Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Narratologia
Contributions to Narrative Theory
Edited by
Fotis Jannidis, Matas Martnez, John Pier
Wolf Schmid (executive editor)
Editorial Board
Catherine Emmott, Monika Fludernik
20
ISBN 978-3-11-022242-5
ISSN 1612-8427
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of
this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Laufen
Preface
This volume contains revised versions of the papers presented at the Inaugural Symposium of the Center for Narrative Research, which took place from
June 25-26, 2007 at the University of Wuppertal. The contributions by Andreas Mauz and Harald Weilnbck were added in order to emphasize the
cross-disciplinary character of the volume. The editors wish to thank Wolfgang Schmid, the executive editor of the Narratologia series, for his generous
support, and the external reviewers (whoever they are) for their very helpful
suggestions. We would also like to thank Anne-Catherine Hffer, who
helped prepare the layout for this volume, Joseph Swann for his translations
and careful proof-reading, Manfred Link for his work on the manuscript and
Manuela Gerlof at de Gruyter.
Wuppertal, May 2009
Sandra Heinen and Roy Sommer
Contents
1
11
35
ANSGAR NNNING
48
71
ROY SOMMER
88
MONIKA FLUDERNIK
Contents
SILKE HORSTKOTTE
Kindt and Hans-Harald Mller (2003) under the seemingly simple, yet ultimately controversial question: What is Narratology?
In his introductory essay, which was presented as a keynote speech to
the conference from which this volume emerged, Bo Pettersson takes up this
key issue in the ongoing debate between restrictive and expansive narratologists, i. e. the convergence of narratology and hermeneutics. Pettersson
argues that the common distinction between two allegedly incompatible approaches focussing on formal issues from a synchronic perspective (theories
of narrative) on the one hand and contextual or diachronic perspectives on
the other (theories of interpretation) ignores the fact that both share an interest in textuality. Building on the work of Paul Ricoeur, and referring to
Schleiermachers notion of interpretation, Pettersson proposes to combine
what he calls a moderately intentionalist view of the literary work with the
toolkit of post-classical narratology. The usefulness of this hybrid approach
to the analysis and interpretation of narrative fiction, termed contextual
intention inference, is then explored in a close reading of the ending of
Kate Chopins novel The Awakening (1899).
This is followed by an equally programmatic critique of post-classical
narratologies by Tom Kindt which endstongue in cheekwith a move
towards classical narratology, the point of departure for all contextual narratologies. In keeping with the restrictive position in narratology, Kindt calls
for a strict separation of theories of narrative and theories of interpretation
and points out that narratologically informed interpretations of literary texts
dont require a revision of existing narrative theory. He then rejects claims
that narratology might serve as a foundation for interdisciplinary narrative
research or that narrative theory might benefit from interdisciplinary applications, concluding that we should leave narratology as it is.
Ansgar Nnnings plea for contextualist and cultural extensions of classical narratology takes a more pragmatic stance, encouraging further efforts
to develop narratology into a context-sensitive theory of narrative. Nnning
refutes binary oppositions such as text vs. context, form vs. content and topdown approaches vs. bottom-up approaches as a false set of choices, arguing
for an alliance between postclassical and classical narratologies instead. He
emphasizes the achievements of postclassical approaches which have uncovered new and productive lines of narrative in a variety of fields, from feminist to postcolonial criticism, yet he also underlines that contextualist narratology is still in its infancy. The crucial question of the future of narrative
theory and narratological analysis is closely linked to their ability to contribute to our understanding of culture as an ensemble of narratives.
Nnnings final remarks on the challenges posed to narratology by the
cultural functions of narratives as crucial ways of making sense of the world
anticipate the theme of David Hermans contribution to this volume. In his
article Narrative Ways of Worldmaking, Herman investigates how interpreters create mental models of characters, situations and events (storyworlds) in the reception process. This approach, which integrates cognitive
and transmedial approaches, is not restricted to a specific corpus of narrativesHermans examples include face-to-face storytelling, a short story and
a graphic novelbut explores the referential properties of narrative in principle. As Hermans findings apply to all instances of world-making through
narrative, both in fictional and non-fictional discourse, and regardless of the
medium in which the story is conveyed, they will greatly increase narratologys applicability and usefulness in cross-disciplinary research projects.
Hermans analysis of narrative world-making also reveals one major
blind spot in both classical and postclassical narratologies: the making of
narratives. Extratextual communication has traditionally been excluded from
narratologys (intratextual) object domain, or it has been reduced to the reception process, leaving the production side unattended. Roy Sommer investigates why this is the case, proceeding from an equivalence hypothesis
which assumes that writing stories involves similar cognitive processes and
knowledge structures as reading them. His essay looks at psychological creativity research, which distinguishes between aspects of person, field and domain, and argues that domain-specific studies of creative behaviour such as
storytelling have to rely on expert knowledge in order to yield relevant results. Sommer then shows how the narrative domain can be re-conceptualized from a narratological perspective. His concept of narrative design accounts for the influence of generic conventions, dramaturgical planning and
storyworld constraints in the storytelling process.
Monika Fluderniks essay on narrative and metaphor has methodological
as well as theoretical implications. Using the example of the cage metaphor,
Fludernik shows how databases, widely used by corpus linguists, can enrich
narratological research. She demonstrates that metaphors can occur not only
on the levels of story and discourse, but can also be attributable to the implied author, and that they may evoke alternative mini-stories. These properties pose a challenge to narrative theory which has traditionally neglected
metaphors and their functions.
Another suggestion for an extension of existing narratological models is
made by Wolfgang Hallet whose analysis of the multimodal novel calls for a
transmodal revision of the concept of novelistic narration. Following a comprehensive survey of novels which integrate non-verbal symbolic representations and non-narrative semiotic modes into verbal narrative, Hallet first
offers a definition of the concept of multimodality. He then explores the
functions of multimodality for, among others, the construction of plots and
characters, the representation of cognition and the contextualization of nar-
ratives. In conclusion, Hallet insists on the necessity of a transmodal narratological concept of meaning construction.
Peter Verstraten revisits the controversy surrounding the narrativity of
film, reviewing several positions and concepts. Whereas historical studies
claim that, prior to the invention of cutting and editing techniques, film was
created and experienced as spectacle rather than narrative, other approaches
deny the possibility of non-narrative cinema. Other issues that pertain to the
narrativity debate are the relationship between form and content, especially
the functions of non-narrative spectacle and excess (an abundance of stylistic devices which are not motivated by the story). According to Verstraten,
excess is not a well-defined feature of film narration but largely a matter of
interpretation, and thus points to general questions of the relationship between story and style, dramaturgy and aesthetics across generic boundaries.
This is equally valid of the travelling concept of focalization whose textual manifestations and potential effects Silke Horstkotte traces in her comparative analysis of two novels by Robert Walser (Jakob von Gunten, 1909) and
Franz Kafka (Das Schlo, 1926) as well as their respective film adaptations by
Stephen and Timothy Quay (1995) and Michael Haneke (1997). Horstkotte
shows that whereas Kafkas heterodiegetic narration makes use of consistent
internal focalization, this is absent from Hanekes adaptation, despite its use
of voice over. In her readings both of Walsers novel and of cinematic focalization techniques (point of view shots, voice-over and mindscreen sequences), Horstkotte questions the strict theoretical distinction between narration and focalization. Her conclusion therefore emphasizes the interpretive
nature of narratological concepts, especially with respect to film narrative.
Whereas Verstratens and Horstkottes intermedial extensions of narratology remain within the humanities, Sandra Heinen looks at interdisciplinary
applications of narratology in the social sciences. Her survey of recent case
studies concerned with non-fictional narrative allows for the distinction of
three types of applied narratologies, based on the respective status of narrative: studies generally interested in understanding the storytelling process;
qualitative research projects, mainly interested in storytellers intensions and
motivations, which regard narrative as a way of making sense of lived experience; and, finally, studies focussing on the narrativity of scientific discourse,
especially within historiography, but also in legal studies and medical studies.
One example of a truly interdisciplinary approach within narrative research is the field of cultural memory studies which brings together scholars
from the humanities and the social sciences. Astrid Erll looks at the various
intersections of narrative and individual as well as collective memory. She
first argues that classical narratology, despite its strong emphasis on narrative
time, tends to neglect issues of remembering and remembrance, which have
only recently been addressed more systematically by cognitive narratologists.
10
Margolin, Uri. 2007. In What Direction is Literary Theory Evolving? Response. In: Journal
of Literary Theory 1:1, p. 196-207.
Murray, Janet. H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck. The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press 1997.
Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps. 2001. Living Narrative. Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Richardson, Brian. 2000. Recent Concepts of Narrative and the Narratives of Narrative
Theory. In: Style 34: 2, p. 168-175.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi:
Sage.
Wilson, Michael. 2006. Storytelling and Theatre. Contemporary Storytellers and their Art. Houndsmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wolf, Werner. 2005. Metalepsis as a Transgeneric and Transmedial Phenomenon. A Case
Study of the Possibilities of Exporting Narratological Concepts. In: Jan Christoph Meister (ed.). Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism. Berlin: de Gruyter, p. 83-108.
Zaltman, Gerald. 2003. How Customers Think. Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
BO PETTERSSON
(Helsinki)
12
Bo Pettersson
13
The one takes for the most part a synchronic, non-contextual view, the other
a diachronic, contextual one.
What has less frequently been noted is that narratology and hermeneutics have a common textual interest. Andrew Bowie (1990: 157) is right in
maintaining that Schleiermacher was in fact a precursor of the so-called linguistic turn on account of his hermeneuticsand this more than a century
before structuralism became a prevalent tendency in the human sciences.
And, now that narratology has gone beyond its structuralist beginnings, there
is noticeably more of an interdisciplinary, diachronic and contextual focus in
recent work by, say, David Herman, Monika Fludernik and Ansgar and Vera
Nnning.
As for the relation between narrative and interpretation in general, a few
years ago there was an instructive debate in Poetics Today between David
Darby (2001) on the one hand and Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Mller
(2003) on the other. The latter criticized the former for advocating contextualist narratology, since they felt it obscured the epistemological difference
between narratological (descriptive) and interpretive operations in textual
analysis, and they viewed narratology merely as an interpretive heuristic
(Kindt/Mller 2003: 416 and 416n). As we shall see at the beginning of the
next section, this kind of emphasis on narratology as a descriptive heuristic
subordinate to interpretation continues to neglect the interpretive moves
inherent in narratology.
In other words, even though some attempts have been made to combine
an interpretive angle with narrative-theoretical concerns, narratology and
hermeneutics are still a long way apart. Let me now consider some of the
most promising attempts to connect them.
All through his career Paul Ricoeur made important advances in the area
between narrative (as well as metaphor) and interpretation, and in mid-career
he even worked directly on hermeneutics. In 1970 he spoke of how we
apparently meaning we as scholarsshould searchbeyond a subjective
process of interpretation as an act on the textfor an objective process of
interpretation which would be the act of the text (Ricoeur 1981a: 162, emphases original). This approach he found not only objective but also intra-textual (Ricoeur 1981a: 162). In other words, Ricoeur was at that date
more influenced by structuralist thought than by (Gadamerian) hermeneutics. Three years later, although his stance evidently still differed from Gadamers, his position had drawn closer.
The peculiarity of the literary work, and indeed of the work as such, is [] to transcend its own psycho-sociological conditions of production and thereby to open itself to an unlimited series of readings, themselves situated in socio-cultural contexts
which are always different. In short, the work decontextualises itself, from the sociological as well as the psychological point of view, and is able to recontextualise itself in
the act of reading. (Ricoeur 1981b: 91, emphases original)
14
Bo Pettersson
In claiming that the literary work goes beyond its conditions of production
Ricoeur here (and elsewhere) signals that he is critical of the hermeneutics of
Schleiermacher and Dilthey. Yet his view of the work as decontextualised
(even if recontextualised by reading) marks his way of combining structuralism and hermeneutics, since both usually view the work in isolation (even
though Gadamer had emphasised the relation of hermeneutics to tradition).
Ricoeur goes on to explicate what he terms the status of subjectivity in interpretation and maintains that [i]n sum, it is the matter of the text [a
phrase borrowed from Heidegger and Gadamer] which gives the reader his
dimension of subjectivity; understanding is thus no longer a constitution of
which the subject possesses the key (Ricoeur 1981b: 94).
What Ricoeur did, then, during his mid-career interest in hermeneutics
was to suggest how structuralist narratology and hermeneutics could be
combined: both focus on the text and, by making the readers experience of
it objective and intra-textual and claiming that the readers subjectivity is
mainly triggered by the text, Ricoeur attempts to draw the two approaches
closer together. He even claims that semiological models, applied in particular to the theory of the narrative may help us understand that Diltheys
ruinous dichotomy between explanation and understanding can be overcome (Ricoeur 1981b: 92).1
I think Ricoeur is right in pointing out that such a stark dichotomy does
not holdand after the Science Wars I should by now be in good company.
But in other respects I feel that Ricoeurs attempt at finding some common
ground for structuralist and hermeneutic approaches was misguided. Let me
briefly raise three objections. In my opinion, a literary work cannot decontextualise itself; interpreting a work can never remain intra-textual, let alone
objective; and, as an artefact, a work cannot act as an agent by supposedly
providing readers with their dimension of subjectivity.
If Ricoeurs starting-point in combining the two approaches was mainly
hermeneutic (despite his structuralist leanings), there was at least one notable
attempt in the same direction from the narratological camp. In 1978 Uri
Margolin published a paper on what he termed the Significant Convergence of literary structuralism and hermeneutics.2 He acknowledged their different points of departure, but referring to recent work by Tzvetan Todorov
and Jonathan Culler claimed to detect signs of a structuralist approach to
phenomenology and hermeneutics (see Margolin 1978: 179). This may be
rather surprising, since it was only a few years later that structuralist narratology came to the end of its classical phasewhich in turn was due not
least to the fact that narratologists had themselves started to see the truth in
1
2
Later in his career, Ricoeur (e. g. 1988: 157-179; 207-240) also discusses hermeneutics but in
ways that do not explicitly alter his view of its relation to the study of narrative.
I would like to thank Howard Sklar for this reference.
15
the objection that their focus on the formalist how often precluded the interpretive why.
Margolin (1978: 181) went on to suggest that structuralism and hermeneutics could converge through the super science of semiotics or communication theory by giving primacy to the dynamic interference of readers
and writers code over the text in isolation. Understandably perhaps, he was
not able to show how this could be done, but his choice of semioticsan
approach closely affiliated with structuralismas a super science showed
that his way of effecting a convergence between structuralism and hermeneutics was to subsume the latter into the former. It was with reference to
the work of the Konstanz school of literary theory (presumably meaning
Wolfgang Iser and Hans Robert Jauss) that he finally put his cards on the
table: I am in fact proposing to regard structuralism as a methodological
paradigm for hermeneutics, in the same way that linguistics was for structural poetics (Margolin 1978: 183). Since Margolin (1978: 182) claimed that
structuralism with its explicit and orderly nature had a clear advantage
over hermeneutics, the convergence for him evidently meant that structuralism should hold sway but at the same time incorporate some features of
reception aesthetics in order to broaden its approach. It was in this context
symptomatic that Margolin did not refer to any hermeneutic scholar by name.
As far as I can tell, Ricoeurs and Margolins attempts to combine structuralism and hermeneutics in literary studies were among the most explicit of
their kind. To be sure (as some names already mentioned suggest), in the
1970s and 1980s there were a number of efforts among scholars with a
structuralist or reception aesthetics background to blend formalist and interpretive aspects in their approaches. But they were seldom interested in hermeneutics as such and often had a firm textual focus.
Not until the 1990s did things really change. Or did they? In his wideranging recent survey of the different kinds of narratologies of the last two
decades or so Ansgar Nnning (2006) shows how broad the field of narratology has become. The approaches are variously inspired by other areas of
study in human sciences and beyond (cultural studies, postcolonial studies,
ethics, cognitive psychology, sociolinguistics, even artificial intelligence), or
by theories such as poststructuralism or feminism. The most prevalent tendency is to combine formal study with an interest in what Nnning (2006:
154 et passim) broadly terms cultural history. Perhaps one could speak of
two kinds of move: one in which narratology broadens its structuralist approach by thematic, contextual or diachronic interests and another in which
there is a more pronounced effort to combine it with other disciplines. In
neither, however, have I detected any concerted effort to combine narratology and hermeneutics. Nevertheless there have been other moves in that di-
16
Bo Pettersson
rection. Claude Bremond and Thomas Pavel (1995: 189see also Pettersson
2002), two authorities on literary structuralism and semiotics, have noted
that poetics and aesthetics simply cannot keep feeding off intentional notions, while pretending to ignore them, thus implying a broader view of
interpretation not unlike the one I aim to present here. Peter Stockwell
(2005: 281 et passim) has also recently made a gesture towards combining
Gadamers hermeneutics with cognitive poetics and stylistics, but his approach still has evident structuralist roots. Perhaps the present state of the relation between narratology and hermeneutics is best portrayed by David Herman et al.s wide-ranging and impressive Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative
Theory (2005). This includes a short and informative article on hermeneutics
(Ankersmit 2005), which however does not discuss the relation of that field
to narrative theory. Nor does the volume include an article on interpretationwhich tallies with the deep-seated view that narratological study does
not make use of interpretation.
In other words, as far as the relation between narratology and hermeneutics goes, things have not changed much. Neither party has engaged in earnest with the other. The one really notable exception is Paul Ricoeur, but I
have already noted some misgivings about his approach, misgivings that
have to do with his grounding in Gadamers hermeneutics.
Now if the foremost twentieth-century hermeneuticists and classical and
post-classical narratologists have not been able to show how their areas of
study could be combined, can this really be done at all, and if so, how?
2. Forging the Link:
From Schleiermacher to Contextual Intention Inference
As I see it, there are two main obstacles in trying to combine narratology and
hermeneutics. The problem with narratology (which, as I have noted, still in
many ways includes structuralist traits) is its unwillingness to concede that it
entails interpretive decisions. For one thing, focusing on the formal features
of a narrative usually leads to a neglect of its thematic and ideological aspects. What is more, an emphasis on narrative chronology and the representation of consciousness is itself the result of interpretive decisionsevidence
enough that insights into some aspects of a literary work entail blindness to
others. This is one reason why many narratologists in the 1980s and 1990s
turned to thematics (see Pettersson 2002) and why, at the same time, the socalled post-classical narratology (with related contextual and diachronic interests) got under way. Nevertheless, as far as I can see, the role of interpretation in narratology has not yet been adequately discussed. The other obstacle is that even when hermeneutics has analysed particular literary works
17
(and on these rare occasions they have tended to be fictional), it has not notably used narratological tools in doing so. I have suggested above that this
may have to do with the kind of hermeneutics that has prevailed since the
mid-twentieth century.
As my brief comments on Schleiermacher may already have suggested, I
hold that his hermeneutics laid the foundations not only for a more tenable
and useful kind of literary hermeneutics but also for one that can accommodate, and even in part merge with, narratology.
However, let me first briefly discuss Gadamers and Ricoeurs refutation
of Schleiermachers attempt to reconstruct the meaning of a work linguistically and historically. In Gadamers (1996: 167) words such an attempt is
nonsensical and no more than handing on a dead meaning. Repeatedly
Gadamer faults his predecessoron whom he draws so heavilyfor his
supposedly psychological focus, although when first discussing his work in
detail he admits that Schleiermachers combination of grammatical (linguistic) and technical or psychological (intentional) interpretation is his most
characteristic contribution to hermeneutics (Gadamer 1996: 186). In using a
sentence of Schleiermachers highlighting the seminal role of language for
hermeneutics as a motto for the third (and last) part of his magnum opus,
Gadamer also recognizes this aspect of his predecessors position. In other
words, by diminishing the importance of his major forerunners (Dilthey as
well as Schleiermacher) through showing them as more simplistic than they
really are, Gadamerlike so many others in hermeneutics and literary theoryattempts to make his own approach appear more novel and tenable.
Similarly, Ricoeur (1981c: 47) claims that according to Schleiermacher,
grammatical and technical interpretation cannot be practised at the same
time and that [t]he proper task of hermeneutics is accomplished in this
second [technical or psychological] interpretation. Thus he too makes of
Schleiermacher (1998: 229)and even more so of Diltheya narrowminded intentionalist, not heeding that in his General Hermeneutics
Schleiermacher repeatedly emphasizes that [t]hese [grammatical and technical interpretation] are not two kinds of interpretation, instead every explication must completely achieve both and that [p]recisely because in all understanding both tasks must be accomplished, understanding is an art.3
Present-day hermeneutics is in the sorry situation that most readers have
accepted Gadamers and Ricoeurs thwarted views of two of the finest scholars in the history of hermeneutics.
However, Andrew Bowie (1998: viii) is right in pointing out that Schleiermacher thought both
types essential, but tended to change his mind on certain aspects of how each was to be carried
out. Also, on balance, in his later career he especially developed his notion of divination (see
below).
18
Bo Pettersson
Unlike Andrew Bowie in his translation of Schleiermacher (1998), I translate Schrift as work
throughout, since text may sound anachronistic owing to the fact that in the last few decades it
has become so firmly anchored in (post)structuralist approaches. For a brief discussion of some
central terms in Schleiermacher and their translation see Pettersson (2005: 134).
We should, however, remember Andrew Bowies (1998: xxn) cautionary note that Kunst in
Schleiermachers Hermeneutics and Criticism also can mean method or technique, but as I have
noted, Schleiermacher (1998: 11) emphasizes that hermeneutics is an activity that cannot be
mechanised.
19
20
Bo Pettersson
other people and their artefacts. This has not been lost on hermeneuticists
such as Herbert Schndelbach (1984: 117-118), Frank (1997: 21-22) and Bowie (1990: 163-165), who have commented on Schleiermachers (1995: 326327) developmental view of divining and comparing in the language usage
and comprehension of children. This divinatory process continues into adult
life, and in this context it is typical of Schleiermachers (1995: 328) praxisoriented and processual view to observe that, as an art, the sum of hermeneutic experiences does not form absolute rules (Regeln) in human conduct
but only advice (Ratschlgen) (see Scholtz 1995: 97).
Schleiermacher could, then, be of help in devising a developmental account of literary interpretation. We do not simply become adult literary interpreters just like that; we learn to interpret literature by our exposure to
various semi-literary genres in our childhood. The music, rhythm and rhyme
in ditties, nursery rhymes and lullabies prepare us for reading poetry. The
social element in human interaction that is so central in Schleiermacher can
be taken to suggest that dialogue and human interaction in general help us
understand drama and (some) fiction. Finally, so much of human communication is couched in narrative, both in speech and writingand, if Damasio
(2000) is right, our very identity as persons is narrativethat this again, if it
is true, helps explain how readily we understand real life narratives as well as
those in fiction and non-fiction.6
What is more, we should remember that Schleiermacher not only portrayed the basis of literary interpretation but also gave us the keys to approximating interpretive validity by a number of procedures. In brief, he produced a broad account of interpretation that, perhaps better than any other
hermeneutic theory, combines a host of central aspects: linguistic and psychological, subjective and objective, personal and social, historical and textual, intellectual and imaginative, in a holistic processual approach.
Schleiermachers achievement, I would claim, offers the foundation for a
kind of hermeneutics that is more useful in literary-critical praxis than other
current approaches. But it requires a more definite perspective. This I have,
in earlier work, termed contextual intention inference.7 Most generally, and anticipating the more detailed discussion below, contextual intention inference constitutes
the meaning-making of a literary work by a detailed study of it in relation to the intentional, textual, social and cultural dimensions of its context of origin. This inferential
effort does not entail that interpreters should try to accomplish the impossible task of blindfolding the dimensions of their own predilections and contexts, but that they should use them as best they can for actively gaining an
understanding of the dimensions of the literary work in relation to its context of origin. In the words of Robert D. Hume (1999: 141), who has presen6
7
For a discussion of narrative and other views of identity see Pettersson (2008).
The next two paragraphs are based on views first suggested in Pettersson (1999b).
21
For recent arguments for monist versus multiplist right interpretations see Krausz (2002).
See also moral objectivity or, more precisely, objectivity humanly speaking in Hilary Putnam
(1994: 151-181, 177n quote).
22
Bo Pettersson
In a presentation of Chopin published in 1894 William Schuyler stresses her strong scientific
bent: [H]er reading [was] almost entirely scientific, the departments of Biology and Anthropology having a special interest for her. The works of Darwin, Huxley, and Spencer were her
daily companions; for the study of the human species, both general and particular, has always
been her constant delight (reprinted in Seyersted/Toth 1979: 117; see Seyersted 1969: 49).
23
out his critical biography Seyersted (1969: 90) shows how well-read Chopin
was in contemporary science and French realist authorsFlaubert, Zola and
especially Maupassantand finally maintains that [w]hat Kate Chopin
wanted was nothing less than to describe post-Darwinian man with the
openness of the modern French writersa point later developed by Bert
Bender (1991/2007). It is important to recognize this Darwinian aspect in
Chopin, because without it the female characters in her fictionEdna Pontellier in particularmay be viewed merely in their social role, especially in
relation to their male counterparts. That much Chopin criticism has ignored
this dimension is because of its emphatic focus on the womens role. My
point, then, is that the social aspects of The Awakening should be seen in relation to Chopins broader view of humankind.
Among such social aspects the relation between men and women, especially adult heterosexual love, is one of the most important. Critics have tended to emphasize Chopins view of womens emancipation as her major
subject: the emergent selves of women defying the social securities and strictures of the old South (Papke 1990: 27), or more generally as the female
struggle for identity (Gilbert 1986: 18), or in The Awakening as a womans
(female artists) struggle for her own identity (Wheeler 2007: 120). These
are important aspects of much of Chopins work, but should be counterweighted by the fact that she often focuses on individual rights irrespective
of gender. For instance, in one of her most widely anthologised short stories,
The Story of an Hour (1894), which thematises a womans awakening after
hearing the news of her husbands death, the narrator first focalises the protagonists thoughts, then comments on them:
There would be no one to live for her during those coming years; she would live for
herself. There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with
which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellowcreature. (Chopin 2006: 353, emphasis added)
What is more, as I have noted, in most of her fictionboth before and after
The AwakeningChopin also focalises the action through her male characters. One instance is another celebrated story, At the Cadian Ball (1892),
in which the two male and two female protagonists focalise the action (three
of them suffering pangs of jealousy) and finally form two couples. Out of
the four only Calixta cannot get the lover she actually wants (Alce), but
makes do with another. In a sequel to the story, The Storm (written in
1898), in the sexually most explicit scene she ever wrote, Chopin (2006: 596)
allows Calixta, during a storm, to experience her consummation with the
lover who had previously spurned her. Afterwards they both go back to their
spouses and everyone was happy. (Understandably, Chopin never even
tried to publish this story.) Similar scheming, cunning and passion among
both men and women occur elsewhere in Chopins work, and at times
24
Bo Pettersson
11
Subsequent references to Chopins (2006) complete works will be included in the text by page
reference. As is customary in Chopin criticism, owing to the many editions of her works, references to At Fault and The Awakening are given by both chapter and page.
25
12
In his answer to the doctor Mr Pontellier notes that the trouble is that Edna hasnt been associating with anyone (ch. 22, 948). Thus, Chopin again stresses the solitary aspect in Ednas
awakening.
26
Bo Pettersson
Even as a child she had lived her own small life within herself. At a very early period
she had apprehended instinctively the dual lifethat outward existence which conforms, the inward life which questions. (ch. 7, 893)
She had all her life long been accustomed to harbor thoughts and emotions which
never voiced themselves. They had never taken the form of struggles. (ch. 16, 929)
What her awakening entails is that Edna refuses to keep on silencing the
thoughts and emotions of her inward life. With her engaging manner and
sensual, sensitive and artistic personality, Edna, like her husband, is popular
with both men and women. But it is her struggle to combine the conflicting
aspects of her life openly in a social context that makes her such a complex
and intriguing character. In an argument with Madame Ratignolle she epitomizes her emancipated stance: I would give my life for my children; but I
wouldnt give myself (ch. 16, 929). However, when Edna remembers these
words immediately before going for her final swim, her children appeared
before her like antagonists who had overcome her, although she knew a
way to elude them (ch. 39, 999). The latter statement seems to suggest that
she has made a conscious decision, but that suggestion is withdrawn in the
very next sentence: She was not thinking of these things as she walked
down to the beach. Here we have an instance of Ednas contradictory view
of her childrenas well as of how she suddenly forgets the very important
issue of what her awakening entails for her relation to them.
As Tuire Valkeakari (2003: 209) has pointed out, any critics view of the
two issuesthe deliberateness of Ednas suicide and the degree of Chopins
feminismare interrelated. Above I have suggested that Ednas character,
her actions and motivations, thoughts and emotions are so contradictory and
ambiguous that any straightforward feminist reading of the novel fails to take
account of much of her personality. And I have shunned using the simple
word suicide for Ednas last swim. Likewise, her sudden impulse to elude
her children seems to be swept away in the next sentence. Similarly, in the
final paragraphs the sea is portrayed in terms that echo earlier descriptions,
but with heightened ambiguity.
The water of the gulf stretched out before her, gleaming with the million lights of
the sun. The voice of the sea is seductive, never ceasing, whispering, clamoring,
murmuring, inviting the soul to wander in abysses of solitude. All along the white
beach, up and down, there was no living thing in sight. A bird with a broken wing
was beating the air above, reeling, fluttering, circling, disabled down, down to the
water.
Edna had found her old bathing suit still hanging, faded, upon its accustomed peg.
She put it on, leaving her clothing in the bath-house. But when she was there beside
the sea, absolutely alone, she cast the unpleasant, pricking garments from her, and
for the first time in her life she stood naked in the open air, at the mercy of the sun,
the breeze that beat upon her, and the waves that invited her.
27
How strange and awful it seemed to stand naked under the sky! how delicious! She
felt like some new-born creature, opening its eyes in a familiar world it had never
known.
The foamy wavelets curled up to her white feet, and coiled like serpents about her
ankles. She walked out. The water was chill, but she walked on. The water was deep,
but she lifted her white body and reached out with a long, sweeping stroke. The
touch of the sea is sensuous, enfolding the body in its soft, close embrace.
She went on and on. (ch. 39, 999-1000)
28
Bo Pettersson
13
14
For a summary and discussion of different view of Ednas suicide, see Wolkenfeld (1994).
The fact that a character called Gouvernail is trying to seduce the married protagonist in Chopins story Athnase (1895) seems to strengthen such a reading.
29
clanged as he walked across the porch. There was the hum of bees, and the musky
odor of pinks filled the air. (ch. 39, 1000)
Elaine Showalter (1993: 186) is among the few critics who focus on this passage, arguing that Ednas memories are those of awakening from the freedom of childhood to the limitations conferred by female sexuality. But, like
Treichlers, her conclusions seem exaggerated: the image of the bees and
flowers is supposedly a standard trope for the unequal relations between
women and men (Showalter 1993: 186), and such images decoy women
into slavery (ibid.: 187). In fact, the end of the novel is alluding to the scene
in which Edna, before learning to swim and before her sexual awakening,
sits watching the sea and is reminded of a meadow that to her as a little girl
in Kentucky seemed as big as the ocean. The smell of the flowers may also
refer back to the first way the sea tempts her, not by its voice or touch as it
was to do later, but by its seductive odor (ch. 5, 892). And on that earlier
occasion she goes on to reminisce about her first romantic infatuation, the
object of which was a cavalry officer:
At a very early ageperhaps it was when she traversed the ocean of waving grass
she remembered that she had been passionately enamored of a dignified and sadeyed cavalry officer who visited her father in Kentucky. She could not leave his
presence when he was there, nor remove her eyes from his face, which was something like Napoleons, with a lock of black hair falling across the forehead. But the
cavalry officer melted imperceptibly out of her existence. (ch. 7, 897)
This was her first awakening to romantic love, just as her desire for Robert
was her first awakening to sexual love. Its major significance and ultimate
defeat is symbolized by the comparison to Napoleon. But although sometimes called the American Madame Bovary, The Awakening is not a straightforward novel of the danger of romantic illusions. Just as Edna is about to go
for her final swim she realizes that the day would come when he [Robert],
too, and the thought of him would melt out of her existence, leaving her
alone (ch. 39, 999). Even when seen exclusively in relation to her social
bonds, Ednas romantic and sexual awakenings both point to the same outcome: solitude.
Thus, Ednas final awakeningand the one Chopin criticism seldom focuses onconcerns her realization that romantic and sexual awakening leads
inevitably to a more encompassing insight: that every individual is (as Chopins original title has it) A Solitary Soul. To be sure, Chopin describes a
womans awakening, and perhaps Seyersted is right that the bird imagery implies that in a patriarchal society only male freedom can fly (1969: 159,
emphasis original). But so much of her other writing and her translations of
Maupassant (see below) seem to suggest that the final and most hard-won
awakening concerns the ultimate solitude of each and every human, irrespective of gender. Even though such an awakening seems to be too much for
30
Bo Pettersson
Edna, by depicting it in detail Chopin shows that she is able to face itand
helps her readers face it.
My conclusion is, then, that critics detecting either straightforward triumph (Treichler 1993) or pessimism (Seyersted 1969: 142, 149) in the depiction of Edna and her final swim overlook the care with which Chopin structured her novel and its ambiguous enddespite the fact that both Treichler
and Seyersted stress Chopins use of ambiguity. Just as Maupassant in
Night leaves his first-person narrator entering the Seine (although since it
happened yesterday (Bonner 1988: 197), he must have survived), and just
as Maupassants narrator in Solitude cannot make up his mind whether the
man who feels an abiding horror for solitude is insane or not (see ibid.: 200),
Chopin, who translated both stories, leaves the ending of her novel supremely ambiguous. Of course, by the 1890s having fallen women die or commit
suicide was a common ending in novels, but Chopin chooses only to intimate her protagonists deathEdna is still swimming and reminiscing in the
final lines. What she seems to be implying is that Edna had necessarily to
experience her infatuation withand later sexual desire ofmen, since humankind, like all of nature, subsists only through such attraction. She opts
neither for rejoicing in nor deploring Ednas awakening; rather, following
Darwin and the literary naturalists, she reports unsentimentally its results.
Like Yeats, Chopin casts a cold eye not only on death but on the solitary life
each individual must leadan aspect neither Margo Culley (1994) nor Elaine
Showalter (1993) refer to in their respective readings.
Of the literary naturalists, Chopin held Zola in high regard, but in reviewing his novel Lourdes, she finds it unpardonable (698) that the authors
view is so evident, since for her, as she notes elsewhere, Thou shalt not
preach is an eleventh commandment (703). Of the American authors she
especially liked the contemporary Southern-born author Ruth McEnery Stuart, in particular the [s]ympathy and insight she showed in her realist stories (712).15 In portraying Edna with sympathy and merciless insight Chopin
seems to be saying, with Maupassant in Solitude: What a mystery is the
unfathomed thought of a human being; the hidden, free thought that we can
neither know nor lead nor direct nor subdue! (Bonner 1988: 196) As we
have seen, so complex and carefully constructed is Chopins portrayal of
Ednas awakening that the novel (and especially its ending) has been interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Inspired by Darwin, Whitman and Maupassant, Chopin had by the late 1890s developed her craft as a writer to the
15
A detailed description of Chopins meeting with Stuart can be found in Toth (1991: 268-271),
who also notes: Although she read carefully the writings of her American competitorsRuth
McEnery Stuart, Mary E. Wilkins, Sarah Orne JewettChopins model remained Guy de Maupassant (ibid.: 272).
31
point that she was able to create one of the most multifaceted and compelling female portraits in American literature.
4. Conclusion: A Kind of Link Forged
In what sense has this analysis of The Awakening been able to combine narratology and hermeneutics? It made use of detailed study of the work, its language and focalisation, and related it to other works of fiction and nonfiction by Chopin. It studied its characters, especially the protagonist, and
central thematics, and drew interpretive conclusions on the basis of formal
and thematic traits, attempting in this way to contextually infer the intention
Chopin had in penning her novel. Furthermore, it referred to some of the
most astute Chopin critics and came to the conclusion that many have
rightly pointed out ambiguous traits in The Awakening. It proceeded to adduce ancillary evidence substantiating and developing such claims: Chopins
reading of French fiction, especially Maupassant, her deep-seated interest in
Darwin and Whitman, her diary entries, all strengthen a reading of the novel
as focusing on the solitude of the individual; for human natural selection,
and the sexual awakening it is based on, prioritise the species and its survival
at the expense of personal happiness. In this way, the analysis aimed to show
that although American feminist critics have done a good job in contextualizing the novel, their ideological perspective has made them exaggerate its
feminist import. A multidimensional reading based on contextual intention
inference aspires to a greater approximation of interpretive validity. Indeed, I
would claim that such a reading could provide a firmer basis for any ideological interpretation. In the case of The Awakening one could demonstrate
how Southern patriarchy is portrayed in a balanced way, with Darwinian
thematics playing a central role.
The blend of narratology and hermeneutics illustrated in this reading
adds intentional and contextual parameters to both those approaches, holding in check the interpretive relativism of late twentieth-century textual
structuralism and hermeneutics. That is the kind of link I have tried to forge
between these two important traditions within the human sciences. I envisage that it could be extended in a number of ways: its developmental aspects
could be studied in order to better understand how humans make use of
narrative and how it is interpreted; its intentional aspects in order to better
understand how humans function as agents in creating and understanding
narrative; and its contextual aspects in order to better understand the role
sociocultural aspects play in writing and reading narrative.
It is up to the readers of this paper to see whether the metal I have used
in forging the link, and the welding I have made, are strong enough. If not, I
32
Bo Pettersson
invite them to do a better job in this or some other way. But one thing is
certain: the link between narratology and literary hermeneutics must be forged if both approaches are to receive a more tenable foundation.
Works Cited
Ankersmit, Frank. 2005. Hermeneutics. In: Herman et al. 2005, p. 211-212.
Baym, Nina. 1981. Introduction. In: Kate Chopin. The Awakening and Selected Stories. New
York: The Modern Library. vii-lviii.
Bender, Bert. 2007 [1991]. The Teeth of Desire: The Awakening and The Descent of Man. In
Bloom 2007b, p. 89-101.
Bonner, Thomas, Jr. 1988. The Kate Chopin Companion. With Chopins Translations from French
Fiction. New York/Greenwood, CT/London: Greenwood Press.
Bowie, Andrew. 1990. Aesthetics and Subjectivity. From Kant to Nietzsche. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Bowie, Andrew. 1998. Introduction. In: Schleiermacher 1998, p. vii-xxxi.
Bremond, Claude and Thomas Pavel. 1995. The End of an Anathema. In: Claude Bremond, Joshua Landy and Thomas Pavel (eds.). Thematics. New Approaches. Albany:
State University of New York Press, p. 181-192.
Chopin, Kate. 2006 [1969]. The Complete Works of Kate Chopin. Ed. Per Seyersted. Baton Rouge:
Lousiana State University Press.
Chopin, Kate. 1993. The Awakening. Complete Authoritative Text with Biographical and Historical
Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Five Contemporary Critical Perspectives. Ed.
Nancy A. Walker. Boston, MA/New York: Bedford Books of St. Martins Press.
Chopin, Kate. 1994. The Awakening. An Authoritative Text, Biographical and Historical Contexts,
Criticism. A Norton Critical Edition. 2nd ed. Ed. Margo Culley. New York/London:
W. W. Norton.
Culley, Margo. 1994. Edna Pontellier: A Solitary Soul. In: Chopin 1994, p. 247-251.
Damasio, Antonio. 2000 [1999]. The Feeling of What Happens. Body and Emotion in the Making of
Consciousness. London: William Heinemann.
Darby, David. 2001. Form and Context: An Essay in the History of Narratology. In: Poetics
Today 22:4, p. 829-852.
Frank, Manfred. 1997 [1989]. The Subject and the Text. Essays on Literary Theory and Philosophy.
Ed. Andrew Bowie; trans. Helen Atkins. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University
Press.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1996 [1989]. Truth and Method. 2nd ed. Trans. rev. J. Weinsheimer and
D. G. Marshall. London: Sheed and Ward. (Originally published in 1960)
Gilbert, Sandra M. 1986 [1984]. Introduction: The Second Coming of Aphrodite. In: Kate
Chopin. The Awakening and Selected Stories. Ed. Sandra M. Gilbert. Harmondsworth
et al.: Penguin, p. 7-33.
Harris, Wendell V. 1996. Literary Meaning. Reclaiming the Study of Literature. Houndmills, Basingstoke, and London: Macmillan.
Herman, David, Manfred Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan (eds.). 2005. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Narrative Theory. London and New York: Routledge.
33
Hume, Robert D. 1999. Reconstructing Contexts. The Aims and Principles of Archaeo-Historicism.
Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2003. Narratology and Interpretation: A Rejoinder to
David Darby. In: Poetics Today 24:3, p. 413-421.
Krausz, Michael (ed.). 2002. Is There a Single Right Interpretation? University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Livingston, Paisley. 2005. Art and Intention. A Philosophical Study. Oxford et al.: Clarendon
Press.
Makkreel, Rudolf A. 1992 [1975]. Dilthey. Philosopher of the Human Studies. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Margolin, Uri. 1978. Conclusion: Literary Structuralism and Hermeneutics in Significant
Convergence, 1976. In: Mario J. Valds and Owen J. Miller (eds.). Interpretation of
Narrative. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press, p. 177-185.
Maupassant, Guy de. 1922 rpt. The Awakening [Rveil]. In: Mademoiselle Fifi and Other Stories. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 112-119.
Michelfelder, Diane P. and Richard E. Palmer (eds). 1989. Dialogue and Deconstruction. The
GadamerDerrida Encounter. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Nielsen, Kai. 1996. Naturalism Without Foundations. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2006. Narratology and Cultural History: Tensions, Points of Contact,
New Areas of Research. In: Herbert Grabes and Wolfgang Viereck (eds.). The
Wider Scope of English. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, p. 154-185.
Papke, Mary E. Verging on the Abyss. The Social Fiction of Kate Chopin and Edith Wharton. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Pettersson, Bo. 1999a. The Postcolonial Turn in Literary Translation Studies: Theoretical
Frameworks Reviewed. In: AE: Canadian Journal of Aesthetics /Revue canadienne
daesthetique. Special Issue: The Work of Art in an Age of Diversity and Globalization. Vol. 4, Summer 1999. http://www.uqtr.uquebec.ca/AE/vol_4/petter.htm
Pettersson, Bo. 1999b. Towards a Pragmatics of Literary Interpretation. In: Arto Haapala
and Ossi Naukkarinen (eds.). Interpretation and Its Boundaries. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, p. 48-65.
Pettersson, Bo. 2002. Seven Trends in Recent Thematics and a Case Study. In: Max Louwerse and Will van Peer (eds.). Thematics. Interdisciplinary Approaches. Converging
Evidence in Language and Communication Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, p.
237-252.
Pettersson, Bo. 2005. Literature as a Textualist Notion. In: Stein Haugom Olsen and Anders Pettersson (eds.). From Text to Literature. New Analytic and Pragmatic Approaches.
Houndmills/Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 128-145.
Pettersson, Bo. 2008. I Narrate, Therefore I Am? On Narrative, Moral Identity and Modernity. In: Birgit Neumann, Ansgar Nnning and Bo Pettersson (eds.). Narrative and
Identity. Theoretical Approaches and Critical Analyses. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag
Trier, p. 23-36.
Putnam, Hilary. 1994. Words and Life. Ed. James Conant. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard
University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981a [1970]. What Is a Text? Explanation and Understanding. In: Ricoeur
1981d, p. 145-164.
34
Bo Pettersson
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981b [1973]. Hermeneutics and the Critique of Ideology. In: Ricoeur 1981d,
p. 63-100.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981c [1975]. The Task of Hermeneutics. In: Ricoeur 1981d, p. 43-62.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981d. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation. Ed. and trans. John B. Thompson. Cambridge/Paris et al.: Cambridge University Press / Editions de la Maison des Sciences de lHomme.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1988 [1985]. Time and Narrative. Volume 3. Trans. Kathleen Blamey and David
Pellauer. Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1976 [1942]. Friedrich Schleiermachers Dialektik. Ed. Rudolf Odebrecht. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1990. Ethik (1812/13). Ed. Hans-Joachim Birkner based on Otto
Brauns edition. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1995 [1977]. Hermeneutik und Kritik. Ed. Manfred Frank. Frankfurt
a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1998. Hermeneutics and Criticism and Other Writings. Ed. and trans.
Andrew Bowie. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Schndelbach, Herbert. 1984. Philosophy in Germany 1831-1933. Trans. Eric Matthews. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Scholtz, Gunter. 1995. Ethik und Hermeneutik. Schleiermachers Grundlegung der Geisteswissenschaften.
Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Seyersted, Per. 1969. Kate Chopin. A Critical Biography. Oslo/Baton Rouge: Universitetsforlaget
and Louisiana State University Press.
Seyersted, Per and Emily Toth. 1979. A Kate Chopin Miscellany. Oslo/Natchitoches: Universitetsforlaget/Northwestern State University Press.
Showalter, Elaine. 1993 [1988]. Tradition and the Female Talent: The Awakening as a Solitary
Book. In: Chopin 1993, p. 169-189.
Silverman, Hugh J. and Don Ihde (eds). 1985. Hermeneutics and Deconstruction. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Stockwell, Peter. 2005. On Cognitive Poetics and Stylistics. In: Harri Veivo, Bo Pettersson
and Merja Polvinen (eds.), Cognition and Literary Interpretation in Practice. Helsinki:
Helsinki University Press, p. 267-282.
Thiselton, Anthony C. 1992. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. The Theory and Practice of Transforming
Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids/Michigan: Zondervan.
Toth, Emily. 1991 [1990]. Kate Chopin. London et al.: Century.
Treichler, Paula A. 1993 [1980]. The Construction of Ambiguity in The Awakening: A Linguistic Analysis. In: Chopin 1993, p. 308-328.
Valkeakari, Tuire. 2003. A Cry of the Dying Century: Kate Chopin, The Awakening, and the
Womens Cause. Nordic Journal of English Studies 2:1, p. 193-216.
Walker, Nancy A. 1994 [1979]. [Feminist or Naturalist?]. In: Chopin 1994, p. 252-256.
Wheeler, Kathleen. 2007 [1994]. Kate Chopin: Ironist of Realism. In: Harold Bloom (ed.),
Kate Chopin. Updated ed. New York: Blooms Literary Criticism/Infobase, p. 119143.
Wolkenfeld, Suzanne. 1994. Ednas Suicide: The Problem of the One and the Many. In:
Chopin 1994, p. 241-247.
TOM KINDT
(Gttingen)
In the course of the last ten years, narratology has gained a popularity in the
humanities that it never enjoyed before, not even in the heyday of structuralism. Given the annual number of new monographs, anthologies and articles
devoted to questions of narrative theory, it stands to reason to adopt a term
coined by Manfred Jahn and Ansgar Nnning (1994: 300) and to speak of a
narratological industry that is currently experiencing boom conditions. As
is well known, once a field of study in the humanities becomes the object of
increased attention it runs the risk of decreased unity. Narratologys recent
development seems to be an illustration of this rule. After the demise of
structuralism in the 1980s, narrative theory has not only experienced a remarkable revival; at the same time, it has undergone extensive diversification.
What once was a more or less homogeneous domain of theorizing has become a many-voiced field of debate; where once there was agreement at least
on crucial questions there is now controversy on almost everything.1
For some time now, narratologists have obviously felt more and more
uncomfortable with this situation and have therefore made intense efforts to
appraise and cautiously evaluate the proposals for a renewal of narratology
and its core concepts. In her Afterthoughts to the 2002 edition of her Narrative Fiction Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan (2002: 135) accurately observed: A
reconsideration of narratology has become a genre of its own. In what follows, I will contribute to this genre. In contrast to most of the existing attempts to reconsider narratology, I am not going to provide a survey of new
approaches to remodeling narrative theory, be it in part or in whole. Instead,
I will address a claim that has, since the 1990s, been put forward in various
contributions to narratology, irrespective of their particular programmatic
*
1
I would like to thank Tilmann Kppe and Jan Christoph Meister for their criticism of an earlier
draft of this paper.
See, for example, Herman (1999), Nnning (2000), Fludernik (2000), Nnning/Nnning
(2002a; 2002b), Kindt/Mller (2003a), Sommer (2004), Meister/Kindt/Schernus (2005).
36
Tom Kindt
background. To cut a long story short: my paper will analyze a trait of the
ongoing debates on the present and possible future state of narrative theory
which I will from now on refer to as narratological expansionism.
I will proceed by successively addressing what seem to be the two basic
varieties of the expansionist claim with regard to narratology. The first part
of this essay will criticize the idea of transforming narratology into a foundational theory within the domain of literary studies, suitable in particular to
guiding and evaluating the interpretation of literary texts. The second part
will discuss the endeavor to reconceptualize narratology as a basic discipline
responsible for narrative phenomena in different fields of research. To prevent the suspicion that I am once more, as David Darby (2003: 429) put it,
attempting to close the barn door long, long after a number of purebred
[] horses have escaped, I will deal with both expansionist claims in a twostep procedure, initially considering the actual state of affairs in literary studies on the one hand and in the humanities on the other, thereafter examining
the arguments for the proposed changes in the two fields of research.
1. Narratology and Literary Studies
Apart from some leftover structuralists, almost every narratologist in current
literary studies seems to be hooked by the idea of a fundamental renewal of
narrative theory. Although the proposals for such a renewalthe so-called
new, hyphenated or postclassical narratologiesare manifold and differ in a
number of respects, most of them have at least some features in common.2
In the present context, it will do to dwell on just one of these features,
namely, the expansionist claim that narratology is to be modeled as a theory
encompassing both the analysis and interpretation of literary narratives. This
is the central demand of the large subclass of new approaches to narrative
theory that have been, for some years now, categorized as contextual narratologies.3 The claim can be traced back to Susan S. Lansers 1986 manifesto
for a feminist narratology4 and has, since then, been taken up in several
contributions that argue for a reorientation of narrative theory, e. g. in the
proposals for a historical narratology, a postcolonial narratology, or a cultural/intercultural narratology.5 In my view, the claim should be rejected; in
the next paragraphs I shall explain why.
2
3
4
5
37
On the history of narratology, see especially Stanzel (2002b), Cornils/Schernus (2003), Herman
(2005a), Fludernik (2005).
On this idea, see Kindt/Mller (2003b; 2003c; 2003d; 2006).
As shown by, for example, the work of Eberhard Lmmert and Franz K. Stanzel in the 1950s
and 1960s, a corresponding understanding of narratology lay behind the German-language
study of narrative from an early date, see, for instance, Lmmert (1955: 17-18); Stanzel (1959:
127-128; 1964: 9-10). Only recently have efforts been made to explicate this idea, for example
in Stanzel (2002b), on which see Kindt (2003).
Genette (1988: 155).
38
Tom Kindt
tology has always been to present concepts and theories that prove their
value as discovery tools in dealing with specific works (Stanzel 2002b: 1920).
The outlined explication is in principle an exhaustive answer to the question what narratology is or should be; there is, in other words, no need for
further remarks on the issue. In the present context, however, it seems advisable to add some conceptual comments on narratology. Such comments
might be of help here because heuristic usefulness with regard to interpretation is of course not a unique selling point for narratology and its concepts.
With regard to the interpretation of literary narratives, many different kinds
of thing may turn out to be heuristically valuable, even interpretations or
theories of interpretation. There are, for example, many deconstructive readings of literary texts that draw on the results of existing hermeneutic interpretations based on structuralist analyses of the works in question. Hence, it
seems reasonable to briefly explicate what kind of theory narratology is and
where the differences between theories like narratology and theories of interpretation lie.
From a conceptual perspective, narratology is an object-theory; it is, in
other words, a more or less complex model of the object narrative, narration,
or the like. Normally, such a model rests on a conception of the necessary
and sufficient properties of its object, but it also contains an idea of its typical features, and different ways in which its main aspects can be shaped.10 By
virtue of providing object-models, theories like narratology can be understood as methods or methodologiesin this case, the elements of the model
are conceived as components of instructions for analytical operations.11
However, no such analysis yields a fully fledged interpretationand the reason for this becomes obvious if one takes a look at the fundamental structural features of theories underlying literary interpretation. However differently theories of interpretation are conceptualized from a meta-theoretical
point of view, it seems to be a unanimous assumption that they basically
comprise (at least) two elements: a conception of meaning specifying the
type of meaning sought (this could be called the goal component of an
interpretation theory) and a conception of interpretation i. e. a set of assumptions and rules as to how such meaning is to be identified (this could
be called the methodological component of an interpretation theory).12
Even from this sketchy characterization it should be clear what the main
conceptual differences between theories of narrative and theories of interpretation are: interpretation theories as a rule comprise object-theories but
10
11
12
See, for example, Jahns reconstruction of Genettes proposal, Jahn (1995: 33).
See Kindt (2003).
On this idea, see Danneberg/Mller (1981; 1983; 1984a; 1984b), Stout (1982; 1986), Hermern
(1983), Strube (2000).
39
40
Tom Kindt
On the narrative turn, see Polkinghorne (1987), Nash (1990), Hinchman/Hinchman (1997),
Kreiswirth (2000; 2005), Fireman/McVay/Flanagan (2003).
See, for instance, Herman (1999; 2002; 2003; 2005b).
41
However different these proposals may be in some respects, they unanimously rest on a pattern of reasoning that one might call the corpus argument. The existing narratologies, so the argument goes, rely on sets of data
that are unsuitable to serve as a foundation for building a solid theory. More
concretely, the corpora of texts that have so far been taken into account by
narrative theories are either too small or too unbalanced or both. On this
account, the advocates of the corpus argument stand for a reconceptualization of narratology based on more comprehensive, and thus more representative, data.
The corpus argument is normally developed not systematically but exemplarily; in most cases, it is spelled out with reference to existing narratologies that are assumed to be in some way deficient. Following this vein, advocates of the corpus argument, for example, claim that Genettes narratology
is problematic and in need of revision because it almost exclusively refers to
a single literary narrative, Marcel Prousts la recherche du temps perdu. Or they
criticize Stanzels approach to narrative theory for relying solely on canonical
European novels of the 18th and 19th century. In some cases the corpus
argument is not put forward by addressing established narratologies but by
alluding to the results of the steadily increasing multidisciplinary research in
narrative. Within the framework of existing narrative theories, so some supporters of the argument claim, one cannot take account of these results.
Based on such considerations Martin Kreiswirth (2005: 378), in the Routledge
Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory, gives the following explanation for a skepticism with regard to classical narratology that has become prevalent in the age
of the narrative turn:
In the last decade narrative has become a significant focus of inquiry in virtually all
disciplinary formations, ranging from the fine arts, the social and natural sciences, to
media and communication studies, to popular therapy, medicine, and managerial
studies []. Yet, with each shift in disciplinary orientation or research tradition, as
many new questions have arisen as answers. As soon as we begin to feel secure
about our findings, we learn that this or that subspecies has been forgotten, this
phenomenon or characteristic overlooked or suppressed, this function or structure
neglected.
At first sight, the corpus argument as outlined above might look convincing;
it simply seems evident that the corpus of texts on which a systematic approach to narrative relies should exert some influence on the theorys shape.
However, closer consideration reveals that this impression is deceptive. If
one criticizes a narratological approach with reference to the corpus of texts
it is built on, one mistakes elements of the theorys context of discovery (or
presentation) for elements of its context of justification. Narrative theories
use narrative texts like Prousts la recherche or the classic European novels
for heuristic or illustrative purposes, but they are not based on them in the
strict sense of the word. There are serious reasons to doubt that the relation
42
Tom Kindt
between narrative theories and the corpora of texts they rely on should be
understood (as the advocates of the corpus argument suggest) by interpreting the concepts and models of narratology as empirical generalizations.
Such an interpretation might seem tempting, because empirical observations
do without doubt play an important role in the process of developing a narrative theory. But it should not be concluded from this finding that narrative
theories are empirical theories. In fact, narratologies are not empirical generalizations but more or less systematized schemes of conceptual stipulations.
Such conceptual schemes cannot be validated empirically; on the contrary,
they have to be evaluated with regard to criteria like applicability, simplicity,
coherence, unity, etc.
Keeping this in mind, it is also hard to see how the results of multidisciplinary narrative research should have the impact on narratology that the
adherents of the corpus argument suppose them to have. An exploration of
narrative structures necessarily presupposes at least a tentative conception of
narrative. On this account, narrative research in whatever discipline or field
of study cannot supply good reasons for a reconceptualization of established
notions of narrativity: it either rests on those very notions or is based on
rival concepts right from the start. Of course, this does not mean that narrative research in, for instance, historiography, philosophy or psychology
might not provide reasons for modifying existing narrative theories; but such
modifications would not be what the advocates of the corpus argument had
in mind when they put forward their claim.
As indicated above, the corpus argument serves as a starting point for a
number of different proposals for a renewal of narratology. With reference
to their particular idea of what a reshaping of narrative theory should look
like, it seems reasonable to distinguish between moderate and radical varieties of such proposals. In this last paragraph of my paper, I will confine myself to considering a radical consequence for narrative theory that is often
drawn from the narrative turn, namely, the expansionist idea of a narratology
possessing foundational status within the human sciences. To avoid any misunderstanding: my comments on this idea are not intended to demonstrate
that such a conception of narratology is theoretically flawed and cannot be
made to work; rather, I will try to highlight two more or less basic limitations
to the proposed modeling of narrative theorythe limitations of fundamentality and functionality.
The limitation of fundamentality: Roland Barthes (1966) was surely right,
when, in his seminal essay Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative he claimed narrative to be a ubiquitous phenomenon. However, his
followers obviously overstated the matter by asserting that narrative is everywhere (Richardson 2000: 168). The plain fact is: narrative is not everywhere. And, what is more, even if narrative is somewhere, it is often of sub-
43
In the light of the difficulties that have emerged in the debates on the definition of narrower
concepts of narrative, like, for example, that of literary narrative, one might question whether
going after an all-embracing notion of narrative is a promising project.
44
Tom Kindt
the human sciences. It should have become apparent along the way that the
two types of expansionist proposal are, in fact, at odds with each other: the
first type amounts to an endeavor to make narrative theory more specific,
the second type attempts to make it more general. In my view, we should
leave narratology as it is.
Works Cited
Allrath, Gaby and Marion Gymnich. 2002. Feministische Narratologie. In: Nnning/Nnning 2002a, p. 35-72.
Bal, Mieke. 1985. Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto et al.: University of
Toronto Press.
Barthes, Roland. 1966. Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives. In: Susan
Sontag (ed.). A Barthes Reader. New York: Hill and Wang 1982, p. 251-295.
Birk, Hanne and Birgit Neumann. 2002. Go-between. Postkoloniale Erzhltheorie. In: Nnning/Nnning 2002a, p. 35-72.
Chatman, Seymour. 1990. What Can We Learn from a Contextualist Narratology? In:
Poetics Today 11, p. 309-328.
Cornils, Anja and Wilhelm Schernus. 2003. On the Relationship between the Theory of the
Novel, Narrative Theory, and Narratology. In: Kindt/Mller 2003a, p. 137-174.
Danneberg, Lutz and Hans-Harald Mller. 1981. Probleme der Textinterpretation. Analytische Rekonstruktion und Versuch einer konzeptionellen Lsung. In: Kodikas/Code 3:2, p. 133-168.
Danneberg, Lutz and Hans-Harald Mller. 1983. Der intentionale Fehlschlu ein Dogma? Systematischer Forschungsbericht zur Kontroverse um eine intentionalistische
Konzeption in den Textwissenschaften. In: Zeitschrift fr allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 14, p. 103-137; 376-411.
Danneberg, Lutz and Hans-Harald Mller. 1984a. Wissenschaftstheorie, Hermeneutik, Literaturwissenschaft. Anmerkungen zu einem unterbliebenen und Beitrge zu einem
knftigen Dialog ber die Methodologie des Verstehens. In: Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 58, p. 177-237.
Danneberg, Lutz and Hans-Harald Mller. 1984b. On Justifying the Choice of Interpretive
Theories. A Critical Examination of E. D. Hirschs Arguments in Favor of an Intentionalist Theory of Interpretation. In: Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43, p.
7-16.
Darby, David. 2001. Form and Context. An Essay in the History of Narratology. In: Poetics
Today 22, p. 829-852.
Darby, David. 2003. David Darby. Form and Context Revisited. In: Poetics Today 24, p. 423437.
Diengott, Nilli. 1988. Narratology and Feminism. In: Style 22, p. 42-51.
Erll, Astrid and Simone Roggendorf. 2002. Kulturgeschichtliche Narratologie. Historisierung
und Kontextualisierung kultureller Narrative. In: Nnning/Nnning 2002a, p. 73114.
45
Fireman, Gary; Ted McVay and Owen Flanagan (eds.). 2003. Narrative and Consciousness. Literature, Psychology, and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fludernik, Monika. 2000. Beyond Structuralism in Narratology: Recent Developments and
New Horizons in Narrative Theory. In: Anglistik 11, p. 83-96.
Fludernik, Monika. 2005. Histories of Narrative Theory (II). From Structuralism to the
Present. In: Phelan/Rabinowitz 2005, p. 36-59.
Genette, Grard. 1980. Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method. Ithaca/New York: Cornell
University Press.
Genette, Grard. 1988. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University
Press.
Herman, David (ed.). 1999. Narratologies. New Perspectives in Narrative Analysis. Columbus: Ohio
State University Press.
Herman, David. 2002. Story Logic. Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Herman, David. 2003. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Herman, David. 2005a. Histories of Narrative Theory (I). A Genealogy of Early Developments. In:
Phelan/Rabinowitz 2005, p. 19-35.
Herman, David. 2005b. Quantitative Methods in Narratology. A Corpus-Based Study of
Motion Events in Stories. In: Meister et al. 2005, p. 125-149.
Hermern, Gran. 1983. Interpretation. Types and Criteria. In: Grazer Philosophische Studien
19, p. 131-161.
Hinchman, Lewis P. and Sandra K. Hinchman. 1997. Memory, Identity, Community. The Idea of
Narrative in the Human Sciences. New York: State University of New York Press.
Jahn, Manfred. 1995. Narratologie. Methoden und Modelle der Erzhltheorie. In: Ansgar
Nnning (ed.): Literaturwissenschaftliche Theorien, Modelle und Methoden. Trier: WVT, p.
29-50
Jahn, Manfred and Ansgar Nnning. 1994. A Survey of Narratological Models. In: Literatur
in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 27, p. 283-303.
Kindt, Tom. 2003. Die Quadratur des Typenkreises. Franz K. Stanzels berlegungen zu
einer Erzhltheorie fr Leser [Rez. Franz K. Stanzel: Unterwegs Erzhltheorie
fr Leser]. In: IASL-online (update vom 26.3.2003).
Kindt, Tom and Tilmann Kppe. 2009. Das Selbst eine Erzhlung? In: Julia Abel, Andreas Bldorn and Michael Scheffel (eds.). Ambivalenz und Kohrenz. Untersuchungen
zur narrativen Sinnbildung. Trier: WVT (forthcoming).
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller (eds.). 2003a. What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers
Regarding the Status of a Theory. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter (= Narratologia 1).
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2003b. Narrative Theory and/or/as Theory of Interpretation. In: Kindt/Mller 2003a, p. 205-220.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2003c. Narratology and Interpretation. A Rejoinder to
David Darby. In: Poetics Today 24:3, p. 413-421.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2003d. Wieviel Interpretation enthalten Beschreibungen? berlegungen zu einer umstrittenen Unterscheidung am Beispiel der Narratologie. In: Fotis Jannidis et al. (eds.). Regeln der Bedeutung. Berlin and New York:
de Gruyter, p. 296-304.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2006. The Implied Author. Concept and Controversy. Berlin
and New York: de Gruyter (= Narratologia 9).
46
Tom Kindt
Kreiswirth, Martin. 1992. Trusting the Tale. The Narrativist Turn in the Human Sciences.
In: New Literary History 23, p. 629-657.
Kreiswirth, Martin. 2000. Merely Telling Stories? Narrative and Knowledge in the Human
Sciences. In: Poetics Today 21, p. 293-318.
Kreiswirth, Martin. 2005. Narrative Turn in the Humanities. In: David Herman, Manfred
Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London
and New York: Routledge, p. 377-382.
Lmmert, Eberhard. 1955. Bauformen des Erzhlens. Stuttgart: Metzler 1955.
Lamarque, Peter. 2004. On Not Expecting Too Much of Narrative. In: Mind & Language
19, p. 393-408.
Lanser, Susan S. 1986. Toward a Feminist Narratology. In: Style 20, p. 341-363.
Lanser, Susan S. 1988. Shifting the Paradigm. Feminism and Narratology. In: Style 22, p.
52-60.
Meister, Jan Christoph; Tom Kindt and Wilhelm Schernus (eds.). 2005. Narratology beyond
Literary Criticism. Mediality Disciplinarity. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter (= Narratologia 6).
Nash, Christopher (ed.). 1990. Narrative in Culture. The Uses of Storytelling in the Sciences, Philosophy
and Literature. London: Routledge.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2000. Towards a Cultural and Historical Narratology. A Survey of Diachronic Approaches, Concepts, and Research Projects. In: Bernhard Reitz and
Sigrid Rieuwerts (eds.). Anglistentag 1999 in Mainz. Proceedings. Trier: WVT, p. 345373.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2003. Narratology or Narratologies? Taking Stock of Recent Developments, Critique and Modest Proposals for Future Usages of the Term. In:
Kindt/Mller 2003a, p. 239-275.
Nnning, Ansgar and Vera Nnning (eds.). 2002a. Neue Anstze in der Erzhltheorie. Trier:
WVT (= Handbcher zum literaturwissenschaftlichen Studium 4).
Nnning, Ansgar and Vera Nnning (eds.). 2002b. Erzhltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinr. Trier: WVT (= Handbcher zum literaturwissenschaftlichen Studium 5).
Nnning, Ansgar and Vera Nnning (eds.). 2004. Erzhltextanalyse und Gender Studies. Stuttgart
and Weimar: Metzler.
Phelan, James and Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds.). 2005. A Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Polkinghorne, Donald E. 1987. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Prince, Gerald. 1996. Narratology, Narratological Criticism and Gender. In: Calin-Andrei
Michailescu and Walid Harmaneh (eds.). Fiction Updated. Theories of Fictionality, Narratology and Poetics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p. 159-164
Richardson, Brian. 2000. Recent Concepts of Narrative and the Narratives of Narrative
Theory. In: Style 34:2, p. 168-175.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. 2002. Towards Afterthoughts, Almost Twenty Years Later.
In: S. R.-K.: Narrative Fiction Contemporary Poetics. 2nd ed. London and New York:
Routledge, p. 134-149.
Sommer, Roy (ed.). 2004. European Journal of English Studies 8. Special Issue: Beyond Classical
Narratology.
47
Sommer, Roy. 2007. Contextualism Revisited. A Survey (and Defence) of Postcolonial and
Intercultural Narratologies. In: JLT Journal of Literary Theory 1:1, p. 61-80.
Stanzel, Franz K. 1959. Episches Praeterium, erlebte Rede, historisches Praesens. In: Stanzel 2002a, p.
127-141.
Stanzel, Franz K. 1986. A Theory of Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986.
Stanzel, Franz K. 2002a. Unterwegs Erzhltheorie fr Leser. Ausgewhlte Schriften mit einer biobibliographischen Einleitung und einem Appendix von Dorrit Cohn. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Stanzel, Franz K. 2002b. Eine Erzhltheorie fr Leser. In: Stanzel 2002a, p. 9-109.
Stout, Jeffrey. 1982. What is the Meaning of a Text? In: New Literary History 14, p. 1-12.
Stout, Jeffrey. 1986. The Relativity of Interpretation. In: The Monist 69, p. 103-118.
Strube, Werner. 2000. Die literaturwissenschaftliche Textinterpretation. In: Paul Michel and
Hans Weder (eds.). Sinnvermittlung. Studien zur Geschichte von Exegese und Hermeneutik.
Zrich: Pano, p. 43-69
Tolliver, Joyce (1997): From Labov and Waletzky to Contextualist Narratology. 19671997. In: Journal of Narrative and Life History 7, p. 53-60.
ANSGAR NNNING
(Giessen)
The present essay is an updated, revised and expanded version of ideas first broached in some
of my earlier articles; see e. g. Nnning (2000; 2003; 2004). I should like to thank Simon Cooke
and Roy Sommer for their valuable suggestions.
49
For informative overviews of the state of the art in narratology, or the various narratologies for
that matter, see Barry (1990), Fludernik (1993; 1998; 2002a), Herman (1999a; 1999b), Kindt/
50
Ansgar Nnning
51
See, for example, Fludernik (1999), Nnning (2000, 2004), Birk/Neumann (2002), Erll/Roggendorf (2002), Nnning/Nnning (2002a; 2004), Orosz (2004), Orosz/Schnert (2004), and,
most recently, Sommer (2007) and Birk (2008).
52
Ansgar Nnning
and international ramifications of narratology. They also metonymically illustrate what is at stake in current debates about the directions in which narratology is moving. Hard-core structuralist narratologists are very sceptical
about the so called new narratologies collected in David Hermans excellent volume Narratologies (Herman 1999a), suspecting that they will inevitably
lead to a contamination that infects pure and neutral description with the
taint of ideology and relativism. In contrast to the purists who want to make
the world safe for narratology, as John Bender (1995) aptly put it, practitioners of the various contextualist narratologies intrepidly rush in where
structuralists fear to tread. Whether or not they are fools in doing so, may be
an open question, but their work has arguably uncovered productive lines of
research for both narrative theory and the analysis and interpretation of narratives.
Nonetheless, one cannot fail to notice that the question asked in the title
of an illuminating collection of articles edited by Tom Kindt and HansHarald Mller, What is Narratology?, has recently received quite different and
even contradictory answers. There no longer seems to be a consensus either
about the main aims and objectives of narratology or about the extension of
its research domains. Echoing Christine Brooke-Roses title Whatever
Happened to Narratology, one may at this stage well ask Whither narratology?, be it contextualist narratology or one of its many siblings.
Instead of reviewing these debates, or trying to act as arbiter of their
hostilities, I should like to argue that such dichotomies as the one between
the uncontaminated fields of classical narratology and the contextualist
dimensions of contemporary postclassical narratological scholarship (Darby 2001: 423) should not be exaggerated. They present us, surely, with a set
of false choices: between text and context, between form and content as well
as form and context, between formalism and contextualism, between bottom-up analysis and top-down synthesis, and between neutral description
and ideological evaluation. The problem with such binarisms is not so
much the ingrained structuralist fear that the formalist and descriptivist
paradigm will inevitably be polluted by the invasion of ideological concerns,
as the failure of such rigid distinctions to do justice to the aims and complexities of textual analysis, interpretation, and cultural history. It is the attempt to address these complexities, to cross the border between textual
formalism and historical contextualism, and to close the gap between narratological bottom-up analysis and cultural top-down synthesis that is the motivating and driving force behind the project of a contextualist narratology
sensitive to the cultural and historical contexts, as well as the ideological and
epistemological implications, of narratives.
My project in the next sections will be to argue that classical narratology
and context-sensitive analyses and interpretations of narrative, despite their
53
contrasting theoretical and methodological assumptions, are not as incompatible as is suggested by their respective practitioners, who tend to ignore,
or violently attack, each others work. I will argue that the more narratological interpretation and contextualisation become and the more culturally and
historically oriented narratological theory and analysis become, the better for
both. An alliance between narratology and cultural history can open up productive new possibilities for the analysis both of the dialogic relationship
between novels and their cultural contexts and of the epistemological, historical, and cultural implications of narrative strategies.
3. Surveying Contextualist Narratologies and their Main Concerns
In comparison to the main variants of structuralist or classical narratology,
which share key theoretical and methodological assumptions, the many and
disparate approaches of postclassical narratology testify to the erosion of
any structuralist and narratological consensus. Given the plethora of new
directions and approaches in narrative theory, the sheer number of which
might make one rub ones eyes in astonishment, it definitely looks as though
narratology has not only survived the challenges of poststructuralism, feminism, the New Historicism, and postcolonialism, but has also developed in a
number of interesting new directions. As Herman (1999b: 14ff.) has shown,
however, in his concise overview of new Directions in Postclassical Narratology, there has not only been a proliferation of new approaches, the field
of narrative theory has also undergone a number of sea changes which have
ushered in new phases in the study of narrative.
First, the development of narratology has followed a course away from
the identification and systematization of the properties of narrative texts in
the direction of a growing awareness of the complex interplay that exists not
only between texts and their cultural contexts but also between textual features and the interpretive choices and strategies involved in the reading
process. Second, classical narratologys preference for describing textual features within a structuralist and formalist paradigm has given way to a general
move toward integration and synthesis (Herman 1999b: 11) and towards
thicker descriptions, to adopt Clifford Geertzs well-known metaphor.
Third, while structuralist narratology was a more or less unified discipline
interested mainly in the synchronic dimension of the poetics of narrative and
managing to evade both moral issues and the production of meaning (see
Ginsburg/Rimmon-Kenan 1999: 71), most of the new approaches that have
been subsumed under the wide umbrella of the term postclassical narratologies represent interdisciplinary projects which display a keen interest in the
changing forms and functions of a wide range of narratives as well as in the
54
Ansgar Nnning
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the various new directions in narrative studies should actually be designated narratologies, I
have elsewhere tried to provide provisional classifications of the different
kinds of new approaches in the form of a model or map (see Nnning 2003).
Since the focus of the present essay is on contextualist narratologies, I will
have to ignore such exciting approaches as cognitive and transmedial narratology, focussing instead on a range of innovative trends which bear directly
on the topic in hand, i. e. on approaches that can at least for convenience
sake be subsumed under the umbrella of the term contextualist narratology.
The following list presents a selective and schematic survey of the most
important new directions in contextualist narrative studies and its applications as well as of the names of some of the major proponents or practitioners of the respective trends. While some of the approaches mentioned in
the list have already produced a significant body of scholarly work (e. g.
feminist narratology), the labels of some other narratologies are merely ad
hoc coinages. Approaches that belong to this category are put in quotation
marks, with the name of those who have coined or used the respective
phrase in parentheses, whereas new narratologies that are fairly well established by now are printed in small caps. In some cases I have used single
inverted commas in order to indicate that the labels I have used are merely
provisional.
Contextualist, Thematic, and Cultural Approaches:
Applications of Narratology in Literary and Cultural Studies
55
For balanced accounts, see Prince (1995a; 1995b). For overviews of feminist narratology, see
Lanser (1992; 1995; 1999), Allrath (2000), and Nnning (1994).
56
Ansgar Nnning
analysis and interpretation of narratives, it is by no means the case that narratologists interested in exploring the relations between narrative and its various contexts are in principle unable to make valuable contributions to narratology or have failed to do so. On the contrary, as the exciting developments
in feminist narratology, the more recent variant of a narrative theory informed by gender studies (Nnning/Nnning 2004), and the directions
known as intercultural and postcolonial narratology have by now amply
demonstrated,5 proponents of contextualist approaches have successfully
engaged with theoretical issues (Sommer 2007: 65). What is more, they have
shown that the application of narratological categories, models and methods
to a context-sensitive analysis and interpretation of narratives can yield fruitful results, throwing new light, for instance, on the cultural specificity of
narrative forms, as well as forms of memory and remembering (see e. g. Birk
2008).
4. Premises and Concepts of Contextualist
and Cultural Narratologies
To present the outlines of what I have provisionally called a contextualist
and cultural narratology, we need to historicize and contextualize the debates
in which I propose, however modestly, to intervene. When narratology was
invented in the late sixties, three of the things that were lost were context,
cultural history and interpretation. Although we have recently witnessed
both a cultural turn and a great revival of interest in the study of narrative
across various disciplines, narratology and context-sensitive interpretations
of narratives still seem oceans apart. This holds especially for classical narratology, whereas rhetorical approaches to narrative like those championed by
James Phelan (1996; 2004) and some of the better developed recent approaches in contextualist narrative theory, e. g. feminist and postcolonial
narratology, are more intensely committed to interpretive concerns.
From todays vantage-point, it definitely looks as though narratology has
not only survived the challenges of deconstruction and poststructuralism, it
has also developed in a number of interesting directions. One of the reasons
why narratology survived the onslaughts of deconstruction, having recently
risen as a phoenix from its ashes, is that the critical climate has become increasingly receptive to genuine narratological concerns. Narratology has arguably benefited from the return to history (Currie 1998: 76), from the
Revival of Narrative (Burke 1991) in historiography, and from the renewed
interdisciplinary interest in storytelling, both as an object of study and as a
5
See e. g. Fludernik (1999), Sommer (2001; 2007), Birk/Neumann (2002), and Birk (2008).
57
For the use of the plural, see Herman (1999b) and Fludernik (2000); Currie (1998: 96) vaguely
refers to the new narratologies. For short, but excellent, overviews of the various new directions in postclassical narratology, see Herman (1999a) and Fludernik (2000). As I have elsewhere (Nnning 2000a; 2003) provided both a critique of the inflationary use of the term narratology and some modest proposals for its future usage, I should merely like to reiterate that
the various new approaches developed in the interdisciplinary study of narrative on the one
hand, and such key terms as narrative studies, narrative theory, narratology, and narratological criticism on the other, should be much more clearly distinguished from each other
than is generally the case.
58
Ansgar Nnning
For a brief informative and perspicacious history of theories of the novel (Romantheorie), narrative theory (Erzhltheorie), and narratology in Germany, see the illuminating article by Anja
Cornils and Wilhelm Schernus (2003), which throws new light on the history and international
ramifications of narratology. See also Fludernik (2000), Nnning (2000a), and Richardson
(2000).
See Nnning (2000; 2003). In the new concluding chapter to the second edition of her invaluable textbook Narrative Fiction, Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan (2002: 142) has reproduced the table
in which I tried to systematize those features that set the new postclassical narratologies off
from the structuralist paradigm of classical narratology.
59
As far as I know, the terms cultural narratology and historical narratology are still anything
but firmly established; for brief, albeit very vague and unspecific uses of the term, see Currie
(1998: 96), Onega and Garca Landa (1996: 12), and Bal (1999: 34), who talks about a narratology of culture. See, however, the well-developed ideas about a cultural narratology put forward in Helms (2003), which are very similar to those outlined here; I am grateful to the late
Gabriele Helms for drawing my attention to her use of the concept, of which I knew nothing at
the time I started developing the idea of a cultural narratology.
60
Ansgar Nnning
and theory, but cultural studies and cultural history can also profit from
drawing upon the analytical tools provided by narratology. As Bal (1999: 39)
pointedly observed, what is needed is a narratological analysis of culture
and a cultural analysis of narratives.
The project of a contextualist narratology is, of course, deeply indebted
to the various new narratologies that have recently emerged. It has most in
common with the approaches subsumed under such headings as Thematic
Narratology (Fludernik 2000), Contextualist and Thematic Narratologies
(see Chatman 1990; Nnning 2000a: 351) or Ideological Approaches
(Fludernik/Richardson 2000: 319) in some of the previous surveys of the
state of research in this blossoming field. Helms (2003: 15) is certainly right,
however, to emphasize firstly that the term cultural narratology should be
set clearly apart from what Chatman called contextualist narratologyby
which he means approaches that focus exclusively on the acts in the real
world that generate literary narratives (Chatman 1990: 310)and secondly
that the project of a cultural narratology has its roots in narratology
(Helms 2003: 15). Each of these new narratological approaches moves, in its
own way, from a description of textual phenomena to broader cultural questions and contexts. According to Herman, the differences between structuralist narratology and the new narratologies point to a broader reconfiguration of the narratological landscape. The root transformation can be described as a shift from text-centered and formal models to models that are
jointly formal and functionalmodels attentive both to the text and to the
context of stories (Herman 1999b: 8).
At the risk of oversimplification, one can attempt to provide a sketch of
the parallels of concern that contextualist narratologies share with other new
narratologies. Although the dichotomy between classical narratology and
postclassical narratologies suggests unwarranted assumptions of homogeneity, and does not do justice to the diversity, breadth and scope of the different approaches subsumed under the wide umbrellas of the two terms, it may
serve to highlight some of the innovative trends that have recently emerged.
First, the development of narratology has followed a course away from the
systematic description of the properties of texts in the direction of a growing
awareness of the complex interplay that exists both between texts and their
cultural contexts and between textual features and the interpretive choices
involved in the reading process. Second, classical narratologys preference
for describing textual elements within a structuralist paradigm has given way
to a general move toward integration and synthesis (Herman 1999b: 11).
Proceeding from the assumption that an analysis of narrative forms can
shed new light on the ideological and epistemological implications of narrative, cultural narratology strives to cross the border between textual formalism and historical contextualism, and, as I suggested above, to close the gaps
61
62
Ansgar Nnning
In his seminal work Imagining the Penitentiary, in which he argued that widespread attitudes towards prison were formulated in English fiction, and that
these facilitated the conception of the eighteenth-century penitentiary,
Bender sums up this new understanding of the active and constitutive role
that fictions play in the process of forming institutions and shaping mentalities:
I consider literature and the visual arts as advanced forms of knowledge, as cognitive instruments that anticipate and contribute to institutional formation. Novels as
I describe them are primary historical and ideological documents; the vehicles, not
the reflections, of social change. (Bender 1987: 1)
See the collection of articles edited by Kathy Mezei (1996) and Gabriele Helms (2003) brilliant
monograph on dialogism and narrative technique in Canadian novels respectively.
63
64
Ansgar Nnning
See e. g. Fludernik (2000), who has convincingly demonstrated how useful narratological tools
can actually be for the purposes of generic categorization.
See Nnning/Surkamp/Zerweck (1998), Nnning (2000b), and Nnning/Nnning (2000).
65
(2) by providing adequate descriptive tools, it will enable cultural critics to attend to
the specific tools and strategies that are characteristic of narratives in a wide range
of media. (Helms 2003: 15)
For other successful attempts to demonstrate the usefulness of a cultural-narratological framework, see Warhol (1999), who has demonstrated What Feminist Narratology Can Do for Cultural Studies, Sommer (2001), Zerweck (2001), Birke (2008) and Birk (2008).
66
Ansgar Nnning
shrinking, it is impossible to predict whether or not the various new narratologies will actually fulfil the high hopes that many of their proponents currently hold; but the kind of cultural narratology outlined and applied above
promises to show what the point of narratology is, or at least what it could
be. It seems wise, however, to leave at least the penultimate word to John
Bender, who strikes the right sort of balance between, on the one hand, acknowledging the undoubted usefulness of the narratological toolbox and, on
the other, emphasizing both the need to move beyond a merely descriptive
poetics of narrative and the benefits of understanding that the crossing of
disciplinary boundaries affords:
If the opening of literary studies to cultural history is to continue [...], we must value
the finely crafted tools but leave the boundaries behind. A world made perfectly
safe for narratology may offer the delights of Candides garden to the wise. But their
contentment should not be bought at the cost of denying others the risks of intellectual travel. (Bender 1995: 33)
As far as the promises of a contextualist and cultural narratological framework are concerned, what is arguably more important than anything else,
therefore, is that such a framework should draw narratologists and cultural
theorists attention to issues that are of crucial importance in an age both of
interdisciplinary narrative research and of inter-, multi- and trans-culturalism.
With regard to interdisciplinary cooperation, the framework delineated above
opens up new possibilities for fruitful collaborative ventures between narratology and narrative inquiry in other areas and disciplines like cultural history, cultural memory studies, psychology, ritual studies, and interdisciplinary
research into identity-formation.
In an age in which even economists and politicians have for some time
realized the crucial importance of storytelling and narratives to the modern
economy, to organizations and to the world of politics,15 it certainly seems
high time that narrative theorists should also begin to leave behind the
boundaries that structuralist narratologists seem so keen to retain. Anyone
who wants to come to terms with the wide-ranging and important cultural
and ideological functions that narratives and storytelling actually fulfil in our
present-day media culture needs to take into account the contexts on which
contextualist approaches to narrative are currently focusing. Narrative, narrativity and storytelling have been travelling concepts for quite some time
now, and in an age of intense interdisciplinary interest in narratives and storytelling, narrative theory would stand to gain a lot if narratologists started to
do some travelling as well. Only then will they be in a position to take ac-
15
For an excellent overview, see Salmon (2007), who summarizes the main developments, and
the works of Stephen Denning, the guru of the storytelling approach in management. See also
Denning (2005) and Brown et al. (2005).
67
68
Ansgar Nnning
Erll, Astrid and Simone Roggendorf. 2002. Kulturgeschichtliche Narratologie. Die Historisierung und Kontextualisierung kultureller Narrative. In: Nnning/Nnning
2002a, p. 73-113.
Fludernik, Monika. 1993. Narratology in Context. In: Poetics Today 14, p. 729-761.
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a Natural Narratology. London: Routledge.
Fludernik, Monika. 1998. Narratology. In: Paul E. Schellinger (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Novel.
2 vols., vol. 2: M-Z. Chicago, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, p. 900-905.
Fludernik, Monika. 1999. When the Self is an Other. Vergleichende erzhltheoretische und
postkoloniale berlegungen zur Identitts(de)konstruktion in der (exil)indischen
Gegenwartsliteratur. In: Anglia 117:1, p. 71-96.
Fludernik, Monika. 2000. Beyond Structuralism in Narratology. Recent Developments and
New Horizons in Narrative Theory. In: Anglistik 11:1, p. 83-96.
Fludernik, Monika. 2003. History of Narratology. A Rejoinder. In: Poetics Today 24:3, p. 405411.
Fludernik, Monika and Brian Richardson. 2000. Bibliography of Recent Works on Narrative. In: Style 34:2, p. 319-328.
Fohrmann, Jrgen. 1997. Textzugnge. ber Text und Kontext. In: Scientia Poetica: Jahrbuch
fr Geschichte der Literatur und der Wissenschaften 1. Tbingen: Niemeyer, p. 207-223.
Ginsburg, Ruth and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan. 1999. Is There a Life after Death? Theorizing Authors and Reading Jazz. In: Herman 1999a, p. 66-87.
Glauser, Jrg and Annegret Heitmann (eds.). 1999. Verhandlungen mit dem New Historicism: Das
Text-Kontext-Problem der Literaturwissenschaft. Wrzburg: Knigshausen & Neumann.
Grnzweig, Walter and Andreas Solbach (eds.). 1999. Grenzberschreitungen. Narratologie im
Kontext/Transcending Boundaries. Narratology in Context. Tbingen: Narr.
Gymnich, Marion; Birgit Neumann and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). 2006. Kulturelles Wissen und
Intertextualitt: Theoriekonzeptionen und Fallstudien zur Kontextualisierung von Literatur.
Trier: WVT.
Helms, Gabriele. 2003. Challenging Canada. Dialogism and Narrative Technique in Canadian Novels.
Montreal, Kingston, London, Ithaca: McGill-Queens University Press.
Herman, David (ed.). 1999a. Narratologies. New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Columbus:
Ohio State University Press.
Herman, David. 1999b. Introduction. Narratologies. In: Herman 1999a, p. 1-30.
Hutcheon, Linda. 1988. A Poetics of Postmodernism. History, Theory, Fiction. New York, London:
Routledge.
Jahn, Manfred. 1999. Speak, friend, and enter. Garden Paths, Artificial Intelligence, and
Cognitive Narratology. In: Herman 1999a, p. 167-194.
Jameson, Fredric. 1983 [1981]. The Political Unconscious. Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. London: Methuen.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller (eds.). 2003a. What is Narratology? Questions and Answers
Regarding the Status of a Theory. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2003b. Narrative Theory and/or/as Theory of Interpretation. In: Kindt/Mller 2003a, p. 205-219.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2003c. Narratology and Interpretation. A Rejoinder to
David Darby. In: Poetics Today 24:3, p. 413-421.
69
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2004. Brauchen wir eine interkulturelle Narratologie?
ber Nutzen und Nachteil eines contextualist turn in der Erzhltheorie. In:
Orosz & Schnert 2004, p. 141-148.
Kotte, Christina. 2001. Ethical Dimensions in British Historiographic Metafiction. Julian Barnes, Graham Swift, Penelope Lively. Trier: WVT.
Lanser, Susan. 1992. Fictions of Authority. Women Writers and Narrative Voice. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Lanser, Susan. 1995. Sexing the Narrative. Propriety, Desire, and the Engendering of Narratology. In: Narrative 3:1, p. 85-94.
Lanser, Susan. 1999. Sexing Narratology. Towards a Gendered Poetics of Narrative Voice.
In: Grnzweig & Solbach 1999, p. 167-183.
Mezei, Kathy (ed.). 1996. Feminist Narratology and British Women Writers. Chapel Hill/London:
University of North Carolina Press.
Mller-Funk, Wolfgang. 2002. Die Kultur und ihre Narrative. Eine Einfhrung. Wien/New York:
Springer.
Nnning, Ansgar. 1994. Gender and Narratology. Kategorien und Perspektiven einer feministischen Narrativik. In: ZAA 42:2, p. 102-121.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2000a. Towards a Cultural and Historical Narratology. A Survey of Diachronic Approaches, Concepts, and Research Projects. In: Bernhard Reitz and
Sigrid Rieuwerts (eds.). Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings. Trier: WVT, p. 345-373.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2000b. On the Perspective Structure of Narrative Texts. Steps toward a
Constructivist Narratology. In: Seymour Chatman and Willie van Peer (eds.). New
Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press 2000,
p. 207-223.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2003. Narratology or Narratologies? Taking Stock of Recent Developments, Critique and Modest Proposals for Future Usages of the Term. In: Kindt
& Mller 2003, p. 239-75.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2004. Where Historiographic Metafiction and Narratology Meet. Towards
an Applied Cultural Narratology. In: Monika Fludernik and Uri Margolin (eds.).
Recent Developments in German Narratology. Style 38.3, p. 352-375.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2005. Reconceptualizing Unreliable Narration. Synthesizing Cognitive and
Rhetorical Approaches. In: Phelan & Rabinowitz 2005, p. 89-107.
Nnning, Ansgar and Vera Nnning (eds.). 2000. Multiperspektivisches Erzhlen. Studien zur
Theorie und Geschichte der Perspektivenstruktur im englischen Roman des 18. bis 20. Jahrhunderts. Trier: WVT.
Nnning, Ansgar and Vera Nnning (eds.). 2002a. Neue Anstze in der Erzhltheorie. Trier:
WVT.
Nnning, Vera and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). 2002b. Erzhltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinr. Trier: WVT.
Nnning, Vera and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). 2004. Erzhltextanalyse und Gender Studies. Stuttgart:
Metzler.
Nnning, Ansgar; Carola Surkamp and Bruno Zerweck (eds.). 1998. Unreliable Narration.
Studien zur Theorie und Praxis unglaubwrdigen Erzhlens in der englischsprachigen Erzhlliteratur. Trier: WVT.
Onega, Susana and Jos ngel Garca Landa. 1996. Introduction. In: S. O. and J. A. G. L.
(eds.). Narratology. An Introduction. London/New York: Longman, p. 1-41.
70
Ansgar Nnning
DAVID HERMAN
(Columbus)
1. Synopsis
This essay begins from the assumption that mapping words onto worlds is a
fundamentalperhaps the fundamentalrequirement for narrative sense
making. To explore how people use storytelling practices to build, update,
and modify narrative worlds, the essay extends Goodmans (1978) account
of ways of worldmaking. Narrative worldmaking, I argue, involves specific, identifiable procedures set off against a larger set of background conditions for world-creationirrespective of the medium in which the narrative
practices are being conducted.
Using three kinds of storytelling practices to suggest the transmedial
scope of my analysisa print narrative, face-to-face storytelling, and a
graphic novelI outline basic and general procedures for world-construction in narrative contexts. More specifically, my concern is with the cognitive
processes underlying narrative ways of worldmaking. Focusing on how stories are launched, I suggest that configuring narrative worlds entails mapping
discourse cues onto WHAT, WHERE, and WHEN dimensions of a mentally
configured storyworlddimensions whose interplay accounts for the ontological make-up and spatiotemporal profile of the world in question. Studying narrative ways of worldmaking requires analysts to synthesize ideas from
multiple fields of inquiry, while conversely revealing the importance of narrative scholarship for a range of disciplines, from philosophy, linguistics, and
comparative media studies, to historiography, ethnography, and the arts.
2. Narrative Worldmaking: A Sketch
The classical, structuralist narratologists failed to come to terms with the
referential or world-creating properties of narrative, partly because of the
exclusion of the referent in favor of signifier and signified in the Saussurean
language theory that informed the structuralists approach. By contrast, over
72
David Herman
the past couple of decades, one of the most basic and abiding concerns of
narrative scholars has been how readers of print narratives, interlocutors in
face-to-face discourse, and viewers of films use textual cues to build up representations of the worlds evoked by stories, or storyworlds. Such worldmaking practices are of central importance to narrative scholars of all sorts, from
feminist narratologists exploring how representations of male and female
characters pertain to dominant cultural stereotypes about gender roles, to
rhetorical theorists examining what kinds of assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes have to be adopted by readers if they are to participate in the multiple
audience positions required to engage fully with fictional worlds, to analysts
(and designers) of digital narratives interested in how interactive systems can
remediate the experience of being immersed in the virtual worlds created
through everyday narrative practices.
This ongoing re-engagement with the referential, world-creating potential of narrative can be characterized as a subdomain within postclassical
narratology (Herman 1999). At issue are frameworks for narrative inquiry
that build on the work of classical, structuralist narratologists but supplement
that work with concepts and methods that were unavailable to story analysts
such as Roland Barthes, Grard Genette, A. J. Greimas, and Tzvetan Todorov during the heyday of the structuralist revolution. In the case of research on narrative worldmaking, analysts have worked to enrich the original
base of structuralist concepts with ideas either ignored by or inaccessible to
the classical narratologists, thereby developing new strategies for studying
how storyworlds are made and remade. Indeed, accounts of the worldcreating potential of narrative have received impetus from theoretical studies
in a number of fieldsstudies conducted by philosophers, psychologists,
linguists, and others concerned with how people use various kinds of symbol
systems to refer to aspects of their experience.
In the present essay, I draw on some of this work to explore the range of
cognitive processes that support inferences about the modal status, inhabitants, and spatiotemporal profile of a given storyworld. I also consider which
processes constitute distinctively narrative ways of worldmaking, in contrast
with the forms of world-construction enabled by syllogistic arguments, statistical analyses, or descriptions of the weather. In this context, and in parallel with the account developed in Herman (2002: 9-22), I use the term storyworld to refer to the world evoked implicitly as well as explicitly by a narrative, whether that narrative takes the form of a printed text, film, graphic
novel, sign language, everyday conversation, or even a tale that is projected
but is never actualized as a concrete artefactfor example, stories about
ourselves that we contemplate telling to friends but then do not, or film
scripts that a screenwriter has plans to create in the future. Storyworlds are
global mental representations enabling interpreters to frame inferences about
73
Hence, as discussed in Herman (2002: 9-22), the notion storyworld is consonant with a range of
other concepts proposed by cognitive psychologists, discourse analysts, psycholinguists, philosophers of language, and others concerned with how people go about making sense of texts
or discourses. Like storyworld, these other notionsincluding deictic center, mental model, situation
model, discourse model, contextual frame, and possible worldare designed to explain how interpreters
rely on inferences triggered by textual cues to build up representations of the overall situation
or world evoked but not fully explicitly described in the discourse.
74
David Herman
thing to have a particular experience. The proviso is that recent research on narrative bears importantly on debates concerning the nature of consciousness itself.
For convenience of exposition, I abbreviate these elements in my account as
(i) situatedness, (ii) event sequencing, (iii) worldmaking/world disruption, and (iv) what its like. The focus of the present essay is on (aspects of)
the third element, or worldmaking/world disruption. Further, in referring
to narrative representations, I have in mind all representations that can be included within the text-type category narrative, regardless of the semiotic
environment in which a given representation is designed or disseminated.
Hence my use of illustrative narratives presented in several storytelling mediain particular, three case studies that I should now go on to describe in
somewhat more detail.
In Daniel Clowes 1997 graphic novel Ghost World, the narrative focuses
on two teenage girls, Enid Coleslaw and Rebecca Doppelmeyer, trying to
navigate the transition from high school to post-high-school life. Closer in
spirit to the female Bildungsroman than superhero comics, Ghost World,
which was originally published as installments in the underground comics
tradition and subsequently assembled into a novel, overlays a graphic format
on content matter that helped extend the scope and range of comics storytelling generally. For its part, Hemingways Hills Like White Elephants (1987
[1927]) centers on a conversation between an unnamed male character and
Jig, the woman who has been impregnated by the male character (the reader
assumes). As they wait for the train to Madrid, the two characters briefly
discuss the appearance of the landscape surrounding them (specifically, Jig
mentions that the hills across the valley look like white elephants), then order
drinks and engage in a sometimes tense conversational exchange about the
possibility of Jigs having an abortion. Finally, the story that I have titled
UFO or the Devil (based on a phrase used by the storyteller in the first line, or
what Labov 1972 would term the abstract of the story) was told as part of
a larger sequence of narratives through which Monica cumulatively presents
a portrait of herself.2 The narrative that I have excerpted from this much
more extended interaction (the total duration of the tape-recording is more
than 145 minutes) concerns not only Monicas and her friends encounter
with what Monica characterizes as a supernatural apparitiona big, glowing
orange ball that rises up in the air and pursues them menacinglybut also
2
The narrative was recorded on July 2, 2002, in the mountainous western portion of the state of
North Carolina, near where the events being recounted are purported to have occurred. The
storyteller is identified as Monica, a pseudonym for a 41-year-old African American female. A
full transcript of the story, together with an account of the transcription conventions used in
my analysis and discussion, can be found on the following webpage: http://people.cohums.
ohio-state.edu/herman145/UFO.html.
75
76
David Herman
On the notion of what it is like as a term of art used to describe the states of felt, subjective
awareness associated with the having of conscious experiences, see Nagel (1974) and Herman
(2009: chapter 6). Further, on the relationships between narrativity (or the degree to which a
representation is amenable to being interpreted as a story), occurrences that disrupt the canonical order of events in a storyworld, and reportability or tellability, see, again, Herman (2009:
chapter 6).
77
But what would a more general account of how narratives evoke storyworlds look like? And how do narrative ways of worldmaking differ from
other representational practices that involve the construction or reconstruction of worlds, in a broad sense? In other words, when it comes to worldcreation, what distinguishes narrative representations from other contexts in
which people design and manipulate symbol systems for the purpose of
structuring, comprehending, and communicating aspects of experience? The
four basic elementsi. e., the gradient, more-or-less conditions for narrativityof situatedness, event sequencing, worldmaking/world disruption, and what it's like can be redescribed as procedures specific to narrative ways of worldmaking. In lieu of a fuller explication of all these procedures (see Herman 2009), the remainder of my analysis dwells on just a few
of the salient aspects of the process of building storyworlds viewed as a special type of world-creation.
4. Background Conditions for Narrative Worldmaking:
Nelson Goodmans Account
In his study Ways of Worldmaking, the philosopher Nelson Goodman develops ideas that afford context for my analysis. Adopting a pluralist instead of
a reductionist stance, Goodman argues that many different world-versions
are of independent interest and importance, without any requirement or presumption of reducibility to a single base (Goodman 1978: 4), for example,
the world-version propounded in physics. As Goodman puts it, [t]he pluralists acceptance of [world-versions] other than physics implies no relaxation
of rigor but a recognition that standards different from yet no less exacting
than those applied in science are appropriate for appraising what is conveyed
in perceptual or pictorial or literary versions (1978: 5). More generally,
Goodman asks,
In just what sense are there many worlds? What distinguishes genuine from spurious worlds? What are worlds made of? How are they made? What role do symbols
play in the making? And how is worldmaking related to knowing? (Goodman 1978:
1)
78
David Herman
[...] composing wholes and kinds out of parts and members and subclasses, combining features into complexes, and making connections
(7). Ethnographic investigation of an indigenous population, for example, may uncover the presence of several subcultures where only one had
been recognized previously; conversely, the formation of new hybrid
disciplines or subdisciplines (algebraic geometry, biochemistry, information design) results in new, more complex world-versions.
weighting: Some relevant kinds of the one world, rather than being
absent from the other, are present as irrelevant kinds; some differences
among worlds are not so much in entities comprised as in emphasis or
accent, and these differences are no less consequential (11). From a
macrohistorical perspective, the shift from a religious to a secularscientific world-version entailed a re-weighting of the particulars of the
phenomenal world, which came to occupy a focus of attention formerly
reserved for the noumenal or spiritual realm.
ordering: modes of organization [patterns, measurements, ways of
periodizing time, etc.] are not found in the world but built into a world
(14). Taxonomies of plants, animals, or other entities are in effect worldversions built on a hierarchical system of categories that may be more or
less finely grained (and more or less densely populated), depending on
whether one has expert or only a laypersons knowledge of a given domain (Herman and Moss 2007). My world-version currently contains
names for (and concepts of) only a few common types of insects, in contrast with the world-version of an entomologist.
deletion and supplementation: the making of one world out of another usually involves some extensive weeding out and fillingactual
excision of some old and supply of some new material (14). I might
study entomology, and supplement my world-version with new knowledge and new beings; alternatively, if because of climate change an insect
species becomes extinct, the entomologists world-version will undergo
compulsory excision.
deformation: reshapings or deformations that may according to point
of view be considered either corrections or distortions (16). Here one
may think of arguments for a new scientific theory in favor of an older
one (e. g., the geocentric vs. the heliocentric models of the solar system)
from the perspective of those who are parties to the debate.
As my examples of each worldmaking procedure indicate, there is nothing
distinctively story-like about the worlds over which Goodmans account
ranges, though there is nothing about the analysis that excludes storyworlds,
either. Narrative worlds, too, might be made through processes of composition and decomposition: think of allegories fusing literal and symbolic
worlds, or decomposition in texts such as The Canterbury Tales, where the
79
narrative ramifies into a frame tale that constitutes the main diegetic level
and, embedded within it, various hypodiegetic levels created when characters
within that frame tell stories of their own. Weighting may also be a generative factor: consider postmodern rewrites that evoke new world-versions by
reweighting events in their precursor narratives, as when Jean Rhyss Wide
Sargasso Sea generates a new storyworld on the basis of Charlotte Bronts
Jane Eyre by using as a metric for evaluating events not Jane Eyres or Edward Rochesters perspective (as refracted through Janes telling) but rather
Antoinette Cosways. So too with ordering: narrative worlds can be made
when new time-scales are deployed, as when Alain Robbe-Grillet as a practitioner of the nouveau roman in France produced novel worlds by drastically
slowing the pace of narration (Robbe-Grillet 1965 [1957; 1959]), or when the
average shot length in Hollywood films diminished over time to produce
more rapid cuts between scenes (Morrison [forthcoming]). Deletion and
supplementation likewise find their place in the building of storyworlds. I
may tailor my recounting of my own life experiences to adjust for differences
among groups of interlocutors, going into more detail among close friends
and less detail when asked a question during a job interview. And as for deformation, Terry Zwigoffs (2001) film version of Ghost World can be viewed
as a reshaping of the graphic novel version, and more generally any adaptation of a prior text in another medium for storytelling will result in alterations of the sort that Goodman includes under this rubric (see Genette
1997).
Against the backdrop afforded by Goodmans broad, generic account of
worldmaking procedures, operative in both non-narrative and narrative contexts, my next section zooms in on the way narrative openings trigger particular kinds of world-building strategies. These strategies cut across storytelling media and narrative genres, but they are also inflected by the specific
constraints and affordances of various kinds of narrative practices.
5. Narrative Beginnings as Prompts for Worldmaking:
Taking up Residence in Storyworlds
Story openings prompt interpreters to take up residence (more or less comfortably) in the world being evoked by a given narrative. Openings from
different story genres can be compared and contrasted along this dimension,
underscoring how part of the meaning of genre consists of distinctive
protocols for worldmakingthough again, the approach being outlined in
this essay predicts that a common core of worldmaking procedures, specific
to the narrative text type, cuts across such generic differences. Likewise, the
model predicts that distinctively narrative processes of world creation obtain
80
David Herman
in various media for storytelling. Here the issue is how the analyst, when
comparing and contrasting a variety of narrative openings, might distinguish
generically narrative from medium-, genre-, and even text-specific worldmaking procedures.
Consider the beginning of Hills Like White Elephants:
[1] The hills across the valley of the Ebro were long and white. [2] On this side
there was no shade and no trees and the station was between two lines of rails in the
sun. [3] Close against the side of the station there was the warm shadow of the
building and a curtain, made of strings of bamboo beads, hung across the open
door into the bar, to keep out flies. [4] The American and the girl with him sat at a
table in the shade, outside the building. [5] It was very hot and the express from
Barcelona would come in forty minutes. [6] It stopped at this junction for two minutes and went to Madrid. [7] What should we drink? the girl asked? [8] She had
taken off her hat and put it on the table. (211)
How do these eight sentences evoke (a fragment of) a narrative world? What
specific textual cues allow readers to draw inferences about the structure,
inhabitants, and spatiotemporal situation of this world? Further, how does
the worldmaking process here differ from that triggered by the following 7sentence paragraph at the beginning of Richard Morgans science fiction
novel Altered Carbon?
[1a] Chemically alert, I inventoried the hardware on the scarred wooden table for
the fiftieth time that night. [2a] Sarahs Heckler and Koch shard pistol glinted dully
at me in the low light, the butt gaping open for its clip. [3a] It was an assassins
weapon, compact and utterly silent. [4a] The magazines lay next to it. [5a] She had
wrapped insulating tape around each one to distinguish the ammunition: green for
sleep, black for the spider-venom load. [6a] Most of the clips were black-wrapped.
[7a] Sarah had used up a lot of green on the security guards at Gemini Biosys last
night. (Morgan 2002: 3, emphases added)
As Paul Werth points out (1999: 56), story openings that like Hemingways
and Morgans include noun phrases with definite articles and demonstrative
pronouns (the American and the girl, that night) can be aligned with what the
philosopher David Lewis (1979) termed the process of accommodation.
Through accommodation, a text can economically evoke the storyworld (or
text world in Werths terms) to which readers of a fictional text must
imaginatively relocate if they are to interpret referring expressions (a curtain,
the open door, the hardware, the scarred wooden table, the spider-venom load, etc.) and
deictic expressions (on this side, last night) properly5mapping them onto the
world evoked by the text rather than the world(s) that the text producer and
text interpreter occupy when producing or decoding these textual signals.
Thus, readers of Morgans text assume that the scarred wooden table in sentence 1a occupies the world inhabited by the earlier, experiencing-I but not
5
Deictic terms like I, here, and now are expressions whose meaning changes depending on who is
uttering them in what discourse context.
81
82
David Herman
this world (set 500 years in the future), different kinds of ammunition for the
same gun have either a narcotizing effect or a lethal deadliness (2a); what is
more, the use of chemical stimulants to enhance alertness is so common that
it can be mentioned elliptically in a subordinate clause, as in sentence (1a).
Yet the principle of minimal departure continues to apply. Unless cued to do
otherwise, readers will assume that Sarahs use of the sleep-inducing ammunition instead of the spider-venom variety reflects her commitment to killing
only when necessarynot, say, a perverse fixation on putting people to
sleep, or a mere random tic on her part.
Hemingways and Morgans texts show how a common stock of procedures for narrative worldmaking can be inflected differently when different
genres are involved. By the same token, worldmaking procedures in narrative
contexts are also affected by differences of medium. Consider the opening
of Monicas story:
Monica:
(1) So thats why I say..UFO or the devil got after our black asses,
(2) for showing out.
(3) > I dont know what was <
(4) but we walkin up the hill,
(5) this ^way, comin up through here.
Interviewer 1: (6) Yeah.
Monica:
(7) And..Im like on this side and Renees right here.
In this context, procedures for worldmaking are affected by a different system of affordances and constraints than the system that impinges on written
narrative texts, whatever their genre. On the one hand, properties associated
with written discourse, particularly its deliberate or worked-over nature in
contrast with the relative spontaneity of spoken discourse (Chafe 1994), allow producers of literary narrative to situate participants in quite richly detailed storyworldsof the sort already evoked in a single paragraph from
each of the two texts cited above. The increased span of time separating the
production of the narrative from its interpretation, and for that matter the
longer span of time allowed for interpretation of literary narratives, facilitates
denser concentrations of detail than would be typical for face-to-face storytelling (Herman 2004). Yet contexts of face-to-face narration are enabling
when it comes to other worldmaking proceduresprocedures that are, conversely, subject to constraints imposed by the nature of written communication.
Producers of fictional narratives (in whatever genre) have to rely on the
process of accommodation and the principle of minimal departure to
prompt readers to relocate to the distinct spacetime coordinates of the world
evoked by a written text. In contrast, because she is telling her story on-site
or where the events being recounted are purported to have occurred, by
using deictic expressions such as this way and here in line 5 and this side and
83
right here in line 7 Monica can prompt her interlocutors to draw on information available in the present interactional contextspecifically, information
about the layout of the scene and its terrainto build a model of the overall
spatial configuration of the storyworld she is attempting to evoke. In this
way, in the case of spatial deicticsexpressions like here and thereface-toface storytelling affords more options for anchoring texts in contexts of interaction than do literary narratives. To help their interlocutors assign referents to such expressions, storytellers can cue their interlocutors to draw
analogies between the spatial configuration of the storyworld and that of the
world in which the narrative is being told and interpreted. Thus, in using the
deictic expressions I have highlighted in lines 5 and 7, Monica prompts her
interlocutors to project a storyworld-external space onto a storyworld-internal space, and vice versa. Arguably, these hybrid or blended locations are
richer than those that readers can access through the process of accommodation triggered by spatial deictics in a written, literary narrative such as Hemingways or Morgans. As is characteristic for literary narratives, accommodation in these texts results not in a blending of spatiotemporal coordinates
but rather a deictic shift (see Segal 1995; Zubin/Hewitt 1995; Herman forthcoming a) from the here and now orienting the act of interpretation to that
orienting participants in the storyworld.6
In Clowess Ghost World, meanwhile, still other medium-specific affordances and constraints (along with particular textual and paratextual cues)
impinge on the process of narrative worldmaking. Exploiting the visual dimension of graphic storytelling, the cover of the novel features uncaptioned
images of the two main characters that serve immediately to orient readers
within the storyworld evoked by the text. The cover signals the complex lifesituation of protagonists who are struggling to make the transition from adolescence to adulthood: Rebecca is shown blowing a bubble with her chewing
gum, while Enid is portrayed with serious-looking thick-framed glasses that
she perhaps wears to appear older than she actually is. The front matter of
the volume continues to shape readers inferences about what kind of storyworld they are about to enter, drawing on the verbal as well as the visual
information track to do so. One panel represents what can be assumed in
retrospect to be Enids bookshelf, with a heterogeneous set of texts ranging
from 2000 Insults to Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, Oedipus Rex, and
Scooby Doo, to Nora Browns novel Henry Orient (the basis for a 1964 comedy
6
Although literary narratives do not allow for blended spatial deixis of this sort, narrative fictions told in the second person can in some cases create analogous effects by way of person
deixis. More specifically, some instances of narrative you can create blends by referring simultaneously (and ambiguously) to a narrator-protagonist and to a current recipient of the story, superimposing the spacetime coordinates of a storyworld-internal entity upon those of a storyworld-external entity, and vice versa (see Herman 2002: 331-71).
84
David Herman
85
86
David Herman
Parts of this essay are based on material contained in my book Basic Elements of Narrative (Herman 2009). I am grateful to Wiley-Blackwell for permission to use this material.
87
Herman, David and Susan Moss. 2007. Plant Names and Folk Taxonomies. Frameworks for
Ethnosemiotic Inquiry. In: Semiotica 167:1/4, p. 1-11.
Jahn, Manfred. 1997. Frames, Preferences, and the Reading of Third-Person Narratives.
Towards a Cognitive Narratology. In: Poetics Today 18, p. 441-468.
Jahn, Manfred. 2005. Cognitive Narratology. In: David Herman, Manfred Jahn and MarieLaure Ryan (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, p.
67-71.
Labov, William. 1972. The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax. In: Language
in the Inner City. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 354-396.
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a Language Game. In: Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, p.
339-359.
Morgan, Richard. 2002. Altered Carbon. New York: Del Rey.
Morrison, James. (forthcoming). Narrative Theory in the Film Studies Classroom; or, Old
Movies and the New Disorder. In: David Herman, Brian McHale and James
Phelan (eds.). Options for Teaching Narrative Theory.
Nagel, Thomas. 1974. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? In: The Philosophical Review 83:4, p. 43550.
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The Conduit Metaphor a Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language
about Language. In: Andrew Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 284-324.
Robbe-Grillet, Alain. 1965 [1957, 1959]. Two Novels, by Robbe-Grillet [La Jalousie and Dans le
Labyrinthe]; trans. R. Howard. New York: Grove Press.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. 1991. Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (ed.). 2004. Narrative across Media: The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. 2005. Possible-Worlds Theory. In: David Herman, Manfred Jahn and
Marie-Laure Ryan (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, p. 446-450.
Segal, Ernest M. 1995. Narrative Comprehension and the Role of Deictic Shift Theory. In:
Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder and Lynn E. Hewitt (eds.). Deixis in Narrative. A
Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 3-17.
Werth, Paul. 1999. Text Worlds. Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.
Zubin, David; Hewitt, Lynn E. 1995. The Deictic Center. A Theory of Deixis in Narrative.
In: Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder and Lynn E. Hewitt (eds.). Deixis in Narrative.
A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 129-155.
Zwigoff, Terry. 2001. Ghost World. MGM.
ROY SOMMER
(Wuppertal)
89
Based on schema theory and early linguistic studies of text comprehension in the 1970s and 1980s, cognitive narratology has developed sophisticated models of this software used by readers in the process of narrative
comprehension. Less attention, however, has been paid by narratologists to
the processes involved in the generation of stories. Narrative researchers in
other disciplines have explored creativity in general and storytelling as a creative activity in particular from the perspectives of psychological and artificial
intelligence research. From the cross-disciplinary take on narrative which this
volume seeks to establish, bringing the research from these disciplines together seems a very promising endeavour. While cognitive narratology might
benefit from incorporating concepts of creativity and models of storytelling
into its theoretical framework, other disciplines might be interested in the
state of the art in literary narratology in order to refine existing concepts
such as the domain of literary creativity and the phase of narrative design
in models of the creative process.
This paper takes a first step towards such a cross-disciplinary model of
story generation or narrative composition. The overall aim is to refine our
understanding of what happens in the process of storytelling.1 Restrictive
narratologists might object, of course, that storytelling and narrative design
belong to the realm of creative writing. The aims and methodological standards of narratological approaches to storytelling, however, differ considerably from those of creative writing. Whereas creative writing is aimed at encouraging and supporting aspiring writers and at improving their creative
output, narratology provides systematic descriptions of the elements of narrative and their functional relationships and of the cognitive processes involved in their reception (and, as suggested here, also in their production)
within an overall framework of a general theory of narrative.
Apart from the cognitive turn in narratology, two narratological approaches have transcended the structuralist focus on narrative poetics in
favour of a more holistic view of the interaction of author, text and reader:
these are, firstly, the communication model of narrative fiction and, secondly, rhetorical approaches to narrative based on linguistic speech act theory. The potential and the limitations of these approaches for a model of the
storytelling process will be discussed in section 2. Section 3 will then offer a
survey of creativity research which provides conceptual alternatives to communication theory and speech act theory as a starting point for a concept of
narrative production. The survey will also demonstrate, however, that psy1
Narrative comprehension and story generation are the terms used in linguistics and artificial
intelligence respectively to designate what is commonly known as storytelling. Despite their
slightly different connotations, these three terms are treated as synonyms in this paper, whereas
the term narrative design (which is sometimes used as another synonym of storytelling in creative writing) refers to a specific stage of the storytelling process (cf. section 5).
90
Roy Sommer
91
In his survey of the theoretical foundation of what he terms rhetorical narratology, Michael Kearns (1999) describes how speech act theory locates
meaning in the use to which an utterance is put and how it allows us to see
the authors illocutionary stance towards his or her work as the key to fictionality. Building on Marie-Louise Pratts (1978) work on speech act theory
and literary discourse, as well as on cognitive linguistics, Kearns then shows
how situational and cultural contexts need to be taken into account when
analysing narratives, and discusses which cognitive and communicative prin-
Cf. Neumann/Nnning (2008: 29f.): It is generally understood today that the author is the
central link between a narrative text and its historical context: The analysis of the interplay between narrative fiction and its pertinent cultural context necessarily entails the recognition of the
author.
92
Roy Sommer
Cf. Kearns (1999: 28): The traditional concept of a single, live author is necessary for any
meaningful discussion of constructive intention, while the concepts of authorship as a socially
constituted role and author as implied by any speech act or text are needed for a complete description of a narrating situation.
93
from work to text (cf. Barthes 2001 [1971]), at least in the eyes of the ideal
or intended reader, the text always also remains a work.
As has been shown above, both communicative and rhetorical approaches to the analysis of fictional narrative acknowledge the importance of
the author in principle, either as a link between the text and its cultural context or as the source of the fictional discourse; neither approach, however,
provides a starting point for a well-constrained description of the storytelling
process, as their core interests, where extratextual communication is concerned, lie with model readers and the reception process rather than with
model authors and narrative composition. Extending narratological research
from the reception to the production of narrative therefore requires a third
component.
This missing link is provided by cognitive approaches to the study of
narrative, both within literary narratology and in related disciplines such as
cognitive psychology (cf. Bortolussi/Dixon 2003), psycholinguistics (cf. Gerrig 1993) and artificial intelligence research (cf. Dartnall 1994, Turner 1994).
Important work in this field includes the studies by Fludernik (1996),
Schneider (2000) and Herman (2002), and the contributions in Herman
(2003). A short survey of cognitive approaches to narrative can be found in
Jahn (2005). These cognitive approaches should not be considered as a theoretical and methodological alternative either to communication models or to
rhetorical narratology, which view similar phenomena from different perspectives, using different theoretical frameworks, concepts and terminologies. Cognitive research functions, rather, as a meta-discourse or foundational discipline which provides both text-oriented and contextual narratologies either with concepts for explaining narrative phenomena which transcend textual boundaries, such as unreliability, or with models of interaction
between texts and readers.
Cognitivist studies of narrative fiction have so far concentrated mainly
on narrative comprehension. The fundamental nature of the mental processes involved in reading, as well as the generic nature of the narrative
frames and schemata which are activated in the reception processKearns
(1999) even talks of ur-conventionssuggest that the generation of stories
should follow similar, though presumably not identical, rules and procedures.
Phelan (2005: 49), for instance, assumes that if readers need conceptual
schema [sic] to construct interpretations, authors also need conceptual
schema [sic] to construct structural wholes. Gerrig and Egidi (2003: 41)
discuss more explicitly how authors may benefit from knowledge of schemata applied in the reading process, as their confirmation or violation allows
for efficient representations of characters, actions and objects as well as for
94
Roy Sommer
Cf. Gerrig/Egidi (2003: 41): Readers use of schemas provides at least two benefits to authors.
First, as we have noted, schemas allow them to delineate a scene with quick gestures. Once, for
example, a restaurant scene has been minimally set, waiters, clattering trays, and wandering violinists can be addressed with little cognitive cost. Second, schemas allow authors to call quiet attention to departures from the norm. It is not, for example, an ordinary event to be served food
in a restaurant which one has not ordered.
95
Having rejected pragmatic, psychodynamic and psychometric approaches, Sternberg and Lubart then turn to three alternatives which seem to be
more promising. Cognitive approaches to creativity distinguish between a
generative and an exploratory phase of creativity and analyse the mental
processes which characterise creative invention, such as processes of retrieval, association, synthesis, transformation, analogical transfer, and categorical reduction (cf. ibid. 7f.). Social-personality approaches focus both on
the sources of creativity (personality variables, motivational variables, sociocultural environment) and its motivation (e.g. intrinsic motivation or the
need for order or achievement).
Due to the complexity of the phenomenon, Sternberg and Lubart conclude, neither approach can explain and evaluate creativity on its own.5 What
is needed, they consider, is a confluence of approaches proceeding from the
assumption that multiple components must converge for creativity to occur (ibid.: 10). The examples of such approaches cited by Sternberg and
Lubart include studies analysing the confluence of intrinsic motivation, domain-relevant knowledge and abilities and creativity-relevant skills (cf. Amabile 1983), or the developmental evolving-systems model for understanding
creativity (cf. Gruber 1988). A third confluence approach, and the one which
will be discussed in detail here as it lends itself best to the requirements of an
overall framework model for narrative design, is Csikszentmihalyis (1997)
sociological theory of creativity, which is based on the distinction between
field, domain and person.6
Csikszentmihalyi (1997: 23) points out that definitions of creativity tend
to be too vague to be useful, with usage ranging from the inner assurance of
a person that what he or she does or has achieved is new and valuable to the
belief that this inner assurance must be confirmed by experts in the field
before we can agree to call a person creative and his or her effort new and
valuable: The problem is that the term creativity covers too much
ground. As a consequence, Csikszentmihalyis theory of creativity turns to
systems theory in order to restrict the range of phenomena to be defined.
Csikszentmihalyi argues that creativity can be observed only in the interrelations of a system made up of three main parts (1997: 27) namely the
domain (i.e. a set of symbolic rules and procedures), the field (i.e. the institutions and persons who act as gatekeepers to the domain) and the creative
5
Cf. Sternberg/Lubart (1999: 9): The cognitive and social-personality approaches have each
provided valuable insights into creativity. However, if you look for research that investigates
both cognitive and social-personality variables at the same time, you will find only a handful of
studies. The cognitive work on creativity has tended to ignore or downplay the personality and
social system, and the social-personality approaches have tended to have little or nothing to say
about the mental representations and processes underlying creativity.
Csikszentmihalyis findings are based on interviews with 91 exceptional creative individuals
including scientists, artists, musicians and writers.
96
Roy Sommer
person: Creativity occurs when a person, using the symbols of a given domain such as music, engineering, business, or mathematics, has a new idea or
sees a new pattern, and when this novelty is selected by the appropriate field
for inclusion into the relevant domain. (ibid.: 28) These three elements of
creativity defined by Csikszentmihalyi and others from a sociological and
psychological angleperson, field and domainwill now be examined more
closely and correlated with corresponding literary theories and concepts of
author, literary system and narrativity.
3.1 Approaching the Creative Personality:
Flesh-and-Blood Authors and Reader Constructs
There is a general consensus that human beings are not equally creative.
Psychological research has tried to establish degrees of creativity, to distinguish more and less creative personalities, to compare the motivational patterns of creative individuals, and to discover evidence of a creative disposition in individuals.7 Although there seems to be a relationship between intelligence and creativity,8 researchers today agree that a persons creativity depends on the context in which they work, i.e. the interaction between the
individual and his or her chosen domain and the field: the essence of creativity cannot be captured as an intrapersonal variable (Sternberg/Kaufman/Pretz 2002: 1).
Although creativity is not an intrapersonal variable, there is also a consensus that creativity can be measured and developed in some degree (cf.
Sternberg 2006: 2). Psychologists continue to study behavioural and developmental variables in order to correlate personality with creativity (cf.
Baer/Kaufman 2006: 18). Csikszentmihalyi (1997: 57f.) holds that creative
people adapt to new situations easily, they have learnt to operate in the symbolic system of their domain intuitively, they manage to gain access to the
field (through communicative competence and good connections), and they
are characterised by the ability to reconcile contrasting personality traits. He
then identifies ten pairs of antithetical traits that are often both present in
such individuals and integrated with each other in a dialectical tension (ibid.:
1997: 57f.).9 Other researchers have assembled lists of personality traits asso7
8
References to the relevant psychological research can be found in the brief state of the art in
Sternberg/Kaufman/Pretz (2002: 1f.).
Cf. the survey by Baer and Kaufman (2006: 15) who point out that creative people tend to
have above-average IQs but also find that [a]bove an IQ level of 120, the correlation between
IQ scores and creativity appears to weaken.
These ten antithetical pairs are (1) a great deal of (focused) physical energy vs. long phases of
idleness and reflection, (2) being smart and nave at the same time, (3) responsibility and irresponsibility, (4) alternation between imagination and a rooted sense of reality, (5) extroversion
97
10
11
vs. introversion, (6) modesty and pride, (7) dominant and submissive behaviour (psychological
androgyny), (8) traditionalism and conservativism vs. rebellious and iconoclastic behaviour, (9)
attachment vs. detachment with respect to ones work, and (10) suffering and pain vs. enjoyment (cf. Csikszentmihalyi 1997: 58-76).
Piirtos list of personality traits, based on a survey of the literature, offers similar results (2005:
4f.).
Cf. Schmidt (1991 [1980]: 71): Die Bedingungen des K[ommunikations]-Voraussetzungssystems knnen generell eingeteilt werden in allgemeine und spezielle Handlungsbedingungen,
denen Kommunikationsteilnehmer zum Handlungszeitraum unterliegen.
98
Roy Sommer
Schmidts list of contextual factors mixes aspects of person, field and domain which I prefer to
call constraints rather than frames (unless specific cognitive parameters are meant).
99
100
Roy Sommer
tions which are used in this study to measure the novelty of a novel fail to
do justice to the complexity of the domain.
These examples help to demonstrate that creativity research, when it involves domains rather than general personality traits, needs to use domainspecific criteria in order to yield coherent and relevant results. The difficulty,
of course, is that psychologists are only experts in their own domains and
have to draw on other disciplines and discourses in order to avoid theoretical
or methodological shortcomings. Sternberg (2005: 300) argues that exactly
what a domain is has never been defined very well. While it is probably true
that domains have not been defined by psychologists, it is very likely that
experts in the respective fields have a clear understanding of the specific
features of their domains. Narratology, for instance, offers very sophisticated
theories of narrativity and models of forms and functions of narrative structure which have so far been ignored in creativity research.
It is equally true, however, that literary scholars dont offer their knowledge to other disciplines such as psychology in a systematic way. There are
no entries for creativity and domain in the prestigious Routledge Encyclopedia
of Narrative Theory, for instance, as these are not established concepts within
narratological discourse. Thus psychologists, even if they were interested,
would be hard pressed to realize the significance of narrative theory for definitions of the novelists domain. Cross-disciplinary collaboration requires
some effort to translate and label disciplinary knowledge in such a way that
it becomes more easily accessible to experts from other fields. The following
section will therefore try to demonstrate how narratologists might define the
domain of narrative fiction.
4. The Novelists Domain: Some Principles of Narrative Design
Cognitive approaches to narrative and narrativity proceed from two related
premises: prototype theory and the ubiquity of storytelling in culture. The
prototype theory as proposed by Fludernik (1996: 19) holds that spontaneous forms of storytelling can be imagined as natural and prototypical since
they provide a generic and typological resource for more subtly and complexly textured artifacts of creative structuration. Oral storytelling in everyday conversation, according to this theory, can be considered as the prototype of more elaborate forms of fictional and non-fictional storytelling, regardless of the medium in which the story is told or the narrative transmitted. Hermans (2002) concept of storyworlds equally applies to both fictional
and nonfictional narratives.13
13
Hermans (2002: 20) term storyworld designates models built up on the basis of cues contained in narrative discourse.
101
The second, closely related premise holds that storytelling is a transcultural phenomenon and is omnipresent in everyday life: Narrative is everywhere a major genre of verbal art, occurring all the way from primary oral
cultures into high literacy and electronic information processing (Ong 1988:
140). Access to the domain starts in early childhood, according to Peter
Brooks (1984: 3): Children quickly become virtual Aristotelians, insisting
upon any storytellers observation of the rules, upon proper beginnings,
middles, and particularly ends. Through frequent exposure to stories they
are made familiar not only with narrative plot as a dominant mode of ordering and explanation (ibid.: 6) but also with all other recurrent features of
narrative. As a result, the implicit knowledge of narrative frames and generic
conventions expands as listeners become readers and discover new narrative
genres and media. In the course of a readers biography an intuitive set of
reading strategies (including suspension of disbelief, empathy, mental modelling) is constantly refinedreaders are experts in creating mental representation and storyworlds (cf. Herman 2002).
To these established premises we can add a third, which one might call
an equivalence hypothesis: the generic and typological resources for story
comprehension are similar to those required for story generation. The generic conventions, dramaturgical schemata and narrative frames that readers
need to be acquainted with in order to be able to make sense of a story also
form the regularities and principles that constitute the narrative domain.
These regularities and principles frame readers aesthetic experiences and at
the same time serve as domain-specific constraints for authors (as opposed
to the economic, social, technological and ideological constraints of the literary field): generic conventions, dramaturgy and narrative frames form the
horizon of storied worlds shared by flesh-and-blood storytellers with their
real-world audiences.
The process by which a writer goes beyond the intuitive grasp of form
to the deliberate construction of form (Bell 2000: 22) is now commonly
referred to as narrative design. The concept as used by novelist and creative
writing teacher Madison Smartt Bell (2000) emphasizes the fact that intuition
alone does not suffice to create a longer work of fiction, such as a novel:
Ones intuitive idea of a novels design must be propped up with some sort
of scaffolding, in order to last out a longer period of composition. (Ibid.:
26) Despite its extensive use of metaphors, the latently prescriptive, goaloriented approach to storytellingFor the writer, some sense of the final
formal design of the work really ought to precede the first stages of composition (ibid.: 25)and the rather schematic opposition of linear vs. modular
design, Bells concept offers itself as an interface between the creative process and the finalized narrative structure.
102
Roy Sommer
As well as being descriptive and process-oriented, the narratological concept of narrative design proposed here looks at narrative from the authors
creative perspective. It thus serves as an umbrella term for three related aspects of the domain-specific constraints mentioned above, i.e. generic, dramaturgical and narrative conventions: for narrative design as a decisive stage in
the creative process involves generic decisions (such as the selection of a
genre and the decision to conform to a well-established formula, or the deliberate deviation from generic conventions), as well as dramaturgical planning (linear or modular design, in Bells terminology).
The third component of narrative design, termed storyworld design by
Herman (2002: 86),14 is a much more complex concept which subsumes a
variety of mental models or cognitive strategies shared intuitively by writers
and readers. Whereas generic and dramaturgical constraints are specific features of the domain of fictional narrative, storyworld design, according to the
prototype hypothesis, applies to fictional and non-fictional storytelling alike.
It is therefore a domain-specific aspect of narrative rather than of fiction, a
distinction which might be important for domain-specific creativity research.
Storyworld design involves several core principles explored in cognitive approaches to narrative in recent years, such as cognitive maps of fictional
spaces, personality theories and theories of emotion, and frames and scripts.
Although this list cannot claim to be exhaustive, there is no doubt that these
concepts describe core aspects of storyworlds.
Narrative fiction provides its readers with textual cues which allow for
temporal and spatial orientation within the storyworld. Based on these cues,
readers create mental models of spatial relations in the fictional world which
Marie-Laure Ryan (2003: 215) calls cognitive maps. From a narrative design
perspective the crucial question is how this interaction between texts and
readers is achieved: Through what strategies do texts facilitate the conceptualization of these relations [i.e. spatial relations between objects]? (ibid.
216) Cognitive maps are based on deictics, on descriptions and spatial
frames, and on scripts and schemata. Deictics are linguistic expressions
whose prototypical function is to contribute to acts of definite reference
(Hanks 2005: 99); they play a central role in narrative texts in anchoring
description to perspective and also co-articulating multiple perspectives
(ibid.). Descriptions provide readers with cues with respect to the temporal
and spatial setting of the narrative. The function of deictics and descriptions
14
103
in narrative is not to create complete representations of objects but to provide sufficient data for readers to engage in cognitive processing of textual
information. As cognitive approaches to narrative have amply demonstrated,
this cognitive mapping relies heavily on frames, scripts and schemata (Fludernik 1996: 17f.).
Ryans essay draws attention to the amount of textual data required to
construct a cognitive map. Her experimental approach to the comparative
analysis of cognitive maps demonstrates that there are significant differences
between individual readers with respect to the mapping of the fictional
world. Whereas literary scholars may use close reading techniques in order to
arrive at a precise understanding of the temporal and spatial relation within a
novel, the stance of pure surveyor (ibid.: 218), for example, is the exception rather than the rule. In general, readers do not construct narrative
space for its own sake, but as a background for the understanding of plot,
character motivation, and the moral issues articulated in the text (Ryan
2003: 216). Of course, generic conventions and dramaturgical constraints
influence the amount and detail of temporal and spatial information provided by the author, who also decides to what extent this information is
semantically loaded.
The second key component of storyworld design is personality theories
and theories of emotion, which guide the production as well as the reception
of literary characters. Characters, or storyworld participants, are vital ingredients of fictional narratives, although there are experimental examples (such
as the middle chapter in Virginia Woolfs novel To the Lighthouse) where the
contribution of characters to events within the storyworld is reduced to a
minimum. Cognitive theories regard literary characters as mental models of
persons constructed by readers on the basis of their existing knowledge
structures. Readers normally construct their mental images of literary characters in analogy to flesh-and-blood persons. In this process of anthropomorphisation (i.e. the process by which human motivations, behavioural patterns
or character traits are attributed to nonhuman organisms or objects) they
make use of personality theories in categorisation and attribution processes
(cf. Schneider 2001: 612). The dynamics of mental-model construction in the
reception of characters have been studied in detail by Ralf Schneider (2000,
2001) who has also proposed a sophisticated model of the cognitive processes involved (Schneider 2001: 618, 627).
Again, as writers share culture-specific implicit personality theories with
their readers, it is safe to assume that their attitudes towards certain types, as
well as their evaluation of psychological dispositions, are roughly equivalent.15 If this wasnt the case, empathy would be hard, if not impossible, to
15
Empirical research in experimental and social psychology may provide literary scholars with
(synchronic) prototypes for emotion concepts (cf. Hogan 2003). Whether these can really be
104
Roy Sommer
achieve.16 As with cognitive maps, a limited number of character traits suffices to enable the reader to create a complex mental image of a person. It is
a matter of narrative design what techniques of characterisation are employed, which character traits are used to portray a specific type, or how the
impression of psychological complexity is achieved. As Schneider (2001: 625)
points out, authors can also distribute character-related information over
longer stretches of text, so that there is never quite enough information
available for fitting the character into a category. This effect can be
achieved through various techniques, for instance by introducing characters
in action without previous narratorial commentary, by engaging them in
dialogue on their first appearance, by having them described in contrasting
terms by different other characters or by presenting the complex workings of
a characters consciousness (ibid.).
Action structures, i.e. scripts based on stereotyped sequences of events
and actions, constitute a third factor in storyworld design. Herman (2002: 83)
defines action structures as principles of organization based on inferences
about participants (emergent) beliefs about the world. Such action structures help readers to connect nonadjacent occurrences and to construe
them as elements of an ongoing, coherent narrative (ibid.). Again, it is up to
the author to design his or her narrative in such a way that readers may activate their knowledge structures in order to complement textual cues with
contextual frames. Efficient storytelling anticipates the participation of readers in the process of sense-making, and creates spaces for readers to engage
in a process of constructing and reconfiguring the storyworld.
5. Conclusion
There are a number of issues that this chapter hasnt even begun to address,
especially the processual character of creativity. Cognitive psychologists have
developed a variety of models of the creative process, ranging from the twostage model of creative thinking (generative vs. exploratory phase) proposed
by Finke, Smith and Ward to models distinguishing several phases of the
creative process such as Hadamards classical four-stage model (cf. Baer and
Kaufman 2006: 19). Csikszentmihalyis (1997: 79 ff.) model of creative processes has five components or phases, namely preparation (becoming immersed, consciously or not, in a set of problematic issues that are interesting
16
correlated with universal narrative structures, heroic and romantic tragic-comedy (11), however, which Hogan regards as contextually dependent universal prototypes for happiness
(ibid.), is open to debate.
Cf. Schneider (2001: 614): In portraying a character, authors will, if they want to achieve a
certain disposition towards that character, try not to deviate too much from the standards of
evaluation they expect their readers to apply.
105
and arouse curiosity), incubation (during which ideas churn around below
the threshold of consciousness), moments of insight (which occur several
times throughout the creative process), evaluation (based on the internalized criteria of the domain and opinions of the field), and, finally, elaboration. A proper model of fictional storytelling, then, would have to move
beyond the relationship of domain-specific features in order to account systematically for the processes such as creative flow involved in story generation (cf. Piiro 2005).
A second omission which can only be justified by a lack of space is the
linguistic aspect of writing as a cognitive activity. After all, the dynamics of
storytelling include not only issues of creativity such as motivation or flow
(cf. Piiro 2005) but also the mechanisms and procedures involved in creating
a written narrative as opposed to a verbally transmitted story or dictation.
The rich tradition of cognitive writing research since the 1980s provides not
only a link between psychological studies of creativity as process and the
narratological analysis of narrative design, but also significant insights into
the cognitive functions of writing, the role of revision, and the relationships
between the processes and procedures of writing on the one hand and its
results on the other (cf. Baurmann/Weingarten 1995).
Despite these omissions, the present chapter has shown why the extension of cognitive and psychological principles from narrative comprehension
to narrative composition not only closes a systematic gap in existing models
of extratextual literary communication but gives scholars from the field of
literary studies the opportunity to bring their specific experience and expertise to the cross-disciplinary project of creativity research. Literature is of
paradigmatic importance for understanding domain-specific processes and
constraints, as writing and storytelling are easier to observe than other types
of creative behaviour.17
In addition to the cross-disciplinary potential of storytelling, the research
project outlined here may also make a contribution to the future development of cognitive narratology. Exploring the principles of narrative design
and storytelling processes will advance our understanding not only of creativity, but also of the domain-specific constraints and restrictions that authors
have to learn to navigate successfully in order to create storyworlds. If narratology includes processes of production as well as of reception within its
object of study, and collaborates with other disciplines interested in cognition and creativity on the far side of the narrator (Genette 1991: 148)18,
17
18
Cf. Csikszentmihalyi (1997: 237) who points out that of all the cultural domains literature may
nowadays be the most accessible.
For the context of this rather cryptic remark, cf. Genette (1991: 148): In narrative, or rather
behind or before it, there is someone who tells, and who is the narrator. On the narrators far
side there is someone who writes, who is responsible for everything on the near side. That
someonebig newsis the author.
106
Roy Sommer
there is a good chance that well be able to describe more systematically the
creative processes in which narrative worlds are made.
Works Cited
Amabile, Teresa M. 1983. The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer Verlag.
Baer, John and James C. Kaufman. 2006. Creativity Research in English-Speaking Countries. In: Kaufman/Sternberg 2006, p. 10-38.
Barthes, Roland. 2001 [1971]. From Work to Text. In: Leitch et al. 2001a, p. 1470-1475.
Baurmann, Jrgen and Rdiger Weingarten (eds.). 1995. Schreiben. Prozesse, Prozeduren, Produkte.
Eine Hinfhrung zur Schreibforschung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Bell, Madison Smartt. 2000. Narrative Design. Working with Imagination, Craft, and Form. New
York/London: Norton.
Booth, Wayne C. 1983 [1961]. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Booth, Wayne C. 2005. Resurrection of the Implied Author. Why Bother? In: Phelan/Rabinowitz 2005, p. 75-88.
Bortolussi, Marisa and Peter Dixon. 2003. Psychonarratology. Foundations for the Empirical Study of
Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brooks, Peter. 1984. Reading for the Plot. Design and Intention in Narrative. New York: Knopf.
Bruner, Jerome. 2002. Making Stories. Law, Literature, Life. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Chatman, Seymour. 1980. Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca/
London: Cornell University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1997. Creativity. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New
York: Harper Collins.
Dartnall, Terry (ed.). 1994. Artificial Intelligence and Creativity. An Interdisciplinary Approach. Dordrecht et al.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Feldman, David; Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Howard Gardner (eds.). 1994. Changing the
World. A Framework for the Study of Creativity. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a Natural Narratology. London/New York: Routledge.
Genette, Grard. 1990 [1983]. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.
Gerrig, Richard J. 2003. Experiencing Narrative Worlds. On the Psychological Activities of Reading.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gerrig Richard J. and Giovanna Egidi. 2003. Cognitive Psychological Foundations of Narrative Experiences. In: Herman 2003, p. 33-55.
Gruber, Howard E. 1988. The Evolving Systems Approach to Creative Work. In: Creativity
Research Journal 1, p. 27-51.
Hanks, William F. 2005. Deixis. In: Herman/Jahn/Ryan 2005, p. 99-100.
Herman, David. 2002. Story Logic. Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press.
Herman, David (ed.). 2003. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Herman, David; Manfred Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan (eds.). 2005. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Narrative Theory. London/New York: Routledge.
107
108
Roy Sommer
Sternberg, Robert J. 2005. The Domain Generality Versus Specificity Debate. How Should It
Be Posed? In: Kaufman/Baer 2005a, p. 299-306.
Sternberg, Robert J. 2006. Introduction. In: Sternberg/Kaufman 2006, p. 1-9.
Sternberg, Robert J.; James C. Kaufman and Jean E. Pretz. 2002. The Creative Conundrum. A
Propulsion Model of Kinds of Creative Contributions. New York: Psychology Press.
Sternberg, Robert J. and Todd I. Lubart. 1999. The Concept of Creativity. Prospects and
Paradigms. In: Sternberg 1999, p. 3-15.
Sugiyama, Michelle Scalise. 2005. Reverse-Engineering Narrative. Evidence of Special Design. In: Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson (eds.). 2005. The Literary
Animal. Evolution and the Nature of Narrative. Evanston/Illinois: Northwestern University Press, p. 177-196.
Turner, Scott R. 1994. The Creative Process: A Computer Model of Storytelling and Creativity. Hillsdale, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wimsatt, William Kurtz and Monroe Beardsley. 2001 [1946]. The Intentional Fallacy. In:
Leitch et al. 2001a, p. 1374-1387.
MONIKA FLUDERNIK
(Freiburg)
1. Introduction
In this paper two attempts to extend the range of narrative study will be illustrated with the example of a single metaphor, the cage metaphor. The
choice of this specific metaphor does not relate to the narratological aims of
this paper but reflects work in progress on prison metaphors, which has
supplied a large amount of useful data. Quite unpretentiously, the purpose of
this essay is to show how corpus analysis might be fruitfully used in the criticism of narrative texts and, secondly, to argue that narratology should focus
more extensively on the function of metaphor in narrative.
I will start with the second aspect first. Metaphor in narrative is a curiously under-researched topic. In the wake of Roman Jakobsons classic essay
Two Aspects of Language (1956) and David Lodges The Modes of Modern
Writing (1977), metaphor has predominantly been regarded as a poetic element even when it showed up in fiction, whichso the argument wentit
rendered more lyrical. To the extent that metaphor was analysed in narrative studies at all, the main critical effort was expended on ascertaining
whether a particular metaphoric expression belonged to the narrators or a
characters language. The question of attribution itself demonstrates that
metaphor was seen as a feature of style and, therefore, voice rather than as a
structural element of narrative.
This situation has not improved since the cognitive revolution in metaphor studies. Lakoff, Johnson and Turner have demonstrated in great detail
that our everyday language is steeped in metaphor, that practically all abstract
ideas and relations need to be expressed by recourse to metaphor, and that
ordinary language, much like any kind of literature, consequently teems with
imagery. Although one can go on from there to analyse how specific metaphors current in everyday language are deployed in a literary contexta
question that Mark Turner has followed up in his work (Turner 1987; 1991;
110
Monika Fludernik
1996), cognitive metaphor theory has not resulted in a greater understanding of metaphor in narratives. Indeed, since the Lakoffian paradigm has become dominant in academia, metaphor studies in literary research have taken
a downward plunge, at least in English literary criticism. A search in the
MLA bibliography for the years 1995 to 2006 under the term metaphor
yielded over 1000 entries; but three quarters of these were linguistic essays,
and among the literary entries only two (!) concerned metaphor in literature.
The rest all discussed specific metaphors in a single work or author.1
It is therefore high time to analyse more extensively the function of
metaphor or imagery in prose texts, and to do so also from a narrative perspective. The only recent work on narrative metaphor I am aware of is Benjamin Biebuycks analysis of metaphor in the German modernist novel (Biebuyck 1998). Biebuyck manages to demonstrate convincingly how metaphors structure the narrative discourse in Musil and Broich. In the present
paper, by focussing on the cage metaphor, I will also try to tease out possible
narratologically relevant functions of metaphor in narrative texts.
My second point in this paper is to alert humanities scholars to at least
one possible use of databases. Although corpus linguists have created and
searched numerous databases of various kinds, literary scholars have so far
had few uses for the widely available Chadwyck-Healey and other corpora,
except to employ them as a kind of diachronic concordance allowing one,
say, to find all poems in which snails figure by searching for the word snail(s).
A second use that is becoming very widespread is the resort to databases as a
means of accessing old texts that are available only in the British Library and
then must not be xeroxed. Databases such as Eighteenth-Century-Literature are
treasure troves, since they contain many non-canonical texts and allow one
to print out and read them. This immeasurably improves ones source material to include many out-of-the-way texts, particularly if a library with prenineteenth-century holdings in English literature is not conveniently close. A
third very important use of databases such as Literature Online consists in the
opportunity to find large numbers of lexical items and phrases in less well
known texts, and to supplement the OED as a source of checking difficult
passages in older texts. Thus, I am currently completing an essay on Wycherleys The Plain Dealer (1676), a play whose title phrase (plain-dealing) and
eponymous hero are something of a mystery in the play. By looking at the
over eighty passages that Literature Onlines Prose Drama and Verse Drama databases contain, it became very clear that the meanings of plain-dealing can
now be determined much more successfully than the OEDs definition and
example sentences allowed, even taking into account the additional material
from the CD-ROM version.
1
In German and Romance studies metaphor has apparently held more interest for critics. See:
Biebuyck (1994; 1998; 2005) and Coenen (2002).
111
Finally, in the present essay, nothing more complex than the search for a
single word or phrase is again involved. As I already showed in a recent essay
(2007), the search for the source terms in metaphors can be significantly
aided by databases. In Fludernik (2007) I was mostly concerned with the
word prison as a source domain in metaphors such as MARRIAGE IS PRISON.
In what follows, I will be looking at the word cage, which is one of the main
prison-related metaphorical source terms. By using a database (here English
and American Literature by Directmedia), I have been able to gather a large
number of sentences in English fiction and poetry which contain the lexeme
cage. After eliminating literal items from the list (such as cages in the zoo)2,
the remaining metaphorical entries were analysed. The following section
demonstrates what one can do with the results of such a search.
2. Cage Metaphors: Of Birds and Women
The metaphors document a wide range of uses including versions of several
familiar prison tropes. For instance, the BODY IS A PRISON trope with the
soul figured as an imprisoned bird in the cage of the body occurs in a passage from Spensers Faerie Queene in Book III, Canto xi, st. 12:
Which when she [Britomart] heard, and saw the ghastly fit,
Threatening into his [Scudamours] life to make a breach,
Both with great ruth and terrour she was smit,
Fearing least from her cage the wearie soule would flit. (Spenser 1978: 539)3
Janes body, and her good behaviour inculcated at Lowood, are the cage
within which Rochester detects the creative, curious and sensible mind (or
soul) which is the real Jane, buried by enforced training and self-imposed
2
One example of such literal use from Ambrose Bierces In the Midst of Life: the rich, thrilling
melody of a mockingbird in a cage by the cottage door (EAL 103). Numbers given refer to
those cited in the EAL database.
All emphases in bold italics are mine.
112
Monika Fludernik
restraint. It is his hope that this mind can be set free, the bird liberated from
its cage and allowed to soar, to develop its full potential. In Keatss
Fancy the body/mind dichotomy in the cage image is replaced by the
brain vs. fancy (or intellect vs. feeling or imagination) opposition:
Then let winged Fancy wander
[...]
Open wide the minds cagedoor,
Shell dart forth, and cloudward soar. (Keats 1996: 143; ll. 5-8)
One common metaphor is the term jailbird for prisoner. Although the database does not include many references to prisoners as birds4, there is a
noteworthy passage from Caleb Williams, Godwins prison classic. The passage occurs in the context of Calebs realization that even though he is
physically at liberty, Falkland and his minions can trace him everywhere, so
that the whole of England has become a prison to him:
To what purpose serve the restless aspirations of my soul, but to make me, like the
frightened bird, beat myself in vain against the inclosure of my cage? (Caleb
Williams III, viii; Godwin 1991: 256)
The most famous of such bird images for prisoners occurs in Lears remark
to Cordelia, Come lets away to prison; / We two alone will sing like birds i
th cage (Shakespeare 1978, V, iii, 8-9), a remark that evokes the happy
prison trope as part of Lears overly unrealistic view of their situation. (He
does not foresee Cordelias murder, though his idea that as prisoners they
could wear out, / In a walled prison, packs and sects of great ones / That
ebb and flow by the moon (ll. 17-19) could be seen as a politically shrewd
estimate in view of Sir Walter Raleighs long, though not indefinite, survival.)
Many cage metaphors refer simply to rooms or houses that are perceived
as confining: When the dwarf [Quilp] got into the street, he mounted again
upon the window sill, and looked into the office for a moment with a grinning face, as a man might peep into a cage (The Old Curiosity Shop xxxiii;
Dickens 2000a: 257). In thus framing Dick Swiveller and Sarah Brass, Mr
Quilp the dwarf (a person accustomed to be treated as a curiosity), applies
the same strategy of curious surveillance to his antagonist, the helpless Dick.
The metaphor is, moreover, appropriate because Dick will come to perceive
the lawyers office as a place of imprisonment.
Sometimes the cage metaphor refers to a location but focuses on the
birdlike nature of the inhabitants, rather than on the association of confinement, as in Ananiass diatribe against sexual licence in Ben Jonsons The Alchemist. Ananias has encountered Kastrils sister and thinks her a whore: The
4
But note, for instance, Mynshuls depiction of the prisoner as a poore weather-beaten Bird
(1618: 35) and his sententious remark: Prisoners to Iaylors, use that wretched trade, / of
common fidlers; [...] they must chant merry songs / Like Birds in Cages, and are glad to sing /
Sweet tunes to those, who them to thraldome bring (41).
113
place / It is become a cage of unclean birds (V, iii, 46-7); here the bird
metaphor, applied to impure women, extends metonymically to figure the
house as a cage.
When little Paul Dombey, on the other hand, yearningly looks at the free
birds passing by his window, the room in which he is confined through his
illness also metaphorically turns into a prison in the shape of a cage:
Oh! Could he but have seen [...] the slight spare boy above, watching the waves and
clouds at twilight, with his earnest eyes, and breasting the window of his solitary
cage when birds flew by, as if he would have emulated them, and soared away!
(Dombey and Son, xii; 1985: 236)
Most basically, the cage metaphor refers to a prison location per se (PRISON
IS CAGE) rather than, conversely, using the cage as the target domain (CAGE
IS PRISON). In Dickens Little Dorrit, Arthur Clennam in his room in the
Marshalsea appears like a dull imprisoned bird in his cage and even takes
up the metaphor himself:
Try a little something green, sir, said Young John; and again handed the basket.
It was so like handing green meat into the cage of a dull imprisoned bird, and
John had so evidently brought the little basket as a handful of fresh relief from the
stale hot paving-stones and bricks of the jail, that Clennam said, with a smile, It was
very kind of you to think of putting this between the wires; but I cannot even get
this down, today. (Little Dorrit, II, xxvii; 1978: 793)
The WORLD IS A PRISON trope likewise shows up in the garb of cage imagery, as in Jonsons poem A Farewell for a Gentlewoman, Virtuous and
Noble, where the saeva indignatio of satire targets the lures of the world
which threaten to entrap the unwary with their glitter. The prison of the
114
Monika Fludernik
world is figured in a combination of source lexemesall metonyms of captivity: fetters (gyves, chain, noose) and the cage:
Yet art thou [False world] falser than thy wares.
And knowing this, should I yet stay,
Like such as blow away their lives
And never will redeem a day
Enamoured of their golden gyves?
Or, having scaped, shall I return
And thrust my neck into the noose [...]
What bird or beast is known so dull
That, fled his cage, or broke his chain,
And tasting air and freedom, wull [sic!]
Render his head in there again? (ll. 20-32; Jonson 1975: 95)
This passage combines the animal in the cage metaphor (of the rodent
trapped in the cage or working a wheel) with that of the hard labour prison;
as such it merges the Work is Prison trope with the CAGE IS PRISON metaphor. The extract is moreover interesting because it introduces the British
concept of penal servitude into a context of American prison architecture,
the cage-like prison cells. (British cells did not have bars, and most penal
labour outside the crank was performed in halls or outdoors.)
Besides these very general metaphors employing the cage as a source
term, more specific equations can be found, again in alignment with common prison metaphors. For instance, the CONVENT IS PRISON metaphor
current in the Gothic novel can be used with the cage as source lexeme
(CONVENT AS CAGE), as in [...] the Princess Fleur de Marie [...] was sadly
ogling out of the bars of her convent cage, in which, poor imprisoned bird,
she was moulting away (Pendennis, II, xiv; Thackeray 1994: 135).
In addition to physical prison scenarios, one also finds a number of instances of cage imagery in reference to more clearly psychological, social or
political constraints. Thus, in Merediths The Egoist, the narrator remarks
ironically on Vernon and Claras necessary sexual restraint after they have
fallen in love. The figure used is that of staying in the cage of decorum and
respectable virginity while love is beckoning through the open door of the
cage:
And if it was hard for him, for both, but harder for the man, to restrain their particular word from a flight to heaven when the cage stood open and nature beck-
115
oned, he [Vernon] was practised in self-mastery, and she [Clara] loved him the
more. (The Egoist, xlviii; Meredith 1979: 588)
More commonly, it is love itself that is figured as the prison, the cage:
The doubt which ye misdeeme, fayre loue, is vaine,
That fondly feare to loose your liberty,
When losing one, two liberties ye gayne,
And make him bond that bondage earst dyd fly.
Sweet be the band, the which true loue doth tye,
Without constraynt or dread of any ill:
The gentle birde feeles no captiuity
Within her cage, but singes and feeds her fill. (Amoretti LXV; Spenser 1989: 639)
Here Rosamond, the egocentric manipulator, shows that her esteem for
Lydgate depends on her being treated as a bird of paradise, to be lavishly
showered with luxury goods, rather than as a common bird shut up in a miserable little house in Bride Street (where the rooms are like cageslxiv,
710).
Like a Bird ithCage: The Golden Cage Trope
Within her gilded cage confined
I saw a dazzling Belle,
A Parrot of that famous kind
Whose name is NONPAREIL (The Parrot and the Wren; Wordsworth 1936:
130)
In the remainder of this section I want to focus on the two most prevalent
images connected with the cage metaphor, the BIRD IN THE CAGE and the
BEAST IN THE CAGE. Both metaphors have a number of different readings.
Thus, the bird in the cage, as we have already seen, may foreground weakness5, despondency (failing to sing), despair (beating ones breast against cage
bars) or monotonous activity (the simile that Henry James uses, equating the
cage with hard labour, the treadmill, with birds or mice going round in a
contraption inside the cage). Most common of all, however, is the image of
the golden cage, the association of caging with happy prisons that are safe
harbours and refuges from a dangerous world of freedom outside, a tempta5
Compare the simile from Melvilles Billy Budd, according to which any demur would have
been as idle as the protest of a goldfinch popped into a cage (EAL, XIII 7).
116
Monika Fludernik
tion to idleness and the love of comfort. This image is frequently applied to
love, and especially marriage, to address the situation of the wife kept by her
husband in luxury but imprisoned either physically at home or in intellectual
confinement. The wife as bird is reduced to an ornament or plaything. The
woman then resembles a caged canary adorning a ladys boudoir (though this
prison may be perceived by its inmate as paradise, as in the case of Rosamond Vincy in Middlemarch).
Perhaps one of the most extensive treatments of the golden cage of luxury that kills is D. H. Lawrences short story, The Captains Doll (1921).
Lawrences novella describes a love triangle in post-World-War-I Germany
involving the Scottish Captain Alexander Hepburn, his wife, whom he has
left at home and Countess Johanna zu Rassentlow, called Hannele, who is a
refugee and survives by making exquisite dolls. Hannele and the captain have
fallen in love, but he is curiously unable to articulate his feelings or come to a
decision. Hannele has made a doll in the shape of the captain, which his wife
sees when she shows up in the village. She suspects Hanneles companion to
be her husbands mistress and, in her jealousy, tries to have the two women
refugees chased from the town by the British military authorities. Then she
suddenly falls to her death from a window. We never learn whether the captain pushed her, or whether she realized he loved the other woman and
jumped. After a period of mourning and distraction, the captain recognizes
that he needs Hannele after all. He finds her and persuades her to marry him
on his own terms (without any form of clinging love).
After the wifes death, Hannele and the captain have a conversation in
which he depicts his wife Evangeline as a bird dying in a golden cage:
[...] When I was a boy I caught a bird, a black-cap, and I put it in a cage. And I
loved that bird. I dont know why, but I loved it. I simply loved that bird. [...] And it
would peck its seed as if it didnt quite know what else to do; and look round about,
and begin to sing. But in quite a few days it turned its head aside and died. Yes, it
died.I never had the feeling again, that I got from that black-cap when I was a
boynot until I saw her. And then I felt it all again. I felt it all again. And it was the
same feeling. I knew, quite soon I knew, that she would die. She would pick her
seed and look round in the cage just the same. But she would die in the end.Only
it would last much longer.But she would die in the cage, like the black-cap.
But she loved the cage. She loved her clothes and her jewels. She must have loved
her house and her furniture and all that with a perfect frenzy.
She did. She did. But like a child with playthings. [...] And it got worse. And her
way of talking got worse. As if it bubbled off her lips.But her eyes never lost their
brightness, they never lost that fairy look. Only I used to see fear in them. Fear of
everythingeven all the things she surrounded herself with. Just like my black-cap
used to look out of his cageso bright and sharp, and yet as if he didnt know that
it was just the cage that was between him and the outside. He thought it was inside
himself, the barrier. He thought it was part of his own nature to be shut in. And she
117
thought it was part of her own nature.And so they both died. (Lawrence 1994:
112-113)
This passage equates the fairy (112) look of Alexanders wife with the imprisoned bird of the captains boyhood. This is, however, no ordinary
MARRIAGE IS PRISON metaphor, either for the captain or his wife. The captain, tragically, believes that he has killed both bird and wife with his love.
Yet the nature of the captains love for his wife (and bird) hints at a strong
sadistic element, as if he positively enjoyed watching them succumb to their
cage and die.
However, one can give his story a quite different reading. The blackcap
died in captivity through lack of freedom; but Evangeline died because the
captain never really loved her, since he was incapable of strong emotional
commitment anyway. In fact, he felt imprisoned by his marriage and resisted
his wifes attempts to get him to remain at home, where, one supposes, he
felt suffocated. When Hannele thinks over what Evangeline has told her
about the captains promise on his wedding day, vowing to always make her
happy, she muses: Not that he was afraid of the little lady. He was just
committed to her, as he might have been committed to gaol, or committed
to paradise (105). The inherent ambivalence of the marital state as bliss
(paradise) or jail (hell) is articulated here in a syllepsis: committed to can be
both an intransitive verb (I am committed to my work/duty, to the Movement, etc.)
and a passive (to be committed to prison). Whereas the sentence starts out by
foregrounding the positive intransitive meaning, it then recasts that structure
to produce the negative, passive meaning of the verb. It ends with the paradoxical committed to paradise, in which paradise no longer looks like
paradise at all, in either sense of the word commit. (Is he committed to thinking of marriage as a paradise, although it is not? Or, is he arrested and committed to paradise as if to a lockup?)
Given the captains reluctance to show his feelings (thematized at great
length between Hannele and himself at the end of the story), one may assume that he killed Evangeline through his refusal to be more than a legal
husband. By treating her as an inconsequential being that one needs to humour, rather than as an equal, he in fact treated her like the bird for which he
had developed such strong feelings. This comes out clearly in his preposterous answer to Hanneles question whether he will have sex with his wife
during her visit:
Do you want to go to her at the hotel? asked Hannele.
Well, I dont, particularly. But I dont mind, really. Were very good friends.
Why, weve been friends for eighteen yearsweve been married seventeen. Oh,
shes a nice little woman.I dont want to hurt her feelings.I wish her no harm,
you know.On the contrary, I wish her all the good in the world.
He had no idea of the blank amazement in which Hannele listened to these
stray remarks.
118
Monika Fludernik
But she stammered. But doesnt she expect you to make love to her?
Oh yes, she expects that. You bet she does: woman-like.
And you?the question had a dangerous ring.
Why, I dont mind, really, you know, if its only for a short time. Im used to
her. Ive always been fond of her, you knowand so if it gives her any pleasure
why, I like her to get what pleasure out of life she can. (93)
The captain regards his marriage as a union of pure (but highly unequal)
friendship and is therefore quite puzzled by Hanneles insistence on love.
In hindsight, Hanneles notion that Evangelines clothes and furniture
are her cage (wealth as a prison) begins to appear naive. It is not that
Evangeline is imprisoned in a luxurious golden cage by somebody who loves
her to excess, but that she is caught in a loveless marriage for which she
compensates by furnishing her cage with trinkets and gadgets. Being unloved
by the captain was tolerable as long as she was wooed by other men and he
did not care for other women. When she discovers that there is a relationship (though not of the sexual shape that she imagines), she overreacts by
wanting to ruin the two womens lives, and probably incurs her husbands
wrath. Yet, by treating her like a doll, a useless plaything, the captain has
been responsible for this problem in the first place.
The title of the tale is, therefore, ambiguousit ostensibly refers to the
doll that Hannele makes as an image of the captain (the doll representing the
captain), but it also relates to Evangeline as the captains doll-like wife, the
doll he owns. Does the liaison with Hannele work because she treats him
like a doll by producing one that looks like him? The captain himself strongly
resents having his likeness taken and considers himself to have been disposed of against his will by her love:
All this about love, he said, is very confusing and very complicated.
Very! In your case. Love to me is simple enough, she said.
Is it? Is it? And was it simple love which made you make that doll of me?
Why shouldnt I make a doll of you? Does it do you any harm? And werent
you a doll, good heavens! You were nothing but a doll. So what hurt does it do you?
Yes, it does. It does me the greatest possible damage, he replied. (147)
This way of looking at things implies that the captain is in the position of
Evangeline now, a doll in the cage. On the other hand, since Hepburn insists
so much on being honoured and obeyed but not adored, Hannele is perhaps
the wrong choice of partner. Hannele, as an independent woman, is unlikely
to succumb to dollhood on the lines of Evangeline, and thus escapes from
the cage of femininity which attaches to marriage.
That the cage may perhaps not be marriage (as Hannele and the captain
think) but femininity could be argued on the basis of a passage just prior to
the blackcap story, in which the cage is equated with a tomb, another yet
more dire prison metaphor:
119
[...] She was a gentle soul [...], but she was like a fairy who is condemned to
live in houses and sit on furniture and all that, dont you know. It was never her nature. [...] All her life she performed the tricks of life, clever little monkey she was at
it too. Beat me into fits. But her own poor little soul, a sort of fairy soul, those queer
Irish creatures, was cooped up inside her all her life, tombed in. There it was,
tombed in, while she went through all the tricks of life, that you have to go through
if you are born to-day. (110-11)
[...] As it was, poor thing, she was always arranging herself and fluttering and
chattering inside a cage. And she never knew she was in the cage, any more than
we know we are inside our own skins. (111)
Not only does Hepburn compare his wife to a monkey taken from the jungle
(Ireland) to a zoo, literalizing the cage metaphor; he moreover sees her as a
wild frightened being unable to survive in civilization. His basic metaphor
here is animal-like freedomshe was a wild natural caught by society. The
vision that we as readers get of Evangeline differs from this portrait (was it
perhaps the captain who felt tombed in when he was with her?): she is less
a monkey than a dangerous fox-like creature and one who tries to defend her
cage from intruders. Perhaps what is keeping her hemmed in is the decorum of femininity to which she clings, since this does not allow her to express her love openly. Perhaps, then, the cage is really a metaphor for withering love, love destroyed by the captains lack of response, or a meditation on
how love goes sour when unrequited except in terms of cold, polite friendship.
Does Hannele at the end of the story accept the same role, now that the
doll she has made is gone; and is this why she needs to destroy the painting
made of the doll as well? Does the doll signify cathexis, and does the cathectic investment on Hanneles part need to be overcome? Lawrences tale is
extremely subtle, using the image of the bird in the cage to probe the psychology of the captain, his wife and Hannele. By making a doll of the captain, Hannele seems to counteract victimization through him, yet she eventually relinquishes her symbolic hold. Perhaps the captain should be seen as
metaphorically imprisoned in his inability to love, a condition he compensates by turning involuntary jailer to the women who love him.
Beasts in Cages
After discussing Lawrences rather complex treatment of the golden cage
trope, I would now like to turn to the second recurring image, that of the
beast in the cage. This is not in fact a metaphor, but occurs for the most part
in the form of a simile (like a tiger / lion / bear etc. in the cage). The animal in
the source domain does not, as one might presume, invariably suggest ferocity as the ground of the comparison.
120
Monika Fludernik
Restlessness and excitement of this sort are common analogues of the metaphoric animals movement. In Conrads Secret Agent (1907), Mr Verloc
watches Stevie gesticulating and murmuring in the kitchen. Stevie prowled
round the table like an excited animal in a cage (The Secret Agent, iii; Conrad 1990: 83), while Verloc himself is described as turning about the bedroom on noiseless pads like a bear in a cage (viii, 173)6. Whereas Stevies
disability is responsible for his apparent purposelessness, giving him the disoriented and anxious aspect of a lost creature, Verloc, the secret agent,
moves around stealthily but also like a person of great power and energy
caught in a room too small for him. In both cases, therefore, the beast in the
cage simile describes not the imprisonment as such but the comportment of the
man who moves about in ways evocative of an animal behind bars. Verloc,
in particular, is being described as stealthy, fierce and socially inept, unable to
become more than a provider for his wife and her son, Stevie. He has the
feel of a bull in a china shop (the German Elephant im Porzellanladen is the
better image, since elephants are not aggressive), a plodding, awkward man,
who fails to take the feelings of other people into account.
Sometimes the cage simile betokens despondency or neglect, as in Conrads elegiac depiction of a run-down ship in the docks as a free ship [that]
would droop and die like a wild bird put into a dirty cage (The Mirror and
the Sea, EAL XII; 111). Hopelessness and hyperactivity are also the intended
targets of the simile in Caleb Williams (Caleb, like a frightened bird beat[ing
himself] in vain against the inclosure of [his] cageIII, viii; Godwin 1991:
256). Restlessness and irritation prevail in the fit of jealousy experienced by
Clara in Gissings The Nether World: With burning temples, with feverish
6
Again at xi, 216: He [Verloc] turned around the table in the parlour with his usual air of a large
animal in a cage.
121
lips, she moved about her little room like an animal in a cage, finding the
length of the day intolerable (EAL, 293). In all of these texts the men and
women characterized by the similes are beside themselves with fear, anxiety
or despair; they have lost control over their bodies and minds; they act as if
they were no longer rational creatures.
By contrast, in a passage from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Conan
Doyles narrator depicts a tempest of equinoctial gales and of exceptional
violence. Even in London we were forced to raise our minds for an instant
from the routine of life, and to recognize the presence of those great elemental forces which shriek at mankind through the bars of his civilization, like
untamed beasts in a cage (EAL, 245). It is noteworthy that the simile
here inverts the enclosure image, putting the howling storms into a cage and
thereby mastering them rather than seeing humankind taking refuge from
growling beasts at large inside the barred gates of their civilization.
More generally, of course, the animal shut up in the cage can be either a
fairly harmless or weak creature or a dangerous beast of prey. The reaction
to captivity is usually imagined differently in the two groupssmall or weak
animals are frightened or pine away, large and ferocious ones chafe at their
captivity but in the end may also give up hope. In Conrads An Outcast of the
Islands, thoughts are compared to birds in a cage (Lingard watching the
woman breathe: And nearly a minute passed. One of those minutes when
the voice is silenced, while the thoughts flutter in the head, like captive
birds inside a cage, in rushes desperate, exhausting and vainII: 258)7,
and in Godwins Caleb Williams, Caleb is welcomed by the thieves into their
community and contrasts their proud bearing with the imprisoned felons
[he] had lately seen [and who] were shut up like wild beasts in a cage, deprived of activity and palsied with indolence (III, ii; 1991: 218). The strong
captive chafes at the bars and suffers more than the frightened little bird:
The captive thrush may brook the cage, / The prisond eagle dies for
rageScott, Lady of the Lake; EAL II: 533). By contrast, in Coopers
The Deerslayer (1841), the fight between Indians and trappers is rendered in
the image of noises that resembled those that would be produced by a
struggle between tigers in a cage (EAL II: 815). Here the ferocity of the
Indians is invoked in the simile. The ferocity of lions in a cage can even be
used as an image for fire, as in Longfellows Tales of a Wayside Inn: seasoned wood, / To feed the much-devouring fire, / That like a lion in a
cage / Lashed its long tail and roared with rage (EAL, 269).
The above remarks have demonstrated, I hope, that databases can be a
useful complement to traditional literary analysis. They help to trace all the
7
Another rather humorous example comes from Felix Holt where Mr Transome, afraid of his
wifes criticisms, paused in his work and shrank like a timid animal looked at in a cage where
flight is impossible (i; 1988: 15).
122
Monika Fludernik
123
I use this term to refer to the categorization of an entire text as, for instance, reflector mode
narrative or authorial narrative.
124
Monika Fludernik
The simile which Chaucer here employs in a virtual scenario has all the makings of a story. Palamon and Arcite face one another in expectation of death
at each others hand and each of them sees his cousin as a mortal enemy, like
a threatening animal that is about to devour or maul him. Duelling for love is
here compared to the chivalrous activity of hunting; to win in love, as in
battle, one must conquer ones foe. However, another implication might be
that the insanity of passion turns men into wild beasts, leading to their excessive hatred and desire to annihilate one another. The story that the simile
outlines, however, is one of noble knightly behaviour; the hunter courageously facing the boar or bear coming at him and making ready to meet the
danger squarely. In this story of a hunting expedition, knightly exploits and
undaunted courage the insanity of love is rendered harmless. The situation
anticipates the later tournament in which Palamon and Arcite will battle to
win Emelye. Unlike the competitive scenario of their love for Emelye, however, the virtual narrative that each of the two cousins tells himself concentrates on manly prowess and unblenching courage, to the exclusion of any
competitive framework. It therefore also implies that Emelye is merely the
catalyst for a contention between the two men, whose homosocial bonding
has suffered a change from love to hatred, from shared suffering to antagonistic competition. So deadly is their enmity in love that only the annihilation
of the other will solve the problemit will be either the survival of the boar
or of the hunter. A simile like this teases the reader by invoking another
125
126
Monika Fludernik
that is theoretically unattractive. Nevertheless, rather than continuing to neglect metaphor within narratology (the customary procedure), this article has
tried to show at least where the problem lies, even though we may have to
wait for a neat, systematic solution.
Works Cited
Biebuyck, Benjamin. 1994. Nietzsche und die Metapher. Zwanzig Jahre spter. In: Recherches
Germaniques 24, p. 55-80.
Biebuyck, Benjamin. 1998. Die poietische Metapher. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der Figrlichkeit. Wrzburg: Knigshausen und Neumann.
Biebuyck, Benjamin. 2005. Ein inniges Ineinander von Bildern. Versuch einer Valenzumschreibung von Verbalmetaphorik und indirektem Vergleich im ersten Buch von
Robert Musils Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. In: Gunter Martens, Clemens Ruther
and Jaak de Vos (eds.). Musil anders. Neue Erkundungen eines Autors zwischen den Diskursen. Bern: Peter Lang, p. 171-210.
Bront, Charlotte. 1973 [1847]. Jane Eyre. Ed. Margaret Smith. London: Oxford University
Press.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. 1988. The Riverside Chaucer. Based on the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Ed. F. N.
Robinson. Gen. Ed. Larry D. Benson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coenen, Hans-Georg. 2002. Analogie und Metapher. Grundlegung einer Theorie der bildlichen Rede.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Conrad, Joseph. 1964 [1896]. An Outcast of the Islands. New York: New American Library.
Conrad, Joseph. 1990 [1907]. The Secret Agent. A Simple Tale. Ed. Martin Seymour-Smith.
London: Penguin.
Dickens, Charles. 1978 [1856-7]. Little Dorrit. Ed. John Holloway. Penguin English Library.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Dickens, Charles. 2000a. The Old Curiosity Shop [1841]. Intr. Norman Page. Penguin Classics.
London: Penguin.
Dickens, Charles. 2000b [1859]. A Tale of Two Cities. Ed. Richard Maxwell. Penguin Classics.
London: Penguin.
Eliot, George. 1985 [1871-1872]. Middlemarch. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
English and American Literature. 2002. Database. Berlin: Directmedia.
Fludernik, Monika. 2001. New Wine in Old Bottles? Voice, Focalization and New Writing.
In: New Literary History 32, p. 619-638.
Fludernik, Monika. 2003. The Prison as WorldThe World as Prison. Theoretical and
Historical Aspects of two Recurrent Topoi. In: Symbolism 3, p. 147-189.
Fludernik, Monika. 2007. Carceral Fantasies. A Database Analysis of Prison Metaphors. In:
Anglistik 18:1, p. 27-40.
Gaskell, Elizabeth. 1985 [1848]. Mary Barton. Ed. Stephen Gill. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. and Gerard J. Steen (eds.). 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Godwin, William. 1991 [1794]. Caleb Williams. Worlds Classics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
127
Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley and Seana Coulson. 1999. Blending and Metaphor. In:
Gibbs/Steen 1999, p. 101-124.
Hanne, Michael. 1999. Getting to Know the Neighbours. Where Plot Meets Knot. In:
Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 26:1, p. 35-49.
Jakobson, Roman. 1990 [1956]. Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances. In: On Language. Eds. Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston.
Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, p. 115-133.
James, Henry. 1963. Selected Criticism. Ed. Morris Shapira. London: Heinemann.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jonson, Ben. 1967 [1612]. The Alchemist. Ed. F. H. Mores. London: Methuen.
Jonson, Ben. 1975. A Farewell for a Gentlewoman, Virtuous and Noble. In: Poems. Ed. Ian
Donaldson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 95-96.
Keats, John. 1996. Selected Poetry. Ed. Elizabeth Cook. Worlds Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kvecses, Zoltn (2000). Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kvecses, Zoltn and Gnter Radden. 1998. Metonymy. Developing a Cognitive Linguistic
View. In: Cognitive Linguistics 9:1, p. 37-77.
Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lawrence, D. H . 1994. The Captains Doll [1921, 1923]. In: The Fox. The Captains Doll. The
Ladybird. Ed. Dieter Mehl. London: Penguin.
Lodge, David. 1977. The Modes of Modern Writing. Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern
Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Melville, Herman. 1985. Billy Budd, Sailor, and Other Stories. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
Meredith, George. 1979 [1879]. The Egoist. Ed. George Woodcock. The Penguin English
Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Nnning, Ansgar. 1989. Grundzge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der erzhlerischen
Vermittlung. Die Funktionen der Erzhlinstanz in den Romanen George Eliots. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Prince, Gerald. 1982. Narrative Analysis and Narratology. New Literary History 13:2, p. 179188.
Prince, Gerald. 1988. The Disnarrated. Style 22, p. 1-8.
Scott, Sir Walter. 1992 [1823]. Quentin Durward. Worlds Classics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Shakespeare, William. 1978 [1607/08]. King Lear. Arden Third Series. Ed. R. A. Foakes. London: Methuen.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. 1971. Marenghi. In: Poetical Works. Ed. Thomas Hutchinson. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, p. 567.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. 2003. The Major Works Including Poetry, Prose, and Drama. Ed. Zachary
Leader and Michael ONeill. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spenser, Edmund. 1987 [1590]. The Faerie Queene. Ed. Thomas P. Roche, Jr. Penguin Classics.
London: Penguin.
128
Monika Fludernik
Spenser, Edmund. 1989. The Yale Edition of the Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser. Eds. William A.
Oram, Einar Bjorvand, Ronald Bond, Thomas H. Cain, Alexander Dunlop, and
Richard Schell. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Thackeray, W. M. 1994 [1848-50]. Pendennis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Mark. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty. Mind, Metaphor, and Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading Minds. The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wordsworth, William. 1936. Poetical Works. Ed. Thomas Hutchinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WOLFGANG HALLET
(Gieen)
130
Wolfgang Hallet
rial elements, parerga or paratexts, such as full colour photographs or illustrations which an author has added or agreed to be included in the edition of
a novel or on the cover. On the other hand, any occasional use of visual
images and other forms of non-verbal representation or non-novelistic modes could, in itself, not be regarded as a new phenomenon, nor would it justify a new generic term, nor would it affect narratological analysis, let alone
narratological and disciplinary concepts. Rather, it is the systematic and recurrent integration of non-verbal and non-narrative elements in novelistic
narration that makes the difference. This is the reason why this article concerns itself with a corpus of novels that integrate photographs, all sorts of
graphic representations, reproductions of non-narrative texts and genres,
texts in different fonts and typographical styles, reproductions of printed
texts from other sources and documents, non-verbal types of symbolization
and different discursive modes, like transcripts of non-narrative conversation, recorded voices, or telephone-dialogues into the narrative discourse (see
Fig. 2). Examples may range from an insertion of (the reproduction of) personal letters or newspaper articles to a complete collage of images, reproductions of documents and other textual elements and styles (e. g. footnotes)
that make it difficult to identify a text as novel in the traditional sense at all.
After all, traditional novels would not include non-narrative modes like footnotes, which are clear textual markers of an academic mode, or a series of
family photographs, which one would expect in a family photo album or in
some other documentary book.
131
One of the common features that needs to be emphasized is that in multimodal novels these identifiable textual elements are not in most cases themselves narrativesunlike in the postmodern novel, in which a number of
small narratives or multiperspectival narrations by different narrators may
constitute the whole of the novel. Apart from visual elements, the modes in
a multimodal novel might be lists of some sort, maps in various forms, road
signs, envelopes, diagrams and statistics, and even discipline-specific symbolic languages like mathematical formulae or algorithms. Also, the reader of a
multimodal novel may encounter whole passagesidentifiable independent
textswhich are delivered in a different language (content and meaning
communicated in the mode of a foreign language), so that plurilingualism
may also be one of the features of the multimodal novel.
Since it might be argued that elements like these have occurred in one or the
other novel before, it must be added that it is also quantity, the sheer number, the recurrent combination and the systematic use of all these elements
and different languages, codes, and semiotic modes that constitute a novels
multimodality. Moreover, although these modes will be identified as originally non-novelistic, they do not in multimodal novels normally have a disruptive or disturbing effect on the reading process. Rather, readers will perceive them as an integral part of the novel and will thus incorporate them in
their cognitive construction of the narrated world and narrative meaning.
132
Wolfgang Hallet
Even if this may be a demanding task, readers will realize that they are supposed to perform it. It follows, then, that this article is not about extratextual illustrations, graphic novels, photo-stories, photo-books or the like,
but about the integration of non-verbal and non-narrative texts, representations and modes in the otherwise conventional (verbal) narration of a novel.
Narratologically speaking, all of these elements are part of the narrative textual world at different diegetic levels: they are directly articulated with the
characters that inhabit them, their actions and their cultural environments.
A look at a selection of what might be regarded as prototypical of the
multimodal novel, will further illustrate the type of novel that is examined
here.1 In part 2 I will therefore take a phenomenological approach, using
examples from various novels in an attempt to identify and delimit the phenomenon and to provide evidence that the multimodal novel makes sense
as a generic label. Part 3 will then introduce the concept of multimodality,
which originated in visual studies, semiotics, discourse theory and other,
quite different areas of cultural studies. In part 4 some novels will be analyzed more systematically, and in greater detail, in an attempt to identify different functions of non-verbal representations and non-narrative elements
and their manner of integration into narrative discourse. In part 5 I will try
to delineate some of the implications and repercussions of the concept of
multimodal narration on narratology, arguing that narratological theories that
solely rely on verbal narration are too limited, and that the phenomena represented by the multimodal novel require a transmodal concept of novelistic
narration. Such a theory would have to explain how different modes and
media are integrated in the narrative discourse of a single novel or other narrative text. It will also explain how narrative meaning, and the readers construction of the narrative world, can be regarded as a synthesis of different
forms of verbal narration with non-verbal elements and non-narrative texts.
2 Modes, Media and Symbolic Representations in the Multimodal Novel
The phenomenological section of this article will attempt to give an exemplary overview of the large variety of symbolizations and modes that one
encounters in the novels in question, and to systematize them by grouping
them along the categories of medium and mode. As far as medium is concerned, it needs to be pointed out that, in the strict sense, a novel cannot and
normally does not integrate other media into the medium of the paperbound
book. Rather, whenever other media are introduced into the novel, these are
generally representations or printed reproductions of photographs, handwrit1
133
ten notes, maps and the like. Once more, however, the phenomena in question are so multifarious that sometimes it is debatable whether a novel incorporates a different medium or merely the representation of such a medium, so that borderline cases may occur. Marisha Pessls novel Special Topics
in Calamity Physics may be an appropriate example here: Throughout the
novel the homodiegetic narrator provides her own hand-drawn illustrations
in order to replace original photographs which she claims no longer to possess (Pessl 2006: 19). Thus, these visual elements are not actually illustrations
in the traditional sense, but part of the narrative world, produced by the narrator and directly woven into the narrative discourse by the device of drawing upon them continuously in ekphrastic passages. For instance, Visual aid
1.0 depicts the narrator's mother when she was twenty-one and dressed
for a Victorian costume party (Pessl 2006: 19), and simultaneously characterizes her father by providing an impression of Dads favourite photograph of Natasha [] in black and white, taken before she ever met him
[] (Pessl 2006: 19). Since these visual elements are aids provided by the
narrator for the fictive reader, and are fully integrated into the narrative discourse, they possess the same status as the verbal narrative text, and vice
versa. They are representations of a medium (hand-drawing on paper) in the
same sense as the printed page is a representation of the original text, handwritten or typed by the narrator.
Generally speaking, on the one hand the medium of the printed book
seems to set limits to the modes and media that can be integrated in novelistic narration. For instance, three-dimensional objects beyond a certain size
cannot, for simple physical reasons, be included in a paperbound book. On
the other hand one could imagine all sorts of tangible objects, scents and
materials as inserts in the book and as supplements to the verbal narrative
discourse. The following attempt to identify and group modes and media
that occur most frequently and most saliently in the novels that have been
examined is more or less tentative, since there are in principle no limits to
authorial creativity: Kenneth Harveys novel Skin-Hound (There Are No Words)
(2000) was supplemented by an envelope with a flake of the authors skin.
Verbal Narrative Discourse
Although this might seem self-evident, it is worth noting that in order to be
identified as a novel, major parts of the multimodal novel will consist of
verbal narrative discourse. Leafing through any of the books in question,
potential readers will immediately guess that they are addressed as readers
and expected to read a book, as opposed to looking at pictures in a picture
book or other decoding procedures, even if they might sometimes be irri-
134
Wolfgang Hallet
tated by the relative proportions of verbal text and, for example, photographs on a double page.
Photographs
Although by no means exclusive, the vast majority of non-verbal representations in multimodal novels are photographs of various sorts, or, to be more
precise (as is required in this context), reproductions of photographic paper
prints. These may range from individual or family portraits to photographic
documentation of buildings, landscapes or situations, as well as interiors,
objects and so forth. In order to demonstrate different ways in which these
visual images may be incorporated into a narrative, I will briefly analyze a
photograph in W. G. Sebalds novel Austerlitzthe photograph which is also
used on the book cover. It shows the protagonist Jacques Austerlitz as Jacquot, a boy in a snow-white costume dressed as cavalier for a masked ball to
which he accompanied his mother, an actress, in Prague in the 1930s.
8.3. Jacques Austerlitz as Jacquot in Sebalds novel Austerlitz (2002). From the book covers
of the German and the English paperback editions.
The appearance of this photograph in the narrative discourse fulfils the requirements that are connected with novelistic multimodality, since it is fully
integrated in the narrative on several diegetic levels: Austerlitzs quest for his
identity and his familys history eventually takes him to Prague, where he
finds his roots and the house in which he grew up and lived in an apartment
with his mother, Agta. When he returns there, an old friend of his mother's,
Vera, presents the photograph to him. As an intradiegetic narrator, she tells
the story of Jacquots childhood, of Agtas life in Prague as an actress, of
her deportation by the Nazis, and of the Kindertransport that separated Auster-
135
litz from his parents and deprived him of his identity and memory. Vera
hands the photograph over to Austerlitz whose memory it triggers. It represents the rather glamorous life of a Jewish family in Prague, and strongly
contrasts with the narrative present in which Austerlitz delivers his story in a
second degree homodiegetic narration. He recollects his visit to Prague and
his encounter with Vera in long conversations with the homodiegetic
anonymous narrator of his life story who now possesses the photograph,
since Austerlitz has passed all his photographs, a large collection, over to the
narrator. Through Austerlitzs comments, this photographic portrait of Jacquot as a page becomes a central symbol in the novel and thus iconicizes
Austerlitzs whole existence, as well as the quest novel as a whole:
As far back as I can remember, said Austerlitz, I have always felt as if I had no place
in reality, as if I were not there at all, and I never had this impression more strongly
than on that evening in the porkova when the eyes of the Rose Queen's page
looked through me. (Sebald 2002: 261)
Thus, the narrative function of this photograph can be considered prototypical of the appearance of other medial and modal representations in the multimodal novel. Such artefacts form an integral part of the narrative discourse
and are directly connected with the perceptions, experiences, practices and
lives of the literary characters or narrator(s) that inhabit the story. These
photographs are existents in the storyworld and, as can be seen, they even
have a history of their own within the narrative world.
Graphics
It is an interesting observation that in multimodal novels a lot of description
in which the storyworld normally unfolds, and on which the reader has to be
able to rely in order to model the textual world mentally, is at times replaced
by graphic representations provided by the narrator. The phrase that runs
through Mark Haddons novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time
(2003) and that indicates this shift from verbal to nonverbal, visual representation is: It looked like this. For instance, instead of describing a cow in
detail, the narrator resorts to a drawing he includes in the novel: I could do
a drawing of them at home and say that a particular cow had patterns on it
like this: (Haddon 2003: 176).
In this, as in all other cases, graphic elements are not merely introduced
in the place of verbal description; they represent the protagonists and narrators individual, specific way of looking at and conceiving of the world.
Plans, maps and sketches of patterns or rooms represent the narrators mental pattern (or an abstract conception) of some real object or entity. They are
neither supposed to represent the object itself, i. e. reality, nor do they simply substitute for verbal descriptions. Rather, such artefacts focus on certain
136
Wolfgang Hallet
137
the construct of memory within the story or novel concerned. In that sense,
the multimodal novel also represents and makes accessible the multimodality
of cultural archives, knowledge and memory.
Works of Art and Physical Objects
Sometimes, a literary characters or a narrators activities of collecting, observing and analyzing also comprise works of art, like a Turner water-colour
in Austerlitz that comes to Austerlitzs mind when he observes a funeral, a
drawing in a childrens bible, collages in House of Leaves or a multifunctional
teas-maid in Sebalds The Emigrants which, with its nocturnal glow, its
muted morning bubbling, and its mere presence, keeps the narrator holding on to life at a time when I felt a deep sense of isolation in which I might
well have become completely submerged. (Sebald 1996: 154f.) Once more,
the verbal narrative text reveals that physical objects and visual art objects,
which can of course only be incorporated in a narrative via photographs or
reproduction, are existents that contribute to the construction of the storyworld and are related to the storys actants in a particular way, in terms of
being representative of their way of life or belonging to their identity, history,
or memory.
138
Wolfgang Hallet
Formal Languages
It is an interesting detail that in several of these novels formal languages and
scientific references or quotes are used. Thus, a completely different mode
of describing and conceiving the world becomes a conspicuous part of an
otherwise narrative text (Fig. 4).
The argumentative mode, which can easily be recognized as the scientific way of thinking (Ryan 2004b: 3) and which for Bruner (1986) and others
is opposed to (and forms a dichotomy with) the narrative mode, is fully integrated into a narrative. Sebalds references to philosophers, engineers or
scientists, although not represented in a formal scientific language but paraphrased in encyclopaedic or everyday language, can also be regarded as a
scientific mode, a scientific way of thinking and world-making. This integration of a mode that used to be regarded as opposed to narration raises questions of how scientific ways of conceptualizing and representing the world
are narrativized in a particular novel and how they contribute to the whole of
a narrative.
Typography
Typography is one of the most striking features of multimodal novels. In all
of them, typography serves to identify independent textual units outside the
main narrative text, which are often delivered by other narrators or authors.
These may be electronic mails as in Zadie Smiths On Beauty (2005), or handwritten letters, or even whole pieces of fiction like the typescript of (almost)
a whole novel in Stephen Kings Misery (1988). In this novel, a writer is captured by his No 1 fan, kept hostage and forced to continue a novel series
that he has already ended by eliminating the protagonist. The deteriorating
material and personal conditions of novel-writing (a novel within the novel)
are visualized not only by using a typical typewriter font, but also by expressing the increasing dysfunction of the typewriter in an ever increasing number
of missing letters, so that there are complete novel chapters (novel within the
novel) with no es and ns in them. Typographically distinct texts like these
are produced by identifiable (normally fictional) authors, who in most cases
feature as literary characters in the story. Typographical styles range from
handwritten poems (Lisas Mountain Poem) and the facsimile of deleted
typed text to the mimetic representation of movement in the House of Leaves,
orin Extremely Close & Incredibly Loudto a gradual change of font-types
and font-sizes (or simply the use of different font-types), to mimic academic
writing, or to the representation of complete hypertextual arrangements
(Danielewski 2000; Haddon 2003). Typography visualizes textual difference
and identifiable textual elements, voices, ways, styles and modes of writing,
139
but it also represents the material side and the technologies of writing, from
the fountain pen, the typewriter and book print to the digits of electronic
and multimedial hypertext.
All these different symbolizations, semiotic modes, generic forms and
medial representations cannot possibly be regarded as merely additional elements to an otherwise verbal narrative text. A stereotypical formula like It
looked like this in Haddons novel indicates that graphic elements, nonverbal representations of the narrators perceptions, and non-narrative modes must be read as integral parts of the narrative discourse. The traditional
verbal narrative then serves to contextualize these other modes and media
and to assign them their meanings, places and functions within the narrative
world.
3 Multimodal Narration and Transmodal Signification
The concept of multimodality that has been introduced and used to describe
the various semiotic modes in the novels in question derives from different
disciplines and fields of study, mainly discourse theory, semiotics, visual culture studies and art design. It is an integrative approach that seeks to respond to the growing importance of visual images in cultural processes of
signification, as well as to the rise of multimedial electronic environments
that challenge the age-old dominance of verbal communication. In multimedial environments, as in all other signifying processes that integrate verbal
and non-verbal symbolization, meaning can no longer be explained as resulting solely from natural human language. The contribution of pictorial
elements and of other codes and languages needs to be considered, too.
Therefore, any theory of cultural semiosis must explain and describe how
meaning is made across (and simultaneously through) a variety of different
semiotic symbol systems, media and generic modes, and how a combination
of modes and media can result in integrated meaning.
Such an approach strongly contrasts with the monomodal concepts of
the past, in which language was (seen as) the central and only full means for
representation and communication (Kress/Van Leeuwen 2001: 45). Of
course there were disciplines that occupied themselves with other modes of
representation, like music, photography, or painting. But in each instance
representation was treated as monomodal: discrete, bound, autonomous,
with its own practices, traditions, professions, habits (Kress/van Leeuwen
2001: 45). In contrast to such monomodal concepts of semiosis (e. g. the
concept of the novel as a verbal narrative text in printed and paper-bound
form), a multimodal theory of signification defines modes as semiotic resources which allow the simultaneous realisation of discourses and types of
140
Wolfgang Hallet
In all of these cases, multimodality is a communicative practice that incorporates various modes and media in discursive acts of meaning-making or in
the cultural negotiation of meaning, so that almost no act of communication
(let alone discursive formation in the Foucauldian sense) is, or ever has been,
monomodal. This applies all the more in the age of globalized televison networks, worldwide electronic communication, electronic multimedial communication and digital photography and videography:
Any discourse may be realised in different ways. The ethnic conflict discourse of
war, for instance, may be realised as (part of) a dinner-table conversation, a television documentary, a newspaper feature, an airport thriller, and so on. In other
words, discourse is relatively independent of genre, of mode, and (somewhat less) of
design. Yet discourses can only be realised in semiotic modes which have developed
the means for realising them. (Kress/van Leeuwen 2001: 5)
In that sense, multimodality in a novel represents the general insight that all
cultural processes of signification and meaning-making comprise different
modes and media (see Rose 2001: 136). Nowadays, it is the multimedial electronic hypertext that is able to best and most fully integrate different modes
and media in a single act of semiosis. This is why the hypertext can be regarded as a prototype of multimodality and of transmodal meaning both in
culture and literature. It does not come as a surprise, then, that some pages
in multimodal novels resemble hypertexts rather than traditional verbal novels.
In this way, the multimodal novel turns out to mirror and to contribute
to a wider shift in cultural signifying practices. It does so not only by incorporating multimodal semiosis in narrative discourse, but also by constructing
agents that employ these practices themselves. Narrative meaning can, therefore, no longer be regarded as a result of language-in-writing but of the
combination and integration of different modes and media that contribute to
and participate in the process of narration as a whole. The textual world that
is created, and the narrative world that the reader constructs, are fed from a
141
142
Wolfgang Hallet
relates the history of the photograph. Auster for instance reconstructs the
history of the photograph, how it was torn apart to eradicate a person from
the photo, how lies were told to the family for generations about the person
that is absent from the photo, how the narrator got hold of the photograph
and how, through his own investigations, he was eventually able to solve the
mystery behind it (see Fig. 5).
8.5. The family portrait in Paul Austers The Invention of Solitude (1982: 4-5)
In Sebalds Austerlitz and in Foers Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close the protagonists habit of photographic documentation is a central element of the
story; and Danielewskis House of Leaves can be read as the verbal reconstruction of a cinematic document, the story of decoding and deciphering Navidsons film about the mysterious house that changes its shape and interior
whenever somebody approaches and enters it. Thus, in all of these examples,
the plot of the novel revolves around visual images which, in contrast to
monomodal narratives, are made directly accessible to the reader in the act
of reading. Novelistic narration leads here to a synchronization of reading
and looking. Moreover, meta-medial and meta-modal reflexive passages on
the possibility of manipulation and visual deception, as well as the (un)reliability of visual images, are almost inevitable in these exemplars of the
multimodal novel.
Since it is generally agreed that stories can also be rendered in visual
form (see Wolf 2002; Ryan 2004b; 2004c; 2005), it follows that visual images,
as well as being central to a novelistic plot, can also play a pivotal role in plot
construction itself. Whereas in all of Sebalds narratives photographs, although only loosely connected with each other, may be regarded as a thread
143
around which the verbal story is told, they form a plot of their own in
Streeruwitzs love story Lisas Liebe. Romansammelband (Lisas Love. A Serial
Novel). Lisa hands over a love-letter to Dr. Adrian, a man whom she sees
every morning on her way to school as a school-teacher, but whom she does
not know. From that moment on, day after day she keeps waiting in vain for
the postman to bring Dr. Adrians answer. This non-event of the postman
and letter that never arrive is the narrative present of the novel; but the simple sub-plot of waiting for a letter for weeks and months is never verbalized
in terms of narrative discourse; instead, it is represented in the photographs
taken by the narrator, showing the mountainous landscape, the surrounding
meadows and the neighbours house (see Fig. 6). There are headings and
captions to the photographs by Lisa as a homodiegetic narrator, noting down
pedantically the date of the photograph, and there are one-sentence statements about the postman, like July 26. The postman riding past my house
on his bike, or The postman rides across the meadow earlier than usual.
These photographs may even represent explicit non-events, stating that
there is no mail on Saturday (p. 93) or simply July 31. Sunday (p. 94).
At the plot-level, these photographs constitute a two-month-long daily
chronicle of endless waiting (from July 4 to August 31): a sub-plot which is
never addressed in the verbal text. Instead, the latter is a heterodiegetic narrration that tells the event-based stories of the two preceding months, with
various more or less purposeful activities and encounters, mostly with married or older men. With regard to the initial love-letter, these activities can be
seen as surrogate activities and relationships in which there is no future for
Lisa.
144
Wolfgang Hallet
Two things are worth noting: First, even in Streeruwitzs case visual images
are always contextualized through verbal text which establishes their diegetic
function, i. e. their relation to the narrator or literary characters and the narrration: the verbal part of the novel, in other words, defines their place in the
textual world and embeds them in the narrative chronology. Secondly, there
is no photograph without a photographer: it is obvious that photographing
the postman is one of the narrators daily routines. This impressive series of
some sixty repetitive, partly almost identical photographs, along with some
newspaper clippings, therefore represents long stretches of (in-)activity and
of a solitary life in isolation. It contrasts strongly with the heterodiegetic narration of Lisas active professional, cultural and sexual life rendered in the
verbal narrative, that eventually results in the standstill of a lonely female life
in the mountains represented in the postman-photographs. Photographic,
filmic or (as in Haddons novel) graphic documentation in all of these narratives is thus indicative of the protagonists occupation, activities and way of
life, which thus become themselves part of the plot. The act of taking, making or collecting visual images, then, can itself be plot-driving and, regardless
of the content of these pictures, contribute to the story of its producers life.
4.2 Construction of Literary Characters
As has been shown, it is one of the major concerns of the narrative discourse to trace and tell the story and history of pictures and their making.
Thus, all of the visual artefacts cited above are directly connected with the
life of literary characters and/or narrators. They testify to these characters as
culturally productive agents who look at the world in certain ways and communicate their views and feelings via visual images. Doing so, they contribute to their identity, represent or symbolize important events or experiences
in their lives, and trigger or represent their memories. It is one of the peculiar effects of the multimodal novel that the reader can study and look at
artefacts produced or collected by an agent in the fictional world: photographs, drawings, letters, envelopes, newspaper-clippings. In this way characters from the fictional world move closer to the readers real world, since a
photograph is indexical of the reality of the person or object depicted, as
well as of the photographer who took the picture.
4.3 Representation of Cognition
Visual artefacts, facsimiles and graphic representations and reproductions of
textual products (photographs, drawings, graphs, flowcharts, letters, captions
in the photo-album, stories written by a literary character etc.) can, for various reasons, allow the reader insight into the homodiegetic narrators or any
145
146
Wolfgang Hallet
147
There are phenomena and aspects of the world, then, that can hardly be
conceived of as, or translated into, verbal information. The incorporation of
visual or graphic information in a narrative text is, in a sense, an admission
of the limitations of verbal narration in a visualized world: it is a form of
narrative surrender, which is sometimes made almost explicit. That is why in
Haddons novel one comes across This is what it looked like as a standard
formula whenever the homodiegetic narrator is lost for words or finds it
inappropriate to verbalize a specifically visual perception. Pessl in Special
Topics in Calamity Physics (2005) even uses empty spaces between words to
represent the limits of verbal description when she attempts to characterize
Hannah, one of the central characters in the novel, and her Art of Listen-
148
Wolfgang Hallet
149
5 Transmodal Narratology
What has been said about the multimodal novel can be summarized very
briefly: The multimodal novel
incorporates and represents a wide range of verbal and non-verbal signifying practices as well as narrative and non-narrative modes and ways of
world-making;
equips its characters and narrators with a wide range of signifying and
cultural abilities so that they appear as fully capable human beings sharing the cultural practices of their textual world;
thus uses, represents and communicates cultural practices of looking and
seeing, writing, printing and design technologies;
integrates and thematizes the materiality of different codes and symbol
systems;
makes it possible for the reader to look at and study artefacts from the
fictional world and thus share the cultural code and experiences of the
textual world and its agents;
creates a multimodal cultural archive by claiming to present and represent documents and sources from that archive;
relativizes the conceptual and discursive power of verbal language and
emphasizes that meaning-making, and making sense of the world, is
transmodal and the result of multimodal as well as multimedial processes.
It should have become clear that the questions raised and discussed here are
not, as in transmedial narratological approaches (see Schwer 2002, Wolf
2002, Herman 2004, Ryan 2004a, Meister 2005), primarily concerned with a
single narrative that travels across different media. Rather the particularity of
multimodal narrative lies in the fact that the whole of the narrative is a result
of the semiotic interplay of different modes and media: they are fully integrated in the narrative discourse, part of the storyworld and an integral part
of the readers construction of the narrative. It seems obvious, then, that the
features of the multimodal novel delineated and illustrated above may have
considerable implications for some central paradigms of narrative theory.
Yet it would be premature to draw definitive conclusions at this point. So I
am not proposing a new terminology, since a terminological system needs to
be carefully developed in accordance with disciplinary traditions, both within
narratology and in imported disciplines. Rather, I would like to point to
some conceptual shifts that may be implied in the findings indicated above
about the multimodal novel:
From writing to designing: It is obvious in the examples shown above
that novels of the multimodal type require more than just writing a verbal
text. Instead, the text can be regarded as a complex arrangement that com-
150
Wolfgang Hallet
bines various semiotic resources, and even layouts, on a page or doublepage. The multimodal novel is the result of multimodal and multimedial
design (see Kress/van Leeuwen 2001: 5).
From narrator to narrator-presenter: Since the same applies to the narrator who, apart from delivering a story, searches, retrieves and collects
documents and sources and eventually presents them to the reader, the
process of narrating includes showing and presentation. As in everyday
cultural practices, where life stories or a family history may be narrated while
looking at and showing photographs in an album or on slides, narration in
the multimodal novel includes presentation. The act of presenting, the selection of texts and visual images, their accessibility and reliability may become
part of the narrative discourse as well as of meta-narration.
From monomodal (verbal) text to multimodal, multimedial texts: Sufficient evidence has been provided above that the narrative text can no longer
be conceived of as solely verbal. Instead, it takes on the shape and functions
of a multimedial text. In that respect, some pages in multimodal novels may
resemble a hypertext. In its most advanced form, as in Danielewskis House of
Leaves, the multimodal novel can even be conceptualized as a non-electronic
hypertext.
From reading to transmodal construction of narrative meaning: As has
been shown, in the case of the multimodal novel the reader is engaged in
constructing a holistic mental model of the textual world in which she/he
incorporates data from different semiotic sources and modes. Connecting
these different sources and resources intertextually and intermedially is an
indispensable part of the reading process. Reading this type of novel now
integrates various literacies and the ability to decipher not only verbal language but also other codes and languages, from visual grammars to scientific
formulae.
From reader to user: The aforementioned shifts imply that the reader
has to engage in intertextual and intermedial ways of meaning-making with
the eventual goal of creating transmodal narrative meaning. To a certain extent, the readers activities start to resemble those of the user of an electronic
hypertext (although in most cases the multimodal novel is a linear narrative,
whereas the electronic hypertext is a non-linear ensemble of texts and signs).
The traditional reader, on the other hand, makes meaning solely from the
words on a page.
What has been stated about the multimodal novel cannot leave narratology unaffected. It seems inevitable that the phenomena and implications
described in this article will affect various narratological conceptualizations,
since narratology must inevitably concern itself with conceptualizing and
theorizing the semiotic interplay of different medial representations and semiotic modes within a single narrative and defining their mode-specific con-
151
152
Wolfgang Hallet
Works Cited
Auster, Paul. 1982. The Invention of Solitude. London: Penguin.
Baler, Moritz. 2005. Die kulturpoetische Funktion und das Archiv. Tbingen: Francke.
Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actuals Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Danielewski, Mark Z. 2000. House of Leaves. A Novel. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foer, Jonathan Safran. 2005. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. London: Penguin.
Haddon, Mark. 2003. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. London: Vintage.
Hallet, Wolfgang. 2008a. Multimodalitt. In: Ansgar Nnning (ed.). Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie. 4th ed., rev. and enl. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler. [forthcoming]
Hallet, Wolfgang. 2008b. The Multimodality of Cultural Knowledge and Its Literary Transformations. In: Angela Locatelli (ed.). The Knowledge of Literature. Vol. VII. Bergamo: Edizioni Sestante-Bergamo University Press. [forthcoming]
Herman, David. 2004. Toward a Transmedial Narratology. In: Ryan 2004a, p. 47-75.
Horstkotte, Silke. 2002. Pictorial and Verbal Discourse in W. G. Sebalds The Emigrants. In:
Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies 2, p. 33-50.
Horstkotte, Silke. 2005. The Double Exposure of Focalization in W. G. Sebalds The Rings of
Saturn. In: Meister et al. 2005, p. 25-44.
Hoth, Stephanie. 2006. From Individual Experience to Historical Event and Back Again.
9/11 in Jonathan Safran Foers Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. In: Marion
Gymnich, Birgit Neumann and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). Kulturelles Wissen und Intertextualitt. Theoriekonzeptionen und Fallstudien zu Kontextualisierung von Literatur. Trier:
WVT, p. 283-300.
King, Stephen. 1988 [1987]. Misery. London: Hodder & Sloughton.
Kress, Gunther and Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. The Models and Media of
Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
Link, Jrgen. 1988. Literaturanalyse als Interdiskursanalyse. Am Beispiel des Ursprungs
literarischer Symbolik in der Kollektivsymbolik. In: Jrgen Fohrmann and Harro
Mller (eds.). Diskurstheorien und Literaturwissenschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, p.
284-307.
Meister, Jan Christoph; Tom Kindt and Wilhelm Schernus (eds.). 2005. Narratology Beyond
Literary Criticism. Mediality Disciplinarity. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Nnning, Vera; Ansgar Nnning (eds.). 2002. Erzhltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinr. Trier: WVT.
Ondaatje, Michael. 1993 [1982]. Running in the Family. London: Vintage.
Pessl, Marisha. 2006. Special Topics in Calamity Physics. London: Penguin.
Rose, Gillian. 2001. Visual Methodologies. London et al.: Sage.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (ed.). 2004a. Narrative across Media. The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. 2004b. Introduction. In: Ryan 2004a, p. 1-40.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. 2004c. Will New Media Produce New Narratives? In: Ryan 2004a, p.
337-359.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. 2005. On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology. In:
Meister et al. 2005, p. 1-24.
153
Schneider, Ralf. 2005. Hypertext Narrative and the Reader. A View from Cognitive Theory.
In: Michael Toolan and Jean-Jacques Weber (eds.). The Cognitive Turn. Papers in Cognitive Literary Studies. European Journal of English Studies 9:2, p. 197-208.
Schwer, Martin. 2002. Erzhlen in Comics. Bausteine einer plurimedialen Erzhltheorie.
In: Nnning/Nnning 2002, p. 185-216.
Sebald. W. G. 1996 [1993, in German]. The Emigrants. London: Vintage.
Sebald, W. G. 2002 [2001, in German]. Austerlitz. London: Penguin.
Smith, Zadie. 2006 [2005]. On Beauty. London: Penguin.
Sterne, Laurence. 1951 [1759ff.]. The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. London et
al.: Oxford University Press.
Streeruwitz, Marlene. 2005 [1997]. Lisas Liebe. Romansammelband. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
Wirth, Uwe. 2002. Performative Rahmung, parergonale Indexikalitt. Verknpfendes Schreiben zwischen Herausgeberschaft und Hypertextualitt. In: Uwe Wirth (ed.). Performanz. Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp,
p. 403-433.
Wolf, Werner. 2002. Das Problem der Narrativitt in Literatur, bildender Kunst und Musik.
Ein Beitrag zur intermedialen Erzhltheorie. In: Nnning/Nnning (eds.), p. 23104.
Wolf, Werner. 2005. Metalepsis as a Transgeneric and Transmedial Phenomenon. A Case
Study of the Possibilities of Exporting Narratalogical Concepts. In: Meister et al.
2005, p. 83-107.
PETER VERSTRATEN
(Leiden)
155
156
Peter Verstraten
157
cannot pause and consequently are unable to describe (1980: 129). In his
opinion, film cannot withstand the constant narrative pressure: the projection of moving images on the temporal axis forcefully drags the story on.
Does this narrative pressure mean that film, as Gaudreault claims, is a machine doomed to tell stories (1997: 171)? It is a question that allows no other
answer than a complex yes and no.
Whoever wants to approach the matter from a strictly historical perspective may be forced to claim, like Sean Cubitt, that the earliest forms of cinema were not narrative. Cubitt argues that temporality is not yet properly
directed in the first one-shot films. Originally, cinema was a simple stream of
photo frames.1 Like the waves at sea, this primary state of cinema is independent of beginnings or endings. In the case of the Lumire brothers, it
was not the things that were shown that gave rise to fascination but rather
the fact that something unprecedented could be shown in the first place. The
most miraculous effect of cinema was based on pure movement (Cubitt
2004: 15): this was a cinema of immediate presence, of the here and now,
without past or future. It was straightforwardly sensational and yielded an
experience that was not bound to narrative expectations. Having studied the
oldest experiences of the medium, Cubitt cautions that narrativity is not inherent to cinema. At the moment of its conception, cinema was neither created nor experienced as a narrative medium.
According to Cubitt, it is only when the cinematic cut was introduced
that temporality was given a direction. By means of cutting, the length of
shots was shortened and the viewer started to focus on what exactly was
moving in the image. The cut marked the transition from the experience to
the perception of the filmed object. Cubitt claims that this transition is comparable to looking at paintings by Camille Pissarro from a distance. When
one looks at his canvasses from (less than) an arms length, it would seem
that the painter has only applied colorful smudges and dots. A recognizable
image can only be discerned if the viewer increases the distance between
himself and the painting (Cubitt 2004: 28).
Cubitt argues that the viewer only becomes sensitive to the composition
and framing of film shots in the moment when they become aware of what
they are looking at. This sensitivity generates questions like: What does the
person at the front have to do with the person in the background? Why have
they chosen this setting? The person at the front is looking to her left: what
could she be looking at outside this frame? Where will the camera be in the
next shot? These questions evince two important principles. Firstly, if the
cut encourages the viewer to transform waves of photo frames into objects
1
Instead of the filmic term photo frames Cubitt prefers the term pixels from the vocabulary of
digitization. See Stewart for a critique of this terminological backflip of Cubitts history
(2007: 12).
158
Peter Verstraten
in the world, the length of the shot is given intrinsic limits and the moving
image becomes spatially located. This transition is marked by a change of
attitude: instead of wow, we are actually seeing a projection of a walking
man, the viewer might now think in the image, a man with a cowboy hat is
walking through a wide landscape. Is he going somewhere? How long do we
keep following him?
Secondly, the filmic space creates causal relations, and these are inherently temporal: first this happened, then that happened. A causal link, however, can often be drawn only in retrospect. If we see a shot of a man in a
room followed by a shot of a gun in a drawer, questions such as these may
arise: Does this revolver belong to that man? Why does he have a revolver?
Does he feel threatened? If so, by whom? If the man actually uses the revolver later on, the earlier shot of the drawer gains relevance: the weapon
was not put there for no reason. The showing of the gun turns out to be
functional.
I stated that Cubitt gives a strictly historical analysis: cinema was not narrative from the moment of its conception, because true narrativity arises only
in the process of editing. Against this vision, however, we could bring in the
argument of retrospectivity. With the knowledge of cinema we now have, we
could also classify the earliest films as narrative. (And since both visions are
valid, this explains the complex yes and no answer to the question whether
cinema is essentially narrative.)
According to Gaudreault, the short film La Sortie des Usines Lumire
(Louis and Auguste Lumire, 1895) can also be called narrative. In this film,
shot with a static camera, the workers do little more than leave a factory. The
earliest film of the two brothers shows at least part of a true temporal developmentthe gates open and the workers walk through. Therefore, the film
can be called a micro-narrative. Gaudreault applies the term monstration
to these early one-shot films (1997: 73). They are not yet narrating in the
proper sense of the word, but by showing they both create a sequence of photographic images and capture movement. This form of showing suffices for
Gaudreault as a basic criterion for a (micro-)narrative. He considers monstration to be the first level of narrativity. Whereas Cubitt holds that narrativity
only comes into the picture with the advent of editing, Gaudreault believes
editing to be a second level of narrativity. The narration is no longer exclusively determined by what is being projected, but mainly by the transitions
from one shot to the next. According to Gaudreault, these transitions between images shape narration in cinema (1997: 73). Three important functions of editing can, therefore, be addressed. Firstly, it allows time to be manipulated, for instance by omitting a certain time span. Secondly, space can
be framed (time and again). Thirdly, causal relations can take shape because
of the way in which images are juxtaposed.
159
Time, space and causality are the main principles of narrative cinema. In
this type of cinema, multiple storylines can be adroitly combined according
to a pattern of cause and consequence; the direct look into the camera has
become taboo. If we transpose this to the classic variant of cinema, we get a
formula like: we know, or will soon know, why the characters are where
they are when they are. The triad of time, space and causality is therefore a
basic ingredient of narrative cinema. Nevertheless, filmmakers have thankfully used the many opportunities at their disposal to violate these classic
conventions. The psychological motivation for someones action may remain
unexplored, leaving the possibly enigmatic reasons for a certain deed unresolved. In several (European) art films, moreover, it is virtually impossible to
fit the pieces of time and space together. The clear reconstruction of when
what took place is barred. Despite the fact that these films are a challenge to
narrative rules and make it impossible to ascertain a coherent fabula, they are
nonetheless narrative.
L'Anne Dernire Marienbad (Alain Resnais, 1961) reveals some characteristic narrative inclinations of alternative films. The title explicitly refers to
the classic parameters of time and space: we know when (last year) and where (the health resort Marienbad) the film is set. In the film, a nameless man
in an immense baroque hotel is telling a woman about his encounters with
her. They are said to have met many times near the balustrade of a garden
full of statues in Fredriksbad, or perhaps in Marienbad or Karlsbad. The
woman does not have a single memory of their meetings, which generates
the impression that the events have sprung from the lovers imagination.
Moreover, the status of the characters is unclear. We see how the woman is
shot by a man who presumably is her husband; did this event take place last
year, or is it imaginary once again? The fact that the characters in the hotel
move about like statues and the many references to the condition of being
dead suggest that the guests are possibly roaming the hotel as ghosts. In the
end, the lover claims that the woman has withdrawn with him alone, but
within the context of the film this claim is unconvincing. With its many uncertainties, it is impossible to categorize L'Anne Dernire Marienbad finally:
is it an abstract thriller, a love story or a philosophical puzzle?
Resnaiss film violates the traditional use of basic narrative ingredients,
but that in itself is unremarkable. However, it makes one wonder whether
these basic ingredients might even be absent altogether. Is entirely nonnarrative cinema possible? An unequivocal answer cannot be given. However, just as the claim that every film is narrative is not completely correct
if one adopts Cubitts historicizing perspectiveso also the assertion that a
genuinely non-narrative film can exist is hard to defend. Since the debate
concerning narrative and non-narrative cinema has not yet fully crystallized
in film theory, the issue demands further exploration.
160
Peter Verstraten
In Baisers Vols (Franois Truffaut, 1968), we see how Antoine is fired from the military, how
he ruins his job as night porter in a hotel and, finally, how he attempts to get by working as a
detective.
161
162
Peter Verstraten
163
tive work of action painters can be interpreted narratively if one reads the
canvas as expressing movement.3
5. ContentForm
For David Bordwell, narratological analysis revolves around the interaction
between narrative tactics and stylistic features. This interaction is analogous
to the more familiar distinction between content and form. Content refers to
the bare representation of the plot, which is reduced to the question what is
it about? Narrative tactics concern the shaping of the content; the order in
which events are told, for instance, falls under that heading. Form denotes
the furnishing of the content and involves the question how and by what
means is the content conveyed? This entails a choice from the entire arsenal
of filmic techniques: what camera positions does the director choose, what
colors, what type of shot transitions, does the sound correspond to the images, and so on. Style is a further specification of formal possibilities. According to Bordwell, style refers to the systematic use of film techniques. He
uses the word style when a director or filmic genre can be recognized by the
techniques that are employed. The interaction between content and form, or,
in Bordwells terms, between style and narrative construction, determines
how time, space and narrative logic will be manipulated.
The distinction between form and content is not as strict as it may appear, because form is not a neutral conductor. Form is not like a wire that
conducts electricity with a burning light bulb as its final content. Formal
features inevitably affect content as well. One could envisage an experiment
in which a man is filmed visiting a museum and looking around. If cheerful
music accompanied the images, the pleasure of the visit would be emphasized. If we heard ominous music, however, we might get the idea that the
man was being pursued. Thus a simple formal adjustment can greatly influence the content of a film.
Because of the impossibility of completely neutral form, content is always distorted. I understand this distortion as excess, a concept I derive
from an essay by Kristin Thompson. If a film exhibits style for its own
sake, filmic excess ensues (1986: 132). If the style draws too much attention to itself, the story is in danger of dissolving. Excess begins where motivation is lacking, or, in other words, where a stylistic feature does not propel
the story or serve a narrative function. In Thompsons view, excess is both
A comparable argument can be made where other experimental films from the twenties
Anmic Cinma (Marcel Duchamp, 1926), for instanceand short-lived movements like cinma
pur are concerned.
164
Peter Verstraten
165
166
Peter Verstraten
cases, the music and dance scenes mark a separate world. Their deviating and
patently artificial nature is heightened by the superfluous styling. Because the
excessive style in musicals serves to represent the utopian world, there is a
motivation for the stylistic overkill with respect to the content, and excess
can be contained.
The list of examples mentioned above, which can be expanded at will, illustrates the fact that excess can in principle be found in all types of film. In
these examples, however, excess is only incipient, because stylistic elements
are at the same time neutralized by the content or plot. Excess as defined by
Kristin Thompson only fully manifests itself when the style remains selfdirected and is emphatically not compensated for by the content. Such is the
case when metaphoric connections obscure insight into temporal developments, which happens in the abstract Ballet Mcanique. This also occurs when
the plot all but disappears, as I claimed was the case with L'Avventura. The
narrative rhythm of this film is extremely sluggish and crucial events are
overlooked. What remains is a film with exceptionally steady shots in which
characters are reduced to elements in desolate surroundings. We see them as
extras against the backdrop of modern architecture. The meticulous compositions implicitly tell the story of the alienation of modern man.
Because of their neglect of plot, these films function at the margins of
the narrative tradition. Since there is so little content, there is an excess of
style that cannot be compensated: the first condition of excess. The vanished search and the slow rhythm lend L'Avventura almost the same level of
stillness as a painting. The question remains, however, whether excess can
also manifest itself in films that are not just stylistic exercises, but have a
clearly narrative character.
7. Ostentatious Film Styles: The Case of Melodrama
The European immigrant Douglas Sirk is known as the master of fifties Hollywood melodrama. Sirks plots are relatively tight, psychologically comprehensible and have a bitter, sentimental subtext. In All that Heaven Allows
(1955), a widow from a well-to-do background has an affair with her young
gardener, this to the horror of her two children and gossipy neighbors. In
Imitation of Life (1959), a daughter is frustrated with the frequent absences of
her career-minded mother, while a friend of hers is aiming for a career in
showbiz and has to disavow her own black mother in order to achieve it.
It does not take much effort to analyze the classic, potentially tearjerking story lines of these melodramas, because there is much logically
structured content to be analyzed. Melodramas are usually situated in a relatively restrictive social milieu. The story takes place in a wealthy middle-class
167
168
Peter Verstraten
plenteous visual details. When a character travels across a landscape, an establishing shot may give an immediate impression of the space. In a split
second we see whether there are trees, cars, lamp-posts, traffic signs and so
on. In the case of an establishing shot, we do not register all the details, since
the number of details is indeterminate. If we suppose that this is a shot from
a classical movie, we are not expected to be interested in the landscape itself,
but we will wonder about the action that is probably coming up. Taking this
narrative pressure in cinema into account, I have examined to what extent
films can contain non-narrative elements. To that end, I have introduced the
concept of filmic excess: formal features can be so dominant that narrative
content may become irrelevant. This particular lesson, I would suggest,
might be fruitfully extended to other media.
Let us imagine the scene in a literary text where a character travels across
a landscape. It is possible to assume that the description of the landscape is
embedded in the flow of the fabula. The character takes time to observe the
surroundings. Hence, the description occurs through his or her focalization.
However, we might equally assume that the description becomes so elaborate and precise that the whole fragment seems dissociated from the characters perception and turns into an extensive exposition of the landscape. We
might even get the idea that the character moves across that space so that the
narrator can dwell on the beauty of the landscape. The timeline of the story
is then only the occasion to indulge descriptive purposesor in other
words, narrative content is made subservient to formal ends. In this regard,
the concept of excess that I have examined in relation to cinema, may be
usefully applied to the medium of literature as well. The notion of excess, I
conclude, warrants further investigation, for excess is not only crucial in
film narratology, but may also shed light on the thin line between narration
and description in literature.
Works Cited
Bal, Mieke. 1991. Reading Rembrandt. Beyond the Word-Image Opposition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bal, Mieke. 1997. Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Rev. ed. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Bal, Mieke. 1999. Quoting Caravaggio. Contemporary Art, Preposterous History. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Bonitzer, Pascal. 1989. The Disappearance (On Antonioni). In: Seymour Chatman and
Guido Fink (eds.). LAvventura. Michelangelo Antonioni, Director. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, p. 215-218.
Bordwell, David. 1985. Narration in the Fiction Film. London: Methuen.
169
Chatman, Seymour. 1980. What Novels Can Do That Films Cant (and Vice Versa). In:
Critical Inquiry 7, p. 121-140
Crafton, Don. 1995. Pie and Chase. Gag, Spectacle and Narrative in Slapstick Comedy. In:
Karnick/Jenkins 1995, p. 106-119.
Cubitt, Sean. 2004. The Cinema Effect. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Elsaesser, Thomas. 1995 [1973]. Tales of Sound and Fury. Observations on the Family
Melodrama. In: Barry Keith Grant (ed.). Film Genre. Reader II. Austin: University
of Texas Press, p. 350-380.
Elsaesser, Thomas (ed.). 1997 [1990]. Early Cinema. Space, Frame, Narrative. London: BFI.
Gaudreault, Andr. 1997 [1984]. Film, Narrative, Narration. The Cinema of the Lumire
Brothers. In: Elsaesser 1997, p. 68-75.
Gunning, Tom 1994 [1991]. D. W. Griffith and the Origins of American Narrative Film. The Early
Years at Biograph. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Gunning, Tom 1995. Response to Pie and Chase. In: Karnick/Jenkins 1995, p. 120-122.
Harries, Dan (ed.). 2004 [2002]. The New Media Book. London: BFI.
Karnick, Kristine Brunovska and Henry Jenkins (eds.). 1995. Classical Hollywood Comedy. New
York: Routledge.
Kinder, Marsha. 2004. Narrative Equivocations between Movies and Games. In: Harries
2004, p. 119-132.
Lunenfeld, Peter. 2004. The Myths of Interactive Cinema. In: Harries 2004, p. 145-154.
Manovich, Lev. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Murray, Janet H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck. The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Stewart, Garrett. 2007. Framed Time. Toward a Postfilmic Cinema. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Thompson, Kristin. 1986 [1977]. The Concept of Cinematic Excess. In: Philip Rosen (ed.).
Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology. A Film Reader. New York: Columbia University Press,
p. 130-142.
iek, Slavoj. 2001 [1992]. Enjoy Your Symptom! Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. New York:
Routledge.
SILKE HORSTKOTTE
(Leipzig)
Seeing or Speaking:
Visual Narratology and Focalization, Literature to Film
1
2
Following earlier suggestions from film theory to describe film as a cinematic narrative; see
e. g. Metz (1974).
A comparable argument is raised by Celestino Deleyto, who also seeks to restrict cinematic
narration to explicit on-screen narration through voice-over or intertitles (Deleyto 1991: 164).
171
argues, surely something gets sent, and this sending presupposes a sender
of some kind (Chatman 1990: 127).3
It seems sensible to assume that film possesses narrative qualities, and
that these narrative qualities must have an originating agency on the side of
film, hence, a film narrator. Leaving aside Chatmans claim (contentious, in
my view) that cinematic as well as literary narrators are put in place by implied authors (Chatman 1990: 132-133), I would tend to agree that film narrative presupposes the existence of a narrator and that this cinematic narrator is the transmitting agent of narrative, not its creator (Chatman 1990:
132). I would, however, furthermore posit that the presence of this cinematic
narrator has to be inferred by the spectator to a much greater degree than is
the case in literary narrative, and that film narration thus emerges out of an
interaction between a film and its viewers.
While a significant amount of research has been done on cinematic narrators, less attention has been paid to the possibility of a cinematic focalizer.4
This is surprising because focalization, through its basis in the notion of
perspective, is closely associated with matters of vision. It would therefore
seem a much more promising starting point for film narratology than narration, a concept originating with linguistic codes. In fact, focalization has been
proposed as a concept bridging textuality and visuality (Bal 1997; 1999), and
has been tentatively used as a tool for analyzing visual artifacts (Bal 1999;
Yacobi 2002) as well as ones that combine the visual and the verbal
(Horstkotte 2005). However, since Grard Genette first proposed the concept (Genette 1980), focalization has remained one of the most problematic,
and hotly discussed, areas of narrative theory. Although Genette initially
favored the term for its abstractness and for avoiding the optical connotations inherent in the French vision and champ (see Genette 1972: 206),
roughly corresponding to English point of view, he later highlighted the
intrinsically visual dimension of focalization by distinguishing between who
speaks (narration) and who sees (focalization) (Genette 1980: 186). In his
still later Narrative Discourse Revisited, however, Genette again downplayed the
terms optical associations by suggesting that the question who sees?
should be reformulated as who perceives? to include other sense perceptions (Genette 1988: 64). While some narratologists, particularly Mieke Bal,
continue to stress the visual aspects of focalization, which make the concept
the obvious place to begin easing in some elements of a visual narratology (Bal 1997: 161), others have argued that focalizations connection to
seeing is merely metonymical or metaphorical (Jahn 1996: 243).
3
4
A similar point had already been made by Albert Laffey (1964): the succession of images in a
film must, considered logically, have an originating agent beyond the screen (see esp. pp. 81f).
See, however, Deleyto (1991).
172
Silke Horstkotte
173
which the distinction between narrator and focalizer is much less clear-cut. It
will then, secondly, be interesting to see how the two film adaptations translate this distinction (or lack of distinction) into a filmic narrative and film
focalization.
2. Kafkas The Castle:
Ironic Distance between Narration and Focalization
Franz Kafkas third and last novel The Castle, written in 1922 and published
posthumously by Kafkas close friend Max Brod in 1926, exemplifies that
combination of heterodiegetic narration with fixed internal focalization
which Franz Stanzel termed the figural narrative situation (Stanzel 1984).
As early as 1952, the Kafka scholar Friedrich Beiner referred to this form
of focalization as an einsinniges Erzhlen, or narration from a single fixed
perspective (reprinted in Beiner 1983). Apart from the fact that Beiners
term unnecessarily confuses the positions of the impersonal narrator and the
character-focalizer K., it bears noting that K.s focalization is not as consistent as Beiner assumed but contains a number of breaks and oddities, especially at the beginning of the novel (see Mller 2008: 523; Sheppard 1977:
406).
It is significant for the later development of the narrative that Kafka
wrote two unfinished drafts of the novels beginning, employing different
narratorial positions, before finally coming up with a narrative situation
which enabled him to continue beyond the novels initial scenes (see Jahr-aus
2006: 397-402). The first of these fragmentary beginnings, the so-called
Frstenzimmer fragment, uses a heterodiegetic narrator who tells of the
arrival of an unnamed guest at a country inn. This fragment already contains the thematic kernel of the later novel plot, because the guest talks about
a fight in which he needs to engage (Jahraus 2006: 398). In the novel, K.
frequently imagines his relation to the castle in terms of a fight. The Frstenzimmer fragment, however, breaks off before this theme can be further
explored. Kafkas second false start already contains the first two sentences
of The Castle, but employs a homodiegetic narrator, inasmuch as the protagonist K. here serves as a first-person narrator. This narrative situation
continues until the narrator-protagonist engages in amorous relations with
Frieda in the third chapter. At that point, the narrative abruptly reverts from
a first-person to a third-person perspective, as in the earlier fragment. Kafka
then writes a third beginning for his novel, this time employing a covert,
heterodiegetic narrator. That third start finally develops into the fragmentary
novel published in 1926 by Max Brod.
174
Silke Horstkotte
I would suggest that a crucial factor in Kafkas decision to use an impersonal, covert or heterodiegetic narrator was the possibility of linking this type
of narration with a specific form of fixed internal focalization that is endemic
in modernist writing and is characterized by the frequent use of free indirect
discourse (FID), reported speech, and reported thought.6 Franz Stanzels
concept of figural narrative suggests, in fact, that these two aspects
narration through a covert, impersonal, heterodiegetic narrator and fixed
internal focalization tied to the consciousness of the central characterare
mutually interdependent and together constitute a standard narrative situation. However, I will show that although the narration in The Castle presupposes a fixed internal focalization, this does not mean that the positions of
narrator and focalizer are always congruent with each other. On the contrary,
the protagonist-focalizers perception and interpretation of events is frequently at odds with the same events presentation in the narrative; indeed,
the ironic distance between narrator and focalizer is a driving motor of the
narrative.
K.s focalization is closely linked to visual activity, especially in the early
chapters of The Castle, where the protagonists gaze remains directed at the
silhouette of the castle, whereas the later chapters focus on his attempts to
gain insight into the inner workings of the castle bureaucracy. The very first
sentences of the novel draw attention to the protagonist-focalizers gaze:
There was no sign of the Castle hill, fog and darkness surrounded it []. K.
stood a long time on the wooden bridge that leads from the main road to the
village, gazing upward into the seeming emptiness. (Kafka 1998: 1)7 Curiously, the sentence suggests that although K. looks, time of day and weather
conditions prevent him from actually perceiving anything. The assertion that
there is, in fact, a castle on the mountain therefore has to be the narrators,
not K.s, meaning that the initial statement is not internally focalized.8 In
fact, K. is later surprised to hear that a castle perches above the village at all.
We are, then, from the beginning of the novel confronted with conflicting
statements about what is and what is not, what can and cannot be seen, setting up an ironic distance between narrator and focalizer.
6
Dorrit Cohn similarly speculates that the implausible near-effacement of the narrating self in
Kafkas second attempt motivated the shift towards third-person narration (Cohn 1978: 169171). Grard Genette, on the other hand, remains unconvinced that a rewriting of [] The
Castle into the first person would be such a catastrophe (Genette 1988: 112).
Vom Schloberg war nichts zu sehn, Nebel und Finsternis umgaben ihn []. Lange stand K.
auf der Holzbrcke die von der Landstrae zum Dorf fhrt und blickte in die scheinbare Leere
empor. (Kafka 1994: 9)
Klaus-Detlef Mller (2007) offers a different interpretation: he argues that although the first
sentence could be authorial, the consistent narration from K.s perspective suggests that K.
misses something (the castle) which he had expected (Mller 2007: 105). This is a circular, and
therefore unconvincing, argument: if the very first sentence suggests zero focalization, then internal focalization cannot be consistent.
175
The disparity between what the narrator asserts could be seen and what
the focalizer actually perceives raises the question what, if anything, the narrator can be said to see. The perceptual capacities of narrators are a hotly
contested narratological problem, with Seymour Chatman denying that the
narrator can see anything and asserting that he is a reporter, not an observer of the story world in the sense of literally witnessing it and that narrating, therefore, is not an act of perception but of presentation or representation (Chatman 1990: 142). At least as far as the beginning of The Castle
is concerned, however, the distinction between reporting something that is at
least potentially visible and actually seeing it does not appear highly useful.
Whether we call the narrators activity perception or presentation, he (I will
stick with the male pronoun for conventions sake) suggests to the reader a
visual impression of the castle that can then be compared with the visual
impression (or lack thereof) that we receive through the focal character, K.
Rather than drawing an absolute distinction between the focalizers visual perception and the narrators reporting of visual phenomena, I would like
to refer to Manfred Jahns proposal to distinguish between different windows of focalization in the house of fiction (1996), which allows for distinctive forms of visual perception specific to both the narrator and the focalizer
and therefore enables me to talk about the narrators visual perception.
Jahns main point is that although narrators can, in principle, see, their
perception has a different ontological status from (while being at least partly
reliant on) that of the character-focalizer(s):
What the narrators actually see is determined by a number of factors: the shape of
the window [], the view afforded by it [], the instrument used [], but above
all, the viewers consciousness and its construction of reality. It is for this reason
that narrators see things differently even when they are ostensibly watching the
same show []. Before this backdrop enters a special story-internal character []
who sees the story events not, like the narrator, from a window perched aloft, but
from within the human scene itself. Wholly unaware of both his/her own intradiegetic status and the part s/he plays in the extradiegetic universe comprising narrator and narratee, the reflectors consciousness nonetheless mirrors the world for
these higher-level agents and thus metaphorically functions as a window him- or
herself. (Jahn 1996: 252)
In the opening passage of The Castle, however, we find the narrator reporting
on a potential visual perception that is notindeed, that cannot be
mirrored for him by the reflector. The first sentences of The Castle are therefore at odds with the ensuing fixed internal focalization. While the narrators
assurance of the castles actual existencewhich K. cannot see in the darknessas well as the objective geographical detail of the bridge that leads
[] to the village (Kafka 1998: 1) seem to suggest a zero focalization (the
narrator knows more than the characters), the following paragraphs make
increasing use of internal focalization, culminating in the use of FID two
176
Silke Horstkotte
pages later when we witness K. observing the village inn: So there was even
a telephone in this village inn? They were certainly well equipped. (3)9 As
the novel progresses, K.s thoughts and perceptionssometimes rendered in
the form of indirect thought re-presentation, sometimes through the use of
FIDcircle increasingly around the unknown castle and its employees,
which K. supposes to be engaging in a fight with himself. After an initial
telephone conversation confirms K.s claim that he has been appointed as a
surveyor to the castle, he considers his position in the following terms:
K. listened intently. So the Castle had appointed him land surveyor. On the one
hand, this was unfavorable, for it showed that the Castle had all necessary information about him, had assessed the opposing forces, and was taking up the struggle
with a smile. On the other hand, it was favorable []. (5)10
11
Wie, auch ein Telephon war in diesem Dorfwirtshaus? Man war vorzglich eingerichtet.
(Kafka 1994: 11)
K. horchte auf. Das Schlo hatte ihn also zum Landvermesser ernannt. Das war einerseits
ungnstig fr ihn, denn es zeigte, da man im Schlo alles Ntige ber ihn wute, die Krfteverhltnisse abgewogen hatte und den Kampf lchelnd aufnahm. Es war aber andererseits auch
gnstig []. (Kafka 1994: 13)
Nun sah er oben das Schlo deutlich umrissen in der klaren Luft und noch verdeutlicht durch
den alle Formen nachbildenden, in dnner Schicht berall liegenden Schnee. brigens schien
oben auf dem Berg viel weniger Schnee zu sein als hier im Dorf []. Hier reichte der Schnee
bis zu den Fenstern der Htten und lastete gleich wieder auf dem niedrigen Dach, aber oben
auf dem Berg ragte alles frei und leicht empor, wenigstens schien es so von hier aus. (Kafka
1994: 16)
177
178
Silke Horstkotte
the heterodiegetic narrator, however, it would appear that the ultimate irony
is the narrators, at the expense of the focalizers credibility.
3. Cinematic and VO Narration in Michael Hanekes Das Schloss
How can the combination of narration and focalization in Kafkas novel be
translated into the medium of film? Before addressing that question, we first
need to identify what forms, if any, focalization can generally take in a feature film. Summarizing Edward Branigans theory of subjectivity in film
(1984), Andringa et al. (2001) suggest four techniques through which focalization may operate in film: (1) through so-called point of view (POV) shots,
which show the focal character perceiving or thinking something; (2)
through lighting and music; (3) through image sequences interrupting the
film action to represent a characters thoughts; (4) or by means of a voice
over (VO). Voice over, however, has also been identified as an aspect of film
narrationindeed, Andringa et al. identify the VO in the film they analyze as
an overt level 2 narrator, as opposed to the covert cinematic level 1 narrator
(see Andringa et al. 2001: 136, table 8.1).13 Seymour Chatman similarly distinguishes between a showing narratorthe cinematic narratorand a
second-order telling (VO) narrator who may be one component of the total
showing, one of the cinematic narrators devices (Chatman 1990: 134). At
the same time, however, Chatman also names VO as a possible element of
focalization (filter, in Chatmans terminology), which may be effected on
screen through eyeline match, shot-countershot, the 180-degree rule, voiceoff or voice-over [or] plot logic (157). If the same techniques can be constructed as either narration or focalization, it seems that the two are even
more difficult to tell apart in film than in literature and that any differentiation between them is almost entirely a result of the viewers interpretation.14
Nevertheless, I will try to offer some insight into the differences between
film narration and focalization through a reading of well-known Austrian
film director Michael Hanekes adaptation of The Castle.
The film script faithfully reproduces Kafkas chapter division, although
the scenes themselves are often shortened so as to concentrate on the (perceived) essence of a chapter. Scenes are frequently separated by cut to black,
giving the film a fragmentary and jerky appearance and subverting the sort of
identificatory and illusionistic viewing attitude promoted by mainstream Hollywood cinema. A further disillusionment is effected by the films setting.
While Kafkas novel was set in a claustrophobic universe bearing little or no
13
14
179
relation to any specific time and place, the film set suggests a setting close to
the present, and in an Alpine region. Props, interior furnishings and characters clothes seem to derive from the 1970s, but their used and dated look
suggests a later time, probably the 1990s when the film was made. On the
side of sound, we find repeated allusions to Alpine folk music, both canned
(from a radio at the inn) and live (peasants playing dance music in the inn).
And while most of the actors speak little to no dialect, a number of minor
characters such as Pepi (played by Birgit Linauer), Momus (Paulus Manker)
and the village chairman (Nikolaus Paryla) exhibit traces of Austrian intonation, and Hans Brunswick (Conradin Blum) of Swiss dialect. However, these
hints remain vague and are of a generically Alpine rather than a specifically
regional nature. In the film, as in the novel, no precise location can be assigned to the village and castle, and this also serves to reflects Ks uncertain
social status and underdetermined identity (Alt 2005: 594).
Rather than suggesting a precise time and location, the films setting creates allusions to a specific theater aesthetic that is associated with the wellknown Swiss director Christoph Marthaler and with stage designer Anna
Viebrock, with whom Marthaler frequently cooperates (for example in Die
Stunde Null oder die Kunst des Servierens, Deutsches Schauspielhaus Hamburg,
1995; Kasimir und Karoline, also Deutsches Schauspielhaus, 1996). Characteristic for this aesthetic is the use of dated interiors, of Alpine folk music, and of
grotesque acting. These elements unite to create an effect of spectatorial
distance and disillusionment in the tradition of Brechtian epic drama.
Haneke, too, introduces many grotesque and slapstick effects especially
through the comical and childish nature of the two assistants (Gehilfen).
The actors clothing, with the mens long johns and Friedas wrinkled stockings, is used to great comical effect in the films frequent dressing and undressing scenes, which also serve to show off the actors pale and distinctly
unfit-looking physiques. Another source of humor can be found in the frequent close-ups focusing on the actors highly expressive mimicry. This concerns especially the assistants (played by Frank Giering and Felix Eitner),
Frieda (Susanne Lothar) or Barnabas (Andr Eisermann), whereas lead actor
Ulrich Mhe, who had already worked with Haneke in two earlier films
(Bennys Video and Funny Games), plays K. with a markedly deadpan facial
expression that adds to the characters enigmatic nature. Finally, the frequent
repetition of scenes showing K. walking, stumbling or running through the
snow-covered village emphasizes the cyclical nature of Kafkas tale while
also adding to the slapstick effect of the film.
Together, all of these aspectsmise en scne, setting, lighting, sound
constitute the cinematic narration. However, the film also employs a secondlevel, overt VO narrator. The VO, spoken by Udo Samel, begins with the
novels first sentence and recurs throughout the film, faithfully quoting the
180
Silke Horstkotte
narrative usually one or two sentences at a time. Indirect speech and representation of thought in the novel are sometimes translated into dialogue in
the film, but on the whole, the film is very faithful to the novels original
text, with Kafkas language creating an estranging effect when combined
with the semi-contemporary visual setting. VO narration usually bridges
passages with little or no dialogue. Sometimes, however, VO also overlays
spoken dialogue and in one central scene entirely disrupts the cinematic narration. This concerns K.s first love scene with Frieda on the floor of the
Bridge Inn (Brckenhof), which is rendered exclusively in VO narration
with almost no visual supportwhat is shown is not the couple making
love, but only a still image of Klamms illuminated window (one of the castle
bureaucrats residing at the inn).
Like the fragmentary novel, the film ends abruptly. In fact, Michael
Haneke was probably drawn to this fragmentary novel because of his own
fragmentary aesthetics (Metelmann 2003: 35). However, the visual composition closes with a repetition of K. walking through the snow that is at odds
with the VO narration describing a scene in one of the villagers houses.
Indeed, film scholar Jrg Metelmann points out that the obvious and clearly
audible separation of sound and image is frequently used in Hanekes aesthetics of deviation as a means of criticizing the characters and their actions (2003: 154-156, my translation). In this and other aspects Haneke is
closely influenced by Brecht (Metelmann 2003: 156), a heritage which also
accounts for his visual similarities to Marthaler and Viebrock. Hanekes explicit refusal to psychologically motivate his characters actions, which derives from Brechts concept of epic theater (Metelmann 2003: 159), could
also account for his lack of attention to the focalizing FID passages in
Kafkas novel.
The films VO narration mostly concerns those passages of the novel
that are not focalized (zero focalization, the narrator knows more than the
characters). Sometimes, the VO refers to K.s auditory impressions, but
rarely to his visual perception. The novels many instances of FID, especially
the passages interpreting letters that are so central to the relation between
narration and focalization, are left out entirely. The films use of VO, then, is
not concerned with focalization, but with narration, and the other possible
techniques for rendering focalization described by Branigan and Andringa et
al.POV shot, sound and lighting, and the insertion of image sequences
rendering thoughtare also left unexploited. Ulrich Mhes deadpan acting
does not allow for the mimicking of point of view; the films sound and
lighting function as part of a Brechtian aesthetic which creates the furthest
possible distance between the audience and characters; no image sequences
occur. An alternative possible source of focalization is the focus on K. created by the systematic use of shot/countershot between K. and his visual
181
field. This may suggest some limited degree of internal focalization; surprisingly, however, the castle is never shown in the film and its description is not
quoted in the VO narration. Focalization as a means of psychological insight
is thus switched off, and the psychologically or psychoanalytically motivated
conflict between K. and the castle is diminished. The limited use of internal
focalization is restricted to rendering literal point of view, and a small portion of K.s view at that, with the looming castle cut out completely.
4. Robert Walsers Institute Benjamenta:
Feigned Narration and the Reality of Dreams
Where Kafkas Castle combined an impersonal, covert, heterodiegetic narrator with a fixed internal focalization, Robert Walsers Institute Benjamenta,
written thirteen years earlier, is relayed by an overt homodiegetic narrator,
the novels eponymous protagonist who is supposed to have written this
novel in diary style. No independent focalization can be detected in the
novel. This raises the thorny problem of whether narrators can (theoretically,
narratologically) be focalizers. Answers to this question that have so far been
suggested range from Patrick ONeills claim that the narrator is always a focalizer, having no choice whether to focalize or not [] only how to do so
(ONeill 1994: 90), through James Phelans more moderate assertion that
narrators can be focalizers (Phelan 2001), to Seymour Chatmans and Gerald Princes vehement denial: the narratoreven an intradiegetic and homodiegetic one []is never a focalizer because s/he is never part of the diegesis she presents [] s/he is an element of discourse and not story [] whereas
focalization is an element of the latter (Prince 2001: 46; see Chatman 1990:
144-145).
However, while the distinction between narration and focalization is
sound in theory, my analysis will show that it is not always easy to uphold in
an analysis. Narrator and focalizer are messily intertwined especially in intradiegetic-homodiegetic narrative (as indeed Princes own assertion above suggests). For instance, Princes absolute distinction between story and discourse fails to take into account the specifics of retrospective narrative, in
which the same character can function as a character in the story (in the
past), and as the narrator, i. e. producer of discourse, in the present. This
means that a narrator (in the present) may rely on his own focalization (in
the past) (see Phelan 2001: 53). In fact, Seymour Chatman points out that
[the] homodiegetic or first-person narrator did see the events and objects at
an earlier moment in the story, but his recountal is after the fact and thus a
matter of memory, not of perception (1990: 144-145). In retrospective
homodiegetic narrative, therefore, narrator and focalizer, while functionally
182
Silke Horstkotte
distinct, coincide in the same person. The same may, however, also be true
of non-retrospective homodiegetic narrative, for example in introspective
diary writing, where the writer may rely on his or her own focalization at a
time close to, or sometimes coinciding with, the time of writing. Phelan concludes that a human narrator cannot report a coherent sequence of events
without also revealing his or her perception of those events (2001: 57); I
shall take this assertion as a starting point for my discussion of focalization
and narration in Institute Benjamenta. A second point to bear in mind when we
turn to Walsers novel in diary format is James Phelans reminder that treating narrators as potential focalizers enables us to think about an important
aspect of narration, namely the self-consciousness of the narrator (ibid.:
52). Clearly, the presentation of self-consciousness is central to diary writing,
and I will therefore attempt to clarify the different aspects of narration and
of focalization involved in it.
The extremely rudimentary plot of Institute Benjamenta can be summarized
in few words. The novel is set in Benjamentas Boys School, a school for
aspiring domestics in which nothing is taught, where the teachers sleep as if
petrified all day and the students waste whole days smoking in bed. Almost
the only activity at the school is the pupils constant spying on each other
and on their teachers; occasionally the protagonist takes strolls through the
unnamed modern metropolis where the novel is set (presumably Berlin), a
city that overwhelms the spectator with its manifold impressions. A position
as a servant, for which the school is supposed to prepare Jakob and which
Mr Benjamenta repeatedly promises him, never materializes. When Miss
Benjamenta, the school principals sister, dies, all the pupils are suddenly
given positions; only Jakob remains behind as a traveling companion for Mr
Benjamenta.
Like K. in The Castle, Jakob is a non-entity, possessed by a need to completely efface himself. As Rochelle Tobias explains, Walsers protagonists are
generally incapable of forming attachments or returning the affection directed at them since they have no defining traits save that they mirror the
characters they meet (Tobias 2006: 293). The enigmatic setting in Benjamentas school thus mirrors the impenetrable character of the protagonistnarrator. As a result, Jakobs diary focuses less on Jakobs own personal development than on his relationships with other characters: on his interactions
with the Institutes reclusive director, which has distinctly homoerotic undertones (e. g. Walser 1995: 87f./Walser 1985: 105), his budding love affair with
the directors sister, Lisa (ibid.: 99f./120), and his relations with Kraus, the
institutes model student who serves not only as Jakobs antithesis or antagonist in his love affair with Lisa Benjamenta, but also as a kind of doppelganger (see Grenz 1974: 141-142; Greven 1978: 173; Tobias 2006: 299).
183
Ich mchte gern reich sein, in Droschken fahren und Gelder verschwenden. (Walser 1985: 7)
184
Silke Horstkotte
girl has disappeared, Jakob concludes that she was the enchantress who had
conjured up all these visions and states (ibid.). Afterwards, he expresses
regret over having given in to wanton pleasures of easefulness (ibid.;
lsterne Bequemlichkeit, 103), belatedly suggesting that the dreamlike sequence may have been motivated by sexual desire for Miss Benjamenta. As
Rochelle Tobias correctly remarks, [each] room is the translation of an allegorical figure; each represents a particular phrase or mood as a physical environment (Tobias 2006: 302), and this suggests that the rooms materialize
Jakobs feelings and emotions. Alternatively, however, the inner chambers
could equally be manifesting the Fruleins words, as Tobias also suggests
when she says: Throughout the episode, the phrases that Frulein Benjamenta utters appear as diverse settings. (Tobias 2006: 303) Because of its
dream logic, the passage lends itself to psychoanalytic interpretations focusing either on Jakobs attachment to the Benjamentas or on the use of birth
metaphors (see Tobias 2006: 304).
In this and other passages, Jakob functions as a narrator insofar as he is
the transmitting agent of the narrative, but since what he transmits is almost
exclusively concerned with dreams and fantasies, it would appear difficult if
not impossible to separate the two acts of narrating and focalizing. Indeed,
different aspects of narration and focalization constantly blend into one another, with Jakob expressing doubts about what sort of perception he is describing: Is he reporting on the state of affairs in the Institute Benjamenta,
for instance, or are these rather memories from the prep school he attended
in his home town? It is, moreover, not at all clear whether Jakob is here reporting an earlier perception, or whether the styling of sense impressions as
dreams and fairytales does not occur in the act of composing his diary, in
which case it would belong to the order of narration. We might, then, turn
once again to Manfred Jahns suggestion that there are different windows of
focalization in the house of fiction and describe Jakobs role as that of a
narratorial (rather than reflector-mode) focalizer (Jahn 1996: 256-7). Or we
could employ James Phelans (2001) terminology and describe Institute Benjamenta as a combination of two types of narration: narrators focalization and
voice, and characters focalization and narrators voice (with character referring to Jakob-as-experiencer, and narrator to Jakob the diary-writer).
Phelans proposal has the advantage of enabling us to differentiate between Jakob as a character and Jakob as a diary writer. As Manfred Jahn has
pointed out, Genettes question who speaks? inadequately captures the
narratorial function because it buries the narratologically relevant distinction
between speaker and writer (and thinker, in interior monologue) (Jahn 1996:
246). Jakob, of course, poses as a diary writer; the novels subtitle designates
it as a diary, and Jakobs narration relies heavily on irony and word play,
thereby calling attention to the diarys composition (Tobias 2006: 299).
185
16
I use hypothetical narration in analogy to David Hermans proposal of a hypothetical focalization (Herman 2002: 303).
186
Silke Horstkotte
187
therefore impossible to ascertain whether the setting is supposed to be realistic or whether it constitutes a visualization of Jakobs thoughts and fantasieswhat Seymour Chatman has referred to as a mindscreen effect
(1990: 159). Thus, the mise-en-scne of those scenes where Jakob is alone in
front of the camera could constitute an effect of focalization.
The disorientation created by the films enigmatic visual setting and use
of chiaroscuro effects is heightened through visual distortions created by
filming through a goldfish glass or through uneven window panes. The
films foregrounding of setting, dcor and props, with great attention to the
marginal, combines with an improvisational style that owes more to a sense
of musical rhythm than to the chronological unfolding of narrative. The
brothers Quay explain:
We demand that the decors act as poetic vessels [] . As for what is called the scenario: at most we have only a limited musical sense of its trajectory, and we tend to
be permanently open to vast uncertainties, mistakes, disorientations as though lying
in wait to trap the slightest fugitive encounter. (quoted in Buchan 1998: 7)
This lack of narrative embedding leaves the interpretation of the films visual
style open to the viewer. As Suzanne Buchan writes in an article about the
Quay brothers work: Unencumbered by narrative, the viewer can descend
to various levels of bewilderment or enchantment. (Buchan 1998: 4) Buchan has named several techniques which the brothers use in order to disturb the viewers experience of continuous space, especially the use of macro
lenses which provide virtually no depth of field or their landmark fast
pan shift or rapid camera movement within a continuous diegetic space,
which results in a flicker effect suggestive of spatial fluidity (ibid.: 9). Moreover, their use of retroactive cutting, i. e. cutting from a close-up view to a
more distant camera angle, reverses expository conventions of narrative
continuity editing and therefore also serves to strengthen the films nonnarrative aspects and to disorient viewers expectations (ibid.).
Where Walsers novel played with the tension between the reality of metropolitan life and Jakobs dreamlike perception of it, and opposed the familiar milieu of the modern metropolis with the strange setting inside Benjamentas school, the film systematically cuts any ties to the viewers reality and
rigidly limits information about the strange, fantastic setting. This makes it
very difficult for viewers to formulate expectations about what is going to
happen and to make interpretative decisions about the status of what they
are seeing.
However, the viewers understanding is helped by the films fixed internal focalization through Jakob, whose perception of events remains a constant point of reference. Frequently, Jakobs role as focalizer is indicated
through POV shots which show him seeing something, often through the
use of optical devices, through windows, keyholes and the like. This might
188
Silke Horstkotte
lead us to conclude that other distorted views are also an effect of Jakobs
focalization rather than of (cinematic) narration.
That Jakob functions as the films internal focalizer is also suggested by
the films use of VO. As in Hanekes adaptation of The Castle, the VO passages in Institute Benjamenta are verbatim quotations from the novel. Unlike
the impersonal VO narration in Hanekes film, however, the VO in Institute
Benjamenta is clearly attributable to the central character, Jakob: although the
words are spoken from the off, the camera circles around Jakoban unusual
form of POV shot which suggests that he is to be identified as the source of
these words. However, the viewer does not at the same time see Jakobs
mouth speaking these words. This creates the impression that the VO expresses Jakobs thoughts and is therefore an effect of focalization, whereas
the VOs sourcethe written diary in Walsers novelbelongs, of course, to
the order of narration.
Institute Benjamenta, then, expresses focalization in a number of ways, including POV shot, VO, and the use of mindscreen sequences. However,
what does and does not constitute focalization in this film is in effect an
interpretative decision, as evidenced by the fact that the fairytale forest
scenes which I have read as mindscreen sequences (and therefore as focalizations) have been interpreted as the depiction of a strange parallel world in
the fantasy genre (and thus as narration) by most of the films reviewers.
6. Conclusion
Various assumptions circulate around the possible relations between narration and focalization. By comparing two internally focalized literary narratives, I have shown that there is a fairly straightforward distinction between
narration and focalization in heterodiegetic narrative, but that such a distinction is considerably more difficult to draw in homodiegetic narrative. Much
of this difficulty rests on the fact that the distinction between the two agents
is not a property of the text but constitutes an interpretation of the readers,
with different texts leaving more or less scope for such interpretation. In
Kafkas Castle, I have identified strong and prominently placed clues that the
narrators window of focalization (which includes a description of the castle)
is distinct from that of the focal character, K. (who cannot see the castle and
is later surprised to hear of its existence). From the beginning of the novel,
then, readers are made aware of K.s limited perspective; in later parts of the
novel, the narrators verbatim quotation of the letters K. receives is not reconcilable with K.s interpretation of these letters, suggesting that K. is to be
regarded as an unreliable focalizer ironically presented by the narrator.
189
Walsers Institute Benjamenta leaves a considerably wider scope for interpreting the relation between narration and focalization, as evidenced by the
divergent readings given by Walser scholars, which themselves depend considerably on the concept of focalization employed. My own interpretation of
Jakob is that of an unreliable homodiegetic-extradiegetic narrator who fantasizes about attending a school for domestics and produces a fake diary about
these fantasies. According to this reading, there is no character called Jakob,
only a narrator who produces a hypothetical narrative including a narratorial
focalization of a series of hypothetical events and their hypothetical perception. In both novels, character focalization (in Institute Benjamenta, hypothetical character focalization) is embedded in a higher-order, narratorial (window
of) focalization, suggesting that focalizers cannot be narrative agents on a par
with narrators, since focalization is always to some extent intermingled with,
and dependent on, narration.
In an article entitled Narrative Theory and/or/as Theory of Interpretation, Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Mller (2003: 215) have argued that
narratology may serve as a heuristic for the interpretation of narrative texts if
it is neutral with regard to the interpretative framework, i. e. if it is usable in
conjunction with various approaches to interpretation.17 However, if narratological concepts such as focalization and narration do not objectively describe narrative texts, but are themselves always already interpretations, they
cannot then provide a neutral basis for interpretation. This means that we
have to account for the construction of narrative agents by real readers
(rather than ideal or implied readers) much more closely than most narratological frameworks have done to date. One notable exception is the theory
of psychonarratology proffered by Marisa Bortolussi and Peter Dixon (2003:
2), who argue that the forms of narrative discourse are only meaningful
when understood in the context of their reception and that the narrator, as
well as other narrative agents, must be viewed as a reader construction (ibid.:
72).
The interpretative nature of narratological concepts becomes even more
obvious when employed in the context of film narrative, since narration as
well as focalization has to be inferred by film spectators to a greater degree
than by readers of literary narratives. Moreover, both concepts invariably
undergo great changes when applied to film. Whereas the narrator serves as
a source of spoken or written utteranceoften, if not always, of an anthropomorphized naturein literary narrative, no single, unified or self-identical
source of utterance can be identified in film narrative. The concept of a
cinematic narrator remains a highly abstract construction that can never
coincide with any one character in the manner of homodiegetic literary nar17
190
Silke Horstkotte
rative. The identification of a film focalizer is, if anything, even more speculative. The camera does not usually represent the visual perspective of a focal
character but that of the cinematic narrator; nor does film easily lend itself to
the representation of cognitive processes. So-called POV shots, which show
a focal character thinking or perceiving something, may be understood as
either narration or focalization. The use of VO, which has been suggested as
another source of focalization, remains at best an auxiliary construction and
one that can, again, be constructed either as narration or as focalization. Not
only is the identification of narrative agents in film narratives an interpretative act, it also has far-ranging consequences for how the fictional world is
interpreted. Thus, depending on whether we understand the POV shots in
Institute Benjamenta as narration or focalization, the fairytale forest can be assigned two ontologically distinct interpretations, either as a real forest in a
fantasy setting, or as Jakobs subjective imagination within a more realistic
setting.
The application of narratological concepts to film thus remains somewhat speculative. Furthermore, it bears repeating that terms like narration
and focalization describe distinctly different phenomena in film and in textual narrative. The great differences between literary and film narration and
focalization suggest that narratological concepts are not neutral categories,
but media-dependent; as Fotis Jannidis (2003: 50) has written, narrative
should always be treated as something anchored in a medium, making narratology a collective term for a series of specialized narratologies and not a
self-sufficient metascience of its own.
Works Cited
Alt, Peter-Andr. 2005. Franz Kafka, der ewige Sohn. Eine Biographie. Mnchen: Beck.
Andringa, Els; Petra van Horssen, Astrid Jacobs and Ed Tan. 2001. Point of View and
Viewer Empathy in Film. In: Willie van Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New
Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany: SUNY Press, p. 133-157.
Bal, Mieke. 1997 [1985]. Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Bal, Mieke. 1999. Quoting Caravaggio. Contemporary Art, Preposterous History. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Beiner, Friedrich. 1983. Der Erzhler Franz Kafka und andere Vortrge. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Bordwell, David. 1985. Narration in the Fiction Film. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bortolussi, Marisa and Peter Dixon. 2003. Psychonarratology. Foundations for the Empirical Study of
Literary Response. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Branigan, Edward. 1984. Point of View in the Cinema. A Theory of Narration and Subjectivity in
Classical Film. New York/Berlin: Mouton. (= Approaches to Semiotics 66)
Buchan, Suzanne H. 1998. The Quay Brothers. Choreographed Chiaroscuro, Enigmatic and
Sublime. In: Film Quarterly 51:3, p. 2-15.
191
Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Chatman, Seymour. 1990. Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Cohn, Dorrit. 1978. Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness in Fiction.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohn, Dorrit. 1981. The Encirclement of Narrative. On Franz Stanzels Theorie des Erzhlens. In: Poetics Today 2:2, p. 157-182.
Deleyto, Celestino. 1991. Focalisation in Film Narrative. In: Atlantis XIII (1-2), p. 159-177.
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a Natural Narratology. London/New York: Routledge.
Genette, Grard. 1972. Figures III. Paris: ditions du Seuil.
Genette, Grard. 1980. Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method. Transl. by J. E. Lewin. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Genette, Grard. 1988. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gling, Andreas. 1992. Abendstern und Zauberstab. Studien und Interpretationen zu Robert Walsers
Der Gehlfe und Jakob von Gunten. Wrzburg: Knigshausen & Neumann.
Grenz, Dagmar. 1974. Die Romane Robert Walsers. Weltbezug und Wirklichkeitsdarstellung. Munich:
Fink.
Greven, Jochen. 1978. Figuren des Widerspruchs. Zeit und Kulturkritik im Werk Robert
Walsers. In: Katharina Kerr (ed.). ber Robert Walser. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, p. 164193.
Haneke, Michael (dir.). 1997. Das Schloss. Kino International Corp.
Herman, David. 2002. Story Logic. Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Horstkotte, Silke. 2005. The Double Dynamics of Focalization in W. G. Sebalds The Rings of
Saturn. In: Jan Christoph Meister (ed.). Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism. Mediality, Disciplinarity. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, p. 25-44.
Jahn, Manfred. 1996. Windows of Focalization. Deconstructing and Reconstructing a Narratological Concept. In: Style 30:2, p. 241-267.
Jahraus, Oliver. 2006. Kafka. Leben, Schreiben, Machtapparate. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Jannidis, Fotis. 2003. Narrative and Narratology. In: Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Mller
(eds.): What is Narratology? Berlin: de Gruyter, p. 35-54.
Kafka, Franz. 1994 [1926]. Das Schlo. Roman, in der Fassung der Handschrift. In: Hans-Gerd
Koch (ed.). Gesammelte Werke in zwlf Bnden. Nach der Kritischen Ausgabe. Vol. 4.
Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch.
Kafka, Franz. 1998. The Castle. Transl. by Mark Harman. New York: Schocken Books.
Kindt Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2003. Narrative Theory and/or/as Theory of Interpretation. In: T. K. and H.-H. M. (eds.): What is Narratology? Berlin: de Gruyter, p.
205-219.
Kozloff, Sarah. 1988. Invisible Storytellers: Voice-over Narration in American Fiction Film. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Laffey, Albert. 1964 [1947]. Le rcit, le monde et le cinema. In: A. L. Logique du cinema.
Paris: Masson, p. 51-90.
Lothe, Jakob. 2000. Narrative in Fiction and Film. An Introduction. Oxford/New York: Oxford
University Press.
Metelmann, Jrg. 2003. Zur Kritik der Kino-Gewalt. Die Filme von Michael Haneke. Munich: Fink.
192
Silke Horstkotte
Metz, Christian. 1974. Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema. New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Miller, J. Hillis. 2005. Henry James and Focalization or Why James Loves Gyp. In: James
Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds.). A Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell, p. 124-135.
Mller, Klaus-Detlef. 2007. Franz Kafka: Romane (Klassiker-Lektren, 9). Berlin: Erich
Schmidt.
Mller, Michael. 2008. Das Schlo. In: Bettina von Jagow and Oliver Jahraus (eds.). KafkaHandbuch: LebenWerkWirkung. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 518529.
Nadel, Alan. 2005. Second Nature, Cinematic Narrative, the Historical Subject, and Russian
Ark. In: James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds.). A Companion to Narrative
Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 427-440.
Nnning, Ansgar. 2001. On the Perspective Structure of Narrative Texts. Steps toward a
Constructivist Narratology. In: Willie van Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New
Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany: SUNY Press, p. 207-223.
ONeill, Patrick. 1994. Fictions of Discourse. Reading Narrative Theory. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Phelan, James. 2001. Why Narrators Can Be Focalizersand Why it Matters. In: Willie van
Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany:
SUNY Press, p. 51-64.
Prince, Gerald. 2001. A Point of View on Point of View or Refocusing Focalization. In:
Willie van Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective.
Albany: SUNY Press, p. 43-50.
Quay, Stephen and Timothy Quay (dirs.). 1995. Institute Benjamenta, or This Dream People Call
Human Life. Zeitgeist Films.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. 2002 [1983]. Narrative Fiction. Contemporary Poetics. London/New
York: Routledge.
Sheppard, Richard. 1977. The Trial/The Castle: Towards an Analytical Comparison. In:
Angel Flores (ed.). The Kafka Debate. New York: Gordian Press, p. 396-417.
Stanzel, Franz K. 1984. A Theory of Narrative. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Tobias, Rochelle. 2006. The Double Fiction in Rober Walsers Jakob von Gunten. In: The
German Quarterly 79:3, p. 293-307.
van Peer, Willie and Seymour Chatman (eds.). 2001. New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Walser, Robert. 1985 [1909]. Jakob von Gunten. Ein Tagebuch. In: Jochen Greven (ed.). Robert
Walser. Smtliche Werke in Einzelausgaben. Vol. 11. Zrich/Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Walser, Robert. 1995. Institute Benjamenta. Transl. by Christopher Middleton. London: Serpents Tail.
Yacobi, Tamar. 2002. Ekphrasis and Perspectival Structure. In: Erik Hedling and Ulla Britta
Lagerroth (eds.). Cultural Functions of Intermedial Exploration. Amsterdam/New York:
Rodopi, p. 189-202.
SANDRA HEINEN
(Wuppertal)
See for example Kreiswirth (1995; 2000; 2005), Mishler (1995), Herman (1999b), Nnning/
Nnning (2002b: 8ff.), and Fludernik (2005a: 46ff.).
194
Sandra Heinen
practice of narrative research and the growing interest in narrative and storytelling across the disciplines has certainly not led to a convergence of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches. Since, as Mieke Bal
(2002: 11) puts it, [s]imply borrowing a loose term here and there [will] not
do the trick of interdisciplinarity, the assumptions about narrative researchs
interdisciplinarity are challenged by disciplinary boundaries determining the
research actually undertaken.
Surveys of the various academic approaches to narrative beyond literature have already been proposed by Barry (1990), Mishler (1995), Kreiswirth
(2005) and Hyvrinen (2006a). Unlike their classifications, which try to encompass the whole range of narrative research in the wake of the narrative
turn,2 I will focus in my discussions primarily on those approaches which
explicitly make use of theoretical concepts developed within narratology.
The application of this criterion reduces the number of relevant approaches
considerably, since, as Kreiswirth (2005: 381) remarks pointedly, just as
traditional narratology neglected the alethic potential of narrative, history,
law or medicines attempt to scrutinise story qua story has, until very recently, neglected practically everything else.
The term narratology, it has to be added, is outside its academic field of
origin applied to a variety of phenomena and is thus, not a reliable indicator
of the actual nature of an approach. To give just a few examples offrom a
literary narratologists perspectiveobvious misnomers: Posner (1997a)
defines legal narratology as the writing of didactic law fiction by professors
of law. When Wood (2005) writes about interventional narratology he is
simply making the case for physicians narrative reconstruction of their patients history of illness to account for their individual experiences. Schtt
(2003) equates narratology and storytelling, which he defines as a managerial
method which analyses existing stories in an organization and then develops and circulates new, alternative stories containing a message the manager
wants to convey.
A definition of narratology, which would be accepted by everyone,
doesparticularly in the wake of narratologys many expansions (see Herman 1999a; Nnning/Nnning 2002a; Meister 2005)not even exist in
literary studies. Most recently this has been demonstrated by the controversial contributions to a volume with the programmatic title What is Narratology? (Kindt/Mller 2003a): Whereas Kindt/Mller (2003b) and Meister
(2003) favour a very restrictive use of the term narratology, Nnning (2003)
suggests a differentiating, yet much broader conceptualization of different
195
3
4
5
See also Nnnings chapter in this volume, which is a revised version of his earlier argument in
Kindt and Mllers volume.
See, for example, Fludernik (1996), Jahn (1997), Herman (2002) and Herman (2003). See also
Fluderniks and Hermans contributions to this volume.
Fluderniks contribution to this volume demonstrates what such a companionship might look
like, when she combines methods of corpus linguistics with the broader framework of narratology. A similar approach is followed by Herman (2005).
Classical Narratology is usually associated with the theories of Roland Barthes, Seymour
Chatman, Jonathan Culler, Grard Genette, A. J. Greimas, Gerald Prince, Tzvetan Todorov or
Claude Bremondto name but the most prominent theorists.
196
Sandra Heinen
It is obvious that the approaches conceptual interest is neither the only difference between
them nor the only possible criterion for a typological arrangement. The decision to privilege
one (pivotal) criterion was made for the sake of argumentational lucidity. Other characteristics
of the different approaches will be pointed out in the course of the description.
See the contributions by Lippert, Meelberg, Verstraten and Hallet in this volume. On intermedial narratology see also Ryan (2004; 2005), Wolf (2003; 2005), and Jannidis (2003: 50) who argues that a media-independent concept of narrative is nothing more than a marginally useful
hypostatized abstraction and contests the idea of narratology as a medium-independent metascience (ibid.: 38).
See for example Jerome Bruners influential research on the narrative mode of thought and his
claim that we organize our experience and our memory of human happenings mainly in the
form of narrative (Bruner 1991: 4).
197
versations. The form and focus of the analysis depends as much on the specific research questions as on the researchers disciplinary background. Interpretations may be supported by quantifiable data or by exemplary analysis,
but as a general tendency it can be held that methodological guidelines in the
social sciences aspire to be more rigorously scientific than those in the humanities.
Sociolinguistic discourse analysis shall here serve as an example of the
type of narrative research in the social sciences which contributes to a more
detailed understanding of the way narrative works. In its analyses, the sociolinguistic approach naturally pays particular attention to the linguistic features to be found in storytelling, while literary narratology usually plays no
significant role:
[...] social scientists [and among them sociolinguists] look at the theoretical and terminological apparatus put forward by narratologists in disbelief and ask themselves:
so what? How does that help us find out how narratives work in everyday life, what
they mean to people, how people employ narrative and to what ends? (Mildorf
2008: 43)
Narratological tools are, thus, considered by most social scientists to be simply irrelevant for answering the questions they are concerned with. It is
therefore not surprising that most attempts to apply narratological categories
to a (socio-)linguistic analysis of natural narratives were made by scholars
who have a background in both literary studies and (socio-)linguistics: David
Herman, Monika Fludernik or Jarmila Mildorf. It seems that only through
their first-hand knowledge of more than one discipline are they able to overcome the mutually existing prejudices.
In some cases, an application of narratological concepts to natural narratives proceeds surprisingly smoothly, as in Mildorf (2006). In this study Mildorf analyses oral narratives of general practitioners who are talking about
their professional experience with domestic violence. With her application of
narratological concepts to the GPs accounts Mildorf intends to achieve a
more systematic investigation into oral narratives of personal experience
(ibid.: 44) than would be possible by a more conventional sociolinguistic
approach to the empirical material. And indeed, her exemplary analysis of
focalization and the use of double deictic you in the GPs narratives is very
convincing: Mildorf can demonstrate how focalization is used for dramatic
purposes and confers authority on the narrator. A narrators frequent use of
the second person singular is shown to have a double function which becomes evident once the narratological concept of the double deictic you is
drawn on. Through the use of the personal pronoun youinstead of I,
the story-teller can simultaneously distance himself from his own personal
self on the level of the storyworld and align the interviewer with his viewpoint through involvement and discursive inclusion on the level of the inter-
198
Sandra Heinen
view during which the narrative was told (ibid.: 57). While the narratological
concept imparts a special susceptibility to this double function of distancing
and bonding, according to Mildorf (ibid.), in a general content analysis you
would at best be recognised as generic you.
While these exemplary results suggest that the literary categories are unrestrictedly suitable for an analysis of non-literary narratives and that no
compatibility problems ensue, Mildorf explores not only the possibilities but
also the limits of a cross-disciplinary narratology in a more recent publication (Mildorf 2008: 280, my emphasis). While the possibilities of the crossdisciplinary application of narratological concepts lie above all in the opening
up of a new perspective (in this case: the representation of the consciousness
of another person) and in the provision of a methodological framework (the
mixing of the narrators voice and a characters perspective as well as the
distinction between source, self and pivot in free indirect discourse), the
limits become apparent in the actual analysis. In oral narratives thought
representation relies on other techniques than in literature, but the narrators
do not forego the construction of other peoples interiority. Whereas the
literary device of free indirect discourse is rarely to be found in natural narratives, constructed dialogues can serve a similar function: Story-tellers use
direct speech and/or thought in order to make the people they present in
their narratives act out their inner worlds to the recipient of their stories
[...] (ibid.: 297). Since narrators of natural narratives can thus represent
other peoples consciousness without having to rationalise their insight, Mildorf suggests the re-conceptualization of defining criteria such as fictionality and truth-commitment, which are generally used to distinguish factual
from fictional narratives, in the direction of greater flexibility (ibid.: 280).
It is not entirely clear whether the term cross-disciplinary narratology in
Mildorfs usage refers to a theory of narrative whose applicability is not restricted by disciplinary boundariesor whether it refers in a somewhat narrower sense to the application of narratological concepts to non-literary
story-telling. Her general argument suggests the latter since both her contributions fall into this category. In contrast, David Hermans many studies in
the field of narrative theory have come to stand for the former understanding of narratology. The fundamental interdisciplinarity of his approach can
be illustrated with regard to an article, in which he argues like Mildorf in
favour of the combination of narratology with sociolinguistics. But whereas
Mildorf advances a transfer of literary concepts into the non-literary discipline, Herman (1999c) envisions a combination of the two scientific
branches by outlining an innovative integrated approach, which he terms
socionarratology. Socionarratology, then, is not a form of one-way interdisciplinarity, but a reciprocal exchange enriching both disciplines: not only is
the sociolinguistic approach provided with additional criteria for a descrip-
199
The irony of the fact that the growing interest in subjectivity in the social sciences resulted in
the adaptation of a literary concept which was initially developed and theorized in terms of the
scientific rhetoric of structuralist narratology (Hyvrinen 2006a: 1) and defined with the inten-
200
Sandra Heinen
11
12
13
tion to objectify or formalise research (Andrews et al. 2000: 2), has been noted repeatedly.
The simultaneous but opposing movements of literary studies towards objectivity on the one
hand and of the social sciences towards subjectivity on the other has met interpretations ranging from the observation of an integration of the sciences and the humanities (ibid.) to the
evaluation as an interdisciplinary phantas[m] not advancing approximation but rather symptomiz[ing] each disciplines secret interior wound (Peters 2005: 448).
A curious counter example is Czarniawska (1997), who uses the term narrative mostly in a
metaphorical sense, but nevertheless intends to structure her material by applying interpretative devices borrowed from literary studies (ibid.: 29) in order to focus the form in which
knowledge is cast (ibid.: 6). In practice, her narrative interpretations are an eclectic application
of literary terms lacking in precision, as when she describes organizational life as a drama, in
which actors take over roles or when she elaborates on the theatricality of leadership requiring a
successful performance and following a specified script.
See also Gertsen/Sderberg (2000), which is an early version of this study. On psychologys
relationship to narratology see Bamberg (2005), Kraus (2005) and Weilnbck (2005).
A discussion of the methods applied is an integral part of any empirical study. Usually a great
stress is put on the avoidance of methods which might be seen as manipulating the interviewee.
Weilnbcks contribution to this volume might serve as an example of this standardized methodological discourse.
201
tional actors (ibid.: 5), including those usually marginalised by the dominant
discourse. To capture the complex field of existing voices, Sderberg collected narratives of the acquisition process in interviews with different members of the company: the managing director, the shop steward, the human
resource manager and the project manager of the research department. To
account for the dynamics in identity construction processes she conducted
interviews annually over a period of six years.
Sderbergs analysis of the narratives collected is highly regulated: Assuming that there is no structural difference between literary fiction and
organizational narratives (ibid.: 12), she applies Greimas structuralist actantial model to each of the stories she collected. The actantial model claims
that all stories follow the same pattern and Greimas distinguishes six basic
functions, which are the basis of all narratives: These six functions, or actants, as Greimas calls them, occur in the form of three binary oppositions:
There is the subject of a story and an object (the subject desires the object),
there is a power (which can be a powerful person or an abstract like fate) and
a receiver of the act of power. Finally there is a helper (someone or something supporting the subjects quest) and an opponent (someone or something obstructing the subjects quest).
Sderberg analyses the stories elicited in the telecommunications company by identifying these six actants in each story. Or in other words: She
looks at who or what is cast in each story as the subject, the power and the
receiver, and especially what in each story is described as the goal to be
achieved, what as an obstacle to this goal and what as a supporting factor.
The systematic analysis shows that the situation in the organization is perceived quite differently from the different perspectives: Each interviewee
constructs, depending on his or her position in the company, a different plot
of the acquisition process. In the comparison between earlier and later narratives, the application of Greimas model proves to be equally productive:
Changes occurring over time are systematically analyzed and thus the dynamics of the [] individual employees sensemaking convincingly captured (ibid.: 31).
Sderberg uses the narratological approach as a tool to identify interpretations of a given situation, to give voice to individuals and to highlight the
complexity and dynamics of perspectives held in the organization. What she
investigates is not the process of meaning-making, but the resultant meanings,
which can be accessed through the stories in which they are embedded. As
Sderberg suggests, her research results can, then, be put to practical use:
they could, for example, show the way to a dialogue between different stakeholders and provide instructive information for an organizations top management.
202
Sandra Heinen
203
16
Even if White is often considered the most influential contemporary historical narrativist
(Ankersmit 2005: 220), he is of course not an isolated figure. As other important narrativists the
philosophers Arthur C. Danto and Louis O. Mink have to be mentioned at least in passing. See
also Canary and Kozicki (1978), and Ankersmit (1983).
Among these are also several specifically narratological perspectives: See Barthes (1981 [1967]),
Cohn (1990), Genette (1990), Jaeger (2002), Fulda (2005), Rth (2005), and Julia Lipperts contribution to this volume.
204
Sandra Heinen
more in common with their counterparts in literature than with those in the
sciences (White 1978: 82, emphasis original), many of these investigations
have been concerned with uncovering historiographys strategies of sensemaking. Historical narrativism in the wake of White thus puts a strong stress
on the constructive (rather than reconstructive) aspects of historical narratives and its diction is often characterised by a gesture of revelation, which
can already be found in Barthes (1981[1967]), who asks:17
Does the narration of past events, which, in our culture from the time of the Greeks
onwards, has generally been subject to the sanction of historical science, bound to
the unbending standard of the real, and justified by the principles of rational expositiondoes this form of narration really differ, in some specific trait, in some
indubitably distinctive feature, from imaginary narration, as we find it in the epic,
the novel, and the drama?
Barthes answer is, of course, that it doesnt; that the discourse of history is
in its essence [...] an imaginary elaboration (ibid.: 16), with imaginary elaboration standing in contradiction to historiographys proclaimed objectivity, its scientificity. Such rhetoric of disclosing narrative elements in a presumably objective discourse is characteristic of a number of studies on narrative in non-literary disciplines. Under scrutiny is mostly the disciplinary discourse, whose objectivity is questioned by the narrative analysis. Obviously
such a form of narrative research is particularly precarious for discourses
which depend on a general acceptance of their truth-claims to be able to
fulfil their daily taskas is e. g. the case with law or medicine.
Both legal and medical reasoning tend to present themselves as purely
scientific, as neutral applications of established rules resulting in an objective
judgement. In legal trials, though, the presence of narratives has been widely
acknowledged: not only do lawyers, victims, defendants and witnesses tell
stories trying to explain a crimethe verdicts of judges also depend on the
plausible narrative (re)construction of a sequence of events:18 After all here
is a domain which adjudicates narratives of reality, and sends people to
prison, even to execution, because of the well-formedness and force of a
winning story. (Brooks 2002: 2)
Richard A. Posner, a former judge, who was mentioned earlier for his
definition of the term legal narratology, is well aware of this. As he shows in
his article on Narrative and Narratology in Classroom and Courtroom, he
17
18
As a later example of this rhetoric see Munslow (1997: 2), who argues that the genuine nature
of history can be understood only when it is viewed not solely and simply as an objectivised
empiricist enterprise, but as the creation and eventual imposition by historians of a particular
narrative form on the past.
See the volume edited by Brooks and Gerwitz (1996), in which a broad range of narratives in
the law are discussed. Most research on the role of narrative in the law refers to the AngloAmerican common law tradition, in which narratives play a particularly potent role, and does
not consider the continental civil law tradition.
205
also knows how to use basic narratological concepts to identify and describe
narrative techniques with regard to the narrative situation, narrative speed,
plot structure etc. Nevertheless he is not interested in analysing narratives in
or of the law. On the contrary, he intends to ban narratives as far as possible
from the courtroom, since they can manipulate the outcome of a process
exactly because they are stories: because they suggest causality without proving it and because they appeal to their addressees on an emotional level,
which makes them powerful and antirational at the same time. Narratives in
the courtroom are considered therefore an imminent danger to standards of
historical accuracy (Posner 1997b: 300). The presence of potentially manipulating narratives is particularly threatening in the case of jurisdiction,
because it questions the very idea that it is possible to arrive at a just verdict:
a just verdict requires an objective and absolute knowledge of the crime,or
to speak in literary terms: it requires and presupposes an authorial narrator,
familiar with all outer and inner motivations and causalities. An authorial
narrative situation can of course in realityor the courtroomnot even be
attained by adding up all existing first person narratives.
Peter Brooks opposes Posners warning against narratives in the courtroom in maintaining that although narratives might be necessarily subjective
or even manipulative and construct meaning, they are nevertheless inevitable and irreplaceable (Brooks 2005b: 6)especially in the courtroom.
Brooks claims, that if narrative form were to be entirely banished from the
jurys consideration, there could be no more verdicts (Brooks 2005a: 36).
Because of the crucial position narratives have in trials, they should be thoroughly denaturalised (Brooks 2005b: 53), so that the legal actors become
conscious of what they are doing: Brooks considers narratology an ideal tool
to analyze narrative perspectives, the construction of causality and narrative
authority or modes of speech representation. Although Brooks himself
mainly mentions concepts of classical narratology, he also stresses the potential importance of cognitive narratology:
A legal narratology might be especially interested in questions of narrative transmission and transactions: that is, stories in the situation of their telling and listening,
asking not only how these stories are constructed and told, but also how they are listened to, received, reacted to, how they ask to be acted upon and how they in fact
become operative. What matters most, in the law, is how the narratees or listenersjuries, judgeshear and construct the story. (Brooks 2005a: 424)
So far though, such an analysis of storytelling in the courtroom within a cognitive framework still remains to be undertaken, while a few isolated recourses to classical narratologylike Jacksons (1998) application of Greimas actantial model to the legal processexist.19
19
Jackson (1998) argues that legal reasoning is not scientific in the strict sense but makes use of
narrative forms. Interestingly, he sees historiography and adjudication as parallel processes.
206
Sandra Heinen
Roughly the same observations can be made with regard to medical practice. Medicines self-representation as a science has been questioned repeatedly with reference to the narrative construction of meaning within the discipline. This has most vehemently been pointed out by Kathryn Montgomery Hunter (1993), who stresses that medicine is not a science as science is
commonly understood: an invariant and predictive account of the physical
world (ibid.: xviii). Instead the knowledge possessed by clinicians is narratively constructed and transmitted (ibid.: xvii). Hunter herself does not have
recourse to narratological concepts in her book-length analysis of Doctors
Stories in medical practice and medical education, but a few applications of
narratological categories to medicine can be found for example in a volume
edited by Charon and Montello (2002). In her contribution to this volume,
Suzanne Poirier (2002) looks at voice and narrative levels in medical narratives and describes how the convention of reporting patients case histories
erases all indications of the subjectivity and heteroglossia which in fact shape
every medical narrative. This becomes particularly problematic from the
ethical point of view taken up by all contributions to the volume: As a narrative voice that strives for professional uniformity and objectivity by obscuring narrative levels and the diverse human input of those levels, the case
presentation runs the risk of being a medically useful but ethically limited
form. (Ibid.: 52)20
Interestingly, most narratological analyses on narratives in law, medicine,
history and other non-literary sciences with truth-claims are conducted by
scholars with a background in literary studies: Hayden White, Peter Brooks,
Suzanne Poirier, Rita Charon, Martha Montello, Tod Chambers and Kathryn
Montgomery Hunter all have a formal education in the literary field. This
raises not only questions about the prerequisites of interdisciplinary research
projects (Is a dual education necessary?) but also suggests that the narrative
research of this group might be placed in the broader context of disciplinary
legitimation: This form of narrative research could be viewed as an attempt
to undermine the authority of the empirical sciences and thus shift the balance of power between the hard and the soft sciences in favour of the
latter.
3. Narrative as a Key to More Interdisciplinarity?
Summing up one can say that the application of narratological concepts in
non-literary disciplines exists so far mainly in the form of isolated experiments. The research questions behind the projects are as diverse as within
20
In the same volume, Chambers and Montgomery (2002) underline the constructive aspect of
narrative emplotment in medical narratives.
207
208
Sandra Heinen
Even those concepts that are tenuously established, suspended between questioning
and certainty, hovering between ordinary word and theoretical tool, constitute the
backbone of the interdisciplinary study of cultureprimarily because of their potential intersubjectivity. Not because they mean the same thing for everyone, but because
they dont.
Differences in conceptualization are not necessarily obstacles to (interdisciplinary) communication, but can be motors for such a dialogue in the first
place. In the long run, narratology will have to live up to the challenge posed,
either by re-evaluating its self-image as a universal meta-science or by revising its theoretical frameworks to achieve a greater flexibility which allows the
inclusion, rather than exclusion, of other forms of narrative research.
Works Cited
Andrews, Molly, Shelley Day Sclater, Corinne Squire and Amal Treacher (eds.). 2000. The Uses
of Narrative. New Brunswick/London: Transaction.
Ankersmit, Frank R. 1983. Narrative Logic. A Semantic Analysis of the Historians Language. The
Hague: Mouton.
Ankersmit, Frank R. 2005. Historiography. In: Herman et al. 2005, p. 217-221.
Atkinson, Paul. 1997. Narrative Turn or Blind Alley? In: Qualitative Health Research, 7:3, p.
325-344.
Bal, Mieke. 2002. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities. A Rough Guide. Toronto et al.: University
of Toronto Press.
Bamberg, Michael. 2005. Narrative Discourse and Identities. In: Meister 2005, p. 213-237.
Barry, Jackson G. 1990. Narratologys Centrifugal Force. A Literary Perspective on the
Extensions of Narrative Theory. In: Poetics Today 11:2, p. 295-307.
Barthes, Roland. 1981 [1967]. The Discourse of History. In: Comparative Criticism 3, p. 7-20.
Bender, John B. 1995. Making the World Safe for Narratology. A Reply to Dorrit Cohn. In:
New Literary History 26:1, p. 29-33.
Bortolussi, Marisa and Peter Dixon. 2003. Psychonarratology. Foundations for the Empirical Study of
Literary Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brooks, Peter. 2002. Narrativity of the Law. In: Law and Literature 14:1, p. 1-10.
Brooks, Peter. 2003. Inevitable DiscoveryLaw, Narrative, Retrospectivity. In: Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 15, p. 71-102.
Brooks, Peter. 2005a. Narrative in and of the Law. In: Phelan/Rabinowitz 2005, p. 415426.
Brooks, Peter. 2005b. Narrative TransactionsDoes the Law Need a Narratology?
(http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/workshops/0405/pbrooks.pdf)
Brooks, Peter and Paul Gewirtz (eds.). 1996. Laws Stories. Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law.
New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Bruner, J. S. 1991. The Narrative Construction of Reality. In: Critical Inquiry 18:1, p. 1-21.
Canary, Robert H. and Henry Kozicki (eds.). 1978. The Writing of History. Literary Form and
Historical Understanding. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
209
Chambers, Tod and Kathryn Montgomery. 2002. Plot. Framing Contingency and Choice in
Bioethics. In: Charon/Montello 2002, p. 77-84.
Charon, Rita and Martha Montello (eds.). 2002. Stories Matter. The Role of Narrative in Medical
Ethics. New York/London: Routledge.
Cohn, Dorrit. 1990. Signposts of Fictionality. In: Poetics Today 11, p. 775-804.
Czarniawska-Joerges, Barbara. 1997. Narrating the Organization. Dramas of Institutional Identity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Czarniawska, Barbara and Pasquale Gagliardi (eds.). 2003. Narratives We Organize By. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a Natural Narratology. London: Routledge.
Fludernik, Monika. 2005. Histories of Narrative Theory (II). From Poststructuralism to the
Present. In: Phelan/Rabinowitz 2005, p. 36-59.
Fulda, Daniel. 2005. Selective History. Why and How History Depends on Readerly Narrativization, with the Wehrmacht Exhibition as an Example. In: Meister 2005, p.
173-194.
Genette, Grard. 1990. Fictional Narrative, Factual Narrative. In: Poetics Today 11, p. 755774.
Gertsen, Martine C. and Anne-Marie Sderberg. 2000. Tales of Trial and Triumph. A Narratological Perspective on International Acquisition. In: Cary Cooper and Alan Gregory (eds.). Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, Vol. 1. London: Elsevier, p. 239-272.
Herman, David (ed.). 1999a. Narratologies. New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Columbus:
Ohio State University Press.
Herman, David. 1999b. Introduction. Narratologies. In: Herman 1999a, p. 1-30.
Herman, David. 1999c. Towards a Socionarratology. New Ways of Analyzing NaturalLanguage Narratives. In: Herman 1999a, p. 218-246.
Herman, David. 2002. Story Logic. Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press.
Herman, David (ed.). 2003. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Herman, David. 2005. Quantitative Methods in Narratology. A Corpus-Based Study of
Motion Events in Stories. In: Meister 2005, p. 125-149.
Herman, David; Manfred Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan (eds.). 2005. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Narrative Theory. London/New York: Routledge.
Hunter, Kathryn M. 1993. Doctors Stories. The Narrative Structure of Medical Knowledge. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Hyvrinen, Matti. 2006a. An Introduction to Narrative Travels. In: Hyvrinen et al. 2006, p.
3-9.
Hyvrinen, Matti. 2006b. Towards a Conceptual History of Narrative. In: Hyvrinen et al.
2006, p. 20-41.
Hyvrinen, Matti; Anu Korhonen and Juri Mykknen (eds.). 2006. The Travelling Concept of Narrative. (= COLLeGIUM. Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 1)
Hyvrinen, Matti; Kai Mikkonen and Jarmila Mildorf (eds.). 2008. Narrative. Knowing, Living,
Telling. Special Issue of Partial Answers 6:2.
Jackson, Bernhard. 1998. Law, Fact and Narrative Coherence. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.
210
Sandra Heinen
211
Poirier, Suzanne. 2002. Voice in the Medical Narrative. In: Charon/Montello 2002, p. 4858.
Posner, Richard A. 1997a. Legal Narratology. Rez. Laws Stories. Narrative and Rhetoric in the
Law. In: The University of Chicago Law Review 64:2, p. 737-747.
Posner, Richard A. 1997b. Narrative and Narratology in Classroom and Courtroom. In:
Philosophy and Literature 21:2, p. 292-305.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. 2006. Concepts of Narrative. In: Hyvrinen et al. 2006, p. 1019.
Robichaud, Daniel. 2003. Narrative Institutions We Organize By: The Case of Municipal
Administration. In: Czarniawska/Gagliardi 2003, p. 37-54.
Rth, Axel. 2005. Erzhlte Geschichte. Narrative Strukturen in der franzsischen Annales-Geschichtsschreibung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (ed.). 2004. Narrative Across Media. The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln.
Ryan, Marie Laure. 2005. On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology. In:
Meister 2005, p. 1-23.
Schtt, Peter. 2003. Story Telling. Von der schwierigen Kunst der Narratologie. In: Wissensmanagement 2/2003, p. 14-17.
Sderberg, Anne-Marie. 2003. Sensegiving and Sensemaking in an Integration Process. A
Narrative Approach to the Study of an International Acquisition. In: Czarniawska/Gagliardi 2003, p. 3-35.
Weilnbck, Harald. 2005. Psychotrauma. Narration in the Media, and the Literary Public
and the Difficulties of Becoming Interdisciplinary. In: Meister 2005, p. 239-264.
White, Hayden. 1972. The Structure of Historical Narrative. In: Clio 1, p. 5-19.
White, Hayden. 1987. The Content of the Form. Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wolf, Werner. 2003. Narrative and Narrativity. A Narratological Reconceptualization and its
Applicability to the Visual Arts. In: Word & Image 19, p. 180-197.
Wolf, Werner. 2005. Metalepsis as a Transgeneric and Transmedial Phenomenon. A Case
Study of the Possibilities of Exporting Narratological Concepts. In: Meister
2005, p. 83-107.
Wood, James Hunter. 2005. Interventional Narratology. Form and Function of the Narrative Medical Write-up. In: Literature and Medicine 24:2, p. 283-296.
ASTRID ERLL
(Wuppertal)
1. Introduction
Arguably, the most fundamental scene of all narrative is oral storytelling.1
One major mode of such oral narration is storytelling as part of everyday
conversation: children tell their parents what happened at school, grandparents tell their grandchildren what happened in the war. In many ways different from such everyday-life forms of conversational storytelling is a second
important mode of oral narrative, that of the epic. From Homers Iliad,
which, as Milman Parry (1971) has pointed out, is based on an oral poetics,
to those manifold epic stories which were told in preliterate societies and
have never found their way into the written mediumsuch stories are usually about a shared, mythical past, and often about battles and heroic deeds.
With these examples two important links between narrative and memory
are already uncovered. The first has to be located at the intersections of individual and sociocultural memory: It is about remembering a day at school or
experience in a war and turning it into part of a personal autobiography by
way of telling others about it.2 The second belongs to a cultural-collective,
often national, level. Communities ritually renarrate events of a distant past,
in order to represent shared values and shape cultural identities.3
This article is about such intersections of narrative and what has in a recent development in the humanities and social sciences come to be subsumed under the umbrella term cultural memory.4 It asks how narratology
1
2
3
4
This has been argued in detail and convincingly by Monika Fludernik (1996: 12) who maintains
that oral narratives [] cognitively correlate with perceptual parameters of human experience
and that these parameters remain in force even in more sophisticated written narratives.
In social psychology such forms are called conversational remembering (see Tulving/Craik
2000).
This is what cultural historians such as Pierre Nora (1996-98) or Jan Assmann (1992) are interested in. For the distinction made here see also section 3 of this article.
In broad terms, cultural memory can be defined as the interplay of present and past in sociocultural contexts. For a more detailed analysis of the term cultural memory, see section 3 of this
article.
213
and cultural memory studies have profited from each other and may continue to do so in the future. In the following, I will consider the relation of
memory and narrative, and the research being done on both phenomena, in
three different perspectives. These will be called Viewing Narratology
through Memory (section 2), Viewing Cultural Memory through Narratology (section 3) and Re-viewing Narratology through Cultural Memory
Studies (section 4). Thus, proceeding from the role that concepts of memory already play in traditional structuralist and postclassical narratology, I will
consider the relevance that narratology bears for the relatively new field of
cultural memory studies before turning, finally, to the question of what the
combination of these two theoretical approaches may yield for narratology,
and what fields of further research might open up when using this double
perspective on narrative phenomena in culture.
2. Viewing Narratology through Memory:
Genette, Stanzel, and Beyond
It would be the matter of a monograph in its own right to review the notions
of memory that implicitly or explicitly pervade the classic texts of structuralist narratology. I will confine myself to two of the probably best-known contributions, Grard Genettes and Franz Stanzels works, in order to show
how, even at the beginnings of classical narratology, concepts of narrative
and memory were very closely linked, although the acknowledgement and
systematic exploitation of this fact certainly seems to belong to what David
Herman (1999) has termed the postclassical narratologies.
In his Narrative Discourse (1980), Genette, interestingly and also quite tellingly, bases his new (and neologistic) taxonomy on what is arguably the
greatest novel of memory written in the twentieth century: Marcel Prousts
A la recherche du temps perdu (1913-27). Why should he have done so? Because
acts of memory and narrative are in many ways closely linked, and it is in
fictional representations of remembering that the manifold possibilities of
narrative discourse best come to the fore.
Storytelling is per definitionem an act of memory, in the broad sense
proposed by Augustine, namely an act of connecting the temporal levels of
past, present and future. Conversely, cognitive psychologists hold that acts
of memory which belong to the episodic-autobiographical memory system
(i. e. the memory of lived experience) can only be realized by way of storytelling.5 At the heart of both autobiographic memory and narrative, then, lies a
5
Cognitive psychologists differentiate between different systems of human memory. There are
explicit systems, such as semantic and episodic memory, and implicit systems, such as procedural memory and priming (see Schacter 1996). Not all human memory is primarily organized
214
Astrid Erll
in a narrative way; there are different forms of cognitive organization, which may be based on
the visual or the corporeal. Inherently narrative is only the episodic-autobiographic memory
system. Episodic memory allows us to recall the personal incidents that uniquely define our
lives (my first day at school). Episodic memories are experienced as a mental time travel, a
way of reliving the past (Tulving 1983). Thus, the subjective experience connected with the
episodic memory system is one of remembering, whereas we experience recall from the semantic memory system (which contains conceptual and factual knowledge, such as the Earth is
round) as knowing. Narrativization turns episodic memories into autobiographic memory.
Ricurs phenomenological approach to the relation of time and narrative is, of course, closely
linked to notions of memory. But again, this connection functions more as an implicit horizon
of reference than as something made explicit and productive by the author. In Ricurs works,
memory is (as so often) thought of mostly in opposition to history (see the very title of
Ricurs Memory, History, Forgetting, 2000).
Psychologists differentiate between three levels of episodic-autobiographic remembering: lifetime periods, general events and event-specific knowledge. In literature, the representation of
each of these levels is conventionally connected with specific narrative patterns (see Erll 2003:
165f.; 2004). General events refer to periods of time measured in days, weeks, and possibly
months, and represent knowledge of goal attainment and personal themes relating to specific
sets of events or to extended events such as Holiday in Italy, Friday evenings with X, Y, and
Z, Working on project W, and so on (Conway 1996: 297).
215
Prousts A la recherche du temps perdu to be realistic because such literary narratives represent the past in a way that appears to conform to our own, real
life ways of remembering.
My second example is Franz Stanzels Theory of Narrative (1984). Here we
do find explicit mention of the issue of memory, in a short chapter called
Point of view and memory in the first-person narrative. For Stanzel, a
main difference between first-person narrative and authorial narrative lies in
the creative power of memory: the narrator evokes his story in an act of
recollection (Stanzel 1984: 216). In fact, not only Stanzels but all narratological taxonomies of first-person narration (or homodiegetic or diegetic,
if you will) operate, at least implicitly, with assumptions about acts of recollection. The classic example is the autodiegetic narrative, where the distinction between the narrating I and the narrated or experiencing I (in German, erzhlendes Ich and erlebendes Ich) is actually a distinction between
a remembering I and a remembered I, between the act of memory and the
content of memory. Literary first-person narrative is, therefore, a fiction of
episodic remembering. It is the enactment of mental time travel, which is
how the psychologist Endel Tulving (1983) defined episodic memory.
The restrictions of the first-person narrator are the restrictions of the
rememberer: you cannot remember what you yourself have not experienced,
and what therefore is not part of your episodic memory system. Neither can
you recall what you have not heard, read, or seen, and what therefore is not
part of your semantic memory. Whenever a first-person narrator relates extensively what he or she has not experienced or known, narratologists tend
to resort to other explanations: a transition to the authorial mode, an unreliable narrator etc. But leaving such gross transgressions of our real-world idea
of the powers and restrictions of memory aside, we will, of course, very often find in literary first-person narrative more detailed descriptions and more
exact dialogue than one would think a person would actually be able to remember. Franz Stanzels explanation for this phenomenon is that firstperson narrative is characterized by a mingling of reproductive memory and
productive imagination (Stanzel 1984: 215). And Stanzel knows that this
applies not only to literary narrative, but to all acts of narrative memory:
Remembering itself is a quasi-verbal process of silent narrating by which
the story receives an aesthetic form, primarily as a result of the selection and
structuring inherent in recollection (ibid). It is precisely on such intersections of memory and narrativefirstly the mixture of actual traces of the
past with imagined elements, secondly the basic processes of selection and
structuring, and thirdly the shaping and amplification of memory through
the repertoire of narrative formsthat a narratology of cultural memory
focuses (see section 2 below).
216
Astrid Erll
See Halbwachs (1925; 1950). Halbwachs introduced the term collective memory. Jeffrey Olick
(1999) prefers to describe similar phenomena with the term social memory. I use the term cultural memory in order to emphasize the fact that it is cultural formations which shape individual memories and which build cultures of memory, with their rituals and media constructing
and representing a shared past. In the anglophone discussion as I see it right now the terms
collective, social and cultural memory are more or less interchangeable, hinting above all at
the disciplinary background of the respective researcher.
217
For an overview of the state of the art in the field, see Erll (2005) and Erll/Nnning (2008). See
also the new journal dedicated to the field, Memory Studies (since 2008).
218
Astrid Erll
219
A similar notion can be found in Rigney (2004), who calls literary narratives portable monuments.
220
Astrid Erll
degree. This holds true not only for what is remembered (facts, data), but also
for how it is remembered, that is, for the quality and meaning the past assumes. Thus, there are different modes of remembering identical past events.
A war, for example, can be remembered as a mythic event (the war as
apocalypse), as part of political history (the First World War as the great
seminal catastrophe of the twentieth century), as a traumatic experience (the
horror of the trenches, the shells, the barrage of gunfire etc.), as part of a
family history (the war my great-uncle served in), as a focus of bitter contestation (the war which was waged by the older generation, by the fascists, by
men).
Different modes of remembering are closely linked to different modes of
narrative representation. Changes in the form of representation may effect
changes in the kind of memory we retain of the past. In the following I will
give some examples of how such memorial modes are constituted in the
medium of literary narrative. It is, however, never one formal characteristic
alone which is responsible for the emergence of a certain memorial mode;
instead we have to look at whole clusters of narrative features whose interplay may contribute to a certain memory effect. How stories are interpreted
by actual readers, of course, cannot be predicted; but certain kinds of narrative representations seem to bear an affinity to different modes of collective
remembering, and thus one may risk some hypotheses on the potential memorial power, or effects, of literary form.11
Experiential modes are constituted by literary forms which represent the
past as lived-through experience. They are thus closely connected with what
Aleida and Jan Assmann call communicative memory12 and with its main
source: the episodic-autobiographical memories of witnesses. Typical forms
of the experiential mode of literary remembering are the personal voice13
generated by first-person narration; forms of addressing the reader in the
intimate way typical of face-to-face communication; the use of the present
tense or of lengthy passages focalized by the experiencing I in order to convey embodied, seemingly immediate experience; and a very detailed presentation of everyday life in the past (the effet de rel turns into an effet de mmoire). In
English war novels of the 1920s, for example, the experientiality of a recent
past is evoked by autodiegetic and I-as-witness narration (as in Siegfried Sassoons Memoirs of an Infantry Officer, 1930), by extensive internal focalization
11
12
13
For different modes of remembering in the literature of the Great War, see Erll (2003; 2004);
for modes of remembering the Indian Mutiny of 1857/58, see Erll (2006).
See J. Assmann (1995: 126): For us the concept of communicative memory includes those
varieties of collective memory that are based exclusively on everyday communications. It is
oral history that is primarily concerned with communicative memory, e. g. with the passing on
of war memories between generations. Lived experience is the object of communicative memory; its time frame therefore never extends beyond some 100 years.
In the sense of Lansers (1992) feminist narratology.
221
(as in Ford Madox Fords Parades End, 1924-28), and by the representation
of soldiers slang by means of skaz (as in Frederic Mannings The Middle Parts
of Fortune, 1929).
Literary forms which help to promote one version of the past and reject
another constitute an antagonistic mode. Negative stereotyping (such as calling the Germans the Hun or beasts in early English novels of the Great
War) is the most obvious technique for establishing an antagonistic mode.
More elaborate is the resort to biased perspective structures in which only
the memories of a certain group are presented as right, while those versions
articulated by members of conflicting cultures of memory are deconstructed
as false (see Richard Aldingtons Death of a Hero, 1929). The resort to wenarration may underscore this claim (see Erich Maria Remarques All Quiet
on the Western Front, 1929, or Helen Zenna Smiths Not so quiet, 1930).
Literature always allows its readers both a first and a second-order observation. It gives us the illusion of glimpsing the past and is (often at the
same time) a major medium of critical reflection upon such processes of
representation. Literature is a medium which simultaneously builds and observes memory. Prominent reflexive modes are constituted by narrative
forms which draw attention to processes and problems of remembering, for
instance by explicit narratorial comments on the workings of memory, the
juxtaposition of different versions of the past (narrated or focalized), or
jumping to the literature remembering the Second World Warby highly
experimental narrative forms, like the inversion of chronology in Kurt Vonneguts Slaughterhouse Five (1969) as a means of representing the bombardment of Dresden. Most present-day historiographic metafiction, for example
novels by Julian Barnes, Graham Swift and Peter Ackroyd, uses the narrative
forms of a reflexive mode. And this also shows that the different modes of
narrative remembering can be encountered in various literary genres and
periods.
What I termed a narratology of cultural memory (Erll 2003) is actually
not so much a theory as a method. The main focus is on using existent narratological categories as a toolbox for looking at texts and their relation to
cultural memory. Not that I think research into narrative and memory need
necessarily be restricted to such forms of applied narratology. Insights into
the forms and functions of memory can also trigger a reconsideration of the
basic categories of structuralist narratology, and thus promote a more intense
theoretical discussion of the issues involved. This assumption leads directly
to my last point: the re-viewing of narratology through cultural memory
studies.
222
Astrid Erll
See Wolfgang Hallets article in this volume. Many of his examples are, in one way or another,
novels of memory.
223
How a rhetoric of autobiographic memory works in Charles Dickens David Copperfield has convincingly been shown by Lschnigg (1999).
For an excellent overview of the current state of narrative psychology, see Echterhoff/Straub
(2003/2004).
224
Astrid Erll
structures, micro-narratives or metaphors give our life-stories form and coherence, or, in Ricurs words again, they help us grasp together and integrate into one complete story our multiple and scattered experience. Narrative patterns, provided by the sociocultural context, turn our incoherent lived
experience into autobiographical stories (Eakin 1999; Brockmeyer/Carbaugh
2001).
But how exactly are cultural contexts and individual minds linked? Why
do all of us apparently have some kind of access to a shared reservoir of
narrative forms? The answer is that in the real world out there, these forms
do not exist as abstractions (as neat narratological categories), but as transmedial phenomena. They are realized again and again across media (Ryan
2004), for example in oral stories, in novels and plays, in movies and TV
serials, in comic strips and popular songs. Objectivized in these media, narrative forms are circulated in societies, and via media reception they have the
power to influence individual remembering. The social psychologist Harald
Welzer (2002), for example, discovered in interviews with Second World
War veterans that certain stories they told him about their war experience
closely resembled episodes of famous war movies, such as All Quiet on the
Western Front. Apparently, certain plot elements (such as sharing a cigarette
with the enemy in no-man's-land or a last-minute rescue) can serve as templates for the telling of autobiographical stories. They give a shape to incoherent and often traumatic experience. Certainly, this process is not straightforward or monocausal in the sense that the movie directly influences the
memory. Rather, a simultaneous circulation of certain narrative patterns in
different media must be assumed. And whats more, these patterns may preform experience as well as reshape memory.
In a more diachronic perspective, and with regard to imperial and postcolonial memory cultures, I have shown in a recent publication (Erll 2007)
that certain plot structures, time structures, character constellations and
points of view which were typical of the representation of India in the nineteenth century (e. g. in newspaper articles, novels and historiography) were
carried across media over a period of more than one hundred and fifty years.
They were remediated in melodrama, poetry, painting and photography,
and they can still be found in movies of the twenty-first century. Cultural
memory carries not only contents, but also narrative forms. The interesting
point here is to ask why there is a preference in memory cultures at certain
times for certain media to convey their narratives (in the nineteenth century
the historical novel, after wars and other catastrophes often the diary, right
now apparently the history film) and to look at the media-specificity of such
remediated narratives (see Erll/Rigney 2009).
To conclude this article I would like to raise some questions which are of
significant interest for the kind of interdisciplinary memory and narrative
225
research envisaged here: How exactly are certain narrative forms realized in
different media? How are they circulated, how do they travel across media?
How are such forms conventionalized to serve as vehicles of collective remembering? How are they even canonized to become objects of national
cultural memory? What are transnational memory narratives composed of
(such as the ubiquitous Holocaust and 9/11 narratives)? And finally, how
can such narrative forms (and this concerns reception theory and cognitive
narratology) turn into the resource, or the very stuff, that our most personal
memories are made of?
Works Cited
Assmann, Jan. 1992. Das kulturelle Gedchtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identitt in frhen
Hochkulturen. Mnchen: Beck.
Assmann, Jan. 1995. Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. In: New German Critique 65,
p. 125-133.
Basseler, Michael and Dorothee Birke. 2005. Mimesis des Erinnerns. In: Astrid Erll and
Ansgar Nnning (eds.). Gedchtniskonzepte der Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin/New York:
de Gruyter, p. 123-148 (= Media and Cultural Memory/Medien und kulturelle Erinnerung 2).
Bloch, Marc. 1925. Mmoire collective, tradition et coutume. In: Revue de Synthse Historique
40, p. 73-83.
Brockmeier, Jens and Donal Carbaugh (eds.). 2001. Narrative and Identity. Studies in Autobiography, Self and Culture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bruner, Jerome. 1991. The Narrative Construction of Reality. In: Critical Inquiry 18, p. 1-21.
Conway, Martin A. 1996. Failures of Autobiographical Remembering. In: Douglas J.
Herrmann et al. (eds.): Basic and Applied Memory Research. Vol. 1. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, p. 295-316.
Eakin, Paul John. 1999. How Our Lives Become Stories: Making Selves. Ithaca/London: Cornell
University Press.
Echterhoff, Gerald and Jrgen Straub. 2003/2004. Narrative Psychologie. Facetten eines
Forschungsprogramms. In: Handlung, Kultur, Interpretation. 12:2, p. 317-342; 13:1, p.
151-186.
Erll, Astrid. 2003. Gedchtnisromane: Literatur ber den Ersten Weltkrieg als Medium englischer und
deutscher Erinnerungskulturen in den 1920er Jahren. Trier: WVT.
Erll, Astrid. 2004. Reading Literature as Collective Texts: German and English War Novels
of the 1920s as Media of Cultural and Communicative Memory. In: Christoph
Bode, Sebastian Domsch and Hans Sauer (eds.): Anglistentag Mnchen 2003: Proceedings. Trier: WVT, p. 335-354.
Erll, Astrid. 2005. Kollektives Gedchtnis und Erinnerungskulturen. Eine Einfhrung. Stuttgart:
Metzler.
Erll, Astrid. 2006. Re-writing as Re-visioning: Modes of Representing the Indian Mutiny in
British Literature, 1857 to 2000. In: Astrid Erll and Ann Rigney (eds.). Literature
226
Astrid Erll
and the Production of Cultural Memory. EJES (European Journal of English Studies) 10
(2006) 2: p- 163-185.
Erll, Astrid. 2007. PrmediationRemediation. Reprsentationen des indischen Aufstands in imperialen
und post-kolonialen Medienkulturen (von 1857 bis zur Gegenwart). Trier: WVT.
Erll, Astrid and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). 2008. Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter (= Media and Cultural Memory/Medien und kulturelle Erinnerung 8).
Erll, Astrid and Ann Rigney (eds). 2009. Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural
Memory. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter (= Media and Cultural Memory/Medien
und kulturelle Erinnerung 10) (forthcoming).
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a Natural Narratology. London: Routledge.
Gedi, Noa and Yigal Elam. 1996. Collective MemoryWhat Is It? In: History & Memory:
Studies in Representation of the Past 8:1, p. 30-50.
Genette, Grard. 1980. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Transl. by Jane E. Lewin.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1925. Les cadres sociaux de la mmoire. Paris: Alcan.
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1950. La mmoire collective. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Herman, David (ed.). 1999. Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University Press.
Herman, David (ed.). 2003. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Herman, David. 2007. Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind: Cognitive Narratology, Discursive Psychology, and Narratives in Face-to-Face Interaction. In: Narrative 15:3, p.
306-334.
Jahn, Manfred. 1997. Frames, Preferences, and the Reading of Third-Person Narratives:
Towards a Cognitive Narratology. In: Poetics Today 18, p. 441-468.
Lachmann, Renate. 1997. Memory and Literature: Intertextuality in Russian Modernism. Transl. by
Roy Sellars and Anthony Wall. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lanser, Susan Sniader. 1992. Fictions of Authority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Lschnigg, Martin. 1999. The Prismatic Hues of Memory...: Autobiographische Modellierung und die Rhetorik der Erinnerung in Dickens David Copperfield. In: Poetica
31:1-2, p. 175-200.
Markowitsch, Hans J. and Harald Welzer. 2005. Das autobiographische Gedchtnis: Hirnorganische
Grundlagen und biosoziale Entwicklung. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Memory Studies. Ed. Andrew Hoskins. Sage Publications, since 2008.
Nora, Pierre (ed.). 1996-98. Realms of Memory. The Construction of the French Past. 3 Vols. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Olick, Jeffrey K. 1999. Collective Memory. The Two Cultures. In: Sociological Theory 17:3, p.
333-348.
Olick, Jeffrey K. 2007. The Politics of Regret. On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility.
London/New York: Routledge.
Parry, Milman. 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers of M. Parry. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Ricur, Paul. 1984. Time and Narrative. Vol. 1 Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
227
Ricur, Paul. 2000. Memory, History, Forgetting. Transl. by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rigney, Ann. 2004. Portable Monuments: Literature, Cultural Memory, and the Case of
Jeanie Deans. In: Poetics Today 25:2, p. 361-396.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (ed.). 2004. Narrative Across Media. The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Schacter, Daniel L. 1996. Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past. New York:
Basic Books.
Stanzel, Franz K. 1984. A Theory of Narrative. Transl. by Charlotte Goedsche. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tulving, Endel. 1983. Elements of Episodic Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tulving, Endel and Fergus I. M. Craik (eds.). 2000. The Oxford Handbook of Memory. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Welzer, Harald. 2002. Das kommunikative Gedchtnis. Eine Theorie der Erinnerung. Mnchen:
Beck.
JULIA LIPPERT
(Halle)
1. Introduction
Since the early 1990s, George III has been reinvented. With the theatre play
The Madness of George III and its highly popular filmic version The Madness of
King George Alan Bennett and Nicholas Hytner set off a wave of medial presentations which has resulted in the rehabilitation of this eighteenth-century
monarch. In the radio play The Grapes of Roi (Radio 4, 1995), for example, he
featured as a confused but warm-hearted individual; TV programmes such as
Timewatch (BBC2, 2004) and Royal Deaths and Diseases (Channel 4, 2003)
cleared him of the stigma of madness; he was characterized as an enlightened
monarch by a major exhibition at the Queens gallery (2004); and the historian Jeremy Black in his biography George III: Americas Last King (2006) acquitted him of the blame for the loss of the American colonies.
The last two decades have witnessed a popularization and commodification of history, and the historical figure of this Hanoverian monarch is a case
in point. One important result of this development has been the blurring of
the distinction between argumentative academic historiography on the one
hand and experiential popular history on the other. Attention has been
drawn to the narrative nature of historiography in general by the rise of narrative non-fiction, a term Peter Mandler (2002) has coined to denote works
such as Stella Tillyards Aristocrats that combine scholarly research with
popular/fictional methods of presentation. This and other developments
within the field of history-writing make it vital to find an analytical narratological approach that can both accommodate such hybrid textual forms
and be applied across media and genres. Cognitive theory offers an exciting
prospect for a narratology uniquely suited to historiographical texts covering
the range from academic discourse to popular biographies to museum exhibitions.
In her paper Signposts of Fictionality (1990), Dorrit Cohn proposed
some rudiments for what she called a historiographic narratology (Cohn
229
1990: 777) and at the same time questioned whether established categories of
narrative theory are or are not fiction-specific. She concluded that some of
the dominant and long-standing criteria of fictional narratology such as the
story/discourse model, Genettes concept of focalisation and the traditional
category of voice would have to be modified and extended in order to make
them applicable to historical narratives (see Cohn 1990: 778-89). As Ansgar
and Vera Nnning pointed out in their survey of the current state of narrative theory (Nnning/Nnning 2002: 18), a narratology of historiographical
texts had yet to be developed, and this remains the case to this day.
Taking up Cohns proposal, I shall trace out the first steps towards a narratology that considers the particular make-up of historical narrative. After a
short introduction to narrative approaches to historiography outlining current trends that emphasise a cognitive methodology, Monika Fluderniks
natural reading model will be introduced as a useful tool kit for the analysis of historiographical texts across genres and media. The final task will be
to demonstrate the usefulness of the model by isolating one specific element,
modes of presentation, and applying it to a narrative analysis of the Kew
Palace exhibition dedicated to George III. My overall aim is to illustrate the
models potential for analysing such multi-media historiographical presentations. More specifically, I will show how this approach successfully addresses
one of the long-standing problems of transmedial narratology, namely the
systematic analysis of narrative agency in non-language-based texts.
2. Historiography and Narrative Theory
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the historian Hayden White rejected the
common notion of causality as the determining factor in history writing; he
pronounced historiographical texts to be verbal structures in the form of a
narrative prose discourse (White 1973: ix) or verbal fictions, the contents
of which are as much invented as found and the forms of which have more
in common with their counterparts in literature than they have with those in
the sciences (White 1978: 42).1 For White, literature and history could be
treated on equal terms, since he regarded both as linguistic constructions
determined by the tropology of language; furthermore, in their constructedness both could be treated as fiction. Whites theory of the poetical and linguistic deep structural make-up of historical discourse triggered a wave of
literary criticism within historiographical studies. Because White postulated a
structuralist approach that focused on the narrative nature of historical writ1
As Fulda (2005: 175f.) points out, Hayden Whites work was anticipated by Hans Michael
Baumgartners inquiry into the process by which narrative schemata are part of the configuration process of history writing.
230
Julia Lippert
231
of history since it allows for the inclusion of narrative frames that are specific to the writing of history.
Importantly, cognitive theorys notion of narrativity as something attributed to the text by the perceiving subject liberated the approach from its
restriction to historiographical writing. As Fuldain accordance with Sobchack (1996)points out, history today is hardly composed or selected in
verbal texts alone (ibid.: 180).4 Fulda considers history-writing as a cultural
phenomenon; not restricted to the academic world: history occurs in various
medial forms such as film, TV programmes and exhibitions. It is upon precisely this concept of history as the sum of the synchronic discourse about
the past in a specific society that my proposal for a cognitive, trans-medial
narratology is premised.5 With its cognitive reading model, Monika Fluderniks natural narratology offers a possible key to developing a historiographical narratology that can be used for narratives in all kinds of medial
and generic forms. In the following I will attempt to demonstrate some aspects and criteria of Fluderniks model that render it an especially useful
point of departure for such an endeavour.
3. Towards a Natural Narratology of Historiographical Texts
The theoretical framework of natural narratology relies on a cognitive
reader-response approach which is based on the assumption that any given
text becomes a narrative when the reader perceives it as such. The fact that
it is read in a narrative manner may be determined largely by formal and,
particularly, contextual factors. As a consequence, the model can be applied
to any variety of media and genre. Thus far, the problem of working across
genres and media has been solved. The main issue still to be addressed is the
extent to which historical texts can be treated as narratives in accordance
with the definition provided by natural narratology.
Jaeger, in his discussion of the links between narratology and history (2002), attempts to make
exactly this point and to go one step further by arguing that historiography occurs in so many
different generic forms (fictional and non-fictional) that any narrative approach needs to take
this on board as well (2002: 260-1).
According to Siegfried J. Schmidt and Niklas Luhmanns theory of constructive realism, a
societys reality is formed in an active process of reception. This also implies that all the images
of the past produced within a given social group determine the way they perceive and remember it (Schmidt 1992: 425-449; Luhmann 1996: 138-157). Luhmann (1996: 144) further argues
that within todays mass-media society, it is mainly media contents which determine our concept of reality. Along similar lines, Aleida Assmann (1980: 7-8) describes reality as a collective
construct, created by the historically specific world-discourse (Weltdiskurs) of a society.
232
Julia Lippert
In other words, for Fludernik historical texts are only narrative on a discursive level. On the level of the macro-genre, she places them with the argumentative, since they do not set out to constitute narrativity. Narrativity,
according to natural narratology, is constituted by a narratives creation of
experientiality, and experientiality to a large extent relates to a protagonists
consciousness (ibid.: 93). Experientiality, then, is defined as the quasi mimetic evocation of real-life experience (1996: 12), requiring an experiencer
and a mediating consciousness (see ibid.: 311). According to Fludernik, historiography is not concerned with the portrayal of human experience but
attempts to weigh documentary evidence, to deliberate between causality
patterns and explanatory proposals, [and] to sift the wealth of detail for configurational possibilities (ibid.: 39).
It ought to be noted that Fludernik considers history a scholarly project (2001: 93); her focus is on academic writing. In the light of the recent
popularization of history, however, history can be taken to comprehend all
historical presentations as they occur in todays society, including so-called
pop history.6 As Fulda convincingly states, History is created by the histories of a given society (2005: 176).7 The histories of contemporary British
society oscillate between the popular and the scientific and thus between
historical argument and experiential narrative. Based on this assumption, I
propose a narratological solution that will encompass historical writing in all
its forms, from the academic to the popular.
A case-study of the wide range of current popular history texts on
George III reveals that for the most part they can not only be described as
narrative on the discourse level, but also in the sense of Fluderniks definition of the macro-genre. That is to say, these texts concentrate on the experience of individuals and their evaluation of or reaction to it. In many
6
Peter Mandler, in his survey of current history writing in Britain, accurately depicts the current
state of affairs: By the end of the [20th] century, then, the divide that had opened up since the
beginning of the century between the worlds of popular and academic history had begun to
close. Separate spheres remain, but between them now lies a thick stretch of overlap and intermingling. Historians are battling it out with novelists and scientists for the publics attention [. .
.] (2002: 139-40).
Fulda differentiates between History as the narrative organization of all events which we know
as history and histories as individual stories of the past (2005: 176).
233
cases the concentration is deliberate: Susan Groom, for example, the main
organizer of the Kew Palace exhibition on George III and his family, stated
in an interview: [. . .] its about the man himself rather than his role as king
(audio transcript of an interview between Susan Groom and myself in June
2006).
The tendency to concentrate on the experience of an individual could
arguably be attributed to the biographical nature of the work under scrutiny,
which might justifiably be regarded as constituting a special case in historiography. However, in the current historiographical landscape as a whole, biography is no longer exceptional. There is a clearly discernible trend towards
presenting history as created by individuals and away from the social and
cultural histories of the 1970s and 1980s.8 As a consequence, historio(bio)graphy has come to be one of the most popular genres of writing.9
But let me turn back to those aspects of Fluderniks textual typology that
furnish tools for analysis. Fluderniks differentiation between the narrative as
discourse type and narrative as macro-genre allows an interesting preliminary
sifting of historiographical material into experiential and non-experiential
narrative. This sifting enables the identification of the purpose of each work,
whether it be a description of events, argumentation, or conveyance of the
experience of historical personages. All texts identified as belonging to at
least the narrative discourse type (which applies to most of them) could be
analysed according to Whites criteria of storification and emplotment. The
main point of interest here is which contents or historical events have been
selected for presentation and how they are linked into specific stories, plot
patterns and genre types.10
8
10
Mandler (2002) and Cannadine (2004) describe how especially in the 1990s history writing,
primarily although not exclusively in the popular realm, concentrated to a large extent on the
history of individuals as well as individual histories. According to them, this trend was primarily
due to a new search for identity. As Cannadine points out: [...] the decline of the idea of British unity in the face of resurgent Welsh and Scottish nationalism on the one hand, and growing
integration into Europe on the other, have left the English wondering who on earth they are.
[...] History and the national heritage are where English people are looking instead (Cannadine
2004: 12).
Book sales data from the Book Sales Yearbook: an Analysis of Retail Book Sales in the UK (19992003) indicates that there has been an enormous increase in the publication of history books in
general (from somewhat more than 2000 in 1990 to almost 6000 titles in 2000) from the end of
the 1990s and the beginning of the new century, and that biographies of historical personages
figured regularly among top-selling titles.
It must be taken into account that Fludernik does not actually exclude non-experiential or
report-like narratives from her model. She defines them as having a degr zro of narrativity and
then largely excludes them from her discussion, since they are not narratives in her definition of
the macro-genre. Nonetheless, on the level of mediation of her model she includes the so-called
mode of ACTING which refers to the processuality of event and action series (Fludernik
1996: 44) and can therefore be applied to report-like narratives. In short, although Natural
Narratology excludes such texts from its definition of narrative proper, the make-up of the reading model allows the inclusion of non-experiential texts. As a consequence, it is possible to use
234
Julia Lippert
Nextand this is the crux of the matterall texts that can be identified
as belonging to the macro-genre of experiential narrative can be analysed
according to Fluderniks reading model. I shall briefly sketch the basic structure of the model, since it serves as the theoretical foundation of my argument.
Fluderniks model describes the process of narrativization by the reader
on the basis of four levels of natural categories. Level I comprises parameters of real-life experience (identical with Ricoeurs Mimesis I) shared by
readers and producers of texts alike, i. e. subconscious cognitive parameters
by which authors and readers cognise the world in terms of fundamental
processes of human being in the world (Fludernik 2003: 258). It is concerned with schemata such as agency and the natural comprehension of
event processes, including their supposed cause-and-effect explanations. On
level II Fludernik differentiates four basic viewpoints from which the action
can be perceived, mediated or understood. They correspond to the cognitive
scripts of perceiving and mediating the world. The model distinguishes
between: (1) TELLING/REFLECTING, (2) EXPERIENCING, (3) VIEWING, (4) ACTING. The mediating consciousness can be situated either in the
textnarrator (1), protagonist (2)or in the recipient (3/4). Level III
comprises culturally perceived cognitive parameters, i. e. storytelling patterns
and genres, the so-called large-scale cognitive frames (Fludernik 1996: 44).
These genre patterns developed over time, and through habits of reception
they have become part of the human cognitive apparatus. They contain concepts of, for example, conventional relations between narrator and recipient,
official vs. private narratives, performance and narratological concepts
(chronological order, flashbacks, authorial omniscience, possibility of a bodiless narrator as well as his ability to enter all the protagonists minds), as well
as the recipients understanding and expectations of a particular genre. Finally on level IV the reader narrativizes the text, utilizing conceptual categories from levels I to III in order to grasp, and usually transform, textual irregularities (ibid: 45). All four levels describe the process of reading. However, they are not to be understood as hierarchical, but rather as a dynamic,
simultaneous interaction of different cognitive scripts.
In four respects this reading model seems particularly suited to the task
at hand. First, Fluderniks model allows an analysis of the full range of media
presentations used in historiographical discourse, because its definition of
narrative depends on experientiality at a deep structural level rather than on
any specific form of discourse. Secondly, at this stage the model is more like
a rough blueprint that allows and invites adaptation, with specific criteria and
frames for particular purposes. Thirdly, the natural reading model succeeds
the model in order to locate differences and similarities between non-experiential and experiential historiographical discourse.
235
in including the three core aspects of cognitive theory: parameters of text(production), context and reception. Production parameters are involved on
levels I to III; contextual aspects feed in on level III (comprising media conventions, cultural context etc.), and, since it is a reading model, the act of
narrativizationthe readers reading of the text as narrativeoccurs on all
four levels. Finally, if it proves fruitful, the models diachronic nature would
allow a survey of texts produced at different points in time, i. e. the reception
of a particular historical phenomenon across the centuries, enabling further
insights into the workings of history and collective memory.
Thus far the groundwork for a cross-medial and cross-generic cognitive
analysis has been laid. I will now proceed to apply one aspect of the model,
namely modes of mediation (on level II).
The concept of narrative mediation via some kind of storyteller (Stanzel)
or narrative agency/instance (Chatman, Bordwell) has for a long time made
any transmedial analysis of texts impossible, or at least somewhat awkward.
It has been especially difficult to account for a narrative agency in film or
drama. This has led to rather obscure categories such as David Blacks intrinsic narrator for film that describes an agency which is congruent with
the discursive activity of the medium itself (Black 1986: 22), with discursive
activity comprising all filmic and cinematographic codes that constitute the
filmic narrative.
Fluderniks model, however, is able to shift narrative mediation from a
primarily production-based concept of someone telling somebody something
towards a reception- and consciousness-based concept of perceiving through
the consciousness of either a narrator, a protagonist or the recipient, described respectively as modes of TELLING/REFLECTING, EXPERIENCING and VIEWING. Thus the mode of telling is no longer a must for
narrative texts but only one possible mode of mediation among others.
So far the criteria on level II as proposed by Fludernik are applicable to
any kind of text, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of historiography. One
aspect particular to historiographical discourse is its extratextual logic. Ricoeur explains in Temps et rcit (1983: 311-322) how historical writing, apart
from relying on the causal connections of facts established by the fabula, is
based on a pre-compositional logic of, for example, which event caused
which result. The producer of historical texts deliberates about possible
causal relations and eventually comes up with his version of the past as only
one possible interpretation. This pre- or extra-fabula logic is usually expressed in historical narratives via what Roland Barthes describes as shifters
of discourse and Dorrit Cohn as perigraphic apparatus,11 referring to the
11
Cohn adapts this term from Carrards prigraphie first used in 1986 in a case study of French
historical writing on World War I, in which he looks at the discursive norms of narrative history.
236
Julia Lippert
stratum of testimonial evidence or the textual zone intermediating between the narrative text itself and its extratextual documentary base (Cohn
1990: 282). Barthes differentiates between shifters of listening and organization on the one hand and signs of the writer/sender on the other (1989: 128131). Both scholars consider such testimony as obligatory to historiographical discourse, and as such it must find expression within a historiographical
reading model.
I am suggesting here that cues of testimonial evidence could be integral
parts of the REFLECTING mode on level II of the natural reading model.
REFLECTING in Fluderniks concept does not denote the reflector mode in
Stanzels terminology but refers to a consciousness in the process of rumination (Fludernik 1996: 44). REFLECTING as such is a variant of
TELLING and invokes parameters of rumination, arguing, memory, selfcriticism, and so forth (ibid.: 372). Cohns perigraphic apparatus and
Barthes shifters are not parts of the narrative strand but consist in more or
less direct comments on the process of writing, researching and composing
this particular version of history. A few examples of how this finds expression on the discourse level are: a) inferential or conjectural syntax, such as he
must have felt angry or he possibly felt angry, b) comments by the sender as to
how he arrived at his conclusions, and c) references to sources. Such extranarrative comments are what Fludernik means by ruminations, which in
fictional accounts would find expression, for example, in reflections by the
narrator on the writing process.
In what follows, a short inquiry into the narrative modes of the Kew
Palace exhibition organized by Historic Royal Palaces will apply Fluderniks
reading model to a mode of history-writing that comprises a whole range of
forms of mediation, and will examine its use of the REFLECTING mode
deemed obligatory for historiographical productions.
4. Modes of Mediation:
A Case Study of the Kew Palace Exhibition (2006)
The permanent exhibition at Kew Palace, launched in April 2006, courts its
audience with the promise of a glimpse into the private life of King Georges
family. The flyer announcement invites them to Unlock the secrets of Kew
Palace and discover a royal family home and a compelling story. The family
home is the small, flaming red palace in the lovely setting of Kew Gardens.
But what is the compelling story? People are led to wonder and are thus
enticed to come and find out for themselves. My project goes somewhat
further by asking who tells the story, or more appropriately, how it is mediated.
237
13.1. King George III, studio of Allan Ramsay, oil on canvas, (1761-1762)
National Portrait Gallery, London
238
Julia Lippert
239
The flyers, posters, internet ads and welcome centre can be regarded as the
framing borders, to use Werner Wolfs terminology,12 of the exhibitions
narrative, influencing the audiences perception and reading on level III of
the model. On the one hand, the timeline, the chronological order of political events and the explanatory comments give the whole project the factual
tone of an exhibition documenting historically accurate information. On the
other hand, the rather passionate comments concerning George IIIsuch as
suffers his first terrifying attack of porphyria, porphyria strikes again and
compelling storycombined with the juxtaposition of the two portraits of
the monarch, first as a sparkling youth and then as an almost unrecognisably
aged man, set the scene for a personal story of suffering which ends tragically. I would argue that these framing borders prepare the ground of the
reception process in three respects: firstly, they evoke the macro-genre of
narrative in the form of the experiences of Georges sufferings, and thus
support a process of narrativization of the exhibition by the visitor. Secondly, they evoke the genre of tragedy. Finally they frame the story as real.
Upon entering the palace through the ante-room, one is immediately
confronted by a bust of George III modelled from life by Madame Tussaud
herself around 1809. It is accompanied by a written comment (from Tussauds 1823 catalogue):
Whether we view him as a king, as a husband or as a father, his character shone.
When future historians record the events of our times, they will place the name of
George III among the best, the most beloved and honoured of sovereigns.
Entering the room, one comes not only face to face with the king but is even
spoken to by him. The speech, audible in the whole room through loudspeakers, is a eulogy of his life and achievements and a guide to how he
would like to be remembered in the British collective memory:
If I am to be remembered for one thing let it not be any fleeting malady or inconsequential foreign loss ... but for the creation of Britain. What what? This is what I am
to the marrowa Briton. And let future generations know that I glory in the name
of ... Briton. (unpublished audio script)
Werner Wolf defines framing borders as textual framings or cognitive meta-concepts that
guide the reception process. Situated at spatial and temporal edges, they strongly influence
the development of that process (2006: 22).
240
Julia Lippert
including the sound of rattling newspapers and china tea cups. Finally, different contemporary voices are added to the chorus in the form of quotes on
plates or within the dialogues.
Using Fluderniks level II of the reading model, two modes of mediation
can be identified: TELLING and VIEWING. TELLING occurs in two different forms. There are authorial comments, as for example in Princess Elizabeths Dressing Room. Here they accompany a picture show in which the
pictures are consistently followed by written commentary. A picture of the
celebration at the Golden Jubilee of George III, for example, is followed by
the comment: There was often affection for the King behind the caricatures; or Gillrays cartoon Reconciliation carries the remark: The royal family
could swallow their differences at times. These direct narrative comments
guide the visitors perception. In the example given they point at the irony in
the pictures. Furthermore, there are the family members, who more or less
implicitly tell the story of their lives and sorrows to other family members or
imaginary listeners.
It is primarily the visitors task to narrativize, to connect the different
elements and cuesthe arrangements of objects, dialogues and voicesin
order to arrive at the compelling story they were promised. It is the visitors consciousness that takes over the task of mediating, of constructing a
narrative, thus allowing for different interpretations. It is the mode of
VIEWING that dominates the perception process. Indeed, the analysis of the
Kew exhibition based on Level II of the natural reading model reveals how
wisely the organizers chose their words when they announced that the visitor
would have to unlock a story. In fact, there is no omnipresent authoritative
narrator. There are different bits and pieces of information, different cues
and clues as to how George and his family experienced life, but in the end it
is the perceiver who has to come up with the reading.
Yet, with all this room for the recipient to read and interpret, it can still
be argued that the exhibition fosters its own reading as a narrative. It clearly
aims to evoke experientiality and, more precisely, the experiences of George
III along with his own evaluation of them. Next to the framings already
mentioned, it is above all the emotional overtones connected with objects
such as a little egg boiler given to George by his children for his birthday, the
waistcoat he wore during his final years discoloured with what look like
blood stains, and the desperation in the voices of the children and the queen
when they talk about the kings illness that trigger a reading of the life of
George and his family as a tragic narrative.
Finally, of course, the speeches by the king that frame the exhibition
raise expectations in the visitor of the unfolding of a personal story. The king
not only welcomes the visitor, he is also given the last word, accompanying
the final image, that of the old man in the cloak:
241
What, what. I am old and weak. Kings, too, become old and weak. I decline, but my
country thrives. My country has no need of me anymore. So it should be. Let them
think of me for a moment and then pass on as history passes on. Leaving halfunderstood events for future generations to muse over.
Thus far Fluderniks level II of the reading model has been tested only for its
general applicability to multi-media texts. Testimonial evidence still remains
to be identified in the form of the REFLECTING mode. In the exhibition at
Kew the REFLECTING mode is as good as non-existent. The organisers
seem to absent themselves from the discourse, employing neither inferential
nor conjectural syntax nor shifters of organisation. There is only the occasional label to hint at the origin of the different objects on display. Spoken
and written dialogue and commentaries give no evidence of their source.
Barthes refers to such a systematic absence of any sign referring to the
sender of the historical message: [in which] history seems to tell itself as
referential illusion (1989: 132). He further argues that such an illusion is
intentional on the part of the historian, who claims that the referent speak
for itself, and denounces it as quite improper to historical discourse (ibid.).
Barthes indignation in this respect shows the importance he attaches to the
perigraphic apparatus and specifically to the signs of the sender as integral
parts of historical writing. Indeed, the total absence of referential allusions at
Kew gives the impression of a self-contained historical discourse. Reasoning
with Barthes, this absence of referential allusion implicitly raises the specious
claim that this particular story of the kings life is not merely one possible
version among many but the one true story.
5. Conclusion
The Kew exhibition is a prime example of the different mediating channels
employed in the (re)construction of past events. It stresses the necessity,
emphasised earlier by Fulda, Jaeger and Vera and Ansgar Nnning, of developing a narratology of history that works across genres and media. As the
case study of George III has illustrated, natural narratology could serve as
an appropriate basis for such a project. Fluderniks cognitive reading model
is not only applicable to different forms of mediation, it also allows the incorporation of aspects specifically connected to historiographical discourse,
as the integration of perigraphic discourse on level II of the model exemplifies. Furthermore, natural narratologys definition of narrative as the mediation of experientiality does not prove an inhibiting factor in the analysis of
historiographical texts. On the contrary, it allows comparison of their evocation of experientiality and the readers narrativization. As the curators of the
Kew exhibition were well aware, reading history as the past experience of
242
Julia Lippert
individuals has become one of the dominant modes in contemporary popular historical discourse. For this reason, the natural reading model seems
ideally suited for a narratology of history. In the course of time, as conventions of perceiving the world and the past evolve, the method may require
adaptation. But at this moment in time it seems a promising beginning.
Primary Works Cited
Bennett, Alan. 1992. The Madness of George III. London/Boston: Faber.
Black, Jeremy. 2006. George III Americas Last King. New Haven/London: Yale University
Press.
Caffrey, David (dir.) 1999. Aristocrats. Videocassette. BBC Worldwide Ltd. and Irish Screen
Production.
Hytner, Nicholas (dir.). 1994. The Madness of King George. The Samuel Goldwyn Company and
Channel Four Films.
Pownell, David (dir.). 1995. The Grapes of Roi. Writ. Martin Jenkins. Radio 4. 29 March.
Quinn, James (dir.). 2003. Royal Deaths and Diseases Part 2: Madness. Narr. James Frain. Channel
4 and Lion TV. 10 Jan.
Tillyard, Stella. 1994. Aristocrats. Caroline, Emily, Louisa and Sarah Lennox. 1740-1832. London:
Chatto & Windus.
Waterhouse, Michael (dir.). 2003. Kings and Queens. The Real Dramas of Britains Greatest Monarchs. DVD. Channel 5, 3BM Television Production for Five and BBC Worldwide
Ltd., 2003.
Whalley, Claire (dir.). 2004. Timewatch. How Mad Was King George. Narr. Michael Praed. BBC2.
6 Feb.
243
Cannadine, David. 2004. Introduction. In: D. C. (ed.). History and the Media. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 1-6.
Carrard, Philippe. 1986. Rcit historique et function testimoniale. In: Potique 65, p. 47-61.
Carrard, Philippe. 1992. Poetics of the New History. French Historical Discourse from Braudel to Chartier. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cohn, Dorrit. 1990. Signposts of Fictionality. A Narratological Perspective. In: Poetics Today
11: 4, p.775-804.
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a Natural Narratology. London/New York: Routledge.
Fludernik, Monika. 2001. Fiction vs. Non-Fiction. Narratological Differentiations. In: Jrg
Helbig (ed.). Erzhlen und Erzhltheorie im 20. Jahrhundert: Festschrift fr Wilhelm Fger.
Heidelberg: Winter, p. 85-102.
Fludernik, Monika. 2003. Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In: David Herman (ed.). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications, p.
243-270.
Fulda, Daniel. 2005. Selective History. Why and How History Depends on Readerly Narrativization, with the Wehrmacht Exhibition as an Example. In: Jan Christoph
Meister (ed.). Narratology beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality, Disciplinarity. Berlin: de
Gruyter, p. 173-194.
Gearhart, Suzanne. 1984. The Open Boundary of History and Fiction. A Critical Approach to the
French Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gossman, Lionel. 1990. Between History and Literature. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard
University Press.
Jaeger, Stephan. 2002. Erzhltheorie und Geschichtswissenschaft. In: Nnning/Nnning
2002a, p. 237-263.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1996. Die Realitt der Massenmedien. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Mandler, Peter. 2002. History and National Life. London: Profile Books.
Nnning, Vera and Ansgar Nnning (eds.). 2002a. Erzhltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinr. Trier: WVT.
Nnning, Vera and Ansgar Nnning. 2002b Produktive Grenzberschreitung. Transgenerische, intermediale und interdisziplinre Anstze in der Erzhltheorie.. In: Nnning/Nnning 2002a, p. 1-22.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1983. Temps et rcit. 1. Lintrigue et le rcit historique. Paris: Seuil.
Rigney, Ann. 1990. The Rhetoric of Historical Representation: Three Narrative Histories of the French
Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rigney, Ann. 2001. Imperfect Histories. The Elusive Past and the Legacy of Romantic Historicism.
Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. 1992. Medien, Kultur: Medienkultur. Ein konstruktivistisches Gesprchsangebot. In: S. J. S. (ed.). Kognition und Gesellschaft: Der Diskurs des Radikalen
Konstruktivismus. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, p. 425-450.
Sobchack, Vivian (ed.). 1996. The Persistence of History. Cinema, Television, and the Modern Event.
New York/London: Routledge.
Suessmann, Johannes. 2000. Geschichtsschreibung oder Roman? Zur Konstitutionslogik von Geschichtserzhlungen zwischen Schiller und Ranke (1780-1824). Stuttgart: Steiner.
White, Hayden. 1973. Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore, MD/London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
244
Julia Lippert
White, Hayden. 1978. The Historical Text as Literary Artifact. In: Robert H. Canary and
Henry Kozicki (eds.). The Writing of History. Literary Form and Historical Understanding.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, p. 41-62.
Wolf, Werner. 2006. Introduction. Frames, Framings and Framing Borders in Literature and
Other Media. In: W. W. and Walter Bernhart (eds.). Framing Borders in Literature
and Other Media. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, p. 1-42.
VINCENT MEELBERG
(Nijmegen)
1. Introduction
Within the several disciplines of the humanities tools, theories and approaches are developed and used to study their respective objects. And while
some disciplines may use very similar approachesthink for instance of the
study of the different languagesothers apply methods that are more or less
unique for their respective fields of study. Musicology is one such discipline.
One of the main tools of the musicologist, music theory, is bound to the
medium it is developed for. It is very hard, if not impossible, to apply music
theory to cinema (except of course when it concerns the music that is used
in a movie), literature, or visual art in any way that transcends a very superficial, metaphorical comparison.
Thus, musicology does not really provide tools that could be used in interdisciplinary research, i. e. research in which methods and/or approaches
developed within a certain discipline are used to study an object belonging to
another discipline. Yet it is quite possible to study music with the aid of methods established in other disciplines. Many disciplines have invented tools
that are not limited to the objects for which they were originally developed.
These tools are medium independent. They allow for the study and comparison of different media, precisely because they do not presuppose a particular
medium.
In this article I want to examine whether narratology, which is usually associated with verbal texts, can function as a medium-independent tool. More
specifically, I will investigate the possibilities of applying Mieke Bals narratology to music. First, I will elaborate in what way narrativity might be useful
for the comprehension of music. Next, I will try to counter the main argument against musical narrativity, namely that music cannot have a narrative
content, before outlining the narrative aspects that can be identified in music. Finally, I will conclude that the narrative study of music can teach us
about the way the listener makes sense of music, and that Bals narratology is
245
well suited for studying the narrative aspect of music, and of media in general, in a productive manner.
2. Narrative Understanding
Music listening consists, first of all, in the recognition of sounds as musical
sounds. The listener qualifies sounds as musical, because s/he hears certain
characteristics that lead him/her to believe that s/he is hearing music. These
sounds more or less comply with the musical precedents s/he is familiar
with, and therefore s/he calls these musical sounds. This results in the listener assuming a listening stance that differs from everyday listening. As
soon as s/he has decided to regard a series of sounds as music, other conventions, criteria, and precedents are used while listening. Once this stance is
assumed, a melodic minor second, say, will be regarded as a leading note,
and not as a series of sound waves with a small difference in frequency. Thus
the acoustic material gives up its original physical qualities in favour of musical qualities as soon as a listener who assumes a musical listening stance experiences it.
However, to be able to decide that a certain series of sounds represents a
leading tone is a step beyond just regarding sounds as musical. At that initial
stage the listeners musical experience consists of nothing more than a concatenation of sound perceptions that s/he identifies as musical. Yet, the example of the leading tone shows that the listeners musical experience is not
to be equated with the pure labelling of sounds as musical. The listener is
capable of relating musical phrases to other phrases within the same piece,
and this relating is regarded as one of the most important characteristics of
music. The composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, for instance, states that
[m]usic presents order relationships in time (quoted in Grant 2001: 135).
Additionally, the listener may relate musical phrases to other musical works
or practices, or to nonmusical ideas or phenomena. In short: the listener
relates music while listening to it. This capacity, together with the ability to
recognize musical sounds, makes up a musical listening experience.
During such an experience, which can be regarded as a unifying activity,
the listener tries to structure the music. The strategies used for this purpose,
however, may differ from listener to listener. Fred Everett Maus (1999: 182183) suggests that a narrative strategy might be successful in helping to structure the music:
[T]he association of music with a story is a way of attributing musical unity: the
parts of a story belong together, somehow, and in associating music and story one
is, somehow, transferring that unity to a musical context. Second, as I understand it,
the notion of a musical story is not an alternative to the notions of musical experiences or musical world. They are related as follows: a listener may have a unified
246
Vincent Meelberg
experience, and that experience may include the imagining of a fictional world, and
the events within that fictional world may form a story.
Moreover, Kitty Klein adds that [n]arrative has often been viewed as the
product of a universal human need to communicate with others and to make
sense of the world (2003: 65). Stories are important both in grasping the
world and in communicating this grasp. Thus, broadly speaking, narrative
has two interrelated functions: on the one hand, it can be regarded as a
means of making sense of the world, structuring the human subjects experiences and integrating these into a graspable whole. On the other hand, narrative functions as an account with which the human subject can communicate
these experiences. As Herman puts it: [N]arrative is at once a class of (cultural) artifacts and a cognitive-communicative process for creating, identifying, and interpreting candidate members of that artifactual class (2003b:
170). Stories are both cultural objects and the manner in which human subjects talk about those objects.
Roy Schafer remarks that narrative is not an alternative to truth or reality; rather, [] it is a mode in which, inevitably, truth and reality are presented. We have only versions of the true and the real [] Each retelling
amounts to an account of the prior telling (quoted in Frawley et al. 2003:
88-89). Narrative is the manner in which the individual subject has access to
other peoples experiences; it is a way to distribute experience and knowledge. Through stories, Herman contends, human subjects have [] a way of
structuring the individual-environment nexus, constituting a principled basis
for sharing the work of thought (2003c: 185). Moreover, Herman (2003b:
8) claims, via stories the subject can have access to events that are separated
from him/her in time and/or space:
[N]arrative can be seen to facilitate intelligent behavior. Stories support the (social)
process by which the meaning of events is determined and evaluated, enable the distribution of knowledge of events via storytelling acts more or less widely separated
247
from those events in time and space, and assist with the regulation of communicative behaviors, such that the actions of participants in knowledge-yielding and conveying talk can be coordinated.
248
Vincent Meelberg
stand the text the reader must make numerous inferences to establish the
relations between various parts of the narrative (2003: 75). Thus, causal
relation is one of the most important kinds of structuring within a narrative.
Richard J. Gerrig and Giovanna Egidi (2003: 44) acknowledge this:
[Research has] provided evidence that one product of readers narrative experiences
are causal networks that represent the relationships between the causes and consequences of events in a story. Some story events form the main causal chain of the
story whereas others, with respect to causality, are dead ends. When asked to recall
stories, readers find it relatively more difficult to produce details that are not along
that main causal chain.
Stories representing events that are hard to connect causally are not as easily
remembered as stories whose events can be causally related. This implies that
stories that show many causal relations can be grasped in a clearer way than
those that lack these relations. Klein (2003: 75) elaborates how a subject
detects causal relations:
To detect causal relation, the reader must connect inferences from immediately preceding text still in working memory, information from earlier text, now located in
long term memory [], and background knowledge that was not in the text but that
is also in long term memory.
As I will show below, this process is similar to the process of detecting musical events within a composition that is received and assimilated aurally.
In the next section I will also explain that the notion of musical causation is used as a metaphor. Musical events do not actually, physically cause
other musical events; they can only be interpreted as being a cause. Yet, as
Herman (2003c: 176) observes, this is the case not only in music, but in literary narrative, too. Paraphrasing Roland Barthes, he remarks that
[] narrative understanding depends fundamentally on a generalized heuristic according to which interpreters assume that if Y is mentioned after X in a story, then
X not only precedes but also causes Y. Indeed, one can detect the operation of this
same heuristic in a variety of discourse contexts, as when language users are able to
read in temporal and causal relations in the case of conjunctions that do not contain explicit time-indices or markers of causality.
A narrative can be understood because its succeeding events can be interpreted as being related in a causal manner, regardless of whether this relation
is a reality or a projection of the apprehending subject. Hence, music that
can be interpreted as containing events that are somehowmetaphoricallyrelated in a causal manner might be more easily grasped as well.
Can an object such as music, however, that is not a literal narrative be interpreted in a narrative manner, and might this result in a more profound
comprehension of that object? Monika Fludernik believes this is possible.
She contends that narrativity [] is not a quality adhering to a text, but
rather an attribute imposed on the text by the reader who interprets the text
as narrative, thus narrativizing the text (2003: 244). In the case of literature,
249
it is the reading process that is [] fundamental to the construction of narrativitythat which makes a narrative narrative (244). Yet this does not
mean that the object is irrelevant. For is it possible to narrativize, say, an
ordinary coffee cup? Perhaps stories around this cup could be made up, but
the cup itself, though interpreted as a cup, is not thereby interpreted as a
story. The object itself has to have some qualities that invite the observer to
regard it as narrative. It has to have narrative potentiality and context. Not
just anything can be regarded as narrative simply because the observer wants
to regard it so. A coffee cup and a story about a coffee cup are artefacts (or
objects) on two different experiential levels.
The narrativization of cultural objects amounts to the creation of a construction, a structure in which (causal and other) temporal relations between
events are identified. Some objects can more easily be regarded as narrative
than others. Narrative depends on both the narrative potentiality of the object and the act of narrativization of that object by an observer. By narrativizing an object, the observer might comprehend this object in a better, or different, way. Turning an object into a story means establishing some other,
maybe wider kind of grasp of this object. And the study of narrativity is an
inquiry into the manner in which an apprehending subject acquires this kind
of comprehension.
This implies that narrativity is not exclusive to those objects that we traditionally call narratives, such as novels. According to Mieke Bal, narratology
can be used on other objects than narrative texts, just as narrative texts can
sometimes be better approached with other methods than narratological
(1990: 730). With the aid of narratology, the narrative aspect of objects can
be studied, regardless of whether they are linguistic or other. I propose the
following working definition of narrative, which is derived from Bals narratology, and which, to my surprise, has proved more controversial than I had
anticipated: a narrative is the representation of a temporal development. It is
the representation of a sequence of events in time. Thus, the construction of
a house, say, can be regarded as a sequence of events, but it is not in itself a
narrative. Rather, it is a process on a different experiential level from the
process of narrative. But as soon as I record this process on video, for instance, the recording can be regarded as a narrative. After all, we now have a
representation, in the shape of a video recording, of a temporal development, namely the construction of a house.
Lyric poetry might be a representation as well, but not all lyric poems
can be regarded as the representation of temporality or of a temporal development. This is not to say that lyric poetry, or fragments within a lyric poem,
can never be regarded as representations of a temporal development. In
these cases one might conclude that this particular poem has narrative moments or characteristics. Conversely, novels such as Samuel Becketts The
250
Vincent Meelberg
Unnamable (1953, English translation 1958) and James Joyces Finnegans Wake
(1939) problematize the notion of temporal development in narrative. Yet
this does not automatically imply that the working definition of narrative I
gave above has to be revised. Rather, it shows that these novels are not novels in any conventional sense, because they do not neatly fit into the category
of narrative. Chronologies, timetables, and weather reports, finally, are representations that refer to temporal phenomena, but to what extent can they be
considered representations of temporal development? As I explained above,
causality plays an important part in narrative. Because one can identify particular events as (metaphorically) causing other events, the perceiving subject
is able to regard this succession of events as constituting a development, a
transformation from one state to another. Thus, if it is possible to identify
causal relations within a chronology or a timetable, one could conclude that
this object is, to a certain degree, narrative. But I cannot say a priori whether
or not these objects can be regarded as such. That depends on the particular
representation that is being considered.
The narrativization of an object amounts to the creation of a structure in
which (causal and other) temporal relations between events are identified.
Some objects can more easily be regarded as narrative than others. Narrative
depends on both the narrative potentiality of the object and the act of narrativization of that object by an observer. By narrativizing an object, the observer might comprehend this object in a better, or different, way, and the
study of narrativity is an inquiry into the manner in which an apprehending
subject acquires this other kind of comprehension.
In her 1997 study on narratology, Bal aims at giving [...] a systematic account of a theory of narrative for use in the study of literature and other
narrative texts (ix). Bals narratological theory offers a very elaborate and
systematic account of narrative elements, but it does not presuppose, and is
not confined to, verbal narrative: indeed, it extends to many other narratologies. Even more importantly, it takes the apprehending, narrativizing subject
as its starting point, and follows the order in which this subject accesses and
experiences a narrative object. As a result, her approach may account for the
way the perceiving subject recognizes a particular structure in a perceptible
object, and how s/he distils from this a series of logically and chronologically
related events caused (or passively experienced) by actors. Bal regards her
theory as a readerly device, a heuristic tool that provides focus to the expectations with which subjects process narrative (xv).
A narrative text, according to Bal, is a text in which an agent relates a
story in a particular medium (5). This definition may seem to compete with
the definition of narrative given above, namely narrative as the representation of a temporal development. However, the two definitions are complementary rather than competing. The definition of narrative as a representati-
251
on of temporal development is more basic and general; it is devoid of narrative jargon; it determines whether or not a particular object can be narrative
at all. All narratives are representations, for telling a story means representing
a sequence of logically and chronologically related events. When an object
complies with this working definition, thus when it can be regarded as a representation of a temporal development, narrative aspects such as narrative
agent and story can be identified, and the definition of a narrative text as one
in which an agent relates a story in a particular medium will become relevant.
Bal distinguishes three layers in a narrative text: text, story and fabula. A
text is a finite, structured whole composed of signs. A story is a fabula that is
presented in a certain manner, and a fabula is a series of logically and chronologically related events that are caused or experienced by actors. An event
is defined as a transition from one state to another, whilst an actor is an
agent that performs actions. To act, finally, means to cause or experience an
event (5).
It is because Bals narratology consists of a trichotomy, rather than a dichotomy, that it is an appropriate model for the study of the narrative aspect
of an object, verbal or otherwise. Especially when it concerns narrativity and
intermediality, this trichotomy is crucial. If one were to use a theory based
on a dichotomy, it would be very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to discuss with any precision the consequences of relating the same story in a different medium. For in this case one could only distinguish between fabula
and narration, and with each change of medium the entire narration would
change as well, since text (as medium) and story (as content) are conflated on
this level. Thus, the division of a narrative object into three, instead of two
(or no) layers allows for a more accurate study of narrativity, especially when
it concerns intermedial approaches. Bals narratology enables investigation
into the narrative comprehension of any object that has narrative potentiality, as well as the comparison of narrativity in different media.
So, what about the medium of music? Comprehending a musical piece
means recognizing its constituent sounds as musical and being able to relate
musical phrases to other phrases within the same piece, as well as to other
musical works or practices and nonmusical ideas and/or phenomena. Comprehending a musical piece implies the structuring of sounds, the establishing of relations within and without the piece concerned.
A possible way to structure music is to narrativize it, to regard it as a narrative. By narrativizing a musical piece, the listener may get a better (or different) grasp of it. Turning music into a story means establishing some kind of
control over, or comprehension of the music, creating a sense of certainty in
an uncertain situation, which listening to an ephemeral object such as music
might sometimes be.
252
Vincent Meelberg
2. Narrative Doubts
As I explained earlier, narrativizing an object implies both a narrativizing
subject and an object that has some narrative potentiality. Since music is a
temporal cultural expression, it would make sense to assume that music has
such a potentiality. After all, temporality is an important aspect of narrativity.
Moreover, many musical works, especially tonal ones, consist of the exposition of one or more themes and their development. Through this treatment
of themes, a temporal development can be represented and a musical narrative might be created. Yet it is not an easy task to explain what this narrative
is exactly about, since, in contrast to language, music has no clear referential
qualities.
For this reason the notion of musical narrativity is highly disputed. Verbal narrative is able to represent many phenomena, ideas, and views that
cannot be represented in music in the same straightforward manner. For
instance, in verbal narrative it is possible to posit an unreliable narrator. A
verbal narrative can represent a characters thoughts, or retell historical
events. Music, because it lacks the referential qualities of language, is not
capable of doing this; it cannot, therefore, Jean-Jacques Nattiez (1990: 257)
concludes, be narrative:
[] music is not a narrative and [] any description of its formal structures in
terms of narrativity is nothing but superfluous metaphor. But if one is tempted to
do it, it is because music shares with literary narrative that fact that, within it, objects
succeed one another: this linearity is thus an incitement to a narrative thread which
narrativizes music. Since it possesses a certain capacity for imitative evocation, it is
possible for it to imitate the semblance of a narration without our ever knowing the
content of the discourse, and this influence of narrative modes can contribute to the
transformation of musical forms.
Nattiez evidently acknowledges that music has the potentiality to be narrativizednot, however, because he thinks music can be properly speaking narrative, but because it can have the appearance of narrative as a result of its
linear character. Nonetheless, Nattiez holds that because music has no narrative content it cannot be narrative. This is a standard argument against musical narrativity. Werner Wolf (2002: 77-78), for instance, claims that
every discourse that is said to be narrative has to be able to achieve precise heteroreference, i. e. a reference that goes beyond the work and its medium, in order to
comply with the basic representational quality of storytelling. The visual arts are undoubtedly capable of this, at least as concerns spatial objects, and of course verbal
speech, too; speech cannot escape heteroreference at all, as the possibility of establishing referentiality in even the most extreme literary experiments shows again and
again. The language of music, however, is only capable of such reference in very
few exceptional cases, and is in general resistant to precise nonmusical referentializa-
253
tion to such a degree that its linguistic character is often denied altogether. [my
translation]1
Jeder Diskurs, der im Dienst des Narrativen stehen soll, mu zur Erfllung der basalen Darstellungsqualitt des Erzhlens zur prziser Heteroreferenz, d. h. zu einer Referenz jenseits des
betreffenden Werkes und seines Mediums, befhigt sein. Die bildende Kunst ist hierzu zweifellos in der Lage, wenigstens was rumliche Gegenstnde betrifft, und natrlich auch die verbale
Sprache; ja diese kann der Heteroreferenz gewissermaen gar nicht entkommen, wie die Mglichkeit der Referentialisierung selbst extremer literar-sprachlicher Experimente immer wieder
zeigt. Die Sprache der Musik kann dagegen nur in eng begrenzten Ausnahmefllen einer vergleichbaren Referenz dienen und ist allgemein so resistent gegen przise auermusikalische Referentialisierungen, da ihr Sprachcharakter sogar berhaupt in Abrede gestellt wurde.
254
Vincent Meelberg
development, are not physically present in the music, but are represented by
it.
This is not to say that the physical makeup of this chord has nothing to
do with the fact that the listener considers it to be tense. As I stated above,
narrativization is only possible if an object has a narrative potentiality. In the
case of a dominant chord, the dissonant wavelengths induce the listener to
interpret this chord as being tense. The physical makeup is one of the reasons the chord is interpreted in this way. However, this does not mean that
the chord is compelled by physical necessity to resolve to the tonic. The necessity (embodied in the tension) is an act of (cultural) interpretation on the
part of the listener.
Furthermore, Snyder recognizes a relation between this phenomenon
and verbal narrative, in which causation between events also plays a constitutive role. A verbal narrative consists of representations of events and it is the
whole body of these representations that is related to the reader. Such narratives, then, relate representations of the causality between events, rather than
presenting actual causation. For example, in a story that tells about a person
falling out of a tree there is no physical necessity for this person to actually
hit the ground. The words that make up this story do not necessarily, physically, cause this. The reader might expect the person to hit the ground, but
this does not have to happen just because the story implies it. Real, physical
causation does not exist in verbal narratives; nor does it exist in music. Even
so, Wolf (2002: 78-79) maintains that
the progression of a musical discourse and its coherence is in general far more dependent on form and medium, i. e. determined by an intramusical syntax. As a consequence, it is at odds with the progression and coherence of narrative created by
causality and teleology that relates to the logic of a fictional world outside of the respective narrative medium. [my translation, emphasis in original]2
Against this it can, nevertheless, be argued that causality, linearity, and goaldirectedness are not inherent to the music itself, but are represented by the
music. This means that the music does refer to phenomena that are outside
of itself, namely the phenomena of causation and teleology. Musical causation, which can give rise to linearity and teleology, is ultimately the product
of representation.
A musical narratives capacity to refer to extramusical phenomena, in this
case to a temporal development, might not be explicit enough for Wolf and
Nattiez. They might want to know what this development means, and verify
2
Die Progression eines musikalischen Diskurses und dessen Kohrenz ist insgesamt wesentlich
form- und mediumsabhngiger, d. h. bedingt durch eine innermusikalische Syntax, und steht
damit quer zur Progression und Kohrenz des Erzhlens durch Kausalitt und Teleologie [],
die sich auf die Logik einer scheinbaren Welt jenseits des jeweiligen narrativen Mediums beziehen.
255
Yet, even when the composer him/herself conducts his/her own music, total control over the
music is impossible. Benson for instance refers to the many recordings in which Igor Stravinsky
conducted his Le Sacre du Printemps (1913), each of which differed from all the others (2003: 79).
Of course, it cannot be ruled out that these differences occurred because the views of the composer changed between two successive recording dates.
256
Vincent Meelberg
performance acts as musical focalization, the point from which the musical
events are perceived.4
A literary focalizer always gives a limited and specific account of events.
Through focalization it is determined how limited or specific the image is
that the reader receives. When performing a musical work, the image of the
musical events that is given to the listener is also always limited and specific:
the performer or performers have to make choices about the interpretation
of the piece, by deciding for instance whether or not the rendition will be
historically authentic, how to interpret dynamic and tempo marks (which
are by definition only approximate) etc. In other words: the focalization in a
musical work always results in a limited account of the musical story.
The musical score, however, is not the musical story. In fact, the score is
itself a text consisting of visual signs relating a story, based on a fabula, by an
imperceptible external narrator. This text, story, and fabula are related to the
text, story, and fabula of the musical performance, but are, by definition, not
identical with them. For their semantic medium is different: in my elaboration of musical text, story, and fabula I explicitly refer to sounds, rather than
to visual signs.
Thus the object of narrativization is music-as-sound: the performance is
part of the narrative. And the musical narrative that I discuss here is performed music. The performance is an integral part of the narrative itself, not
simply an interpretation of a narrative. What it interprets is the score, which
itself might be considered a narrative, but a narrative of a different nature, in
a different (visual) medium.
Still, it is not at all clear what it means to give a true account of musical
events. This cannot be the transparent presentation of a musical score, if
only because this would imply that improvised music would not be focalized.
Yet, in the performance of improvised music, too, choices are made, options
are rejected, and alternatives are selected. Consequently, in improvised music
a limited and specific account of musical events is given as well.
Moreover, the musical events in a score are not represented transparently, i. e. unfocalized. For the score of a musical narrative is itself a narrative
text. Its story is related by an imperceptible external narrator in a visual medium that consists of musical notation. As a text, the score is itself focalized,
which again results in a coloured representation of events. Nevertheless, the
events in a score necessarily belong to a different ontological category; they
have been turned from audible into visual signs. Unfocalized, and thus by
In the case of a recording, the musical focalizer is augmented with the technology and production used to create the recording.
257
It is impossible to have a sounding musical narrative that is not focalized, for performance,
which is a necessary element in the production of sounding music, always implies focalization.
Hence, one could regard a musical narrative as making explicit Bals assertion that a narrative is
always focalized. In order to create a musical narrativewhich in my definition is always a
sounding musical narrativethe music has to be performed, and this necessarily implies focalization.
258
Vincent Meelberg
several focalizers, each giving his/her own view of the musical events at the
same time, but the joint presentation of a single focalizer, i. e. the performance. Or, more precisely: the performance acts as an external focalizer, an
anonymous agent situated outside the fabula (Bal 1997: 148), whereas the
individual musicians contribute to the performance, and thus to the focalization.
This does not mean, though, that only one focalization is possible. A focalizer can change its mind, as it were, and give a different view of the
same situation. In a musical piece, for instance, the same musical phrase can
be repeated in different ways by the same focalizer. When this occurs, the
function of external focalizer stays assigned to the same agent, i. e. the performance, and only the focalization, the way that phrase is performed, has
changed.
Finally, there is one more important difference between a literary and a
musical focalizer. With regard to literature one can distinguish between internal and external narrators. In the case of internal focalization the focalization lies with one character which participates in the fabula as an actor,
whereas the term external focalization means that an anonymous agent,
situated outside the fabula, is functioning as focalizer (Bal 1997: 148). Music, in contrast, can only be focalized externally, for the performance (the
musical focalization) is never given by an agent that is part of the fabula, and
thus can never be internal.6
The performance cannot be part of the musical fabula, which is the final
narratological level of music, because a musical fabula consists only of a series of logically and chronologically related musical events caused or experienced by musical actors. Neither the performance nor the performer(s) are
musical actors. Rather, a musical actor can be defined as the musical parameter or parameters that cause closure; it is closures, therefore, that create musical events. After all, an event is not complete until it has reached some kind
of closure, and it is closure that makes the listener recognize the events and
their organization in music. Thus, a musical actor can be a temporal interval
that is larger than the immediately preceding ones, a significantly different
sound, or the end of a continuous change. At the same time, a musical actor
may be the musical parameter that changes during a musical event, since an
actor can not only cause, but can also experience events.7
6
259
In Meelberg (2004; 2006) I give a more elaborate musical translation of Bals narratological
elements.
260
Vincent Meelberg
Fludernik, Monika. 2003. Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In: Herman
2003a, p. 243-267.
Frawley, William; John T. Murray and Raoul N. Smith. 2003. Semantics and Narrative in
Therapeutic Discourse. In: Herman 2003a, p. 85-114.
Gerrig, Richard J. and Giovanna Egidi. 2003. Cognitive Psychological Foundations of Narrative Experiences. In: Herman 2003a, p. 33-55.
Grant, Morag J. 2001. Serial Music, Serial Aesthetics: Compositional Theory in Post-War Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herman, David (ed.) 2003a. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Herman, David. 2003b. Introduction. In: Herman 2003a, p. 1-30.
Herman, David. 2003c. Stories as a Tool for Thinking. In: Herman 2003a, p. 163-192.
Klein, Kitty. 2003. Narrative Construction, Cognitive Processing, and Health. In: Herman
2003a, p. 56-84.
Maus, Fred Everett. 1999. Concepts of Musical Unity. In: Nicolas Cook and Mark Everist
(eds.). Rethinking Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 171-192.
Meelberg, Vincent. 2004. A Telling View on Musical Sounds. A Musical Translation of the
Theory of Narrative. In: Mieke Bal (ed.). Narrative Theory. Critical Concepts in Literary
and Cultural Studies. Volume IV. London: Routledge, p. 287-316.
Meelberg, Vincent. 2006. New Sounds, New Stories. Narrativity in Contemporary Music. Leiden:
Leiden University Press.
Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 1990. Can One Speak of Narrativity in Music? In: Journal of the Royal
Musical Association 115, p. 240-257.
Snyder, Bob. 2000. Music and Memory. An Introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wolf, Werner. 2002. Das Problem der Narrativitt in Literatur, bildender Kunst und Musik.
Ein Beitrag zu einer intermedialen Erzhltheorie. In: Vera Nnning und Ansgar
Nnning (eds.). Erzhltheorie. Transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinr. Trier: WVT, p.
23-104.
ANDREAS MAUZ
1. Introduction
Narrative is a central element in the founding document of Christianity, the
Bible. The Bible tells stories: of the creation of the world and of the human
race, of the destiny of the chosen people of Israel, of the incarnation of God
in Jesus Christ, of the early Christian communities and of the end of the
world. For this reason if not for any other the theological reflection of Christian faith will of necessity be concerned with narration. Theology has the
task of rendering these stories intelligible in and to its contemporary world
both as individual narratives and in their overall context as the one story of
Gods dealings with creation. The narrative quality of the biblical writings is,
however, only one of the reasons why storytelling is a pre-eminently theological theme. The Christian tradition that grew out of these narrative foundations has itself produced a wealth of stories, which together constitute the
history of the church (or rather of Christianity)a history that unquestionably, and not only from a perspective critical of religion, reads in part as a
crime story (K.-H. Deschner). Episodes of this story are told and retold in
Christian religious education, in school classes or in preparation for confirmation. The sermon is another locus of narration, frequently in the form of
an interpretive retelling of an episode from the life of Jesushimself a storyteller, as the parables demonstrate. Finally, storytelling is of decisive importance for the individual Christian: why a Christian lives thus and not otherwise is the stuff of narrative: a tale interwoven with the story of Jesus and
those other stories that derive from it.
In this rudimentary overview history and storytelling are used in a
broad, integral sense. This does, nevertheless, indicate that the concept of
narrationwhich does not immediately suggest a relation to theologyis of
*
I am indebted to Dr. Barbara Piatti (Zrich/Prag) for her comments on this essay and Joseph
Swann (Wuppertal) for his translation.
262
Andreas Mauz
central importance to that discipline and to the church that it serves. Christianity, it is sometimes said, is in its essence a storytelling communityits
deep structure is narrative:
Storytelling is basic for faith because only in the act of telling can our story be
bound in with that of God and Jesus; because this story must be told; and so that it
can be told as an unfinished story into which the faithful write their own stories
and, in so doing, carry the story forward. Thus at its elemental level Christian faith
has a narrative deep structure. (Arens 1988: 24)
1
2
I. e. from theological reflection on the being of God, more precisely his reality, essence, and
action.
See the Confession of Faith of the German Lutheran Church, the Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/89),
or the Account of Faith (1977) of the Union of Protestant Free Churches in Germany.
263
tion.)3 Another way of expressing this scale would be to speak of object language and metalanguage. In these terms theology is a metalanguage, meta-Godtalk, a type of utterance that refers back to and assumes into the methodologically controlled discourse of science the immediacy and multiplicity of the
religious and confessional modes. As the critical reflection of these other
modes theology ideally impacts upon them in its turn.
Applied to narration, Deusers modal scale raises the key question of the
level at which storytelling takes place. That it occurs de facto in religious
language is clearprominently (though not exclusively so) in the biblical
narratives. But does it also play a role in confessional and theological language? Put like that, the issue is one of description. It becomes theologically
interestingif not hazardouswhen the descriptive perspective is joined by a
normative one and the question arises: should narration play a rolegiven that
it can and does soat these more abstract levels?
Reduced to its lineaments, that is the frame within which discussion of
the relation between theology and narration generally occurs: prima facie,
narration appears to be one mode of God-talk among others. The aim of
the following reflections is to demonstrate in what sense and on what
grounds it has been termed the neglected central mode not only of religious
but also of theological language. This task can only be undertaken on a modest scale in the present context. Accordingly, despite the many areas of theological concern in which, as has been indicated, storytelling plays a significant
role, the present argument will confine itself to the impact of the concept on
modern Protestant systematic theology in German.4 This immediately excludes
two other widely ramifying areas of discussion: biblical criticism (both Old and
New Testament research)5, and practical theology6. Here too, however, narration has a role to play, for it focuses the question of the openness of these
sub-disciplines to new parameterswhich, in turn, impinges on their very
legitimacy.
5
6
That the spectrum of religious articulations includes (not just marginally but essentially) nonverbal forms such as image, dance, glossolalia, silence etc. is an aspect that can only be touched
upon in this context.
Systematic theology (or dogmatics) is concerned with the doctrinal development of the contents of
belief. It covers such areas as God, creation, Jesus Christ (christology), the trinity, sin (hamartiology), redemption (soteriology) and the last things (eschatology).
Specifically what has been called narrative exegesis (see Marguerat/Bourquin 1999).
Practical theology is concerned with the day-to-day practices of the church, including church
services and preaching, church leadership, counselling, social work and religious education. It is
what Schleiermacher called the theory of practice. For a general introduction to the theological subdisciplines and their interrelations see Deuser (1999: 177-184).
264
Andreas Mauz
After an initial survey of the debate that has taken place among Germanspeaking theologians around the concept of narrative theology (2)7, I aim
to draw a provisional balance (3) more closely involving the perspective and
terminology of literary criticism. The significant absences that become evident in this context indicate the holisticand by the same token polemic
nature of the theological view of narration. These reflections lead (4) in the
direction of a remarkable contribution made by the literary scholar Klaus
Weimar, who sees narration and theology as engaged in an entirely different
type of systematic relation: Weimar has demonstrated how central theologumena recur in a covert fashion in the distinctions and categories of
narratological theory. His observations provide an appropriate springboard
for my concluding reflections on the topic (5). So far as the manner of presentation is concerned, the overall aim of this article is to report on a field of
discourse at the interface of theology with literary science rather than to provide an independent contribution to that discourse. To do this in 2008 is to
revive a discussion whose heyday lies somewhat in the past. Nonetheless, the
mode of report selected here may indicate its continuing topicality.
2. Research: An Overview
2.1 The Narrative Theology Project (Weinrich, Metz)
Considering the many theological contexts in which storytelling plays a significant role, it may come as a surprise to learn thatin the German tradition at leastthe concept of narrative theology was a real discovery, not
only at the descriptive but also at the prescriptive level. For narrative theology,
when it came, was the name of a critical theological programme containing
several quite heterogeneous strands.8
The beginning of the debate can be precisely dated to May 1973 and the
appearance of an issue of the progressive Catholic periodical Concilium devoted to The Crisis of Religious Language. It contained two essays,
printed side by side, which sketched out the contours of the later discussion.
The first of these was, remarkably, not from a theologian at all, but from the
well-known linguist Harald Weinrich. Indeed he seems to have been the first
to use (in the title of his essay) the controversial compositum narrative theol-
The earlier discussion in the English-speaking world has a clearly different emphasis. See for a
general overview Wenzel (1998). See also Comstock (1987), Hauerwas/Jones (1989) and
Loughlin (1996).
The survey that follows is defined by its focus on the explicit concept of narrative theology,
albeit to the exclusion of many other contributions that bear on the issues involved.
265
ogy.9 The second text, Brief Apologia for Storytelling came from the pen of
the Catholic fundamental theologian Jean Baptiste Metz (1973).10 Both writers intended to launch a programmatic line of thought, but with different
emphases. Where they agreed was in the underlying thesis that not only
theological discourse but present-day society as a whole had entered a postnarrative phase (Weinrich 1973: 331; cf. also Metz 1973: 336)hence
Metzs formulation of his thesis as an apologia.11 They both saw theology as
particularly affected by this crisis; for, as Weinrich put it, Christianity is a
narrative community (Weinrich 1973: 330), an axiom which Metz (1973:
336) qualified with the differentiation: [Christianity is] not primarily a community of argument or interpretation but quite simply a narrative community.
For Metz the narrative problem stands in a broader context. Narrative
theology is one aspect of the political theology programme he conceived in
the manner of the Frankfurt School as a critique of contemporary society.12
He saw narration as a mode of theology sensitive to experience, and especially to unatoned suffering. He speaks in this context of a memorativenarrative theology (ibid.: 339) and of the memoria passioniswhich sets all
suffering in relation to that of Christas a dangerous memory (ibid.: 337)
disrupting the argumentative force of the victors history wherever that
occurs. Narrative takes on a virtually sacramental quality as the medium of
salvation and of history (ibid.), a stance diametrically opposed to a theology
that would, on simple theoretical grounds, banish [narrative] to the sphere
of precritical expression and allocate all linguistic expressions of faith to
the category of objectivizations (ibid.: 335). To do this, Metz argues, is to
render the experience of faith indefinable, and the exchange of experience
(ibid.) that is the proper material of narrative impossible.
Metz does not, however, (as he is sometimes accused of doing) draw the
reciprocal conclusion that argumentation has no place in theology. What he
is interested in is a relativization of argumentative theology (ibid.: 340). A
fundamental trait of his theological programme becomes apparent in his
explicit referral of the bond between narrative and experience to Walter Ben9
10
11
12
Weinrich (1973). The concept itself is a good deal older. In 17th century theology the concept
of theologia historica seu narrativa was used to distinguish the history of dogma from theologia dogmatica in the proper sense. See O. Ritschl (1920).
See also the collection co-edited by Metz in the same year: Metz/Jossua (1973). For an introduction to Metzs theology see Delgado (2000).
This agreement is so fundamental that it requires no further reason which is all the more
interesting in view of the irreducibly anthropological dimension of narrative on which (with
Schapp and/or Ricur) they here and elsewhere insist.
The essay is extant in a revised form in Metz (1977). His project must be distinguished from
that of Carl Schmitts Politische Theologie that has continued to attract interest ever since its initial
publication in 1922. See Brokoff/Fohrmann (2003).
266
Andreas Mauz
16
17
Central here (see ibid., 334) is Benjamins Der Erzhler. Betrachtungen zum Werk Nikolai
Lesskows (1937). On the general issue of Benjamins relevance for Metz see Ostovich (1994).
See Delgado (2000) and Mller (1988). The Jewish tradition plays a similar role in Dorothee
Slles (1988) related project of theopoetics as opposed to (and critical of) theology.
Weinrich himself seems barely to have noticed the problem of idealization latent in the suggestive phrase from mythos to logos, especially in relation to the concept of narrative innocence.
Only later did this meet with opposition. For an overview see Wacker (1977: 97ff.).
The concept of demythologization is particularly associated with the New Testament theologian
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) whose powerful but controversial programme influenced by
Heidegger involved laying bare the Bibles existential core of mythical discourse, the
kerygma with its divine appeal to existential decision, which he considered dissoluble from its
linguistic and cultural shell. See his classic essay: Bultmann (1985 [1941]).
Danto (1968: 111): History tells stories. Today Weinrich would probably call on the work of
Hayden White (1987).
267
ers, the pathos of their position lies in the assertion that their stories are true.
Unable to resist the prestige of the true story produced in a methodologically
controlled environment, theology in turn has begun to question the truthvalue of its narratives. Yet what U. Wilckens has called its retreating skirmishes (ibid.: 332) have concentrated on the peripherypalpably so in the
modest results of classic historico-critical exegesis. Here it was easy to satisfy
methodological standardseasier at least than it would have been to answer
the Easter question not merely by telling the story, but by telling it with the
emphasis of a historian: He has truly risen! (ibid.)
The sweep of Weinrichs thought, roughly outlined above18, functions in
his discourse as a background against which his real concern is gradually
revealed. His goal is to (at least partially) regain the lost innocence of the
story in the form of narrative theology. This will immediately call in question the bond with (academic) history in whose wake theology stares
fixedly at the single point where a story is tested for truth (ibid.: 333). What
will take its place as a criterion of theological relevance, Weinrich suggests
and here again he is close to Bultmannis the receptive category of concern
(Betroffenheit): Facticity is not the sine qua non condition of a storys impacting and concerning us. We receive fictional stories, too, with concern.
(ibid.) Even as a theoretical science theology need not small-mindedly
deny (ibid.) its received fund of stories. In sum, Weinrich installs narrative
concern as a positive alternative to historical truth: this corresponds to the
nature of Christianity as it is revealed, even after the loss of narrative innocence, in the central event of the resurrection: the event that can only ever be
articulated as a story.
If one considers Metzs und Weinrichs positions together, it becomes
apparent that, for all their differences, they share a strong model of narrative
theology: narration is not just a mode of religious language: it has a significant
role to play in theological discourse as well. Without entirely disregarding or
devaluing conceptual, argumentative thought, both authors stress the point
18
Weinrichs position does not fully accord with the exegetical and dogmatic discussions of his
day. It was by no means the case that theologians held the unanimous and virtually unquestioned view that biblical narratives [...] stand or fall on their truth value as determined by the
recognized methods of historical scholarship (Weinrich 1973: 332.). It was precisely the historically unanswerable question of the historicity of the resurrection that, beginning with the
Enlightenment critique of religion, led to the understanding that historical truth was not necessarily the only criterion of theological relevance. Accordingly, Bultmanns thesis whose key
utterance was the assertion Jesus rose again in the kerygma was received with widespread
approval. Bultmann not only bypassed the issue of a methodically convincing historical answer,
but declared the underlying (historical) question itself to be theologically insignificant: If it is
the case [that he is present to those who hear him], all speculations about the being of the risen
[Jesus], all stories of the empty grave, all Easter legends, whatever portion of historical fact they
may contain, are quite indifferent. Belief in Easter means believing in the Jesus present in the
kerygma (Bultmann 1960: 27).
268
Andreas Mauz
that theology can only fulfil its scientific task through (also) telling stories
whether in the spirit of dangerous memory of the victims, or in that of
safeguarding the existential moment of concern in the face of rigorous historical methods and standards.Both Metzs and Weinrichs theses met
with wide acceptance, questions being directed, if anything, not to their programme itself but to its format. Critique, when it came, was (not exclusively
but for the most part) in the shape of different and weaker models of narrative theology.19
2.2 and Its Critique: Ritschl and Jngel
Two critiques of narrative theology made a lasting impression on Protestant
theology: those of Dietrich Ritschl and Eberhard Jngel.
For the systematic theologian Ritschl (1976: 41), narrative theology was a
misnomer beneath which lay a clearly definable programme. The programme itself he largely shared, but the fundamental distinction he made
between theological and pre-theological discourse led him to prefer the
broader and less technical term story; and stories, the title of a 1976 essay
put it, are the raw material of theology.20 The clear allocation of narrative
to a subordinate position allowed Ritschl to distance himself from what he
called the modish programme (ibid.: 36), in contrast to which he outlined
in explicit terms his own understanding of the role (or roles) of theology
proper. These were (1) clarification (in the service of communication); (2)
safeguarding coherence (in the service of logic and ethics); (3) reflection
on the limited flexibility of contemporary language (respecting tradition);
and (4) stimulation of new thinking and the opening of new perspectives
(ibid.: 9). Quite evidently, stories have little to contribute at least to the first
three of these tasks: they are situated, Ritschl argued, prior to these operations (ibid.). This was not to disparage the role of raw material; Ritschl,
too, upheld the central significance of narrative structure in and for the biblical writings; he, too, saw human identity as determined in and by stories.21 In
this sense theology was in its essence concerned with stories; but this did
19
20
21
269
not mean that it should articulate itself in stories (ibid.: 7). In the light of
the fourfold task outlined above, theology itself, as Ritschl (1984: 51)
axiomatically put it, is regulative, not narrative.
Ritschls view did not, however, end with this categorical statement; he
took up its implications for the story, listing the various forms and functions
of what he called that idiom (Ritschl 1976: 18), and elaborating on the
transition from story (as one type of raw material) to the regulative axioms
(ibid.: 39) of theology. Without going into detail, his reflections on that crucial transition should be mentioned, if only because the rigour and precision
of his thought distinguishes it markedly from that of most other writing on
the topic. Finally, lest the impression be conveyed that Ritschl had no interest in a theology concerned with life experience and social relevance (in the
sense advocated by Metz), it must be stated that, despite his plea for academic rigour in theological thought, his interest in a theology alive and sensitive to the contemporary world was unmistakable.22
In 1977, a year after Ritschls raw material thesis, Eberhard Jngels major study, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt (God as Mystery of the World) appeared.23 Its subtitle, towards a theology of the crucified in the dispute between theism and atheism established a context for narrative and narration
entirely different from that postulated by Ritschl. And indeed Jngels intention could scarcely have been more fundamental: to put theology on a Christological basis that would speak the language of modernity and take seriously
three crucial contemporary problems: the linguistic impossibility of placing
God, the corresponding and still increasing unthinkability of God, and
the inarticulacy of theology (Jngel 1992: 2). In the light of what has been
said above, the occurrence of the keyword narrative theology in this context
will not be surprising; it is, however, important to focus the specific role
Jngel accorded to it. Unlike Ritschl, he accepts its basic legitimacy; but like
him he
cannot decide [] whether it is feasible in the form of a rigorous dogmatic theology, or whether a narrative theology does not, rather, belong to the sphere of the
churchs practical self-realization with its Sitz im Leben in the proclamation [of the
gospel] 24.
22
23
24
See his references to Black Theology (ibid., 33), as well as his assertion that constructive and
decisively important theology today is above all oral (ibid. 12, note 9) and is current in the
countries of the south.
For a concise presentation of the position of the renowned Tbingen systematic theologian see
Rohls (1997: 805-810; Jngels Hermeneutic Barthianism). See also Jngels statement in
Henning/Lehmkhler (1998: 188-210).
Ibid., foreword to the first and second editions, XVII. Ritschl (1976: 39 note 28) had earlier
criticized Jngels use of the concept in his classic essay Metaphorische Wahrheit. Zur Hermeneutik einer narrativen Theologie (Metaphorical Truth: Towards a Hermeneutics of Narrative
Theology, Jngel 1974).
270
Andreas Mauz
Irrespective of this (admittedly central) question, Jngel gives great prominence to the story topos, andin contrast to the other authors mentioned
he does so in the context of dogmatic thought in the strictest sense. Towards
the end of his book the decisive proposition 19 opens the section concerned
with the Christological foundations of theology, the ultimate goal of Jngels
entire argument. Here he returns to the triple question outlined above, in the
form of the thinkability, effability and humanity of God. He announces his programme in the title of the section: The humanity of God as
a story to be told. Some prior hermeneutic reflections; for it is the humanity
of God in Jesus Christ that drives the entire reflection on narrative and narration. The event of the incarnation signifies a change of time [] and history (ibid.: 413); if this significance is to be articulated at all, it must be in a
linguistic mode appropriate to the event. The language of Gods humanity
must be
structurally geared to expressing time and history. [] This is, however, the case in
the mode of narrative, which genuinely unites articulacy and temporality in a single
order and, along with interjection and evocation, can best claim to represent an
autochthonous language. Gods humanity enters the world in the act of storytelling.
Jesus tells of God in parables before he himself is proclaimed a parable of God.
(ibid.)
Jngels careful and thorough rooting of the need for theological narrative in
the complex of the incarnation sets him over against Metz (ibid.: 425f.)
andat a critical levelWeinrich (ibid.: 419ff.). His subtle argumentation
touches on the recurrent issue of the implications of narrative theology for theological narration. If the thought that seeks to understand God [] is repeatedly thrown back on narrative and must itself embark on narrative (ibid.:
414), the need inevitably arises to clarify whether that proposition is also
necessarily narrative. For Jngel, Metz and Weinrich this is not the case. That
Metz (1973: 336) quotes a Hasidic story25 and Weinrich (1973: 329) opens
his deliberations with an apocryphal New Testament text is merely a stylistic
gambit: their apologias themselves are consistently argumentative. In fact,
the problem of self-referentiality manifestly increases to the extent that narrative is recommended as an alternative to the shortcomings of reasoning
and argument, and this is bound to impact the strong models of narrative
theology more acutely than the weak model proposed by Ritschl. One might
be tempted to call the tension in these strong models a performative contradiction (Habermas). At all events the issue of argument versus narration
focuses the need to clarify the definitions and relations of the two opposing
25
The instance quoted for the all-changing impact of narrative is, interestingly enough, precisely
not taken from real life. This strengthens the suspicion that narrative is here ultimately devalued into a post factum illustration of the properly argumentative discourse of theology
(Sandler 2002: 530).
271
modes. How otherwise could one begin to follow Jngels (1992: 414) statement: Thinking of God can only be thought of as a conceptually controlled
storytelling of God? (see ibid.: 428)
Despite his critical stance vis vis Metz and Weinrich, and his initially
professed uncertainty, Jngel - if we take this dictum seriously - evidently
also proposes a strong model of narrative theology. Indeed this is demanded
(at least as an ideal) by his whole approach. To bridge the gulf that consequently opens between ideal and practice he appeals to what might be called
the exception-clause of genius, citing the case of his own teacher, Karl Barth.
It was Barths specific genius, he writes, to create a genuine bond between argumentative and narrative dogmatics which allowed the argumentative power of the story to speak for itself (ibid.: 427, n. 52)26. This move
of Jngels at least partially draws the sting from the charge of performative
contradiction: not everyone is gifted to combine so faultlessly the two modes
of discourse; enough, then, that the mass of participants confine themselves
to the conceptual argument that is their natural mtier.27
2.3 From Mainstream to Backwater
The positions taken by these authors, and their implications for the various
disciplines of theology, attracted much attention, discussion and critique in
subsequent years.28 But a mere decade after the appearance of Metz and
Weinrichs essays, Bernd Wacker could, in his Towards a Balance (1983),
accept the verdict of the religious pedagogue Helmut Anselm (1981: 117)
that narrative theology was for a short time on everyones lips. Today it
seems already a thing of the past. The decline in interest after the mid 1980s
in both Protestant and Catholic circles was undeniable, and when in 1997 the
Catholic theologian and Germanist Knut Wenzel published his dissertation
Zur Narrativitt des Theologischen29 (On Theological Narrativity) it aroused
little interest, despite the fact that Wenzel sought a solution to a repeated
stumbling-block: the theological indeterminacy of the central concepts of
narration and narrativity. Unsurprisingly, he calls on Paul Ricur, whose
approach to narratology is in any case close to theology (see e. g. Ricur
1995), arguing that the indeterminacy in question is theologically well
founded:
26
27
28
29
272
Andreas Mauz
What Wenzel proposed under the programmatic title of Theological Narrativity is something which had, up to that point, been lacking: an explicitly
reflective narrative theology. The scarcely audible response to his thesis was
doubtless due in part to the general shift in thematic focus, but it can be
ascribed with even greater conviction to the hermeneutically refined level of
his argument. A third factor may have been simply denominational: up to
now the discussion had been confined to Protestant theology. Whatever the
case, his work receives no mention at all in the latest contribution to the
discussion, the 2005 volume of essays Dogmatik erzhlen? Die Bedeutung des
Erzhlens fr eine biblische orientierte Dogmatik (Narrating Dogmatics? The role
of storytelling in a biblically oriented dogmatic theology; Schneider-Flume/
Hiller 2005).
2.4 Leipzig Reprise: Narrating Dogma? (Schneider-Flume)
The general argument of the volume in question can be discerned in the
contributions of one of its editors, the Leipzig systematic theologian Gunda
Schneider-Flume.31 In her introduction Schneider-Flume (2005a: 3) expressly
cites what she calls the old programme of narrative theology, an approach
she judges to be of limited legitimacy, in whose rejuvenation the essays
presented in the collection are, she makes clear, not interested. On the contrary, the relevance of narrative theology is to be understood here in the context of reflection on the traditional task of dogmatic theology, which remains, for her, the explication of the scriptures (ibid.). The unmistakably
Lutheran slant to this manifesto carries over into the question that forms the
title of Schneider-Flumes own first essay (as it does of the volume as a
whole): Narrating Dogma?described in her subtitle as a plea for a biblical theology. Schneider-Flume sees narrative theology in the old sense as
harbouring two major dangers and limitations []: the arbitrariness, or
ideological [] abuse, of narration on the one hand, and the lack of credibility of metanarrative remarked by Jean-Franois Lyotard on the other (ibid.:
4). However, neither of these deficiencies is further elaborated, nor does it
become clear how they are to be avoided in the authors own approach.32
30
31
32
The German word Geschichte is commonly used for both history and story [trans.].
But see the painstaking review by Linde (2007).
The argument that the unique history of God is not a metahistory because it enters [individual] life-histories as a concrete force (ibid.) certainly constitutes no objection to Lyotards understanding of metahistory.
273
Despite the coolness of this volume towards narrative theology, the diagnosis underlying its reprise of the topic has a familiar ring: Christians suffer from inarticulacy (ibid.: 3) vis vis their faith; the great dogmatic
symbols (ibid.: 6)sin, justification, providence, Godno longer adequately express Christian experience. In these circumstances the story is
called upon to break up the[se] great dogmatic concepts (ibid.: 3). Yet, true
to the principle avowed by Ritschl and Jngel,33 Schneider-Flume also insists
that dogmatic theology, albeit reflecting narrative and, as such, beholden to
it, should not itself be conceived in narrative terms. Where she differs from
Ritschl is in the scope of what she thinks of in this context as narrative: not
any corpus of stories but the stories of the Bible. These, for her, are the material of dogmatic thought (ibid.: 11).
How dogmatic theology is to be practised as the interpretation and exposition of biblical writings is demonstrated in Schneider-Flumes (2005b)
second contribution to the volume, where she directly confronts the problem, familiar to theologians, of speaking in a single breath of the many stories of the biblical tradition and the one story of God. The narrative problem, in other words, appears against the horizon of the scriptural principle
(sola scriptura)34, and even more precisely against that of the unity and centricity of the scriptures. To speak in these terms is to assume the accents of the
Reformers, for whom Jesus Christ was the one binding factor within a multifarious biblical tradition. Take Christ out of the scriptures and what more
will you find in them? Luther had asked35. The significance of the concept
of scriptural centring was developed in the form of the doctrine of justification36; as such it underlies all critical theology, including that whose object is
the matter of the scriptures themselves.37
The postulate of an underlying unity of scriptural intention has certain
problematic consequences for theology. What does it entail, for example, for
that portion of the sacred books of Christianity that comprise the Old Testament, the majority of whose writings belong at least primarily not to the
33
34
35
36
37
In contrast to the analysis presented here, Jngel in these terms represents a weak model.
Viz. of the Reformers doctrine that the scriptures are the sole source and norm of faith and
consequently also of theology; this contrasted with the Roman Catholic appeal to the authority
of tradition as a second norm see Ebeling (1966). For a fuller treatment of the scriptural issue
see Hrle (2007a: 111-139).
Tolle Christum e scripturis, quid amplius in illis invenies? (Luther 1525: 606, 29).
I. e. the Reformers doctrine that mankind, locked in original sin, can and will be unconditionally set in a rightful relation to God (viz. justified) by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone
(sola fide) in the redeeming power of Christ (solus Christus).
It is from the platform of the Bible itself that the Bible becomes both addressee and object of
critical analysis. Because the authority of scripture is derived from the authority of scripture,
Christs dealings [was Christus treibt, Luther] themselves become the critical standard against
which the utterances of scripture as a whole and of its individual books must be measured; it is
with Christ that they must match. (Hrle 2007a: 138f.)
274
Andreas Mauz
Christian tradition at all but to the Jewish?38 Above all, however, it was the
results of critical historical research that led to what W. Pannenberg has
called a crisis of the scriptural principle; for what this demonstrated was
precisely not the unity but the multiplicity of at times contradictory theological conceptions. Why, therefore, theology should remain subservient to
scripture is not easy to establish convincinglywhich is why the scriptures
tend to play an increasingly background role in recent systematic theological
discussion. Aware of this development, and of the advent in their place of
what she calls the generalized religious constructs of subjectivity theory,
Schneider-Flume argues decisively for a new opening of systematic theology
towards narrative and narration. Theology, she says, has forgotten what experiential riches [are lost] by giving up the biblical tradition [] Faced with
this loss, the work of dogmatic theology must concentrate on finding its way
back to the biblical stories. (ibid.)
Nevertheless, rather than engaging immediately in this task, SchneiderFlume turns her attention to a counter-proposition concerned with a modern
approach to scriptural centring: Ingolf U. Dalferths (1997: 189) thesis that
the centre of the scriptures is external []: not within the semantic horizon
of the biblical texts but within their pragmatic horizon in the work of the
Christian church39. The texts themselves, Dalferth maintains, do not raise
the question of a centre at all; this arises in the wake of the broader attempt
to expound the presence and working of God in the world. For her part,
Schneider-Flume utterly rejects the shift from a received principle of biblical
interpretation to a fundamental principle of theological hermeneutics.
Against Dalferth she hammers home her traditional Lutheran position, exegetically enriched with three biblical traces of the (hi)story of God, which
she entitles the realism of mercy, hearing the cry for salvation and
righteousness and vicariousness (see Schneider-Flume 2005b: 41-50).
These three strands of biblical history, she argues, reveal the unity of the
story of God within the multiplicity and diversity of the biblical accounts.
Far from deciding the issue, however, her uncompromising riposte provokes more questions about Schneider-Flumes position. If her ultimate objective is to break up the great dogmatic concepts because they are no
longer understood, it is not immediately clear how this is to be achieved with
the help of biblical narratives. That it is they (rather than narratives as such)
that are invoked is understandable as a traditional reflex (sola scriptura); but at
least it should be made clear why the frequently lamented alien quality of the
Bibles textual worlds suddenly no longer presents an obstacle. To put it
mildly, is the prolongation of the Bible story into the present-day world
38
39
See Schneider-Flume (2005b: 34, esp. the works listed in note 7).
For an exegetical presentation see Weder (NT) and Hermisson (OT) in the same volume. They
also attract Schneider-Flumes criticism.
275
(Linde: 2007: 1116) really as straightforward as the author maintains? A second objection concerns a similar discrepancy between the proposed definition and solution of the problem. If the inarticulacy predicated of Christians in their lack of understanding of the great concepts (SchneiderFlume 2005a: 3) is as truly global a phenomenon as it is made out to be, it
scarcely follows that a biblically oriented dogmatic theology will be an
appropriate remedy. After all, dogmatic theology is the preserve of academic
theologians, and of an academic language that need not and cannot be intelligible to all Christians. A far simpler (indeed banal) appeal would in the circumstances be more convincing: that the pastoral clergy should strive more
effectively to communicate a theologically informed and experientially rich
religious language to their communitieswhich does not, of course, reciprocally imply that academic theology can afford to be oblivious of religious
language.
3. Interim Balance: Narrationa Holistic-Polemic Concept
The foregoing discussion of some key approaches to narrative and narration
bears ample witness to the alterity of theological discourse on the subject.
The summary below (which is based on a wider range of publications than
those already cited) will attempt an interim balance from a point of view
closer to that of literary studies. Doing so, it hopes to shed a closer light on
the specific purpose and role of narration for systematic theology. If in the
process certain gaps are noted, this should be understood descriptively rather
than critically; for in an interdisciplinary context precisely those dimensions
(here of the phenomenon of narration) are most interesting that do not enter
the discourse of the partner discipline, or might even disrupt it. What distinguishes the theological discussion of narrative and narration, then, can be expressed in the following propositions:
In all the approaches so far discussed, the concepts of narration, storytelling etc. are, even in the weak models, consistently positive (rather than
neutral).
For theology the narrative problem is neither merely aesthetic nor stylistic, nor is it purely didactic (and as such a topic for practical theology).
On the contrary, it falls (as above all Jngels approach demonstrates)
within the purview of systematic theology in the strictest sense.
Nevertheless it is of little interest to any of these approaches how storytelling actually operates. The whole issue is derivative: what is crucial is
its status for theology as a whole and/or for the subdisciplines. In other
words, the concept of narrative is not differentiated internally but externally, in relation to other competing positions.
276
40
41
Andreas Mauz
42
277
knowledge it are content, like Jngel, with a simple indication of the existence of the problem:
Before argumentative theology can become truly narrative it must develop an ability to reflect on the mode and matter of narrative: it must
prove its dialectic and discursive capabilities. If discourse is again [!] to
become narrative [] it urgently requires a discursive theory of narrative [Mieth]. (Jngel 1992: 427)
The unquestioning assumption that storytelling is a theological virtue
derives largely from the notion that narrative and experience are one.
Their relation is not further analyzed but itself assumed as a sort of a
priori postulate, frequently backed by a classical reference (e. g. to Walter
Benjamin, see note 24 above). The categorical premise that concepts are
incapable of communicating experience is matched by the assumption
that narrative can do this to a high degree. The reciprocal question
whether narrative is not itself subject to limitations is not raised, nor is
any reference made to the role of experience in non-narrative poetic
modes (especially the Psalms).
Theological assent for narrative and narration invariably regards itself as
assent to a mode whose time is past (not just for theology). Thus,
Schneider-Flume (2005a: 4) wholeheartedly agrees that we live in a
post-narrative era, and she, too, appeals to the diagnoses of Benjamin
and Adorno without, it seems, adverting to the huge shifts in the media
landscape that have taken place since they wrote.
Ever since its introduction, the concept of narrative theology has largely
oscillated between the twin poles of storytelling theology on the one
hand and theological theory of narration on the other (Wacker 1983:
20).
The main reason for this oscillation would seem to be the very openness
of the concepts of narrative, narration, storytelling etc. Who tells whom
what story how and where frequently remains unclear.42 Standard literary-critical distinctions relating to the semantics (author versus narrator,
discours versus histoire, fictional versus factual account etc.) and pragmatics
of narration (author/work/reader, narration versus narrative, oral versus
written narrative etc.) scarcely play a role in the theological discussion.
Yet whether we are talking of one of Jesus parables or of Prousts Recherche isquite apart from the question of differing canonicitya mat-
A standard observation since Metz (1973: 341) and despite Wenzel (see Wacker 1977: 85ff.).
The lack of clear focus inevitably affects the paraphrases given here.
278
Andreas Mauz
ter of considerable consequence for the phenomenology of both narration and reading.43
The lack of such differentiation can be seen as the very condition under
which narrative and narration can function as a clear holistic alternative
to argument. Only as such can it fulfil the polemic function required of it
by theological discourse.44
4. Analogies: The God of Texts (Weimar)
44
Ritschls story becomes an umbrella term embracing the suffering in Chile or Angola as much
as the story of Abraham or the story of my child, irrespective of the profound differences
these present as theological raw material (Ritschl 1976: 10, 37). See also Weinrich (1973: 330f.).
The polemic instrumentalizing of the debate within academic theology may be at least partly
responsible for the lack of interest it aroused outside that circle. Significantly, the comprehensive bibliography of narratological research published between 1976 and 1978 in successive issues of the Zeitschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik carries no reference whatsoever to narrative theology. See Wacker (1983: 30, n. 28).
279
read texts as symptoms of e. g. society or the collective unconscious or discourse. Neither the source of inspiration nor its instrument is in such cases
personal; in this type of global palimpsest the role of muse or Holy Spirit is
taken by an impersonal but all-powerful force. Narratologically the interesting point is that theology, in contrast to poetics, links the blending of the
two voices to two different linguistic modes, the divine language of things
or realitiesthe verbum efficax within whose outreach word and being, word
and world are one (the classical texts being Gen 1 and Ps 33,9)and human
language, whose words symptomatically lack such efficacy. When the divine
language of things enters the human language of words per inspirationem, the
human author speaks [] in human words and the divine author speaks
through him [] to the things signified by those words. (Weimar 1998:
146) The distinction, Weimar (ibid.: 147) argues, recurs in literary scholarship
in the concept of the dual linguistic level specific to literature, current in
exemplary form in the narratological distinction between author and narrator. [] author and narrator are related to each other as divine inspirer and
evangelist or prophet. Heinrich Lee in Der grne Heinrich is in this sense just
as much a creation of Gottfried Kellers as, in Christian belief, mankind is
the creation of God. Whilst Heinrich speaks with the words of men, Keller
speaks in and through his characters human words the divine word of
things.
The idea that certain texts involve some sort of inspired language underlies a wide range of hermeneutic practices. Heteronomous speech demands
interpretive techniques that reveal the higher meaning, the sensus spiritualis,
behind the immediate meaning of the words. Weimars point is that the
anagogical (including the allegorical) interpretation of textsa traditional
canonical technique of Christian hermeneuticsfar from being confined to
antiquity or the Middle Ages, is an accepted procedure of modern literary
science (see ibid.: 148). The mention of a bicycle pump in a text by Joyce
inspires interpretive constructs from phallic symbol to serpent in Paradise
that would be unlikely to occur to the (same) reader of a travel journal. Nevertheless, the difficulty of the (still almost spontaneous) jump from sensus
litteralis to sensus spiritualis in the case of the familiar pump is, in comparison
with the anagogical reading of a biblical text, heightened by the absence of
any regula fidei to serve as prop or guideline. Between phallus and serpent (or
any further alternative) the reader may waver where he or she will not when
confronted with a biblical triad whose reference to the Trinity is canonically
guaranteed.45
Weimars deliberations culminate in his third section, devoted to the role
of authorand specifically to the thesis that a traditional idea of God has
45
280
Andreas Mauz
slipped into literary studies and taken refuge in the concept of author
(ibid.: 150).46 For
whenever one posits a language of things as the basis for the meaning of things
within a textual world, one must at the same time posit a speaker of that language
namely the author. The author of a literary text stands to the textual world that he
or she creates as, in received theological doctrine, God stands to the world that he
created. (ibid.: 149)47
Citing a passage from Eichendorffs Ahnung und Gegenwart, Weimar demonstrates that at least eight of the classical attributes of God are predicable of a
human author in relation to the text: omnipotence and omniscience, invisibility and incorporeality, omnipresence and immeasurability, eternity and
infinity. Understood as the creator of a textual worldthat is to say from the
point of view of textual theory rather than (as is commonly the case in
literary studies) text-production theorythe literary author enjoys all these
attributes. And Weimar takes the significant further step of ascribing those
attributes also, and in fact primarily, to the reader (ibid.: 153)for it is a
commonplace that the reader is the real creator of the concrete textual
world, however much readers of Ahnung und Gegenwart may selflessly insist
on ascribing the world of that novel to the historical Eichendorff.48 With or
without this final twist into the aesthetics of reception it remains plausible to
speak of the author as the God of Texts for the simple reason that the classical doctrine of God has formulated, albeit unawares, a concept of authorship that perfectly dovetails with textual theory.
5. Conclusion
Contemporary theological dictionaries are treacherousabove all in what
they leave out. (Metz 1973: 334) The opening sentence of Metzs Brief
Apologia no longer reflects todays situation. Recent theological encyclopaedias all contain an article on narrative, and both the Catholic Lexikon fr
Theologie und Kirche (3LThK) and the Protestant Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (4RGG) even carry an independent entry on narrative theology.49
Thanks at least partly to Metz, one can, then, no longer speak in this context
of omission. It is nevertheless striking that, even in retrospect, the authors
(especially of the systematic sections) of the relevant articles still experience
46
47
48
49
Weimars argument doubles as an explication of Barthes postulate of the death of the authorGod: see Barthes (1984: 67).
Weimars concept of God is that of early-modern Lutheran orthodoxy: the texts on which he
draws are Quenstedts Theologia didactico-polemica (1685) and Buddeus Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae (1724).
For the background to this see Weimars theory as expounded in Weimar (1994).
See Wenzel (1993) and Arens (2003).
281
51
52
53
See the three-volume sthetische Theologie (Aesthetic Theology) of the writer and theologian
Klaas Huizing (2000-2004). See also Mertin (2002) for a sensitive critical presentation of that
work.
See Stocks (1995-2007) to-date seven-volume Poetische Dogmatik (Poetic Dogmatics), as well as
his essays in pictorial theology, Stock (1996 etc.).
See Bayer (1999).
See Huizing (2000-2004; 1996). For an overview of these and other approaches see BaukeRuegg (2004: 199-254).
282
Andreas Mauz
Weimars contribution highlights the price that is paid when the twin poles
of narrative theology are joined in a venture whose primary motivation is
programmatic and polemic. The advantage of his more modest horizon is
that it generates results which are of interest to both disciplines involved
and why else should literary scholarship be interested in the projects of theology? An awareness of the latent theological dimension of a whole series of
critical concepts and procedures opens up new prospects for literary scholars; though whether this breakthrough will be accompanied by joy at the
discovery of new relations or fear and trembling in the face of concepts already shed by theology centuries ago is hard to say. For theologians, the
prospect is similar. They can perceive their own concerns all the more clearly
through the lens of another discipline, but to do so involves a parallel ambivalence. This may be illustrated in a single example: for theology today, the
concept of narration is almost sacramental, its connotations wholly positive,
its outreach virtually unlimited. It will be interesting to see if this evaluation
is affected by an awareness of the limits imposed by the terminology, categories and concepts of literary narratology. It is at least thinkable that advertence to the limitations of individual narrative perspectives (described, for example, in such categories as voice and focalization) might introduce a measure of scepticism towards the unlimited power of narration and narrative as
such.54
A number of literary scholars and theologians apart from Klaus Weimar
have shown an interest in the relation between theology and narration from a
more closely narratological point of view, where (in contrast to narrative
exegesis) the textual corpus is not restricted to biblical writings. If it were not
for the grandiose overtones of such a term, one might think of their contributions as paving the way for a new and welcome analytical narratheology.
Works Cited
Anselm, Helmut. 1981. Gott als Dichter. Aspekte zum Selbstverstndnis narrativer Religionspdagogik. In: Theologia practica 16, p. 117-130.
Arens, Edmund. 1988. Wer kann die groen Taten des Herrn erzhlen? (Ps 106,2). Die
Erzhlstruktur christlichen Glaubens in systematischer Perspektive. In: Rolf Zerfass (ed.). Erzhlter Glaubeerzhlende Kirche. Freiburg i. B.: Herder 1988, p. 13-27.
Arens, Edmund. 2003. Art. Narrative Theologie. In: Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 4th
ed., vol. 6, col. 52-53.
Barthes, Roland. 1984 [1968]. La mort de lauteur. In: R. B. Le bruissement der la langue. Essais
critiques IV. Paris: Seuil, p. 63-69.
54
For a substantial critique on this point (expressly directed at Weimar) see Stoellger (2009).
283
Bauke-Ruegg, Jan. 2004. Theologische Poetik und literarische Theologie? Systematisch-theologische Streifzge. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag Zrich.
Bayer, Oswald. 1999. Gott als Autor. Zu einer poietologischen Theologie. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Brokoff, Jrgen and Jrgen Fohrmann (eds.). 2003. Politische Theologie. Formen und Funktionen im
20. Jahrhundert. Paderborn: Schningh. (= Studien zum Judentum und Christentum)
Bhler, Pierre. 2000. Allegorese und Sensus literalis in Luthers Hermeneutik. Mit einem
Blick auf den Abendmahlsstreit. In: Paul Michel and Hans Weder (eds.). Sinnvermittlung. Studien zur Geschichte von Exegese und Hermeneutik I. Zrich: Pano, p. 497513.
Bultmann, Rudolf. 1960. Das Verhltnis der urchristlichen Christusbotschaft zum historischen Jesus.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Bultmann, Rudolf. 1985 [1941]. Neues Testament und Mythologie. Das Problem der Entmythologisierung der neutestamentlichen Verkndigung. In: R.. B. Offenbarung und
Heilsgeschehen. Mnchen: Lempp (= BEvTh 7), p. 27-69.
Comstock, Gary L. 1987. Two Types of Narrative Theology. In: Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 55, p. 687-717.
Dalferth, Ingolf U. 1997. Die Mitte ist auen. Anmerkungen zum Wirklichkeitsbezug evangelischer Schriftauslegung. In: Christoph Landmesser et al. (eds.). Jesus Christus als
die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums. Berlin: de Gruyter (=
BZNW 86), p. 173-198.
Danto, Arthur C. 1968 [1965]. Analytical Philosophy of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delgado, Mariano. 2000. Jdisches KorrektivDas Christentum von Johann Baptist
Metz. In: M. D. (ed.). Das Christentum der Theologen im 20. Jahrhundert. Vom Wesen
des Christentums zu den Kurzformeln des Glaubens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, p. 246-258.
Deuser, Hermann. 1999. Kleine Einfhrung in die Systematische Theologie. Stuttgart: UTB.
Ebeling, Gerhard. 1966 [1964]. Sola scriptura und das Problem der Tradition. In: G. E.
Wort Gottes und Tradition. Studien zu einer Hermeneutik der Konfessionen. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 91-143.
Hrle, Wilfried. 2007a [1995]. Dogmatik. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hrle, Wilfried (ed.). 2007b. Grundtexte der neueren evangelischen Theologie. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt.
Hauerwas, Stanley M. and L. Gregory Jones (eds.). 1989. Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative
Theology. Grand Rapids: Wipf & Stock.
Henning, Christian and Karsten Lehmkhler (eds.). 1998. Systematische Theologie der Gegenwart in
Selbstdarstellungen. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Huizing, Klaas. 1996. Homo legens. Vom Ursprung der Theologie im Lesen. Berlin: de Gruyter. (=
Theologische Bibliothek Tpelmann 75)
Huizing, Klaas. 2000-2004. sthetische Theologie. Stuttgart: Kreuz. (Vol. 1: Der erlesene Mensch.
Eine literarische Anthropologie, Vol. 2: Der inszenierte Mensch. Eine Medienanthropologie,
Vol. 3: Der dramatisierte Mensch. Eine Theateranthropologie. Ein Theaterstck)
Jngel, Eberhard. 1974. Metaphorische Wahrheit. Zur Hermeneutik einer narrativen Theologie. In: Evangelische Theologie. Special Issue Metapher. Zur Hermeneutik religiser Sprache, p. 71-122.
Jngel, Eberhard. 1992 [1977]. Gott als Geheimnis der Welt. Zur Begrndung der Theologie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
284
Andreas Mauz
Landfester, Manfred. 2005. Argumentation als Modus des Erzhlens. In: SchneiderFlume/Hiller 2005, p. 19-30.
Linde, Gesche. 2007. [Review of Schneider-Flume/Hiller 2005] In: ThLZ 132:10, col. 11141116.
Loughlin, Gerard. 1996. Telling Gods Story. Bible, Church and Narrative Theology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Luther, Martin. 1525. De servo arbitrio, WA 18,551-787.
Marguerat, Daniel and Yvan Bourquin. 1999. How to Read Bible Stories. An Introduction to Narrative Criticism. London: SCM Press.
Mertin, Andreas. 2002. sthetische Theologie?! Eine Topologie medialer Heiligenlegenden.
In: Magazin fr Theologie und sthetik 20 <http://www.theomag.de/20/ am71.htm>.
Metz, Jean-Baptiste and Jean-Pierre Jossua (eds.). 1973. The Crisis of Religious Language. New
York: Herder and Herder.
Metz, Jean-Baptiste. 1973. Kleine Apologie des Erzhlens. In: Concilium 9, p. 334-342.
Metz, Jean-Baptiste. 1977. Glaube in Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Mainz: Mattias Grnewald Verlag.
Mller, Karlheinz. 1988. Bedingungen einer Erzhlkultur. Judaistische Anmerkungen zum
Programm einer narrativen Theologie. In: Rolf Zerfass (ed.). Erzhlter Glaube
erzhlende Kirche. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, p. 28-51.
Ostovich, Steven T. 1994. Messianic History in Benjamin and Metz. In: Philosophy and Theology 8:4, p. 271-289.
Petzoldt, Matthias. 2005. Sprachspiele christlicher Glaubenslehre?. In: Schneider-Flume/
Hiller 2005, p. 62-80.
Ricur, Paul. 1995. Figuring the Sacred. Religion, Narrative, and Imagination. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Ritschl, Dietrich. 1976. Story als Rohmaterial der Theologie. In: D. R. and Hugh O. Jones.
Story als Rohmaterial der Theologie. Mnchen: Kaiser (= TEH 192), p. 7-41.
Ritschl, Dietrich. 1984. Logik der Theologie. Kurze Darstellung der Zusammenhnge theologischer
Grundgedanken. Mnchen: Kaiser.
Ritschl, Dietrich. 2005. Nachgedanken zum Story-Konzept. Die Koagulation wiedererzhlter Stories auf dem Weg zu differierenden theologischen Lehren. In: Theologische
Zeitschrift 61, p. 78-91.
Ritschl, Otto K. A. 1920. Das Wort dogmaticus in der Geschichte des Sprachgebrauchs bis
zum Aufkommen des Ausdrucks theologia dogmatica. In: Alfred Bertholet et al.
(ed.). Festgabe fr D. Dr. Julius Kaftan zu seinem 70. Geburtstage. Tbingen: Mohr, p.
260-272.
Rohls, Jan. 1997. Protestantische Theologie der Neuzeit. Vol. 2: Das 20. Jahrhundert. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
Sandler, Willibald. 2002. Christentum als groe Erzhlung. Anste fr eine narrative Theologie. In: Peter Tschuggnall (ed.). ReligionLiteraturKnste. Ein Dialog. Anif:
Mller-Speiser 2002, p. 523-538.
Schneider-Flume, Gunda and Doris Hiller (eds.). 2005. Dogmatik erzhlen? Die Bedeutung des
Erzhlens fr eine biblisch orientierte Dogmatik. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Schneider-Flume, Gunda. 2005a. Dogmatik erzhlen? Ein Pldoyer fr biblische Theologie.
In: G. S.-F. & Hiller 2005, p. 3-18.
285
Schneider-Flume, Gunda. 2005b. Die vielen Geschichten der biblischen Tradition und die
eine Geschichte Gottes. Zur Frage nach Einheit und Mitte der Schrift. In: G. S.F. & Hiller 2005, p. 31-50.
Slle, Dorothee. 1988. Das Eis der Seele spalten. Theologie und Literatur auf der Suche
nach einer neuen Sprache. In: Jahrbuch fr Religionspdagogik 4, p. 3-19.
Stock, Alex. 1995-2007. Poetische Dogmatik. Paderborn: Schningh.
Stock, Alex. 1996. Keine Kunst. Aspekte der Bildtheologie. Paderborn: Schningh.
Stoellger, Philipp. 2009 (forthcoming). Potenz und Impotenz der Narration. Zur Allmacht
der Erzhlungund deren Kritik. In: Albrecht Grzinger, Andreas Mauz et al.
(eds.). Religion und Gegenwartsliteratur. Spielarten einer Liaison. Wrzburg: Knigshausen & Neumann.
Wacker, Bernd. 1977. Narrative Theologie? Mnchen: Ksel.
Wacker, Bernd. 1983. Zehn Jahre Narrative TheologieVersuch einer Bilanz. In: Willy
Sanders and Klaus Wegenast (eds.). Erzhlen fr KinderErzhlen von Gott. Stuttgart:
Klett, p. 13-32.
Weimar, Klaus. 1994. Lesen. Zu sich selbst sprechen in fremdem Namen. In: Thomas
Bearth et al. (eds.). Dialog. Zrich Hochschulverlag (= Zrcher Hochschulforum
22), p. 111-123.
Weimar, Klaus. 1998. Der Gott der Texte. In: Ingolf U. Dalferth et al. (eds.). Die Wissenschaften und Gott. Ringvorlesung aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags des Rektors der Universitt
Zrich, Prof. Dr. Hans Heinrich Schmid. Zrich: Pano (= Theophil 9), p. 143-154.
Weinrich, Harald. 1973. Narrative Theologie. In: Concilium 9, p. 329-334.
Wenzel, Knut. 1996. Zu einer theologischen Hermeneutik der Narration. In: Theologie und
Philosophie 71, p. 161-186.
Wenzel, Knut. 1997. Zur Narrativitt des Theologischen. Prolegomena zu einer narrativen Texttheorie in
soteriologischer Hinsicht. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. (= Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 52)
Wenzel, Knut. 1998. Art. Narrative Theologie. In: Lexikon fr Theologie und Kirche. Vol. 7,
col. 640-643.
White, Hayden. 1987. The Content of the Form. Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
HARALD WEILNBCK
(Zrich)
The Berlin School of Mind and Brain, funded by the German Excellence Initiative, might be an
example of truly cross-faculty cooperation between the neurosciences and the humanities.
287
spect to the narrative theories of different disciplineswill enable us to pursue culture studies in a way that is more immediately applicable and relevant
to the questions of contemporary society and its citizens than may have generally been the case with humanities scholarship.
The essential goal of narratological Literary and Media Interaction Research is to better understand what people actually do when they interact
with fictional narratives. What precisely happens over the course of a lifetime
in mental, psycho-biographical and developmental respects when people
read novels, engage in aesthetic experience, and/or consume or produce fictional media narratives?
Hence, LIRs core research questions are: How do individualsgiven
their personal and biographical dispositionsmentally interact with literary
texts, aesthetic objects and media productions, in particular with those which
they identify as having been (or still being) of high personal significance?
How does the experience of reading and media interaction relate to a persons life history and to the patterns of coping that have resulted from it?
More specifically: How does media interaction correlate with the mental
identity construction that people constantly and unwittingly perform in their
everyday life, and through which they consciously and/or unconsciously
meet the particular biographical challenges of their personality development?
This also implies asking the quite difficult question: To what effectbe it
therapeutic, educational or the oppositedo people employ aesthetic interaction in their identity forming processes? And to what extent are they successful in using it in their continuous efforts to achieve sustainable personal
development?
In the second main dimension of LIR the research question is: What role
does media narrative itself have in this interaction, given its specific content
and form? How does a fictional narrative that has been singled out by an
individual as having been personally significant function in interactive terms?
More precisely: What are this narratives textual interaction potentials (regardless of how the person who identified itor any empirical person
actually interacted with it)? How can wewhile studying people as readers
or hearers/viewersavoid losing sight of the media narrative as text, and
vice versa? How can we avoid taking the text as a mere trigger of reader response, as previous empirical literary and media research tended to do? How
can text analysis and media interaction research be systematically integrated?
It is evident already from these basic research questions how much a
program like LIR is occupied with issues of immediate societal importance.
For asking how literature and media interaction really works in psycho-social
respectsboth on the level of the text and on that of empirical persons
and asking what effects it has, or may potentially have, for an individual in
educational and/or therapeutic respects, also always means asking how me-
288
Harald Weilnbck
dia and literature come into play on the level of societal integrationwhich
means also of societal conflict and its resolution. In this respect sustainable
personal development is intrinsically interwoven with sustainable societal
development. Hence, one main perspective of any LIR project will always
be: What specific kinds of pedagogic and didactic intervention may be profitable in teaching and/or other forms of cultural social work?
More specifically in psychological terms, touching upon the issue of media interaction and societal interaction/integration means asking: How does
aesthetic interaction contribute to tackling the quite challenging task of
working through the long-term psycho-social consequences of violence, as
well as other forms of psycho-social stress? How can the transgenerational
effects of violence be neutralized? These have, after all, been found to be
both pervasive and lasting, and tend to propel unwitting cycles of violent and
(self-)destructive behavior. Put slightly differently this question means: How
can literary and media interaction and teaching contribute to building up a
persons or a groups mental resilience against stress and violence? And this
genuinely educational and therapeutic vector may remind us of what was
envisioned as the aesthetic education of mankind in the 18th centuryby
which Friedrich Schiller and others meant the inherent potential of art and
literature to effectively support civilization and culture by instilling humanistic Bildung. Thus, interdisciplinary narratological research touches upon
one of the humanities most long-standing and enthusiastically advocated
objectives.
The second characteristic of LIR, which is again immediately evident
from its basic research questions, is the complexity of the task. Asking to
what effect and how successfully individuals employ media interaction in
striving to cope with aspects of their life-history, both past and present, and
attempting not only to reconstruct but also to qualitatively distinguish the
phenomena concerned, is a challenging task. It implies estimating in a methodologically secure fashion how an individuals mental media interaction and
aesthetic practice may support and/or hamper their personal development in
the sense of sustainable individual growth and development of personal
skills.
Successfully tackling such complex questions requires input from various
disciplinary fields. LIR projects therefore combine resources from the humanities (especially text-linguistics and recent narratological literary and media studies), from qualitative-empirical interaction and social research (especially recent biography studies), and from developmental, clinical and
psychodynamic psychology and psycho-trauma studies, as well as qualitativeempirical research in psychotherapy.
This joint project in advancing a new interdisciplinarity requires, first of
all, trans-disciplinary theory-building. For instance, it needs to be spelled out and
289
discussed how LIRs underlying theoretical notion of interaction can be understood to comprise both the social and the mental dimensions of the concept, for interaction is taken here to refer to both intra-psychic and extrapsychic processes. And the more one thinks about this distinction with respect to the main task of theorywhich is to guide the operationalization of
questions for empirical researchthe more one wonders whether this is a
reasonable distinction at all. For individuals interact socially with other people in real-life contexts; and at the same time they interact mentally with associations and memories of past occurrences and encounters that are psychically activated by the present interactive situation. Hence, interactionbeing
both a mental and social phenomenonalways has the dimension of time
and biographical memory (Weilnbck 2009b), more precisely: of livedthrough experience in the course of ones personal development. In a way, a
persons whole life-history and its major guiding principles is co-present in
all of her/his interactions: interaction is biographically embedded.
Another basic theoretical assumption about interaction is immediately
relevant to narratology: A privileged mode of (biographically embedded)
media interaction is co-narration. Co-narration brings a personally experienced
event (and the accompanying personal associations and memories) into a
narrative form, complete with chronological order and subjective logic, and
into a psycho-affectively charged situational context designed to elicit particular responses from the co-narrative interlocutor. As opposed to factual
report, description and argument (modes of self-expression which may, however, be part of an unfolding narrative), narrating an experienced event is
privileged in that it best serves one of the most important functions of human media interaction: to help the individual understand and come to terms
with their lived experience, to develop personal knowledge and capability,
and to better anticipate future occurrences and condition future interactions.
This seems to be what humans live forand why they tell stories (Weilnbck 2006a).
Since this pivotal function undoubtedly holds true for co-narrative interaction, both with real-life people and occurrences and with fictional media
representations of such people and occurrencesnotwithstanding modal
differences between the two (see below)one additional theoretical ambition of the LIR approach will be to re-evaluate the distinction between fictional and factual narrative in order to better take into account the parallels
and interrelations between these two modes of narrative and the interactions
they elicit. Remarkably, this synoptic perspective only comes into play at all if
one systematically adverts to the fundamental psychological dimensions of
narration.
With literary studies and the humanitieswhich almost exclusively handle the area of narratology proper todaythis theoretical assumption needs
290
Harald Weilnbck
291
292
Harald Weilnbck
293
mer/Rennie 2001; Boothe 1994; 2005; Jesch et al. 2006; Weilnbck 2006a;
2006b).
Hence, qualitative research has, it seems, intuitively developed analytic
methods which lend themselves to reconstructing how more or less unconscious conflict-ridden or ambivalent vectors of experience and interaction
work in a persons life, and the ways in which they show themselves in selfexpression. Crucial here are the points of divergence between what is narrated today and what was experienced then, and what impact these vectors
have on the subjects biography. To say that qualitative research has intuitively developed these insights is to suggest that it has done so without having read muchand maybe even without having wanted to read much
about psychodynamic, psychoanalytic, and clinical research (which, in fact,
constitutes an unexpected parallel between this field and literary studies).
All schools of literary studies would certainly agree that a texts guiding
principles are not easily detectable. There is also widespread awareness of the
need to differentiate between various levels of agency in literary narratives.
In fact, the distinction between narrator and persona, i. e. the texts narrative
voice and its author, is something literary scholars are acutely aware of (see
Jannidis 2004). Possibly, this awareness is even a bit too acute, since it usually correlates with the assumption that while the narrator, narrative voice or
implied author etc. (see Kindt/Mller 2006) may be a legitimate object of
literary study, the author as empirical person is not really of much interest
for the interpretation of literary texts. Conceptualizing a double narrative
agency might, therefore, also be advisable here. This would imply not only
making the distinction between the narrator and the composition subject of
the text but also viewing both narrative instances integratively and taking
them equally seriously in methodological respects. The need not only to distinguish the narrator from the author on the one hand and from the composition subject on the other, but also to take the author effectively into account, and thus make the theoretical distinctions fully operational in research
design and interpretation methodology, raises important issues both in qualitative research and in literary studies.
When qualitative research reconstructs the difference between the livedthrough, experienced life history and the narrated life storyand thus unwittingly
anticipates a conceptual distinction between persona or composition subject
and narratorit not only touches upon phenomena that psychodynamic
approaches conceived of as unconscious and beset with conflict, it also quite
unexpectedly touches upon an element of the imaginary, almost of the fictitious, in what is generally referred to as factual interview narrative, since
what someone in their subjective view holds to be their authentic life experience might not prove factual, and what they consider their main principles of
interaction might not prove accurate or complete at the analytic level; and
294
Harald Weilnbck
even some hard facts in a truthfully given and authentically felt account of
the self may prove incorrect. These incorrect, incomplete, or in other ways
partially erroneous or misleading parts of a factual narrative may, therefore,
in some sense be viewed as fictitiousunintentionally fictitious, as it were.
And surely, thinking about literary narration, one cannot be certain that fiction writing, in turn, is not always also in some sequences and/or aspects, as
it were, unintentionally factual.
This, however, is not to say that many literary critics are really interested
in the interface of fictional and factual/biographical elements in a literary
narrative, or even consider this interface to be researchable by any standards
of philological scholarship (Weilnbck 2007). The only ones who would
support such an approach are psychoanalytically oriented scholars. They,
however, have never had much lasting impact on mainstream literary text
analysis, nor have they been able to provide the necessary methodological
rigor to claim the status of reconstructive empirical research (Weilnbck
2008a; Kansteiner/Weilnbck 2008)which is what the LIR approach is
aiming at. Conceptualizing a twofold agency for literary narration as well,
and thus defining two different dimensions of a literary narrativebe they
labeled fictionally versus factually oriented, or manifest versus latent, or in
narratological terms: narrative perspective versus focalization (in the sense of
Jesch/Stein 2007)is a characteristic feature of LIR and one of its basic
principlesone that might also be of help in enhancing literary narratologys
interface with interdisciplinary research.
Consequently, one of the mostif not the mostimportant and challenging methodological tasks of narrative analysis today (be it in qualitative
social/interaction research or in literary studies) seems to be to reconstruct
the interplay of the fictional and the factual aspects of a narrative, whether
oral/factual or literary/fictional. In more precise terms this once again
means to reconstruct the interrelation and mental interaction between what
an individual has actually experienced in the past in their real life on the one
hand and what they give as storied account about these experiences in the
present before a listening interviewer on the other (or else what the individual as author of a fictional text may create as a personally inspiring story before a literary audience). In other words the basic task is to reconstruct the
interplay of the narrator and the persona (author/composition subject) of a
given narrativein a psychologically informed sense of these terms.
It is the core objective of Literary and Media Interaction Research to
take on this challenging task and realize its inherent potential for interdisciplinary research, which first of all means to effectively integrate the two hitherto largely separated academic areas of studying the world of (fictional) texts on
the one hand and the world of so-called real-life and empirical persons on the other.
295
LIR thus encompasses two methodological dimensions: qualitativeempirical interaction research with readers, formerly called reader response
research (section 3.1), and interactive theoretical, reconstructive analysis of
fictional literary or media narratives (section 3.2). Eventually the reader/author research case studies and the textual analyses will have to be integrated to reconstruct empirical variants of author-text-reader interaction
or at least of reader-text interaction. The aims and benefits of this research,
which forms the core of the LIR program, will be outlined in the conclusion
of this paper (section 4).
3.1 Qualitative-Empirical Interaction Research
How does qualitative-empirical social research go about reconstructing an
individuals guiding interactive principles, the factors that make that person
tick both in their real-life interactions and in those with literary and fictional
media? Using the methodology of biography studies as a springboard, LIR
employs state-of-the-art qualitative interviewing for data acquisition, and
narrative transcript analysis for data analysis. For specific procedural phases
of case study work, however, LIR has developed a substantial supplementary
methodology of its own, for the most part in two directions: first systematically integrating psychological knowledgeparticularly from psychodynamic
resources, which lend themselves to better understanding how biographically
molded mental interaction, and in particular its psycho-affective dynamics,
functions (biography research itself has not yet tapped these resources in any
systematic way); and secondly, developing methods of qualitative interviewing suitable for reconstructing media experience and media interaction
these are also not yet fully established in biography studies, and the methodological questions related to them have not been satisfactorily solved by
qualitative media research.
3.1.1 Biographical-Narrative Interviewing
Biography researchs strict methodology for conducting narrative interviews
reflects the fact that there are many things that can be done wrongor, put
positively, there are many technical rules which, if aptly observed, permit the
acquisition of interview materials containing the kind of narrative selfexpression that facilitates successful reconstructive case study analysis. But
biographical-narrative interviews substantially differ from natural conversations or journalistic interviews, so conducting them requires an expertise
which needs to be trained (a fact that isnt always adequately accounted for
in qualitative research).
296
Harald Weilnbck
In essence, qualitative interviewing procedures follow one basic principle: that of maximum openness, providing conditions which secure the utmost freedom for interviewees to design and arrange their story-telling. Methodological precautions are taken to ensure this openness and reduce as far
as possible any unwitting influence by the interviewer. The interview starts
with a general narrative question directed not to a specific topic or period of
life but to the persons life history as a whole (and increasingly also to their
family history; Rosenthal 1995). Rosenthal (2004) herself tells how in the
course of her methodological development she came to realize that with almost any research question it is necessary (or at least desirable) to ask the
interviewee to give their whole life history and avoid any thematic restriction, no matter what the particular topic and scope of the research project is
(ibid.: 51).
The interviewee may then begin to tell their life story, i. e. give their main
narration in an individual fashion. I have conducted interviews in which the
main narration took just two minutes and others in which the interviewee
took two hours and more. Whatever happens in this first phase of the interview, it is essential with respect to the principle of openness that the narration is at no time interrupted by questions from the interviewers (ibid.: 52).
Instead, they should give nonverbal support by means of various paralinguistic expressions and body language which signal personal interest, attentiveness, and empathyand give encouragement when the interviewee pauses
(for instance by simply interjecting and then what happened?). Unaccustomed as this self-restraint might feel at first, it is a technique that enables
the interviewee to arrange their narration in the richest possible way and to
tap into distant and estranged sources of personal memory. In this space the
narration will start to flow (Rosenthal 2004: 52), become increasingly detailed, and unfold in ways which are sometimes unexpected and surprising
even for the intervieweeand which touch upon issues invested with personal emotion which are not easily attainable in an everyday conversational
situation.
Following the main narration, interviewers may begin to pose internal
follow-up questions on the basis of notes taken during the interview. These
questions aim at generating more detailed information about the interviewees experience. Technically speaking this means avoiding both the sort
of factual questions frequently posed in conversation (When was that?
Where was that?), and drawing parallels to the interviewers own experience (I felt that, too ). Above all it means not asking about reasons, adducing arguments, or discussing opinions (Why did you do that?), because
such questions effectively thwart narration. During the main narration interviewers will in any case have taken note of any such arguments and opinions,
just as they will of the interviewees detached reports and descriptions of
297
issues and contexts. In this follow-up phase they use the interviewees arguments for further narrative questions aiming to tap into the personally experienced events that lie behind the interviewees account. So, if an interviewee expresses the opinion that they dont like foreigners, for example, the
follow-up question will not ask about reasons or discuss opinions, which
might well produce an abstract evaluation or argument, but simply remark:
You mentioned that you dont like foreigners. Tell me about a moment or
event in your life in which you clearly felt that you didnt like foreigners.
This will produce further narrative, to which the interviewer will respond
with the same attitude of attentiveness and empathy as before, and which
may be further expanded (What happened before that?, What happened
later?, How did that happen?).
Listening attentively in this way, interviewers will have noted many
points that seem promising for generating further narrative. And while there
are certain formalized rules for spotting such cues (for instance when arguments, opinions, contradictions, lacunas occur in the narrative, see Rosenthal
2004; Lucius-Hoene/Deppermann 2002), there sometimes seems an instinctive element in an interviewers choice, when it taps into a content-rich experience which the interviewee had not thought of mentioning.
This and other techniques of interviewing have proven effective in
stimulating an interviewees narrative to flow freely. People who have been
interviewed frequently report that they had not expected to come up with so
much personal history or to touch upon this or that issue, and often also not
to experience this or that feeling. In fact, interviewees have often gotten into
a quite elated mood, as if creatively inspired by the experience. And since a
biographical interview is usually conducted by two closely interacting interviewers, and may take up to three hours, with a possible second appointment
to follow, the end product will often be a rich, complex artistic creation containing both factually oriented and imaginative narrative vectors. For the interviewee the experience will seem at times to resemble the state of creative
enthusiasm and aesthetic elevation which authors are sometimes reported to
have experienced during the writing process. Conversely, training and initial
experience in conducting narrative interviews frequently have an existential
impact on researchers, changing their interactive style even in everyday life
and resulting in a more open and perceptive attitude vis--vis their social environment. This too has sometimes been described as akin to the effect of
reading belletristic literature: an aesthetic as well as interactive enhancement
of sensibility.
After the internal follow-up questions are finished it is only in the last
phase of the interview that the principle of openness is suspended and external narrative follow-up questions may be posed. These confront the interviewee with instances of narrative incoherence or conspicuous deviations
298
Harald Weilnbck
from a standard perception of reality; as well as involving external issues pertaining to the specific focus of the study. In the LIR approach this is also the
place where a significant methodological innovation is introduced, with key
questions from psycho-diagnostic interview techniques being included if the
relevant issues have not already been sufficiently covered during the biographical interview (Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis: http://
www.opd-online.net). Finally the interviewee is asked to name a literary or
media production of high personal significance, which will then be used in
the second phase of LIR narrative interview (3.1.3).
3.1.2 Reconstructive Narrative Analysis
This high degree of methodological rigor whichaside from its creative
elementscharacterizes the interview technique also holds true for data
analysis. Here a novel method of reconstructive interdisciplinary transcript
analysis (ITA) is employed, applying standard procedures of transcript analysis as practiced in qualitative biography studies, and systematically integrating
the results with psychological resources.
In the first phase, transcript analysis as known from biography studies
follows a well laid-out path of methodical steps which, for reasons of brevity, cannot be described here in detail (see Rosenthal 2004: 50). Suffice it to
say that the key analytic procedure is adductive (as opposed to deductive or
inductive) sequential hypothesis building, which means that every hypothesis
produced by the analytic team to explain a specific narrative sequence or
biographical fact is taken into account. It is only in the chronological course
of hypothesis building along the consecutive sequences of the interview
transcript that certain hypotheses are excluded and others retained. Methodically formalized, the five steps of transcript analysis are:
Extraction and interpretation of basic biographical data, including key
events and decisions. These are isolated in the interview transcript as
quasi-objective information (place and social milieu of birth, siblings,
education, illnesses, change of residence, historical events) and looked at
separately, abstracting as much as possible from the specific form and
subjective viewpoint of the narrative. Here the guiding question of sequential hypothesis building is: What are the probable turns of this life
history and the respective states of mind of the subject, given these biographical data? Or in other words, what consequences would be expected from each of these hypothetical turns if they were to occur? Asking which of the different hypotheses actually comes true in the next
biographical phase then leads to the construction of new and more refined sets of hypotheses about what might possibly happen in the phases
that follow.
299
Text and thematic field analysis of the narrative by adductive verification-falsification procedures. Here the structure and dynamics of the
subjects self-presentation are analyzed chronologically in line with the
sequences of the transcript (which were drawn up according to thematic
shifts and changes in text type, such as description, argumentation, report, and narrative). The guiding question of sequence-by-sequence text
analysis is: How does an interviewee view the world in terms of their
own life history and their personal agency in it? How do they choose to
portray themselves?
Reconstruction of experienced life historyaims at illuminating the
lived-through experience of the interviewee, independently of how it is
presented as a story.
Microanalysis of transcript segmentsfocuses on interview passages
that seem particularly pertinent to the life history and promise to further
decipher [the transcripts] latent structures of meaning (Rosenthal
2004: 60).
Concluding contrastive comparison of experienced life history and narrated life storyaims at finding explanations for the difference between
the two levels and how they impact the subjects way of coping with life.
In its second phase LIRs interdisciplinary transcript analysis (ITA) goes beyond these standard biography studies procedures and systematically taps
into the resources of clinical and psychodynamic psychology, with a view to
determining and formulating the subjects principles of mental coping and
psychic defense. ITA begins with Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis
(OPD), a multi-axis diagnostic tool developed in Germany over the last fifteen years from various recent approaches in psychodynamics, psychoanalysis, psychosomatic medicine and psychiatry with a view to expanding and
complementing the existing purely descriptive manuals of psychopathological symptoms. OPD has added various psychodynamic criteria of classification such as interpersonal relations, specific conflicts, and mental structure,
and has today become a widely and internationally acknowledged common
denominator in clinical diagnosis. It thus serves as a useful springboard for
trans-disciplinary collaboration. Beyond the OPD manual, ITA may refer to
further and more elaborate psychological resources such as qualitative psycho-trauma studies (Fischer/Riedesser 1998; Hirsch 2004), as well as the approaches of narratological, relational and attachment psychology (Bollas
1984; Angus/McLeod 2004) and psychiatry (Kernberg et al. 2000), whenever
these appear promising for a better understanding of the case material in
hand.
In procedural terms this means that once the five steps of narrative sequence (or transcript) analysis have been completed, psychodynamic assessment proceeds in reverse order, starting with step 5 and confronting the
300
Harald Weilnbck
conclusions with two questions: Are there any psychodynamic phenomenaas defined by the OPD and other sourcesthat parallel the biographical phenomena reconstructed so far? Do these parallels produce additional
in-depth hypotheses? Phases one and two of ITAbiographical narrative
analysis and psychodynamic/developmental assessmentare conducted
consecutively and not simultaneously, because the first phase of reconstruction must not be methodologically compromised with premature psychological conclusions.
As a result, what biography research usually describes in generic terms as
the guiding principle(s) of a persons life-history and development is now
also specified psychologically as that individuals psychodynamic profilea
specification of the particular challenges inherent in their personality development. This psychodynamic profile profits from the inclusion in the last
phase of the biographical interview of key questions from the OPD diagnostic interview directly targeting relationship themes, interactive core conflicts, and/or core trauma compensatory patterns.
3.1.3 Media-Experience Interviewing
and Final LIR Case Study Reconstruction
Having reconstructed the interviewees biographical and psychodynamic profile, researchers now turn to the second step in LIR data analysis, the narrative media-experience interview (MEI). This was recently developed on my
initiative (Weilnbck 2008b; 2009a; 2009b) because, in the first place, standard modes of qualitative and/or biographical interviewing do not lend
themselves to understanding media experience, and secondly, what has
sometimes been called the media biography interview neither sufficiently
grasps media experience itself nor really fathoms the biographical dimensions of an individuallet alone the aspect of their life-long psychological
development (see Weilnbck 2003; 2009b).
The MEI is conducted after the interviewee has re-read or re-viewed the
text or film which they had identified at the end of the biographical interview
as being personally significant for them. The LIR team will also have read or
viewed the narrative and produced two sorts of memos in preparation for
the MEI: a sequence protocol for the interviewers immediate orientation, in
which plot-turns and characters are listed in the order in which they occur,
and the MEI hypotheses memo (see below). As in the biographical interview,
the interviewee is asked at the beginning of the MEIby way of a maximally
open initial questionto talk about their recent re-reading/re-viewing and
the associations it had for them, as well as about the original media experience in the more distant past. The narrative response to this question then
becomes the focus of MEI internal follow-up questioning aimed in two
301
302
Harald Weilnbck
303
304
Harald Weilnbck
cal respects NTA thus builds on an approach which in its first phase draws
on the fields of linguistics, pragmatics and narratology, and in its second
phase on psychodynamic clinical psychology. Consistently with this lineage
NTA has recently been developed into a methodological interface between
literary and clinical research (Stein 2007; Jesch et al. 2006).
From text and discourse-linguistics and narratology NTA obtains methodological guidelines which allow it to assess both the informational choice
and completeness of a narrative text and its incoherencies. The informational
choice and completeness with which the author (or composition subject) of
a fictional narrative arranges and depicts the characters and actions in their
story-world is straightforwardly assessed along the sequential phases of human action with regard to:
the subjectively perceived causal situation of the character (before action),
the characters build-up of personal motivation and specific intention to
act in response to the causal situation,
the implementation of this intention in the form of concrete action,
the effects of the action, both intended and unintended (Stein 2007).
It seems fair to assume that any reader striving to follow and understand an
account of events and actions in a story will spontaneously and unwittingly
look for the most complete information possible with regard to these four
phases, and will immediately attempt to reconstruct them according to their
personal and biographically molded perception of the information given in
the narrative.
Hence, any characters action within a narrative can be systematically described in the first place in terms of the completeness and choice with which
the elements of cause/intention/action/effects are represented. Secondly,
the text can be methodically scrutinized with regard to phenomena of narrative incoherence, whereby incoherence is understood to represent a verifiable deviation from a predictable order of occurrences and actions within a
narrativepredictable and verifiable with reference to the internal as well as
external logic of the narrative. Instances of internal incoherence can be methodologically identified in three distinct dimensions:
in the order of space and time in a narrative, along the linguistic relations
of first then and there also there,
in the order of correlations and conditions in the narrated world, along
the linguistic relation of if then, and
in the order of cause and effect, of intention and result, as well as of finality, along the linguistic relations of because, in order to, with the result that.
Instances of external incoherence are identifiable with reference to the cultural frames and patterns, and the general knowledge of the historical period
and socio-cultural sphere, in which author and reader operate. Here inco-
305
306
Harald Weilnbck
The LIR approachs methodology will soon be explicated at length (Weilnbck 2009b).
307
new and promising analytic questions which might not yet have arisen in
NTA.
LIRs integration of reader- and text-research also facilitates new modes
of presenting cultural studies knowledge to the wider public. A novel form
of publishing is envisioned, in which the text analysis of a certain literary
and/or media narrative will be accompanied by and integrated with readerinteraction analysis of two or more readings, and possibly also by the respective author-interaction case study. Thus, different empirical variants of mental media interaction within the complex constellation of an author-textreader relationship will become available in a multi-focus perspective. Such a
publication may contribute to significantly expanding the modes of current
cultural discourse. It will, at any rate, help to avoid two problematic traditions in mainstream culture and literary studies: on the one hand the imposition of fixed, academically acclaimed interpretations of literary works, and on
the other the introduction of abstract descriptive techniques of text analysis
which remain largely detached from students own reading experience.
Abbreviations
LIR:
OPD:
ITA:
MEI:
NTA:
BNI:
Works Cited
Angus, Lynne E. and John McLeod (eds.). 2004. The Handbook of Narrative and Psychotherapy.
Practice, Theory and Research. London: Sage.
Bollas, Christopher. 1984. The Shadow of the Object. Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Unknown. London: Free Association Books.
Boothe, Brigitte. 1994. Der Patient als Erzhler in der Psychotherapie. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck.
Boothe, Brigitte (ed.). 2005. Die Sprache des Traumas. Psychotherapie und Sozialwissenschaft 1. Gieen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Fischer, Gottfried and Peter Riedesser. 1998. Lehrbuch der Psychotraumatologie. Mnchen: Ernst
Reinhardt.
Frommer, Jrg and David L. Rennie. 2001. Qualitative Psychotherapy Research. Methods and Methodology. Lengerich: Pabst.
Hirsch, Mathias. 2004. Psychoanalytische TraumatologieDas Trauma in der Familie. Psychoanalytische
Theorie und Therapie schwerer Persnlichkeitsstrungen. Stuttgart: Schattauer.
308
Harald Weilnbck
Jannidis, Fotis. 2004. Figur und Person. Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Jesch, Tatjana; Rainer Richter and Malte Stein. 2006. Patientenerzhlungen wie Literatur
verstehen. Vom Nutzen der Narratologie fr die psychodiagnostische Hermeneutik. In: Vera Luif, Gisela Thoma and Brigitte Boothe (eds.). BeschreibenErschliessenErlutern. Psychotherapieforschung als qualitative Wissenschaft. Lengerich: Pabst,
p. 39-65.
Jesch, Tatjana and Malte Stein. 2007. Mise en perspective et focalisation: deux concepts - un
aspect? Tentative dune diffrenciation des concepts. In: John Pier (ed.). Thorie du
rcit. Lapport de la recherche allemande. Villeneuve dAscq: Presses Universitaires du
Septentrion, p. 245-264.
Kansteiner, Wulf and Harald Weilnbck. 2008. Against the Concept of Cultural Trauma or
How I Learned to Love the Suffering of Others without the Help of Psychotherapy. In: Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nnning (eds.): Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, p. 229-240.
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Mller. 2006. The Implied Author. Concept and Controversy. Berlin:
de Gruyter.
Kernberg, Otto F.; Birger Dulz and Ulrich Sachsse (eds.). 2000. Handbuch der BorderlineStrungen. Stuttgart: Schattauer.
Lucius-Hoene, Gabriele and Arnulf Deppermann. 2002. Rekonstruktion narrativer Identitt. Ein
Arbeitsbuch zur Analyse narrativer Interviews. Wiesbaden: Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.
Rosenthal, Gabriele. 1995. Erzhlte und erlebte Lebensgeschichte. Gestalt und Struktur biographischer
Selbstbeschreibungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.
Rosenthal, Gabriele. 2004. Biographical Research. In: Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber
F. Gumbrium and David Silverman (eds.). Qualitative Research Practice. London:
Sage, p. 48-64.
Stein, Malte. 2007. Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Harzreise im Winter. In: Jrg Schnert,
Peter Hhn and Malte Stein: Lyrik und Narratologie. Text-Analysen zu deutschsprachigen
Gedichten vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: de Gruyter, p. 77-97.
Weilnbck, Harald. 2003. Leila. Dissoziative (Medien-)Interaktion und Lebensweg einer
jungen Erwachsenen. Eine (medien-)biografische und psychotraumatologische
Fallstudie. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. <http://www.qualitative-research.
net/fqs-texte/3-03/3-03weilnboeck-d.htm>.
Weilnbck, Harald. 2006a. Der Menschein Homo Narrator. Von der Notwendigkeit und
Schwierigkeit, die psychologische Narratologie als Grundlagenwissenschaft in eine
handlungstheoretische Sozial- und Kulturforschung einzubeziehen. Besprechungsessay. In: www.literaturkritik.de, Schwerpunkt: Erzhlen. <http://www.literatur
krtik.de/public/rezension.php?rez_id=9365&ausgabe=200604>.
Weilnbck, Harald. 2006b. Erzhltheorie als Mglichkeit eines gemeinsamen Nenners von
Humanwissenschaften. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 7:3. <http://www.
qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-06/06-3-22-d.htm>.
Weilnbck, Harald. 2007. Geisteswissenschaften und Psychologie, zwei mgliche akademische Partner? Pldoyer fr eine methodische Erforschung des geisteswissenschaftlichen Selbstverstndnisses. In: Journal fr Psychologie 15:3. <http://www. journalfuer-psychologie.de/jfp-3-2007.html>.
309