Structuralist narratology is really not that scary

[BlackShanglan]

I promise. As an example, I offer this fascinating gem from Todorov. I have been mulling it all day, and am amazed to realize that I can't find a decent work of literature that breaks this simple but quite specific rule. Todorov claims that:

A story or narrative ends when it signals its closure to the reader by repeating an image from the beginning of the narrative. It may change the value (positive or negative) of the event, invert it, look at it from a new point of view, or otherwise revise it, but it does return to it. That's how we know when a story is over, and that's what gives it a sense of completion.

What really impressed me with this was that I realized that without having heard of this theory, I did obey it; it was true of every story I'd written, with the only exception being the incomplete and not very good chaptered work. What a remarkably interesting revelation.

And just think of the application for writing. If Todorov is correct, that's a wonderful clue to us as writers. It is, essentially, part of the grammar of stories; just like we know a sentence is complete when the period appears, Todorov claims that we know the story is complete when the image recurs - and know it's not satisfying when it doesn't, presumably.

Thoughts?

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

I promise. As an example, I offer this fascinating gem from Todorov. I have been mulling it all day, and am amazed to realize that I can't find a decent work of literature that breaks this simple but quite specific rule. Todorov claims that:

A story or narrative ends when it signals its closure to the reader by repeating an image from the beginning of the narrative. It may change the value (positive or negative) of the event, invert it, look at it from a new point of view, or otherwise revise it, but it does return to it. That's how we know when a story is over, and that's what gives it a sense of completion.

What really impressed me with this was that I realized that without having heard of this theory, I did obey it; it was true of every story I'd written, with the only exception being the incomplete and not very good chaptered work. What a remarkably interesting revelation.

And just think of the application for writing. If Todorov is correct, that's a wonderful clue to us as writers. It is, essentially, part of the grammar of stories; just like we know a sentence is complete when the period appears, Todorov claims that we know the story is complete when the image recurs - and know it's not satisfying when it doesn't, presumably.

Thoughts?

Shanglan

I use it in just about every story willfully... that's the point isn't it?

To resolve an issue in the story... how could you not revisit the 'issue' at the end and resolve it?

The only stories that violate this are those that are actually built like legos, with smaller stories being put together to create a larger story.

In those, sometimes the 'ending image' isn't at the beginning of the story.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[yui]

I promise. As an example, I offer this fascinating gem from Todorov. I have been mulling it all day, and am amazed to realize that I can't find a decent work of literature that breaks this simple but quite specific rule. Todorov claims that:

A story or narrative ends when it signals its closure to the reader by repeating an image from the beginning of the narrative. It may change the value (positive or negative) of the event, invert it, look at it from a new point of view, or otherwise revise it, but it does return to it. That's how we know when a story is over, and that's what gives it a sense of completion.

What really impressed me with this was that I realized that without having heard of this theory, I did obey it; it was true of every story I'd written, with the only exception being the incomplete and not very good chaptered work. What a remarkably interesting revelation.

And just think of the application for writing. If Todorov is correct, that's a wonderful clue to us as writers. It is, essentially, part of the grammar of stories; just like we know a sentence is complete when the period appears, Todorov claims that we know the story is complete when the image recurs - and know it's not satisfying when it doesn't, presumably.

Thoughts?

Shanglan

I've always thought of it simply as coming "full circle".

And, truth told, I would have never been able to, nor thought to, articulate the process as clearly as Todorov.

Even in the vignettes I write, woefully lacking in true narrative conflict, at the end of the story, I repeat the themes and images from the beginning. I hadn't really thought about it before; just sort of did it. Interesting, Shang.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I promise. As an example, I offer this fascinating gem from Todorov. I have been mulling it all day, and am amazed to realize that I can't find a decent work of literature that breaks this simple but quite specific rule. Todorov claims that:

A story or narrative ends when it signals its closure to the reader by repeating an image from the beginning of the narrative. It may change the value (positive or negative) of the event, invert it, look at it from a new point of view, or otherwise revise it, but it does return to it. That's how we know when a story is over, and that's what gives it a sense of completion.

What really impressed me with this was that I realized that without having heard of this theory, I did obey it; it was true of every story I'd written, with the only exception being the incomplete and not very good chaptered work. What a remarkably interesting revelation.

And just think of the application for writing. If Todorov is correct, that's a wonderful clue to us as writers. It is, essentially, part of the grammar of stories; just like we know a sentence is complete when the period appears, Todorov claims that we know the story is complete when the image recurs - and know it's not satisfying when it doesn't, presumably.

Thoughts?

Shanglan

That made me think of an acting class I took years ago at an improvisational comedy place, sort of like Second City. One o the cardinal rules in improv is that you always say "yes", since saying "no" will tend to kill anything that might happen during the scene. Another thing we learned is to rely on the lighting technician to "blackout" at the time the improvised scene has reached some sort of denoument - hopefully on a good laugh line.

What you learn after doing it for awhile, is that to "wrap up" a scene, you really need to somehow revisit the beginning - even if it means turning the premise on its head. You can go way afield of where you started, but to end it, you have to bring it back somehow. The scenes that ended with just a funny line never seemed to satisfy an audience in quite the same way - it was as though they were left hanging.

I'd never really considered it in the way you say Todorov states it, but it does seem to be one of those universal truths.

[edit to add] also, I remember that there was a playwright's group around that often used to have actors come in and improv scenes for them, to help develop scripts. And, actually, the scripts developed at the Improv club were mostly made that way as well; it was seldom that someone would sit down and write a scene that included dialog. Mostly, they'd dream up a situation, sometimes with a general structure of what happens, and then keep re-running it with slightly different choices to see what seemed to work best.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's true of music too- the most satisying way to end a melody is on the note it started on, and in the same way, it can be inverted, or a different pitch...

 

[togitc]

So in the esscence of sounding like a moron...

It's that along the lines of forshadowing?

 

[rgraham666]

Structuralist narratology isn't that scary.

The way you can say it without swallowing your tongue is.

 

[yui]

Structuralist narratology isn't that scary.

The way you can say it without swallowing your tongue is.

Bwhahahahaha! You should be a non-native English speaker, who instinctively wants to drop the letter "L", and try to say it.

 

[neonlyte]

BlackShanglan
His statement makes complete sense, though I confess I've never really stopped to think about it. I know from the way I work that a story idea, inspiration if you like, contain a beginning and an end, almost inseperable, visually linked before any words take shape. I'd been curiously mulling along similar lines from a comment posted by Penelope Street on a thread - her abhorance of 'back-story' caused consternation, possibly because my style of writing uses too much back story in an effort to fulfill Todorov's 'rule'.

 

[elsol]

Bwhahahahaha! You should be a non-native English speaker, who instinctively wants to drop the letter "L", and try to say it.

Structurarrist narratorrogy

or in another culture

Structuwalist nawatology

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Huckleman2000]

Structurarrist narratorrogy

or in another culture

Structuwalist nawatology

Sincerely,
ElSol

Sounds like Peter Cook as The Impressive Clergyman, in the Princess Bride.

 

[yui]

Structurarrist narratorrogy

or in another culture

Structuwalist nawatology

Sincerely,
ElSol

Sounds like Peter Cook as The Impressive Clergyman, in the Princess Bride.

You may both bite my rosy pink bum.

 

[elsol]

You may both bite my rosy pink bum.

Uh... do I get to be the one that makes it rosy pink?

Cause we got a deal if the answer is yes?

We got a deal if the answer is no... but you understand the whole give and inch take a foot thing.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Stella_Omega]

Structurarrist narratorrogy

or in another culture

Structuwalist nawatology

Sincerely,
ElSol

Funny thing about accents... the first one makes me want to shove my toungue down Yui's throat-

The second one makes me want to hit you over the head with a carrot.

"what's up, doc?"

 

[elsol]

Funny thing about accents... the first one makes me want to shove my toungue down Yui's throat-

The second one makes me want to hit you over the head with a carrot.

"what's up, doc?"

Given a choice... I would probably go with those selections too

Then again... it's a specific cultural thing for the r's to be turned into w's...

My own nationality almost overroll' r's...

A sound women (of other nationalities find fascinating), I think they make the immediate connection of what I have to do with my tongue to roll an R hard.

Not to mention, the sounds doesn't exist in the english language (at least, i don't think it does).

A latin rolled R sounds like a vibrating r...imagine a vibrator, the normal sound is ennnnn... a rolled r would be the same 'feel' but errrrr.

Maybe that's what women find fascinating, the vibration.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Oooh! I get hard talking theory!

There's a theory of fiction that says that every story starts with the presentation of an internal conflict within the protagonist. They might be in danger, they might be lonely, or cowardly, or broke, or something else. On Lit they might just be curious about butt-fucking or cross-dressing or something, but there's got to be some internal problem.

The action of the story is an acting out of this internal problem. The internal is made external, either directly or symbolically or whatever, but the story itself is a story of the character's internal change. To give the story a feeling of completeness and closure, the problem has to be revisited to show how things have changed. I think that's what Todorov's talking about, although I don't know if I buy his analysis that an "image" from the beginning has to appear at the end. Personally, I've repeated an image, but I'm more likely to revist a theme or idea to show how it's changed.

An example: Catcher in the Rye opens with an image of Holden Caulfield standing on a hill above the prep school he's flunking out of. It ends (if I remember correctly), with him in his sister's bedroom, telling her how he wants to protect her from the disappintments of adulthood. The common theme is finding your place in the world. What's Todorov's common image?

Porn's a little different, in that porn can be mere spectacle--more like dance than theater. We'll read a story just for the pleasure of watching people do it, for the descriptions of sex minus any other drama, although we still expect a character transformation in the course of the story: the good girl becomes a slut, the playboy falls in love, the principal decides he likes wearing a bra and pantyhose under his suit, something.

The dullest stories on Lit for me are the ones of happy couples having happy sex. Without an internal conflict, I just don't care about these people. No problem = no story.

 

[oggbashan]

I just thought that a story, an essay, a report -

should have a beginning, a middle and an end.

Unless you are writing Tristram Shandy.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

Given a choice... I would probably go with those selections too

Then again... it's a specific cultural thing for the r's to be turned into w's...

My own nationality almost overroll' r's...

A sound women (of other nationalities find fascinating), I think they make the immediate connection of what I have to do with my tongue to roll an R hard.

Not to mention, the sounds doesn't exist in the english language (at least, i don't think it does).

A latin rolled R sounds like a vibrating r...imagine a vibrator, the normal sound is ennnnn... a rolled r would be the same 'feel' but errrrr.

Maybe that's what women find fascinating, the vibration.


Sincerely,
ElSol

well, sure- it sounds like... a promise...
note to self- Master the rolled "R" toot sweet!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sounds like Peter Cook as The Impressive Clergyman, in the Princess Bride.

My thought pwecisewy!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oooh! I get hard talking theory!

Do write us a porn story featuring F. R. Leavis and Simone de Beauvoir getting down and dirty ...

There's a theory of fiction that says that every story starts with the presentation of an internal conflict within the protagonist. They might be in danger, they might be lonely, or cowardly, or broke, or something else. On Lit they might just be curious about butt-fucking or cross-dressing or something, but there's got to be some internal problem.

The action of the story is an acting out of this internal problem. The internal is made external, either directly or symbolically or whatever, but the story itself is a story of the character's internal change.

Ah, I very much like that idea of the internal being made external. That's a neat take on it.

Todorov also posits a theory about conflict, but his runs slightly differently. He argues that every narrative begins in a state of equilibrium, moves through a state of imbalance, and then ends in equilibrium, either by returning to the original balance or by creating a new one. Thus we might describe The Hobbit as beginning and ending in the peaceful equilibrium of Bilbo's home and in the middle moving through the imbalance of the warring forces of the narrative. I should warn you, though, that Todorov cheats (in my humble opinion). That is, he claims that some texts only represent part of the cycle of equilibrium-imbalance-equilibrium. Thus he might aruge that Catcher in the Rye just barely touches the initial equilibrium of unquestioned childhood, spends most of its time dealing with the imbalance of Holden's recognition of and confusion with adolescence, and ends with him regaining balance in assuming the adult role through protecting Phoebe. I'm not sure whether I think this is fair or not, to claim that a cycle really exists when some works only show part of it.

To give the story a feeling of completeness and closure, the problem has to be revisited to show how things have changed. I think that's what Todorov's talking about, although I don't know if I buy his analysis that an "image" from the beginning has to appear at the end. Personally, I've repeated an image, but I'm more likely to revist a theme or idea to show how it's changed.

An example: Catcher in the Rye opens with an image of Holden Caulfield standing on a hill above the prep school he's flunking out of. It ends (if I remember correctly), with him in his sister's bedroom, telling her how he wants to protect her from the disappintments of adulthood. The common theme is finding your place in the world. What's Todorov's common image?

He uses the term "image" fairly broadly; he doesn't mean that it has to be a close description or that it has to occur in the same setting, character, mood, style, or value. For example, he might argue that the opening image of Catcher in the Rye is of a character fleeing his fears and concerns about adulthood, and that the closing image is an altered-modality version of that; instead of fleeing from those fears, he has chosen to confront them and protect others from them. In that sense, his meaning of "image" is somewhere between "visual image" and "theme." He does posit a visual image, but in a more general, compositional sense.

Porn's a little different, in that porn can be mere spectacle--more like dance than theater. We'll read a story just for the pleasure of watching people do it, for the descriptions of sex minus any other drama, although we still expect a character transformation in the course of the story: the good girl becomes a slut, the playboy falls in love, the principal decides he likes wearing a bra and pantyhose under his suit, something.

The dullest stories on Lit for me are the ones of happy couples having happy sex. Without an internal conflict, I just don't care about these people. No problem = no story.

I quite love your incorporation of Aristotle. I think you've nailed it - that difference most of us perceive between porn and story or between stroke and fiction. One is spectacle, the other has plot. I agree that it's very difficult to make "happy couple having sex" interesting, and for the reasons that you cite - if you've got no change or growth or narrative structure, it has to be one hell of a spectacle. The more I get of the former, the less I feel like I need the latter.

I hear the ghost of Matthew Arnold - it's all about selecting a good action and constructing around it. And what are the great actions? The great universal human emotions, bein sure. You just can't get around those old boys.

Shanglan

 

[Stella_Omega]

My thought pwecisewy!

I feew so lowbwow, I fought of Elmer Fudd!

 

[Stella_Omega]

It seems to me, when I browse through Lit, there are two ways I read porn- one is critically, as a reader of literature, and then I have to assess the story in the way I would any written work

The other way is for the stroke value, and- that has nothing but nothing to do with the value of the writing, in some cases. Yes, a well-written tale can give me the kind of pleasure that a good lover can, but- the right combination of words can make me devour the words, so horny I can't get to the end of the paragraph. Like MSG for the hormones... Junk food for the soul.

well. *ahem*...

I'v been looking at my own work, in reference to this idea of to Todorov's, and, although I think many of my stories achieve a satisfying "full circle" feeling, I can't find where the image is repeated! But my characters always register a change, as a result of the actions. I'm pretty sure...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It seems to me, when I browse through Lit, there are two ways I read porn- one is critically, as a reader of literature, and then I have to assess the story in the way I would any written work

The other way is for the stroke value, and- that has nothing but nothing to do with the value of the writing, in some cases. Yes, a well-written tale can give me the kind of pleasure that a good lover can, but- the right combination of words can make me devour the words, so horny I can't get to the end of the paragraph. Like MSG for the hormones... Junk food for the soul.

There's nothing wrong with good hot smut, but I maintain that that kind of instant-erection porn has more in common with poetry than with fiction. It requires the same kind of brilliant image leaping off the page and into your mind, the telling detail that brings the act so vividly to life that you get that hot gush of hormones right then and there. It has nothing to do with plot, character, narrative arc or all that other BS. Just bang, zoom.

I still remember some images that did that to me in my younger days, reading one-handers (pre-internet). I rememeber the first time I read about a woman clawing the sheets during sex, and what that did to me. That one little detail brought the whole scene alive so vividly. Or another time, reading about how the woman's feet shook "like broken twigs" from the force of the man's thrusting. Instant erection. (That wasn't even a porn story either. It was Theodore Sturgeon's Some of Your Blood and I read it like 40 years ago and still remember that phrase. Shows you what a good image can do to you.)

That's what I call poetry, though, and for me, the best porn is filled with those kinds of things. So I think good, graphic porn has more in common with poetry than it does with fiction.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's an amazing analogy, Dr. M!

I'll try that- intentionally.

 

[Dar~]

My thought pwecisewy!

I imediately thought of the Griffin in Quest For Camelot. (can't tell I have kids)