratologists believe must be present if something is to be considered a narrative in the fullest sense.<\/p>\n

We have not gone into these criticisms in great detail because we believe that the ability to determine whether something is a narrative in the strictest sense is not what is really important in this module. What\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0important is that you acquire a set of tools and techniques that can help you recognise\u00a0and analyse any form of verbal, visual or aural communication that includes narrative elements.<\/p>\n

Criticism 1: to associate narrative with storytelling is unnecessarily confusing<\/b><\/p>\n

The problem with defining narrative as storytelling is that the word story<\/em> is also used to identify one very specific, and actually fairly limited, element of narrative in particular (for this particular meaning of \u2018story,\u2019 see here<\/a>). This is why you\u00a0may come across textbooks, teachers and\/or critics who explicitly advise you not\u00a0to define\u00a0narrative as\u00a0storytelling. They believe we run the risk of becoming unnecessarily confused if we use the word story<\/em> both in its\u00a0more limited sense and in the broader sense of \u201ceverything a narrative says.\u201d<\/p>\n

We disagree. So long as we do not think of narrative as \u201ca story\u201d but place the emphasis on storytelling<\/em> \u2013 the telling of a story \u2013 there is no reason for any confusion. We will know what narrative is.\u00a0To recognise that narrative involves storytelling<\/em> requires us, after all, to look beyond the story itself and to pay especial attention to the way in which that story is told. It requires us to attend to such things as the order in which the events of the story are narrated (the plot<\/strong>), who is telling the story (the narrator<\/strong>) and to whom it is being told (the narratee<\/strong>). It requires us to attend, too, to the social, historical and personal perspectives and belief systems that inform the telling of the story (focalisation<\/strong>), the manner in which the characters are presented to us (characterisation<\/strong>), and the kind of world in which those characters live and act (the setting<\/strong> or storyworld<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

Criticism 2: narrative is not a widespread phenomenon that plays a role\u00a0in all aspects of human life, but something that appears in literature alone<\/strong><\/p>\n

This criticism is based on the view that the proper definition of narrative is actually very narrow and that if an act of storytelling is to qualify as a narrative it must adhere to a number of very specific criteria (of the kind listed in the next section below). For instance, if you believe that a narrative must a) involve the representation of a particular sequence of events that takes place within an individually configured experience of time, and b) contain a moment of surprise, reversal and\/or realisation, it becomes impossible to use the word narrative<\/em> in\u00a0anything other than a loosely metaphorical sense in statements such as\u00a0\u201cChristianity has shaped the narrative of the Western world\u201d or \u201cfar right groups across the whole of Europe are offering a much more compelling narrative than their leftwing opponents.\u201d<\/p>\n

We find\u00a0this argument unconvincing.\u00a0In our view, any attempt to restrict the scope of narrative to literature alone is unnecessarily fussy. Aside from\u00a0anything else, it threatens to detract from, rather than enhance, our\u00a0sense of what makes literature so vital a part of human existence and self-understanding. If we are to treat the stories literary narratives tell as capable of referring only\u00a0to themselves and therefore incapable of\u00a0intersecting with the stories we and various public practices and institutions tell about ourselves in \u2018real\u2019 life, we\u00a0run the risk of reducing literature\u00a0to little more than a mere distraction or form of escapism.<\/p>\n

Criticism 3: narrative properly understood appears only in certain kinds of literature<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not only does narrative in its strictest sense appear only in literature, some narratologists argue, but it appears only in certain kinds of literature. There are many variations on this view, but perhaps the principal one (which we will use here by way of illustration) is that narrative involves telling<\/em> what happened (the technical term for which is\u00a0diegesis<\/em>) as opposed to\u00a0showing\u00a0<\/em>what happened (which is known in narratological circles as\u00a0mimesis<\/em>). Another way of putting this is to draw a distinction between\u00a0a\u00a0summary<\/em> (in which an event or sequence of events is recounted at a later point in time in a manner that involves selection and mediation) and a\u00a0scene<\/em> (in which that event or sequence of events is allowed to unfold before us as\u00a0we watch or read). The first item in both these pairs of characterisations (telling<\/em> and\u00a0summary<\/em>) signifies the presence\u00a0of narrative, it is argued, while the second item\u00a0(showing<\/em> and\u00a0scene<\/em>) confirms its absence. Broadly interpreted, this definition excludes from the category of narrative those literary forms such as theatre drama, graphic novels and cartoons (as well as television programmes, films, paintings and sculptures) that offer a direct presentation or enactment of the events involved. In order to count as a narrative, these scholars argue, the story must by contrast be told by a narrator (or collection of narrators) to someone (who in practice is usually the reader) who does not have direct access to the events recounted themselves.<\/p>\n

This too is a viewpoint we find unnecessarily restrictive and ultimately somewhat incoherent. We agree that different genres of literature tell their stories in different ways and that this plays a crucial role in the kinds of stories that emerge and in the meanings they\u00a0convey. Nonetheless, we prefer to view these variations\u00a0as part of the rich tapestry of narrative rather than as something else entirely. To us, such variations are\u00a0as much a part of the warp and weft of narrative as are the divergent ways in which plots might be constructed, settings established, characters fleshed out, points of view expressed, and so on.<\/p>\n

(The reason we find any attempt to associate narrative with diegesis<\/em> and to distinguish it from mimesis<\/em>\u00a0ultimately incoherent is because these two modes of communication frequently intertwine. Passages of apparent\u00a0mimesis<\/em> often contain passages of\u00a0diegesis<\/em> \u2013 such as the so-called\u00a0\u2018messenger speech\u2019 in Greek tragedy \u2013 while passages of\u00a0diegesis<\/em> in turn commonly contain moments of\u00a0mimesis<\/em> \u2013 such as when a narrator records a dialogue in direct speech between two or more characters).<\/p>\n

Criticism 4: the definition of narrative as\u00a0the representation of an event or sequence of events that takes place in time<\/em> is too general and leaves out too many of the specific qualities that distinguish narratives from other kinds of<\/strong> discourse<\/strong><\/p>\n

We agree with this criticism to the extent that we believe this representation must take the form of\u00a0the telling of a story<\/em>, but we would be hesitant to specify what this might involve more precisely. The reason for our hesitation is that storytelling can (and should be allowed to) take many different forms. What follows, then, is a short list of some of the most common requirements narratologists have claimed a story must fulfil if it is to be regarded as a narrative. Given that no narratologist would ever suggest a narrative must fulfil all these requirements, you should evaluate each of these criteria individually and decide which (if any) of them offer you additional insights into the particular narrative you are studying.<\/p>\n

Competing definitions of narrative have suggested that narrative must:<\/p>\n