Talk:Narratology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Improvement

Hello, everybody! I don't really know how that with the collaboration of the week functions, but I doubt that this article will be the next one. So I'm gonna try to sort it out, anyway. If anyone would like to help, I would first propose to sort out (to divide them into sub-categories) articles from the Narratology category and list them all in the main one. That would be a good start, but I realize what a huge work that is so I'll try doing it myself on the weekend, if no one does before me. Afterwards, we can add short summaries for each sub-category and give an overall view on the topic. That shouldn't be too difficult, and then anyone can add whatever one wants about history, development, etc. Thank you for reading this. --Koveras 17:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great :)--Nectar 00:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, but I don't think you should summarize those specialized articles in Category:Narratology:
  • Many, like cliffhanger, are just plot points and film tropes that don't have anything to do with the general topic
  • The overall article should stand on its own and offer a real overview
I would suggest, for better or worse, to start with a definition of Narratology (the science), then show its different aspects, theories etc. Maybe also talk about its history (how it came about that people started analyzing stories). To get there, one might read about it, ask a specialist in the field, or get inspired by other encyclopedias. Just my 2 cents. Peter S. 12:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've got your point, Peter S., but there is already more than enough material for an article in the English Wikipedia (well, apart from the definition and history), and moreover, I prefer to work with what I've got already... But these are just my personal 2 cents, I only say that I'd be a bit troublesome for me to write entire essays on the topic instead of just sorting the available info. :) --Koveras 13:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've completed what I was talking about earlier - see my sandbox. It's got really big, sorry, but there was simply too much material. I also took the liberty of messing with the categories. If anyone has specific wishes of how my article could be improved, please, state it here. This page has been removed from the CotW, anyway... --Koveras 11:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's impressive; put it up and see what people think of it. I wonder if Narrative Techniques might go better immediately before Plot Structure. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Impressive, indeed. Great job! Yes, just put it up and we'll keep working on it. Peter S. 00:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) I'll put it up right away. :) --Koveras 11:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Major over-haul"

MC.Pearce Sorry guys but this article has some large factual errors. For example, the concept of a plot gap is actually a pre-condition for most narratives, eg. 'Who dunnit?' Apart from the introduction which mentions Todorov, the article bears little relation to academic narratology. I was going to add bits, but this would be silly without a major over-haul.

You are welcome to correct any factual mistakes you find in the article and to expand it by adding sections with academic data (actually, that was my idea all along). As for the plot hole, then it is a term used to describe "a gap in the storyline when it goes against its own logic, contradicts itself or simply leaves unanswered questions". Please, note the sequence: while I agree that some questions may and should stay unanswered, I do not see how self-contradiction and illogical plot twists may be key features of a story (except when we are talking about post-modernism or some other specific genre). --Koveras 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is a travesty. Comic books and video games do not belong in an article on literary narratology, especially because their archetypes are completely separate from those commonly found in literature. All of the "stock characters" listed are from comic books, video games, or B movies. This is what happens when you let unqualified people with an inappropriate, factually inaccurate agenda edit an academic article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.28.71.89 (talk • contribs).

It is allowed to continue only if "qualified" people don't edit it. Please help if you can. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I can be called at least a semi-qualified person as far as narratology is concerned; I came here out of curiosity and I have to say I agree that I don't find this article a very good introduction to the subject of narratology - I pity the student who tries to use this as a resource in writing even a very basic essay.

However, this is not because it refers to 'stock characters' from comic books etc - after all, Roland Barthes illustrates his contribution to the field almost entirely with examples from Goldfinger - but because it makes no attempt to introduce narratology as a body of knowledge with a history and with controversies. What we have here is an almost random mass of technical definitions, with no explanation of where the terms come from, how they fit together, what their theoretical basis is, what reasons there might be for preferring alternative terms, etc. Some of the terms I don't recognise, and I can't even guess where they came from. Others I certainly do recognise, and they certainly don't belong together: for example, 'story arc' and 'peripeteia'.

In my opinion, this needs more than an edit - it needs to be started again from scratch. That's not to say that everything here should be permanently deleted, just that an article on an academic sub-discipline needs an organisation based around the historical development of that sub-discipline, the kind of questions it tries to answer, the various approaches to those questions, and the problems with those approaches. I'm sure that plenty of the current content could eventually be re-inserted, once there was a structure in place that would enable readers to make sense of it all.

Ninj 21:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly agree that this article needs to be started again from scratch! I suggest that we discus a preliminary plan for the article here on the talkpage! I suggest that we begin with a short definition, move on to a relative brief historical overview and hereafter structure the article around general thematic headlines. I have done a brainstorm. Please continue it or write your comments!

Great start! Let's get going.

Ninj 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a table with preliminary suggestions for a structure for the revision of this article (below). Please do do not hesitate to make any changes, and/or give your comments below!!

Besides, although this article needs a thourough revision, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. The many good things about the existing article should, of course, be incorporated. Jeppebarnwell 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that. It strikes me that a lot of what's currently in the article would probably be useful to people, but isn't strictly 'narratology'.

For example, all those terms like 'MacGuffin' (Hitchcock's, I think), 'Mary Sue' (used only in the fanfic community, as far as I know), and 'Fonzie syndrome' (???). These are exactly the kind of words I can imagine myself using Wikipedia to find out the meaning of. But is an article on narratology the best place for them? I mean, they're useful for discussing narrative media, but not necessarily in an academic context. And then there are the words like 'story arc' and 'back story' - I'd guess these are words that TV producers and scriptwriters developed for talking shop, which then filtered through into more general usage.

Would there be a case for one or more parallel articles to be created covering non-academic (eg. professional and fan) terms for discussing narrative?

Yes. The article as it is is a reasonable glossary of terms. It doesn't have anything to do with narratology as I came into contact with it though.

Ninj 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outline for revision of narratology article

1 Definition:
Todorov’s term. What is narratology? (We will avoid the discussion of what a narrative is and refer to the entry "narrative" for that. [I would second that.])
2 Brief history:
Pre-structuralistic (pre-narratology) narrative theory (from Plato and Aristotle to, notably, English (Forster) and German (Stanzel) and others. -Structuralistic “narratology”: Todorov, Genette, Greimas, Barthes, etc. to Rimon-Kenan, Chaman, Prince, etc. -Post-structuralistic narrative theory: Culler(?), Johnson, etc. -Newer approaches: Cognitive and linguistic approaches to narrative, Bortolussi and Dixon, Fludernik, Emmott, etc.
3 Narrators and narrating
What is a narrator? Unreliable narrators.

Basic square of oppositions: extradiegetic, outside the story / interdiegetic, inside the story homodiegetic, one narrator / heterodiegetic more than one narrator How this influences reliability / objectivity, generic trends for one style or another etc.
4 Plot structure and devices
Different accounts:

Propp's Morphology of the Folk Tale; Russian formalism's Syuzhet / fabula split; Genette's order / frequency / duration; Traditional dramatic devices: deus ex machina, pathetic fallacy, asides /soliloquy etc. (Though this may be better in its own section.)
5 Point of view and focalization.
From early POV theory to Genette to cognitive rejections of the concept of focalization
6 Characters and characterization
Greimas. Forster?
7 Narrative and films
David Bordwell
Other?
please add
Other?
please add
Other?
please add

[edit] Discussion of the outline

'What is narrative' is a minefield. I'd suggest we stay away from it - let's just note that it is necessarily presupposed in some way by the discipline of narratology, but that it is a very problematic term. Then we can include a link to the 'narrative' page and leave it at that. Attempts to define narrative belong there, not here.

Of course, this makes the question of what narratology actually is rather difficult to deal with - it's the scientific, semi-scientific, or pseudo-scientific study (take your pick) of something that has no universally agreed definition, even among practitioners of the discipline.

But then again, it's no good trying to pretend things are more settled than they are.

Ninj 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual narratives/Historiography: Hmm. I'm not sure this belongs - historiography is an entirely different discipline. The same would go for all sorts of other things, like the sociolinguistic study of storytelling, or Narrative Analysis therapy, or the ethnographic study of oral culture, or theories of the importance of narrative to ordinary cognitive processing. We can't cover every approach to the study of every kind of narrative - narratology is something quite specific, and there are other Wikipedia pages to discuss other disciplines. Of course, a hyperlink wouldn't go amiss.

Ninj 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

M.C.Pearce I have added some content to the table (although I am not good at formatting it). I agree with Ninj on what the scope of the article should be, that is limited. Most of the narratological literature discusses fictional plays, prose and poems, and their general structures. Going too far from this won't give a balanced impression of what narratology has been about. The common cognitive ground could perhaps be dealt with in a 'current narratology, and onwards' section.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/r/Talk%7ENarratology_a4e5.html"