NEW ACCENTS

General Editor Terence Hawkes

Newspaper reports, history books, novels, films, comic strips, pantomime. dance, gossip and psychoanalytic sessions are only some of the narratives which permeate our lives. One type of narrative comprises the subject of this poem. book-'narrative fiction' whether in the form of novel. shon Story or narrative

'This is a well-organized and cogently argued book.' Choice

What is a namtive? What is namove fiction? How does it differ from other turning her anention to these and other questions Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan
a

kinds of narrative? What features turn a discourse into a narrative text? By synthesis of contemporary approaches to narrative fiction,

provides

considering in panicular Anglo-American New Criticism, Russian Formalism. French Structuralism, the Td-Aviv School of Poetics and the Phenomenology of Reading. In contrast to other studies. Nammv( Fiction is organized around the issues the text and its reading- rather than the individual theoristS or approaches. By following such a course Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan is able to offer somc persona) a description of the system governing all fictional namtives, she also suggestS drawn from texts of different periods and national literarures. ShIomith Rimmon-Kenan is Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the Hebrew Universiry, Jerusalem. Literature views on ;md modifications to the theories and, while presenting an analysis and

involved- for example, events. timc, focaliz.ation, characterization, narration.

how individual narratives can be studied against the background of this general

system. To illustrate the many aspects of her study, numerous examples are

NARRATIVE FICTION cont�mporary poetICS
Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan

11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE

29 West 35th Street New York NY 10001

1 9 780415 042949

IS�lillr��1���iflili�

......I" ,

�:;
II!'-;

.. ...

'

.

�_..,_�.

._

, .. ,

:.�

_

,

l,.

_, ___

�_

�-... <; .�!�� .

I· · ..

:
,

• ... r" ,.. ... .\

",�;,--p-,�,'

-

r.

..

• I ,. ..... # ...... ,;.,. --,-. �t- �"''''1�''''II '''''1''--1.",--, ... ..

, ,

'"

-.t . '

-

"

........

,

I

NEW ACCENTS General Editor: TERENCE HAWKES

Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics
','

!I

'

. ,�

�. {: I
f

,

IN THE SAME SERIES The Empire Writes Back: Theory and practice in post-co lonial literature Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths; and Helen TijJi.n Literature, Politics and Theory: Papers from the Essex Conference I97�4 ed. Francis Barker, Peter Hul71U, Marg aret Iversen, and DUma Loxley Translation Studies Susan Bassnett-McGuire Rewriting English: Cultural politics of gender and class Janet Batsleer, Tony Davies, Rebecca O'Rourke, and Chris Weedon Critical Practice Catherine Belsey Formalism and Marxism Tony Bennett Dialogue and Difference: English for the nineties ed. Peter Brooker and Peter Humm Telling Stories: A theoretical analysis of narrative fiction Steven Cohan and Linda M. Shires Alternative Shakespeares ed. John Drakakis The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama Keir Elam Reading Television John Fiske and John Hartley Literature and Propaganda A. P. Foulkes Linguistics and the Novel Roger Fowler Return of the Reader: Reader-response criticism Elizabeth Freund Making a Difference: Feminist literary criticism ed. Gayle Greene and Coppelia Kahn Superstructuralism: The philosophy of structuralism and poststructuralism Richard Harland Structuralism and Semiotics Terence Hawkes Subculture: The meaning of style Dick Hebdige Dialogism: Bahktin and his world Michael Holquist Popular Fictions: Essays in literature and history ed. Peter

d

'I

- .� .,-

Narrative Fiction: " ntemporary Poetics [Co
'-.-----" -

-KENAN SHLOMITH RIMMON

-�.�:�:-;-

Humm, Paul Stigant, and Peter Widdowson The Politics of Postmodernism Linda Hutcheon Fantasy: The literature of subversion Rosemary Jackson Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist literary theory Toril Moi Deconstruction: Theory and practice Christopher Norris Orality and Literacy Walter J. Ong

• •.'A

The Unusable Past: Theory and the study of American literature Russell J. Reising Adult Comics: An introduction Roger Sabin Criticism in Society Imre Salusinsdty Metafiction Patricia Waugh Psychoanalytic Criticism Eli�abeth Wright

London and New York

Series: New accenrs (Routledge) PN2J2. NT /0001 Shlmnith Rimmon-Kerum To Guy.zed in any form or by Ill!)' eIectnmic. 2001 Routledge is an imprinJ ofthe Tqylor & Francis Group Printed in Engkmd by Clays Ltd. Shlomith. British Library Rimmon-Kenan. New York.(New accents) 2.) . who suffered All rights reseroed. Fiction . 1993.Technique 1. (New accents) Includes bibliographical references and index. wiJJwut permission in writingfiom the puhlishers.3 PN3383. St lves pic © 1983 h. inclmiing photocopying and recording. 1999 (twice).. 1992.First publislud in 1983 Methuen & Co.R55 1983 808.N35 Cataloguing in Publication DalIJ Library of Congress Cauzloguing in Publication Data Rimmon-Kenan. Narration (Rhetoric) I.' Routledge II New Fetter Lane. Shlomith Narrative Fiction. No part ofthis book mqy" be reprinted or reproduced or uJi/i. I. Narration (Rhetoric) I. or in fl1!J itifimnation storage or retTUval �sltm. Ltd Reprinttdfour times by Reprinttd1 988 Reprinted 1989. 1994. Series 808. Title n. Narrative fiction. 1996. mechonical or other means. .3 82-18859 ISBN 0-415-04294-1 (phk. Title n. now Iawwn or hneqfoT irwentd. Lmtkm EC4P 4EE 29 West 35th Sind.

.�-..J .". . ---�-.2 Story: events Story:�cters Text: time Text: characterization Text: focalization Narration:>levels and voices Narration: speech representation The text and its reading Conclusion Notes Riferences Index 4 43 29 5 6 7 8 9 10 106 71 86 117 130 133 144 160 59 :".I ..' -- Contents ..-.•fijiiiJN'!4AWR -'.. .. Gmnal ediJlJr's priface Introduction xi 6 ix - - .:- Acknowledgements .. � .'. ' . � ..-"'-. --------- .

and the new attention to the nature and modes of language.e are obliged. turning it. to confront and respond to those developments in literary studies that seem crucial aspects of the tidal waves of transformation that continue to sweep across our culture. over the years. have already been the primary concern of a large number of our volumes. of course. marxism. politics and way of life that these bring. the accents of the future the language in which we deal. into the . feminism. But the question of what 'texts' are or may be has also become more and more complex. It is not just the impact of . and still seek. to be bold. dialogism. semiotics. W.! I. So we have sought. Areas such as structuralism. deconstruction. Change is our proclaimed business. post-modernism. How can we recognise or deal with the new? Any equipment we bring to the task will have been designed to engage with the old: it will look for and identify extensions and develop­ ments of what we already know. subculture. Their 'nuts and bolts' exposition of the issues at stake in new ways of writing texts and new ways of reading them has proved an effective stratagem against perplexity.General editor's preface _ . inno­ vation our announced quarry. post-structuralism. The New Accents series has made its own wary negotiation around that paradox. central concern of a continuing project. To some degree the unprece­ dented will always be unthinkable.

which the process called 'reading' may apply.ch.demand s on our attention. Eliot. Ways of life and cultur al practices of which we had barely heard can now be set compellingly beside can even confront . the general editor of this series. can offe r sitive help. such as com puter net­ works and data banks. those arrangements of oregroundi g and bac kgrounding. whose help III � clarifying my thinking on various issues was mvaluable. to say nothing of a host of bar �� ely respect­ able actIvllIes for which . of pJaCI g at the centre and of restricti � ng to the per i­ phery. and conceal sign ificant difference.s volume will continue to include these. Ov r � the years I have been helped and challenged by students III vario us courses I have taught on the subject. as an mtricate.our own. Baruch Hochman.III times of frustration. we have no reassuring names. To Ruth an I'Ijatan Nevo I am indebted for constant encouragement . copyright 1943 by T.. Ru h � . informative bibliographies. to see it. To all of them I am grateful. that has forced us to rev ise our sense of the sort of m terial t �l ? . The effect is to make us ponder the culture we hav e inherited. remforce Ignora nce.. Profes­ sor Terence Hawkes. there are stiI � J overwhelming reasons for g1Vmg It all the consideration we can muster. Narrative Fiction: Conte mporary Poetics � � Acknowledgemen ts � ? � � _ -f - � ? TERENCE HAWKES This book was begun in collaboration with Moshe Ron who.-K. for n merous � � stimulating discussions of the poetIcs of narrative fiction. Satellite televISI on and supersonic trav el have eroded t e tra itional �pacities of time and space to confirm preju­ dIce. for permission to reproduce four lines from 'Little Gidding' in Four Quarle/s. unfortunately. Small wonder if. in whom I found not only an excellent typist but also a wonderful person. . now adays. In x � addition to specific sections based on hIS contrIbution and acknowledged throughout the book. stra ightforward elucidatio n careful un­ picking. S. and for his scrupulous and perceptive comments on a large part of the manuscript. The author and publisher would like to thank Faber & Faber Ltd and Harcourt Brace JovanO\-. is that which covertl y shapes our thoughts. tha t gIV e our own way of life its distinctive character. � � � S. Joyce MiHer and Myriam Sa y. BenJam n � Hrushovski. had to withdraw in a fa rly earl s age. I also wish to thank Sylvia Farhi. perhaps for the firs . renewed 1971 by Esme Valerie Eliot. t time . . And tha t means that we can also begin to see. even un-chiJdish views o ' mics'. after all. unphIlosophlcal Ideas about 'philosophy'.R. . contllluing construction. Inc. I am al o grateful for his � participation in planning the over 1 conceptlo . has done _ much to improve the readability of my text. of stressin � g and repress­ mg. Thanks are also due to Joseph Ewen. Th ese may involve unne:vmg s yles of nar rative. unsettling notion s of 'history'. . we frequently find ourselves at the boundaries of the precedented and at the limit of the thinkable: peering into an abyss olit of which there begin to lurch wkwardly-form � ed monsters with una ccountable yet unavOI able . Harai Golomb. The unthinkable. and to question . and each New AccmJ. But if the project of closely scrutinising the new remains nonetheless � is nce rting one. In this situation.x electronic modes of com munication. Ginsburg.

,

"

I

Introduction

Newspaper.reports, history

pantomime, dance, gossip, psychoanalytic sessions are only some of the narratives which permeate our l ives. One species of

narrative will be the subject of this book: the species called 'narr(!.tive fiction', whether in the form of novel, short story or But what is a narrative? What makes the following limerick a

books, novels, films, comic strips,

narrative poem. narrative? There was a young lady of Niger \Nho smiled as she rode on a tiger. They returned from the ride With the lady inside And the smile on the face of the tiger. How can we differentiate between this limerick and the follow­ ing discourse? Roses are red Violets are blue Sugar is sweet And so are you. Why isn't the latter a narrative? And what is narrative fiction? How does it differ from other kinds of narrative? In what sense is a newspaper report. like

2

. :..

These and other quest' . ons I be onsldered '11 in some detail W throughout this book � . � l h �lpful to begi with W working definitions of ? e ey . s the tltie,thus provldmg a framework for further dell 'berat' s. Ion . P oencs IS .

'Yesterday a store in Ox ' ford Street wa bumed out a narrative but not narrative fiction ? What are the � . leatures that tum a "; b·ven d" ISCOurse mto a narrati ve text? What are the . baSlC aspects of ' narrative fiction an d h w do t�ey interact v.-ith each other? How does one mak � a specIfic narrative tex t, and how can it be described t

Narrative Fic tio n: Co nte mporary Poetics

I n troduction

��::�?

ili

: �:�� �t

fictional

the systematic stud� o f literature as literat " ure. It deals with the questlon What IS . . literature?' and with all P:'SSI e ques­ 'bl tlons developed from ' . it, such as. What IS art ill lan g ? Wh a forms and kinds of lite rature? What is the n . of o e ��t � ry genre or trend? What is th . e system 0f a particular poet's 'art . ' or 'Ianguage '? H ow . IS a story made? What are the speciii c aspects of works of lit erature. How are ? they constituted? How d0 1"terary texts embody I 'non-literary' phenomena? etc

� ��

���;�

Finally, the main interest of this book is in narratives of events. This is why I shall not consider here non­ fictional verbal narratives, like gossip, legal testimony, news reports, history books,autobiography, personal letters,etc. The fictional status of events is, I believe, a pragmatic issue. It is arguable that history books,news reports, autobiography are in some sense no less fictional than what is conventionally classi­ fied as such. In fact. some of the procedures used in the analysis of fiction may be applied to texts conventionally defined as 'non-fiction'. Nevertheless, since such texts will also have characteristics specific to them, they are beyond the scope of
this book.

ar e theoretically (and perhaps also empirically) possible (see chapter 2), I speak of a succession of events in order to suggest that narratives usually consist of more than one. Thus the lady in the limerick first rides on a tiger, then returns in it.

3

:

.- �"- ....

!

I

By 'narrative fiction' . I mean the narratl n � . of a succession of fictional events. Self-ev . ident as thIS defiDlno n may seem, . ever eless implies cer It � tain pOsitions w'th reg 1 ard to some baS. IC ISsues ill poetics To be" ; 'th b·n WI ,the tenn narration sug . gests ( I ) a communication process in which th n a s s a es r o add ess e a ( h ve � u ns t the mes age It is : this that � I distinguishes narrati � ve fic on rom narratlve s 10 other media such as film' danee, or . pantom. ime. I ' . Th e defimtion furthe sugg sts I110� narrative fiction differs from other literary tex ' suc �. as yn cal poetry or expository prose. Unlike the latt . er rat ve tl �epresent� a Succession l ' � � � � of events (Tomashevsky . �g. pub!. In Russian ' 1925). At this early stage o ·o dISCUsslon, an event ma y be defined v.ithout great ' n gour as som ething that happens, som th· e­ 109 that can be sum med up by a verb or a name of action (e g a ride - perh aps on a . tlger). Although single -event narrati\;e

(Hrushovski

1976b, p. xv)

���;���:;;. !�� � �

� :� �)� � �:� :;: :=

The foregoing definition of narrative fiction also gives rise to a classification of its basic aspects: the events, their verbal rep­ resentation, and the act- of telling or writing. In the spirit of Genette's distinction between 'histoire', 'ridl' and 'narration' (1972, pp. 71-6), I shall label these aspects 'story', 'text' and 'narration'respectively.2 . 'Story'designates the narrated events, abstracted from their disposition in the text and reconstructed in their chronological order,together with the participants in these events. Whereas 'story' is a succession of events,'text' is a spoken or written discourse which undertakes their telling. Put more simply, the text is what we read. In it, the events do not necessarily appear in chronological order. the characteristics of the participants are dispersed throughout, and all the items of the narrative content are filtered through some prism or per­ spective ('focalizer'). Since the text is a spoken or written discourse, "it implies someone who speaks or writes it. The act or process of pro­ duction is the third aspect - 'narration'. Narration can be considered as both real and fictional. In the empirical world, the

:

� ��

;

author is the agent responsible f or the production of the narra­ tive and for its communication. The empirical process of com­ munication, however, is less relevant to the poetics of narrative fiction than its counterpart within the text. Within the text,

, ,

I

" I

'1,

1

I

I

communication involv es a ,fictional narrato r transmitting a narrative to a fictional narratec. Of the three aspects of narrative fiction, the tex t is the only one directly available to the reader. It is throug h the text that he or she acquires knowle dge of the story (its obj ect) and of the narration (the proces s of its production). On the other hand, however, the narrative text is itself defined by these two other aspects: unless it told a story it would not be a narrative, and without being narrated or written it would not be a text. Indeed, story and narration ma y be seen as two meton ymies of the text, the first evoking it thr ough its narrative con tent, the second through its production .3 The relations among the aspects will be emphasized throughou t this study, and the asp ects themselves will inform the divisio n into chapters. Thus far I have sugges ted preliminary answer s to all but the last two questions set forth in the beginning of tbis introduction. These two questions diff er from the others in tha t they concern the specificity of ind ividual texts rather tha n characteristics common to all works of narrative fiction . Indeed, the co­ presence of these two typ es of question is indicat ive of the double purpose of this book. On the one hand, I wis h to present a description of the system governing all fictional narratives. On the other hand, I hop e to indicate a wa y in wbich individual narratives can be stu died as unique realiza tions of the general system . This double orientation 'calls for a mixture of theoretical considerations and illu strations from works of narrative fiction. Of COurse, some issues are more amenable to illu stration while others necessitate a mo re abstract discussion. The distribution of examples will var y accordingly. For rea son s of space and variety, I do not analyse any text in full but pre fer a discussion of extracts from many texts, deriving from var ious periods and various national literatu res. Some examples are repeated in different contexts. Thi s is done not only for the sake of reinforce­ ment but also in order to emphasize that textua l segments are junctions of various com positional principles, not ready-made examples of any one principle to the exclusi on of others (although a predominance of one is obviously possibl e). Analy­ sis require s emphasis On the issuc under conside ration, but texts are richer than anythin g such an isolation of asp ects can yield.

4 ' Narrative Fiction: Co ntemporary Poetic

s

I ntroduction

" upon Anglo-American New My presentatIon d�aws F e h Structuralism, the Tel-AvIv an F ormahs cism , Russi . � enology of Reading. H�wever , the he . . School of�oetIcs and e according to 'schools' or mdIV1�u� the book . is not structur d . 1 examp e. Hawkes 1977)' Rather, It is . theoretICIanS (as, for ' g tia'speci.fica of narratIve fieUon (e.. r ed around th � difJr. or ganiz ! lIer predilection revealed here for he events" t ime narration ) . . 'fi selectIon f speo c aspects . certain approaches s. well as the 0 Iy a personal stand on the vanous ppr�ac: I from each � P ined to tacit implication: on the issues. Nor is thIS stru;tr, conf . comments on and 't contrary, I often mam.ests ItseIf in explicit . the th eones hich are brought together. Yet modifications of �'nal theory. Indeed the tension this book d�es not �ffer theories and a presentation of between an mtegr�tlOn 0 me f the � VJ'table frustrations of any ' a personal VJew s one 0 the • 1 attempt at � synthesIs. S' mil ly it was necessary to extract without presenting the theory relevant pomts fro� eac . lications. It is hoped that the as a whole or followmg all of Its I � ged to contInue to explore this field, and d will b e encoura s:�oing to fill in some of these lacunae.

� �: ;

Cri�-

5

����

� th:: �
'

�c;-

it is images one sees. p. 13) is that story is an abstractlon from: ( . Story was defined above as the nar rated events and participants in abstraction from the text.. a mOVl'e may be told to those who have not seen It. to recog. ��':. dphers..g. manifestations of narration are subject to the s�fic eXigen­ cies of the linguistic substances thr�ug� whIch they are expressed. Hebrew) and (3) tlIe medium or sign-system (words. a The question of the story's autonom y T' ! I )t . It IS gestures o�e . gestures). French. • arrauve lorm. 2 The theoretical possibility. Hrushovski 1976a. this intuition that has led .call d 'narrativity'. its being made of separ­ able components. What I believe is called for here is a defence of the decision to treat story in isolation in this and the next chapter.". according t0 whom an . since the text is the only observable and object-like aspect of verbal narrative. •• . . ' ".<.. may be ISO1ated at I east f4 the . p. Indeed. J '. amounted to recognizing and accepting the necessity o. cinematic shots.� �.construct: the axis of temporal organization.I.1 Story: events I 2 :. leaving out the broader . in French 1969)' . lormul a . . 7).' • What emerges from these statements (an� one could add Prince 1973.i"AliA stronger stance IS taken by Grelmas. acknowledgement of Bremond's point . of abstract.t0 the .. 23· Orig. '0.SOIU"�!. the story is not directly available to the reader. . §tory. As such.as I do in chapters 4. but through them it is a story one follows. Such a view justifies attempts to disengage afann from the substanc e of the narrated content. : .'. it would seem to make sense to take it as the anchoring-point for any discussion of the other aspects . at which narrauVlty IS SItuated and . Far from seeing story as raw. '" . A commo� se� otlc level is thus distinct from the linguistic level and!s lo�cally prior to it . form probably corresponds to the lfltwuve skill 0f .. Since this is thel axis whose predominance turns a world-repres enting text into a 'narrative text I shall confine my discussion to it. and so on. was an 'autonomous layer of '. or . i.:-': f". 5 and 6. s la e : style. He goes on: '. p. organized prior to its manifestations. story is one axis within the largO. s . r. (Greimas 1977. r. whatever the language chosen for mamfestatlOn. . cessmg ston'es' being able to re-tell them. Ron's translauon) . a construc t. .e. . It .�1<1�c:t"'" '". and hence havi ng the potential of forming networks of intemal relations. . screen.T' \ .to identify the same story m vanants · is d lum.g. 4. It IS 11 .'. ) tlIe specific style of the text in questio� (e. Bein g an abstraction. 'Zh� �-\·'Q. t ros one reads.aJm'O te a claim that an immanent story structure. ' that of a novel may be carried over to the stage or .i:<RuS$l'!1i l'olIC'-Ullt. at WhlC� the . or Faulkne� s imitation of Southern dialect and rhythm. . this study stresses its structured character ..0 �:. . p..J construct which is not specifically narrative. with its proliferation of subordmate clauses. ./"1:" .. � 'B.1r:Pro 0f the same story." OUfl' l me 0 .f a fundamental distinction between two lev�� of represe�tatlon and analysis: an apparent level of narratlon. S �- I' Story: events 7 - �� . . . 1. it is a part of a larger construct. pub!. (2) tlIe language In which the text is written (English. consu�u�� a �ort of com­ mon structural trunk. ' ��c�· The sub!. In fact.."I� i. � What Propp studied in his Morphology ofthe ��.PC:<-:! ''� n '. the fictional 'reality' in which the characters of the story are supposed to be living and in whic h its events are1supposed to take place. referred to by some as the 'reconstructed� (or 'rep­ resented') world (or 'level') (e.!�:'m«:anl110 .'.Iec t 0f a tale may serve as an argument for a ballet. and It i:� may be the same story. Ir n arratologist followmg m VI adim' Propp' s f4 otb". Henry James . .G ""'. writes Bremond. �-: � (Bremond 1964. and an immanent level."'�. undiffere ntiated material. . .

I shall include under t hese headings both Issues which were explicidy raised within this framework and others which can now be seen to contribute to it.c.. .. complete with rules for the com­ bination and fubctioning of these units. . 'lose something' in paraphrase or transla�on (lose more than something.. � �. This. does not amount to grant­ mg any undlspu�ed priority. 'competence' v.. the former may be grasped as transferable from medium to medium. . 20. as with so-called natural language. stories . d and per_ ceIVed . narrative grammar �as .e. e. Hawkes 1977. in something which survives parap�rase or . and medium-dependent. I shall borrow from such grammars the concepts of deep and surface structure.. pp.5 Within this chapter it is impossible to construct a narrative grammar or even to offer an adequate su�ey of existing proposals for such a �mm:rr' Only:m eclecuc and cursory presentation of a few mam notIons denvmg from several models can be attempted here. users cannot pro­ duce or decipher stories without some (implicit) competence in respect of narrative structure.8 . and within the same language. • ��::' �menable to the type of analYSIS practIsed m lin��tIcs. a direct applicatIon of �� tive gramm futguistic methods and terms which. .. (1g67.. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Starting with story. . J � Although story is transverbal. in so�e s�nse become .?Such takes th form of � analysis frequentlywhether �mvolvmgthe �nstruCtIO of arra­ . Win not fail to take note that narrative structures present characteristics which are rem�kably �e�r­ �� rent. ou . whether logical or ontological. i. and these recurrences allow for the recording of distm­ �. parallel in structure . from language to language. However. ) to natural l n�ag � �d hence � s (i. 'parole' in Saussure. Still.. in their Holly­ wood versIOn). pp.become a highly specialized field. In other words. f (1 g6g). This IS forcefully stated by Todorov in an early work: M eaning does not exist before being articulate . using them as organizing principles for the res� of this ch�pter. readers with a fanatic atti­ tude about the 'heresy of paraphrase' (an expression_coined by Cleanth Brooks 1947) will have little use for the study of story as such. however.guishable regularities. where every �ove requlTes �or� methodolOgi­ cal considerations and more ngorous formalizatIons than I can deal with here. In so doing. S�e Culler 1975. and that �ey th�s"ea� to the constru�­ tion of a narrative grammo. . rather than with the text from which it is abstracted.: �f� The notion of narrative grammar 4i"" ' . . This competence is acquired by extensIVe practIce m readmg and telling stories. as in Todorov's Grammalre du Decameron ' :'a broader notion of 'grammar' as in Greimas's statement: The linguist. 8-10. This view can be opposed by the equally intuitive counter­ conviction of ma�y trained literary readers that literary works. there do not exist two utter ances of identical meaning if their articulation has followed a different course. In this predIcament.are in so�e subtle ways style. such a view suggests some limits on the notion of translatability in general. leading to the pro­ duction of narrative objects. . the preliminary assumption that story­ structure or narrativity is isolatable must be made at least as a �orking hy�thesis. then. even though they were deVeloped independently. to story over text (If forced to decide. Story: events 9 it is often claimed to be homolo- In recent years. p. say.. 21-2). no� excludl?g �elr story aspect. understanding such a grammar to consist in a limited number of principles of structural organ­ ization of narrative units. 'performance' in Cho�sky.. . or ' ars'.r .the claim is . In this case It 15 evIdent that he will utilize the concept of grammar in its most general and -non-metaphorical sense.'�slatio�'. Ron's translation) If accepted. I would rather opt for the latter). which undertakes to enumerate (characterize) the infinite set of sentences of a " . We are faced here with the same epistemological dialectic which binds together any opposition of the virtual and the actual (such as 'langue' v.r. The notions of deep and surface structure come from 'transformational generative grammar'.4 Indeed. language. metaphorical. .

Oedipus marnes h' mother� Anug' one .b d overratIn exampI e. the two . Nevertheless. Culler's translation 1975 . subject + predicate + indirect object . a sentence like 'Flying planes can be dangerous' has one surface structure but two deep structures. e '(Grelmas 1970 " p 161 . . the police being subject in the first and indirect object in the second.deep structure . . 7g6) 1 th�) '!:. p. the struc y. implies to give to the . hI"! to the syn_ surface structure correspondmg roug ing a tagmatic chain of Propp. recogmzmg the affinity between ture'. m the process 0f syntagm .corre�atIng one p� evcry myth is that of a four-term homolog . In theOedlp��ythioo A: B:: C: D(A is toB whatC g f.the sentences 'The police killed the thief ' and 'The thief was killed by the police' have different surface structures (subject + predicate + direct object v. er m 't broth· Spl e of the interdiction brother) · The second . his being self-bor?.Converse­ ly. the deep structure is paradigmatic..r �pru�g fiTO� th� � Imphed by ari u vict�ries over affirmation. p. the uutIal .to use traditional syntactic terminology). The negatIOn IS I 11lX.8 The for is toD). an ap�arent sl�catI dedicated to myth. 1976). Laius' thony implying imperfection): OedIpus . I 'I . s�ce his The stinction made by Levi-Strauss .e�i by Levi-Strauss the status of � � n. since the passive form is a transjormoJion of the active. the two sentences have the same deep structure. � To my mindJ!e �o� �� u l though �eren�� reim (1966.g ) and Its underranng(e. .the first opposition is between the bunes her IS . o. They also assign the same words to different structural positions. o­ e s l es n�rrat within a sem�ntIc mIcr th � � � artIculati�ns of meaning . myth revealed in the textual narratIv the same assump­ ciigmatic and achronic. but Greimas models righdy says: .S trauss.like linguists. . surfac than tive structure DeeP narra 11 � I .e. ture which underlies ' . atIzatIo ture. 'deeP struc­ term has . 797) 10 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: events unt for ive' rather they are 'designed to a� . Levi-Strauss . . Thus.Oteocles kills hi s s ongm . (1971. (Greimas 1971.e. the thief being object in the first and subject in the second.of genera� .to the notions of deep and surface structure.g. emergmg formula IS. I I language by positing a finite number of deep-structure(phrase­ structure) rules and a set of transformational rules which convert deep structures to surface structure. capable. een a neganon 0f man's autochthonou opposition is betw arth) and its (i. Al 195 bmary both consist of a correlation of two aliz ' form. 1970. cture more bne6y stru s is also why I shall discuss deep �� e structure.� I I I I. and Its deep meaning. Theorists of narrative who are interested in how the infinite variety of stories may be generated from a limited number of basic structures often have recourse. l'ke the dragon man de e (autochthe affirmation is suggested by sever� h� t swoIIen fi00. p.structure We therefore decided de p arratI ve stru = evol.with its simpler and more abstract form -lies beneath it and can only be retrieved through a backward retracing of the transformational process. This is why deep structures . . � � ���' :n : �: 0����� �r�� � �� ��!� �:-:s Whereas the surface structure of the story is syntagmatic.are not in . i. depending on whether we take it to mean 'it can be dangerous (for someone) to fiy planes' or 'planes which fiy(as opposed to those that stand) can be dangerous'. between e. relations(e. Both surface and deep narrative structures underlie the surface and deep linguistic structures of the verbal narrative text: To the two linguistic levels 1 surface linguistic structures 2 deep linguistic structures two other narrative levels are added: 3 surface narrative structures 4 deep narrative structures.even when abstracted from a story . Whereas surface Structure is the abstract formulation of the organization of the observable sentence. Oedipus kills his father. wh'le sphO and the fI cts l autochthonous creatures. of opposed mythemes WIth another. governed by temporal and causal principles. not used the egones. According to Levl. based on static logical relations among the elements(see examples in the section below).

it seems.12 N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics life M aupassant: sun (fire) Bemanos: fire Story: events 13 pairs of opposites 'says' that 'the overrating of blood relations is . 40-54: Hawkes 1977.._". p. for example. 39-43).g.Contraries. story (including its surface structure) is a nifiers which is the text. and data under some generic titles for actions (stroll.. The correlation of the two to the underrating of blood relations as the attempt to escape autochthony is to the impossibility to succeed in it' (1968. Contradictories (A v.. and is thus intangible in itself.-: -. on the other hand (A v.. are created when one seme (or . 116-18.�:J.the proairetic sequence is never more than the result of an But what does a story-paraphrase consist of? One approach.-. are mutually exclusive but not exhaustive (e.I name connoting left-sidedness. whoever reads the text amasses certain p. the se­ artifice of reading.197°) 'proaitetic': Barthes treats the activity of event-labelling as one of the five Hawkes 1977. p_ ". 'non-white'). Thus Greimasjuxtaposes tbe 'life'/'death' opposition in Bemanos to the same opposition in Maupassant: Iq quence exists when and because it can be given a name.. 'black'). and chapter 9 below).. and the square takes the following form: deaili life non-death f)\1 non-S • � non-Sl codes of reading (on the codes see Culler.1975. Greimas presents the 'semiotic square' thus: S s' s. sees the former as a series of event labels.--.. 220) The labels given to e\-ents in reading or in a stOry-paraphrase are not necessarily identical with the language used in the text.� � :. 19· Orig. etc. explicitness. pubL in French 1970. In Slz The same values can be manifested differently in different texts. B).nm) ul1folds as this process of naming takes place. Replacing 'A' and 'B' by 'SI' and lVl by writing it down as a paraphrase. Whereas the two pairs of opposites in Levi-Strauss's homo­ logy are of the same kind.. pp. can be given to the abstracted construct non-S2 In the universe of the French novelist Bemanos.They are mutually exclusive and exhaus­ tive (e. more common contradic­ tion (for a more detailed discussion see Scholes 1974-> pp.142-3). stressing the similarity of paraphrase to the spontaneous activ­ ity oflhe reader. not-A) Surface narrative structure X death Maupassant: Mont Valerien (earth) . 202-3: (1966.:. as a title is sought or confirmed. They cannot both be true. and it is therefore with paraphrases that story-analysts work. (1974. .�r. PP. v. though they might both be false (Copi 1961. pp. Greimas puts into play two kinds of .. p.:.in logic .I non-death Bemanos: air Maupassant: water Culler 1975. This how can the intangible be presented? Tangibility.:.-. -�. S1 and S2 are 'life' and 'death'.68-74. 216).one proposition) negates the other. Bemanos: water non-life Bemanos: earth (1976. pp.-.�?_:..141) Maupassant: sky (air) The problem oj description construct and an abstraction from the set of observable sig­ creates a methodological difficulty for the poetics of narrative: As stated earlier.. it non-hfe (. so that they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. calling it . 'white' v. 'white' opposed semes (the 'seme' being the minimal unit of sense): contradictories and contraries._�_. pp. p. or at least 'S2' (the'S' standing for 'seme'). renfieZ-lJ{)us). murder. .g. and this title embodies the sequence. The myth makes the problem of autochthony easier to grapple with by relating it to another. p. 966. _... See also Culler 1975.

and hence no story (Prince 1980. Some attempts along these lines have been made (see pp. would lose much of its coherence if the participants did not remain constant (if the shooter were not the killer or the wounded person not the one who was killed). But it is evident that these leave out some information necessary for the intelligibility of what happens in the story. may be said to be a change from one state of affairs to another. are distinct from narrative ones in that they are thought of as simultaneously valid according to some spatial or logical prin­ ciple which is relatively or ideally independent of temporality (Tomashevsky 1965." . Since any event involves one or more participants. This is why a narrative text or a story­ paraphrase need not include any sentence denoting a dynamic event. 20-5). Killing. Revenge. 66. a story-paraphrase arranges events according to a chronological principle. Unlike Chatman (1978. he may also change a label he gave an event at an earlier stage of his reading. providing a consis­ tent representation of the logical and semantic relations among all the events included. Success (or Fail­ ure). a succession of states would imply a succession of events. Like the labels discussed above. Killing. so. Firing. pubL in French 1969). Crime. However. Misdeed. This is the case of the fine specimen of a non-narrative text already quoted in the introduction: 'Roses are red/Violets are blue/ Sugar is sweet/And so are you'. Descriptive or expository propositions. The difference in label may depend on the level of abstraction. . then he was poor. I� �. The constitutive units ofthe surface structure The description of the paraphrase as consisting of event-labels or of propositions constructed around events implies that the events themselves are the constituent units of the story. An event. . non-story ele­ ments may be found in a narrative text just as story elements may be found in a non-narrative text. there is no temporal succession in the 'world' represented by these statements. Hit (or Miss). because it seems to me that an account of an event may be broken down into an infinite number of intermediary states. The reader may assign any of the above labels at different points in the reading process according to the needs of intelligibility. as it does in 'He was rich. So far I have adopted one approach to story-paraphrases.9 \\'hether consisting of labels or of narrative propositions. the second approach sug­ gests that instead of merely naming an event (giving it a label) it would be better to paraphrase it as a simple sentence. I do not insist on an opposition between state and event (or stasis and process). Homicide. If an event. i I I r Ii' �. p. Orig. As he progresses. discussing events in terms oflabels. then he was rich again. these simple sentences. may include the story of its construction. This is why it may be difficult at times to maintain an absolute distinction . the purpose of the paraphrase. "". Shot. Orig. p. An apparently coherent sequence of actions identified by the event-labels Shooting. But more is required of the critic or the narratologist: he must be able to abstract homogeneous paraphrases. one might add that when something happens. 49)· The presence or absence of a story is what distinguishes narrative from non-narrative texts.. 31-2). pp. If the content-paraphrase abstracted from a text is organized according to principles other than chronological then it is not a story-paraphrase and the text in question is not a narrative. �"""'".is described in the text as 'A blast was heard' or 'His fingers pressed the trigger'. but the problem of uniformity keeps cropping up. and it is with such a vague notion that I began in the introduction. p.'l1 Just as any single event may be decomposed into a st'rit's of mini-events and intermediary states.g.14 N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: events I I I I. and the description of a cathe­ dral. pubL in Russian 1925). it can be labelled variously as Pressing a Trigger. 112� Greimas 1977. A novel may well include the description of a cathedral. Murder. p. called nar­ rative propositions. This poses the problem of non-uniform labelling.. To make this a bit more useful for the purpose of the present study. 'The Fall of the Roman Empire'). Breakdown of Order (or Re-Establishment of Order). 29. All four propositions are simul­ taneously true. Wounding.a vast number of events may be subsumed und!'r a single event­ label (e. and the integration of other items of information from the text. are different from the sentences of the text (Todorov 1977. for example. Viola­ tion. then.conversely . say in a guide book.l0 An event is defined by the OED as a 'thing that happens'. the situation usually changes.

kernels' ) and those that expand. But the very notion of causality is by no means unproblematic. amplify. 1 927) 12 be based on an distinguish the story-line involving Lear and his daughters from the one concerning Gloucester and his sons. Between the macro­ sequences and the story. the second type 'satellites ' ) . 46) . 1 27). Thus in is structured like the complete story. Without embarking on a philo­ sophical discussion of the issue. Milton wrote Paradise then he wrote Paradise Regained. it is worth noting that two quite diff erent senses of the term are often used as if they were one. It is a conventional 'norm' which has become so widespread as to replace the actual multilinear temporality of the story and acquire a pseudo-natural status. or what is sometimes called 'natural chronology'. CAUSALITY Temporal succession. Chatman 1 966. 'The king died and then the queen died of grier is a plot. In aids the runaway convict. the emphasis falling on causality. micro-sequences events combine to create which in tum combine to form macro-sequences A story­ which jointly create the complete story. pp. How are events combined into sequences and sequences into a Causality can either be implied by chronology or gain an explicit status in its own right. and of Milton's life where the humour resi des precisely in the cause and eff ect relation which can be read into the explicit temporal succession. Chatman 1 969. events may become simultaneous and the story is often multilinear rather than unilinear. curse. strict succession can only be found in stories with a single story? The two main principles of combination are temporal Great Expectations ( 1 860/6 1 ) the six. 93. main story-line. Two dillerent kinds of answer are possible: ( I ) according to the logic of verisimilitude (made .or -seven-year-old Pip cal order. A succession of implicit application of the logical error: post events which involves another set of individuals is a story-line. Events can be classified into two main kinds: those that 1 4. Suppose we want to know 'why' in the early part of Dickens's TIME As Todorov points out ( 1 966. These are catalysts . an alternative is opened and the event is therefore a kernel. although the two often in tersect. publ. Structural descriptions show how with the principle of causality . involves a convention which identifies it with ideal chronologi­ fact. is neither natural nor an actual characteristic of most stories.1 9. a character can either answer it or not. The minute there is more than one character. as Barthes points out. it is sometimes convenient to disengage an intermediary unit which may be called line i s restricted t o one set o f individuals. then his wife died. A plot is also a narrative of events. the 'and then' principle. Once a succession of events involving the same individuals establishes itself as the predominant story element of a text (and. 'The king died and then the queen died' is a story. I f a telephone rings. unfortunately. Strict linear chronology. the character may scratch his head. By way of example we may cite the witty account Lost. Principles o combination f subsidiary ( 1 966. King Lear o n e can ( 1 963. I ndeed. 9-1 0. hoc. 3. then.' that's why' or ' therefore' . 1 978 calls pp.they do not open an alternative but 'accompany' the kernel in various ways. but unlike the latter i t 'story-line'. etc. siories may p. light a cigarette. p .16 N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics the notion of 'event' and tllat of 'succession of Story: even ts line or even with a single character. maintain or delay the former ( 'catalysts ' ) ( Barthes events' . Orig. Half a century ago Forster used these two combinatory principles to distinguish between two types of narrative which he called respectively 'story' and 'plot ' : We have defined story a s a narrative of events arranged in time-sequence. the notion of story-time succession and causality. p. it becomes the But there is nothing to prevent a causally-minded reader from supplementing Forster's first example with the causal link that would make it into an implicit plot (see also Chatman 1 978. there are n o clear-cut criteria for predominance) . is often coupled between advance the action by opening an alternative ( . p. But between the ringing of the phone and the answer (or the decision not to answer). ergo propter hoc 1 0) .

and ('2) the counter. or ana logy) as obliga tory criteri a . then he lost lots of money. Finally. con­ cerned with purpose) . The first and the third events are stative.. he was poor. sufficient as a mi1limal requirement f a group of events to f or orm a (I) causality can often (always?) be projected onto temporali ty. 31 ) ore he seeks her out'. would b e recognized b y readers a s a story. of course. without as yet becoming causal. we posit causality and closure ( t hrough inversion. the three events are conjoined by conj un ctive features in such a way that (a) the first event precedes the second in time and the second precedes the third. f ollowed by a Are the two combina tory principles equally necessary to turn a group of events i n to a story. ' This. then they resume their aff air i n Moscow. then the temporal conjunction requires us to imagine some world where these events can co-exist. I would like to argue that temporal succession is story.i n t u i tive nature of Prince's requiremems.. like h i m . or is one more basi c than the other? Here is Prince's definition of a minimal story: A minimal story consists of three conjoined events. theref she comes to Moscow . p. If. f Orig.e .' B u t if we accept this as the possible paraphrase of some text (perhaps a narrative pastiche by Robert Coover or Donald Barthelme). The second type is i n fact teleological (i. supply causal connections by writing into the paraphrase proposi tions like 'he is unhappy'. e . Chekhov's ' Lady with Lapdog' ( 1 9'2 7 . temporal succession in itself is a rather loose link. Fur­ thermore. Take. ( I 973. arranged in chronologi­ cal order would constitute a story? Theoretically speaking. the answer must be Yes. and (b) the second causes the third. TIME. but teleology of this kind is often grasped as 'f orward causality ' .- � -" . ('2) according to the. she to her husband i n a provincial town. bu t the text goes a long way toward preventing such causal connec­ tions from becoming obvious and presenting the conj unction of events as inevitable but not necessarily causal. Nevertheless. An example of a minima l story provided by Prince is: 'He was rich. structural needs of the plot: this act is necessary f or Magwitch to be grateful to Pip so as to wish to repay him : without it the plot would not be the kind of plot it is. in fact. but they are not symmetrically related (the characters are not 'happy' as opposed to 'unhappy' or vice versa ) . the third event is the inverse of the first.l· as stories would to . then Gurov goes to her town to seek her out. if the same i ndividuals (or a closely related group of individuals) remain constant as the participants in the series. " Does this mean t h a t a n y two events. the chain of events does not display any obvious inversion or closed cycle: the state of aff airs at the end is different from the initial one. One could.--� . although i t lacks Prince's conj u nctive feature 'as a result'. True. the second is active. and eatures on which their quality as stories is most often the f judged. not only can the story be recognized as story even without them.e repetition. then. i .' ' ' The above definition requires three principles o f organization: temporal succession: ( '2 ) causality: ( 3 ) i nversion (which I take to be one of several f orms of closure based on symmetry or balance ) . a sense of completion) may be the most interesting f eatu res of stories. then Don Quixote meets with the goatherds' etc. The link will become a bi t tighter. While granting t h a t causality and closure ( i . it implies that the events in question occur in the same represen ted world.e. then Don Quixote converses with Sancho. by the text): the child was frightened into submission.' However. then he returns to his family in Moscow. many groups of we i n t ll i t ivdy recognil. then they have an affair. then Don Quixote battles the gallant Basque.. pub!. For example: 'Don Quixote fights the windmills. CAUSALITY AND THE NOTION OF MINIMAL STORY or instance. I believe. My argu ment is based on: ( I ) the above suggestion that which ha . events be excluded from this ca t egory . as a res u l t .18 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: events 19 prominent. Likewise. in Russian 1 899) which may be summarily para­ phrased as f ollows: " Gurov meets Anna Sergeyevna in Yalta. or 'she is still causal conjunction like 'theref ore i n love with him. as distinct from the 'backward causality' of the first type. There would indeed be something very odd about the f ollowing bit of story: 'Little Red Riding-Hood strays into the forest and then Pip aids the runaway convict.

In one sense. whereas the second is a variant of a function labelled 'Marriage' (i. 3 A sorcerer gives Ivan a little boat. tales (one type of folktale). p. the constant elements have to be abstracted from the variable. In another .e. 4 A princess gives I van a ring. The constant element is called a 'fu nction'. for example. But what is done may also contain a variable aspect: the same event. in Russian 1 928) is to unearth the common pattern governing the narrative propositions abstracted from a corpus of close to two hundred Russian fair). For this purpose. both their names and their attributes are variable. Compare. pp. but it may also be a bias caused by his I I 1 '\ The only constant element in all four cases is the transfer of someone by means of something obtained from someone to another kingdom. a hero receives money from his father in the form of 1 00 rubles and subsequently buys a wise cat with the money. Functions may remain constant even when the identity of the performer changes. may fulfil different functions: if. the hero's reward) which ends the talc. 28) . pro 2 1. we have before us two morphologically different elements . and its meaning for Propp is ' an act of a character.Iogico-mathematical . The boat takes Ivan to another kingdom. But those that do occur. regardless of how and by whom they are fulfilled.points (the first of which I have already discussed): Functions of the characters serve as stable. This 'determinism' may be dictated by the material Propp analysed. 2 1 ) Consequently Propp labels his functions in a way that would express the differences in their contribution to the plot even when they are given the same designation in particular texts or when their general semantic content seems identical. This is why Propp insists that the study of what is done should precede 'the questions of who does it and how it is done' (p. the common pattern of many singular propositions derived from the text of many particular stories. The horse carries Sucenko away to another kingdom. in one instance. mode of action by which i t fulfils i ts purpose' . The eagle carries the hero away to another kingdom . i. whereas in the second case. 2 An old man gives Sucenko a horse. ( 1 g68. 26-63). pp. 3 The sequence offu nctions is always identical. Thus the first of the two events mentioned in the example is defined as 'Receipt of a Magical Agent' and occurs near the middle of the tale. is thirty-one (see list 1 968. and so forth. always appear in the same order. 1 8-20) I VLADIMIR PROPP a sum of money for an accomplished act of bravery (at which point the tale ends) . specific events and participants constituting the individual stories (as well as the propositions abstracted from them). The identity of the participants in this event may change from tale to tale. defined from the point ofview of its significance for the course of the action' ( 1 968. publ. a function is the 'activity proper to anything. in this case its contribution to the plot. the hero is rewarded v. according to Propp.sense. 2 1 ) .F 20 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: even ts 2I Two descriptive modtls The aim of Propp's pioneering study (orig. the following events: A tsar gives an eagle to a hero. This is appropriate because what Propp investigates are p ropositional funclions.e.in spite of the identical action (the transference of the money) in both cases. (Propp 1 968. located at different points of the story. the term denotes a 'variable quantity in relation to others by which it may be expressed' ( OED) .3) The number of functions. Young men appearing from out of the ring carry Ivan away into another kingdom. constant ele­ ments in a tale. 2 The number offunctions known to the fairy tale is limited.ith . The above explanation suggests (although Propp does not say this explicitly) that the choice of 'function' may have been motivated by two different dictionary senses of this term. They need not and in fact do not all occur in any one fairy tale. Propp summarizes his conclusion in four . 4 All fairy tales are of one type in regard to their structure. (p.

As with Propp. for example. I t is this. the horizontal axis of the chart (see pp. is joined to Oedipus' survival sequence in this way. pot � ntI� hty (objectIve defined) -[ accomplished task = success of means 1 process of actualization (steps taken ) -E s u ccess (objective reached) failure (objective missed) I n Chart I below there is an example of an embedded sequence which is dominated by the second function (rather than by the first as in Bremond's example) : Laius' attempt to ward off the dangers emanating from his son takes the form of ( a) an intent to ailure of kill Oedipus. ironic novellistic plots ) . and outcome. whereas the vertical axis represents relations that are both logical. Having defined a function by its contribution to the next function and having 'j ustified' this by the dictum 'Theft orced' (p. each function opens two alterna· tives. comic v. This relation is expressed by the symbol 'v: (although '=' . which opens a new sequence.'� Rather than automatically leading to the next function. \\'hat �s «n 1nlprovcmrnt In the state of one character may be ipsofacto a deterioration in the � � . as i n Propp. p. English translation modified) The notion of bifurcation preserves a measure of freedom and allows f the description of plots where the Struggle with the or Bremond sometimes. a plot often praised for its tight logical structure. process. After explicating the model. with each stage matched against its counterpart ( really anot er label lor the s� me s� ate or even t ) n the othfr st: qucncc. Such elementary sequences tend to combine into complex sequences in one of three ways: 1 Enchainment. I shall present Ron's application of it to Sophocles' Oedipus Rex. 75. Propp is cannot take place before the door is f bound to find a constant order governing his functions. folk-tale 'or romance v. (b) an action taken to do so and (c) the f this action. Every three functions combine to form a sequence in which they punctuate three logical stages: possibility (or potentiality). = 2 Embedding (Bremond's term is 'enclave') : one sequence is inserted i n to another as a specificat ion pr detailing of one of its functions. However. CLAUDE BREMOND Wishing to account for the possible bifurcations at each point of the story (even those that are not realized in the unfolding of a given tale) . 24-6) rep­ y resents relations among states and events which are onl logical. . uses ) Laius' sequence. f or the sake of clarity and illustration. Bremond offers the following example: task to accomplish speaking. 1 973). that Claude Bremond criticizes in Propp's theory." It may thus provide a f ormal ground for comparing diff erent but related plot-patterns (e. In thiS m a n ner. or 'back to back' succession: the outcome (f unction 3) of one sequence amounts to ( ) the potential stage (f nction / ) of the next. An example of this appears in Chart I II: u Oedipus' granting of the appeal is tantamount to a duty (or a promise) on his part. non-actualization (no steps taken) (Bremond 1 966. This structure can be schematized i n the f orm of a sort of horizontal tree: procedure for = putting means into operation accomplishing the task means to use i i . I shall also draw on this application d uring the explication itself. 20) . Roughly Villain. and chronological. inconsistently.g. the function is the basic unit for Bremond. among other things. tragic plots. 3 Joining: the same triad of events has a double narrative relevance and must be redundantly ranged under two character names . two directions the story can subsequently take. Bremond constructs a model which is more logically than temporally oriented ( / 966.22 N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: events 23 method. used as example f or type 2. does not always end in Victory.

__ 'I.� II [Thebes] bad s tate: harassmen t :� � I I: .. ... ... f il u rt. I � L attempt to ward off Uocasta] [Thebes] orr. "" "irtijpjEr-' ttl 7 " .'..... hailing pa re nts) 2 d ange rs: � I "1' . !I .. . ._ " -�"'-'--� "'-"I. �tt1n" Z.. ..'"nrr ... h " .....·�'"l. .t \ . .The plol O Sophocles ' Oedipus Rex according to Bremond's method (slightly modified) f �ood state: possl"ssion of lif e possession of wife [ Laius] I loss of wife ... action to rleteriorarion kill son ( loss) tribulation good state: I' -1 f ilure to a kill son [" 1'"' ' survival parricide i n ces t adoption (i.._ ' . .. re ma rri ag e . . .t'. U . · h· ..... ri+ii... : .1' . .. I i... ' rt f"' • • 1r> . to ward a .��t·r.. I I Uocasla] by sphinx remarrying II possibility of '[. -- .. "- defea ted x LThebes] = king 'r ound throne & queen won f ailure to ward off danger no. ' ..r'I . �. A failure 10 wa rd L_ntl'(lntHIIO.. 2: incest t x � • victory over sp h i nx II... _� n . nn . .."..·..i ... chance to win throne & queen action to win throne & queen .a ttempt to '" 2 d a n gers: l oss ofl i f c [Oedipus) ward off I intent 10 wo '" mortal t1roc('SS . selection process need to def eat SPhin struggle s ph i n v.. . " I: ' .' II ' • '. 111 1 e n eed t d ef at sp h in t ' II ' Ii action ag ai n s t s phinx I x process of im provemenl i m proved state = + need f or king [Oedip us] selection process v.. ·r...tiJlI't I I..I I • '_.

characters like the shepherd and the messenger. and a process of deterioration follows. Some work along these lines has been done (e. Having presented a few deep-structure and a few surface­ structure models. Story: events 27 '1 !! II 11 I ' I. Reaching its rock bottom stage (e. this can give rise to further im­ provement (finding a new wife).-. and Greimas J 976). (3) This mt"thod cannot represent characters' awareness of the significance of events or any modalities of know­ ledgt". but when it is not. . Note that events affecting more than two characters seem to require additional axes. ! . Thus the first chart begins with a good state (Laius possesses both life and wife) and ends with a bad one (Laius dies) . by Doleiel 1 97 J . it begins with Thebes being harassed by the sphinx and ends with the defeat of the sphinx). state of another. :. it should be noted that i n ambiguous plots i t may be impossible to classify states neatly into 'good' and 'bad'. but further develop­ ment is clearly called for. although functional. a lack of a wife) and finally establishes equilibrium (e.g. This can be the end of the story. (2) For clarity's sake t llt'se charts disng ard certain character perspectivcs and the sequences that go wi t h them (Creon.�_ - 't··''.g. �lessengerl. all sequences. However. Even less work has been done on the transition from narrative structures to linguistic structures (if indeed there is such a transi tion) . divorce) .. The second chart does the reverse (i.. In the charts the number of axes is kept down by disregarding the perspectives of minor.. finding a wife: marriage). (4) This method does not strictly represent relations of succession and simultaneity between t"vents. and so on ad infinitum (at least in theory) . . the time has come to say that a complete model should also include the transformations leading from the former to the latter. . An improvement sequence begins with a lack or a disequilibrium (e.. and the third again begins with bad (plague) and ends with good ( the city is saved) . . Thus Greimas: I t is the passage from level three where narrative objects are located to level two upon which linguistic discourses organNolrj : ( I ) Chart I I I represents action taking place on stage.g.e.g. at least all macro­ sequences. the equilibrium is disturbed (e. Consequently Chart I I I ignores Thiresias and his prophecy.g. Shepherd.=-� ::. Chart I and somc aspects of I I could possibly be rmbt"dded in I I I under 'process of obtaining evidence'. the wife runs away) . are either of improvement or of deterioration. According to Bremond. I and I I past events reveal rd during the stage action. and by inserting a third and f ourth perspective horizontally as a pis"aller.

and in the present chapter I shall indicate why this is so. (Lipski 1 976. however.28 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics ized by narrativity are unravelled that the greatest difficulties in i nterpretation arise. non-reductive but also non-impressionistic theory of character remains one of the challenges poetics has not yet met. without either quantitative or q ualitative gaps intervening. Her . p. what can no longer be written is the Proper Name' ( 1 974. the death of humanism. in French 1 970) . 'What is obsolescent in today's novel'. our century has also heard declarations concerning the death of character. the situation has not changed significantly to date. Objecting not only to the notion of psychological depth bu t also to the corollary one of individuality. 95· Orig. pp. 797) I am not at all convinced that. it is the character. 'pre-human' stra tum underlying all individual variations. My own contribution. falls short of this goal. Several years ago a review of the state of the art concluded: Despite the variety of models. the elaboration of a systematic. Thus Alain Robbe-Grillet ( 1 963. P. 202) To my knowledge. I ndeed. the death of tragedy. from the reader's perspective. says Barthes. 'is not the novelistic. there is as yet no clear method of traversing the path from the concrete text to the abstract narrative structure. The death of character? 3 S tory: characters "t In addition to pronouncements about the death of God. p. modelled on a traditional view of man. that of character has not. Nathalie Sarraute focused on an 'anonymous'. the passage from s urface lingu istic structures ( I ) to surface narra­ tive structures (3) necessarily leads through deep linguistic structures (2 ) . pub!. Whereas the study of the story's events and the links among them has been developed considerably in contemporary p0etics. Various features which had been considered the hallmarks of character. ( 1 97 1 . 3 1-3) rejected 'the archaic myth of depth' and with it the psychological conception ofcharacter. were denied to both by many modern novelists.

387). ( i n Aldous Huxley ( ed . p .1 . thus calling i n to q u estion the belief in the ego's stability. I believe. p . And Helene Cixous q uestions not only the stabili ty but adequately account f or their place and functioning within the narrative network? Moreover. p u b J . but by more of poetics. an ti-bourgeois i d eology (even if i t is accepted) lead us to ignore that which is p l ainly central in a given corpus of narratives? The developmen t of a theory of character. is 'always more than one. w h i ch make him a space i n which forces and ·eve n t s meet rather than an individuated essence. or this or that ' f basic problems to which I now turn. is a myth. would be ' plunged and remain i m mersed to the end in a s u bstance as a nonymous as blood. Lawrence protested against ' the old­ - ri chly d elinea ted autono mous wholes. 2 30) But is character as 'dead ' as all that? I don ' t so m u ch care about what the woman feels with. Virginia Woolf for example. and discerned a shift from o n e to the other which has become much more conspicuous since he wrote: One of the recurring anxieties of l iterary critics concerns the way in which a character in drama or fiction may be said to exist . I 30 Narrative Fiction: C on temporary Poetics . ) 1 932. p. The 'purist' argumen t . then. Nails are added to i ts coffin by various contem porary theorists.--. in a magma without name. or do they on l Y dis � antle a certain . allotropic states '.r? Already in 1 96 1 Marvin Mudrick had f ormulated the two extreme views of character s uggested in the title of this section. even if we grant the 'death' of character in contemporary literature. The ' r ealistic' a rgument . pp. I only care about what the woman is - in the dispense with i t al toge � her. the concept of character changes or d isappears. s tructuralists would say. Story: characters 3I reader. 74. quasi-chemical element. Orig. in his 1 9 1 4 letter to Edward Garne t t . the underlying non-h uman. physiologically.i n the ascendancy nowadays among critics . If the seif is a constant flux or i f i t is a 'group acting together ' . saw .�- . Orig. m a terially . " ! ! . . .on the defen- .' Additional conceptions of change and diversity replaced the notion of stability i n the writing of other modem novelists. a group acting together' The mode of existence of character: two problems ( 1 974. pub!. fashioned h u m a n element" and declared: D. A nd q u i te a bit earlier. Struct uralists can hardly accommodate character within their theories. The noti on of character. because of their commitment to an ideo­ logy which 'decentres' m a n and runs counter to the notions of individuality and psychological depth:2 Stress on the i n terpersonal and conventional systems which traverse the i n d ividual. 1� . p . also the u n i ty of the self. character (and lif i n general) as a flux and wanted to ' record the e atoms as they fall upon the m i n d ' ( 1 953. [hat any effort to extract them from their con text and to discuss tbem as if they are real h uman beings is a sentimental misunderstanding of (he n a ture of li terature. d iverse. capable of being al l those it will at one time be. C haracter. clearly distinguished from others by physical and psychological characteristics. 1 956. (Culler 1 975. without contour' ( 1 965. according to her. My transla tio n ) . H . 1 925). J 53-5 . can we also retrospec­ tively 'kill' him in nineteenth-century fiction? Should a non­ human ist. she hoped . traditiona l concept of It? Can the changmg notIOns be seen as Do the new views ordinary usage of the word.points out that characters do not exist at all except i nsofar as they are a part of the images and events which bear and move the m. . the 'old stable ego' disinte­ grates." J ' . has been i m peded not only by the ideology ofthis or that 'school ' ashion' in literature. The '1 ' . is pronounced 'dead' by many mod ern writers. Lawrence also substituted for the notion of the persistence of traits that of . 1 98) nevertheless leaving some COnstitutive characteristics recogniz­ able ? Isn'tJoyce's Bloom a c haracter in some sense of the word? And do not even the minimal d epersonalized characters of some mod em fiction 'deserve' a non-reductive theory which will Together with the rejection of individuality i n f avour of 'carbon ' . leads to a rej ection of a prevalent conception of charactf'r in the novel: that the most successful and 'li\ing' characters are People or word. That presumes an ego to feel what she I S inhumanly.! Ii.

. p. characters lose their privilege. 2 I I ) As emerges from Mudrick's statement. . (Chatman 1 978. yet not a single word of the text in which they came alive. What remains? I f both approaches end up ca� celhng the specificity of fictional characters. pu bl.by defimtlon ­ non (or pre-) verbal abstractions. Weinsheimer analyses the ways i n which Jane Austen' s Emma. of which B radley's analyses of Shakespeare's charac­ ters ( 1 965.g. and their definition. p. one-sided view was quoted above. 2go) ? I thmk It IS. that the two extreme positions can be thought of as relatmg to diff erent aspects of narrative fiction. In the text charact� r� are nodes in the verbal design. 1 ( 8) . is Morrover. of course. design' (Price 1 968. whereas in the story they are ext�acted from theIr . in semiotic theories they dIssolve l?tO textuality. textu alized..::: -�-� . e.i nsists that characters acquire. 1 87. prOVIded one re ahzes . too many ballets have shown the folly of s�:h a restriction. traditionally considered one of the most 'person-like' characters in English literature.32 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: characters 33 sive nowadays . and that they can be usef ully discussed at some distance from their context. (p. characters are mextrIcable f rom the re� t of the design. i n the text.. ends his article with a recognition of the complex status of The equation of characters with 'mere words' .. it is precisely for this reason that such an analysis fails to discover the diff erentia specifica of characters in narrative fiction.with greater or lesser sophistication .:. 'he is a Hamlet'. however. their central status. 1 95) T o demonstrate h i s point. 1 904) is perhaps the best known ex­ ample. Orig. too many captlonless SIlent films. indeed.-. in some sense. As segments of a closed text.. Similarly. Whereas in m i metic theories (i . whose extreme. (Weinsheimer 1 979. However. - .. in the course of an action. whilst also abstracting them from the verbal texture of the work under consideration. motifs which are continually recontextualized in other motifs.-.. characters at most are patterns of recurrence. he makes the following provocative statement: 'Emma Woodhouse is not a woman nor n eed be described as ifit were' ( 1 979. The 'if. characters dissolve. they are partly modelled on the reader's conception of people and in this they are person-like : . An ex­ is telling) . In semiotic criticism.. tends to speculate about the characters' unconscious motivations and even constructs for them a past and future beyond what is specified in the text. character names often serve as 'labels' for a trait or cluster of traits characteristic of non-fictional human beings. This not only follows from the defimtlon of story but is also borne out by experience: ? treme formulation of this argument. sought? Can such a perspective reconcile the two oppose positions witlwut 'destroying' character between them? Is It possible to see characters 'at once as p ersons �nd as parts ?f a . This does not mean that they are metamorphosed into inanimate things (a la Robbe-Grillet) or reduced to actants (a la Todorov) but that they are textualized.. should the study of character be abandoned.. as abstractions from the text. .is wron � on other grounds. Even Wcin­ sheimcr. assimilates character to other verbal phenomena in the text to the extent of destroying its specificity in its own way: Under the aegis of semiotic criticism. should both approaches be rejected and a different perspective . I venture to say that readers generally remember characters tha t way. . are equated with people. . Although these constructs are by no means human beings in the literal sense of the word. Such an approach. That the differentia speci a are of a verbal and non-re­ jic presentational order is what the so-called ' purist' (nowadays we would probably say 'semiotic') argument emphasizes. or . constructs. the so-called 'realistic' argument sees characters as imitations of people and tends to treat them . though from dIfferent standpoints. p. textuality. a kind 9f independence from the events in which they live.. i n the story they are . an imitation of reality) chara�ters .. Too often do we recall fictional characters VIVIdly.' A position of this kind facilitates the construction of a theory of character because i t legitimizes the transference o f ready-made theories from psychology or psychoanalysis. p.-. Too many mimes.as if they were our n eighbours or friends.. . In the course ofthe analysis. c. theOries which conSIder literature as..

formalist and structuralist poetics recognizes the methodological necessity of reduction. Orig. remain to be analysed.two acleurs . Since action seems more easily amenable to the construction of 'narrative grammars' (often based on verb-cen tred grammars of na tural languages) . 208) .ns. p. the helper.e. The apple is the object (Hamon 1 9 77.. in 1 970 he gives character a separate code ( the semic code) and even ponders the possibility that 'what is proper to narrative is not action but the character as a Proper Name' ( 1 974. and the same acteur can be assigned to more than one actant. p. 80. 3) and both can include not only human beings (i. instead of subordinat­ ing character to action or the other way round. Thus Propp ( 1 968. a character may perform more than one role (e. especially in preliminary phases of an inquiry.. for several reasons. Greimas ( 1 966. it may be possi blr. in the sentence 'Pierre buys himself a coat'. The forms of this interdependence. but both are c�n­ ceived of as accomplishing or submitting to an act ( 1 979. pub!.g. later as donor and helper) and conversely. a view shared by formalists and structur­ alists of our own century.s j I - i fi !! I -�" " 1 . 1 972). Thus.F ' - . II I I ! • j I I I t 2 !Ii . the dispatcher. 'characters' ) but also inanimate objects (e. where­ as the number of ac/ants is reduced to six in Greimas's �odel : The same aclanl can be manifested by more than one acleur. in fact. a role may be fulfilled by more than one character (e. Second.'1: :� I 1 . one acteur ( Pierre) functions as two actants (sender and receiver). it is convenient to reduce character to action .g.1 8) .' On the other hand.g. In addition to the decentring of man discussed above. believed characters to be necessary only as 'agents' or 'performers' of the action ( 1 95 I . i :. Pierre and Paul . p. methodo­ logical considerations also lead to such subordination.are one actant: sender.g. it is only in relation to it that they possess those qualities of coherence and plausibility which make them meaningful and comprehensible. 1 37. p. Na r rati ve Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: characters 35 character. the sought-for-person and her father. the hero and the false hero. Orig. Thus whereas in 1 966 Barthes clearly s ubordinates character to action (pp. Aristotle. there is more than one villain in Great Expec­ talions) . the opposed subordinations can br taken as rdative to typrs of narrative rather than as absolute hierarchit's. per­ sonified texts that are characters' (p. 1 3 1 ) . 34 i . It is not only so-called traditional critics who tend to reverse the hierarchy between action and character discussed above: some structuralists also envisage this possibility. First. To illustrate: i n the sentence ' Pierre and Paul give an apple to Mary ' . it is known. � � . a magic ring) and abstract con­ cepts (e. He now talks a bout 'the textualized perso. arteurs are numerous. 1 973. the donor. sender helper -+ -+ object subject i -+ receiver opponent - � " I� r� r· f Being or doing Another problem is the subordination of character to action or its relative independence of it. p.. 34) . pubI. In a given narrative. 1 5. This indeed is he the thrust of Henry James's famous dictum: 'What is character but the determination of incident? What is incident but the illu stration of character?' ( 1 963.-. p. Magwitch in Great Expectations first appears as villain. though for different reasons. I n fact he distinguishes between 'acleur' and 'aclant'. :. pub!. 1 884) . I n a similar vein. destiny) . And Ferrara attempts to construct a model f a or structural analysis of narrative fiction with character as the central notion: In fiction the character is used as the structuring element: the objects and the events offiction exist . ( 1 974. Orig. Tht'Tr are narratives in which character predominates (so-called � . . The difference between [he two is that art­ ants are general categories underling all narratives (and not only narratives) whilr arteurs are i nvested with specific quali­ ties in different narrativt's.in one way or another­ because of the character and. 252) Can the opposed views be reconciled? Again I would answer in the positive. Mary is another: receiver.at least in the first stage.- - i! . 1 979) indicates the subordination of characters by calling them ·aclanls' . Like any scientifically oriented discipline. in Russian 1 928) subordinates characters to 'spheres of action' within which their performance can be categorized according to seven general roles: the villain.to consider L two as interdependent. however.

a character's daily visits to his mother may be grouped together with his daily quarrels with her and generalized as ex's relations with his mother' . what are we to read? will. to subject the sentences of a text to a semantic transformation. For the moment. it consists in hesitating among several names: if we are told that Sarrasine had ' one o IhOJt strong wills that kllou' no f obstacle ' . The character's relations with his mother can subsequently be com­ bined with similar generalizations about his relations with his wife. p. but action can become subordinate to character as soon as the reader's interest shifts to the latter. p. are examples of what Chatman calls 'trait'.g. indicating degrees and qualifications (e. On the contrary.? ( 1 974. This category in tum can be combined Story: characters 37 . can also be grouped together with his other quarrels (rather than with other mani­ festations of his relations with his mother) and generalized as. An attributive proposition. But elements can be subordinated to more than one pattern. however. e. Different hierarchies may be established in different readings of the same text but also at d ifferent points within the same reading. p. obstinacy. stub bornness.- " ". his friends. pub\. 1 25) . 67. the equivalent of the verb 'to be') ( 1 978. P· 73) · The transition from textual element to abstracted trait or attributive proposition is not always and not necessarily as immediate as would seem to emerge from the studies mentioned above. Between the twO extremes. ' tran bemg defined as a 're!atlvely stable or abiding personal quality' and 'paradigm' suggesting that the set of traits can be seen 'metaphorically. to form a higher category labelled 'X's relations with people'. X's quarrels with his mother. 1 9 76a. Hence it is legitimate to subordinate character to action when we study action but equally legitimate to subordinate action to character when the latter is the focus of our study. 'X's fou l temper'. 92) According to Chat man ( 1 978). Following H rushovski (forthcoming). a predicate (e. 2 1-2. whereas Sinbad's 'character' exists only for the sake of the action. there are . energy. Chatman describes a trait as 'a narrative adjective tied to the narrative copula' (i. for example. it is often mediated by various degrees of generalization. 6). 'insane') and a 'modalizer'. Using a linguistic analogy.e. 'Othello is jealous' . is synonymous with the act of reading: To read is to struggle to name. The reversibility of hierarchies is characteristic not only of ordinary reading but also of l iterary criticism and theory. in French 1 97 1 ) . Depending on the element on which the reader focuses his attention. Thus characters may be subordinated to action when action is the centre of attention. 'questionable'. p. I would like to suggest that the construct called character can be seen as a tree-like hierarchical structure in which elements are assembled i n categories of increasing integrative power.I ! I l r.g. who developes Barthes's views in his own way. put together by the reader from various indications dispersed throughout the text. Thus. This transformation is erratic. Orig. 'Sarrasine is feminine'. 1 2 7). accord­ ing to him. 73 ) to speak of the reconstruction of character in terms of 'attributive propositions'. let us cling to the first pattern.8 Thus an elementary pattern may be established by linking two Or more details within a unifying category. p. the reversibility of h ierarchies may be postulated as a general principle extending beyond the question of genres or types of narrative (Hrushovski 1 974. etc. he may at various points subsume the available i nformation under different hierarchies.g. Third. his boss. pp. How is character reconstructed from the text? 36 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics I have said above that in the story character is a construct. what is named in the case of character are personality traits. p. Raskolnikov's actions serve mainly to character­ ize him. in his view. as a vertical assemblage intersecting the syntagmatic chain of events that comprise the plot' ( 1 978. perhaps with the additional label 'ambivalence'. consists of a character's name (or its equivalent). I t is probably this type of link between the character and the quality that leads Garvey ( 1 978.' ! �de�d . ' to some extent') ( ' 978. '" psychological narratives) and others in which action does (a­ psychological n a rrat ives) (Todorov 1 977. say.of course different degrees of predominance of one or the other element.· This 'putting together' or reconstruction is described by Barthes as part of the ' process of nomination' which. for Chatman chara�ter is a para­ _ digm of tratts.

and on M me Merle and Osmond to become the latter's wife. I f a common denominator. culminating with the more or less unified con­ struct called 'character'? A fundamental cohesive f actor is the proper name. and in a similar way the various traits combine to form the character. . the implication would seem to be either t h at the generalization established so far has been mistaken (a 'A be seen in Rose for E mily' ( 1 930) where the heroine's repeated S unday rides with Homer Baron suggest both her defiance of the townspeople and her stu bbornness. ugliness. i t can then be generalized as a character­ trait. . am bivalence. in the process of reconstruction. "" hen. Moreover. a predicate . e. like Emily's ref usal to admit the death of her father and her preserva tion of her ex-lover's corpse. Contrast is not less condu cive to freq uent visits to her and his equally frequent quarrels w i t h her. it may escape the vulgar bookkeeping of compositional characters) is the Proper Name. 1 90. ele­ ments or patterns of this construct may entertain a relation of reversibility wi th other hierarchical constructs. What gives the illusion that the f sum is supplemented by a precious remainder (something like individuality. a character's relations with his wife may be subordinated to th e trait labelled 'jealousy'. 1" Ir l �. whereas Chatman's 'paradigm of traits' makes charac­ ter a more s t atic construct. but i t may also be at variance with it. .- 1" : I ·Ii . Such a view allows for a discussion of the ' directional' dimension of character (development. actions. the reader reaches a poi n t where he can no longer i n tegrate an element within a constru cted category. Similarities ofbehaviour on diff erent occasions. as can Faulkner's i Ii . As soon as a Name exists (even a pronoun to flow toward and fasten onto). an attribute." . The proper name enables the person to exist outside the semes. e. ind uctors of truth.. whose s u m nonetheless constitu tes it entirely. similarity. independence. 38 N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Story: characters 39 with other aspects of the same order of generalization . so the trait itself can be s u bs u m ed (together with the ambivalence of other characters or with situations of ambiguity) under a theme or a world view revol v­ ing around ambivalence. the reader gradually realizes that this independent lady's career is actually made u p of a series of unwitting dependences. A trait is sometimes explicitly mentioned in the text and sometimes not. artistic t l! �! " c I i !. in this case her clinging to people who robbed her of her life ( as the townspeople i n terpret i t ) . However. . according to Hrushovski) is reversible. She depends on M rs Touchett to get her to England. pp. The clash between the textual label and the reader's conclusions adds to the poignancy and i rony ofIsabel's fate. such as the work's ideology. the semes become predicates. action.a.:. f emininity. ! . or hcr necrophilia.9 On what basis are elements combined i n increasingly broad­ er categorie$. In addi tion to reversibility within the character-construct .! r} �. qualitative and ineff able. love o whittling. Thus. etc. im­ pitty. ___ __ J c '. the point of convergence. j us t as various instances of X's ambivalence can be subordinated to this trait i n his character. excess. but on the other gift. the textual label may confirm the one reached i n the process of generalization. hand jealousy' may be subordinated to the character's rela­ tions with his wife (which include other f eatures as well) . geunalization thall sim ilarity. as wh e n a character's ambiv­ alence toward his mother e m �rges from the tension b etween his I I 1 � 1 l t . in that. Sarra­ sine is the sum. The reader need not always go through all these stages. . m anner o f speach.:. X ' s worldview. he can skip a few with the help of a ' hunch ' . I . and the Name becomes a subject. To give only one example: 'independence' mis take which the text may have encouraged). the diff erence completed by what is proper to i t. Thu s . composiU nature. When it is. emerges from several aspects. will. and im plica­ tion (in the logical sense). or that the ch aracter ' has changed.1 ) How are elements combined i n to unif ying categories under the aegis of the proper name? The main principles ofcohesion. on Ralph's money to be able to establish the kind of lif she thinks she e wants. The repetition ofthe same behaviour 'invites' labelling it as a character-trait . o f course. � I J 11 I = I I . are not only aspects of character but also poten tial constituents of non-character constructs. creating tension whose eff cts vary from one e n a rrative to another. To q uote Barthes again: Character is an adjective.g.g. are repetition . style. I \ i i f. II �' 'll 1- . ( 1 974. also give rise to a generalization. These. ' bio­ graphy') . l j . Ii . the hierarchy (like all hierarchies. of: turbulence. it seems to me. contrast. ' is one of the labels constantly mentioned i n connection with f Isabel Archer i n J a mes's The Portrait o a La4Y ( 1 88 1 ) .

(e. But s tatic. like those of Dickens. obliterat ing the degrees and According to him. e. devoid of depth and ' l ife ' . in Conrad's Nostromo. Allegorical figures . but it also something two-di mensional. the lack of develop­ ment can be presented as arrested development resulting from . types. flat characters are easily recognized and easily remembered by the reader. arC' not onl" fel t (I) The term 'flat' suggests axis of development.g. the proper name represents the the axis of complexity he locates characters constructed around a developmen t. Joe Gargery and Wem­ mick in traits' of the Theophrastes or La Bruyere type. one pole on the Allegorical figures. pp. X is afraid of some psychic trauma. H i rsch. 1980. of the Artist as a roung MaTI ( 1 9 1 6) are fully developed characters. Although these criteria often co-exist. he advocates a distinction among three continua or axes: complex­ e'.g. Already in 1 927 caricatures. the Jew. And i n the third. The unity created by repetition. many of Gogol's characters) . they a r e constructed in one sentence' 'round' characters. pub!. representing the social milieu u in which the m a jor character acts). Character-classification The various characters abstracted from a given text are seldom grasped as having the same degree of'fullness· . Moreover. be a unity in diversity. " And in order t o keep t h e principle of classification clear. Sin) . 74-5) : ( I ) 'a set of physical attributes implies a Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics S tory: characters 41 -. and can thus also occupy. development. Flat characters are analogous to 'humours ' . Ewen i mplication may.g. Between the two poles suffers from a frw weaknesses: in the course of the action. (2) The dichotomy is highly reductive. Round characters are d efined bv contrastive implication. Ambassadors ( 1 903 ) . Forster recognized this. and types be­ single trait around which the character is constructed (Pride.g. penetration into the 'inner lif At one pole on 33-44) suggests a classification of characters as points along a ( 1 97 I . undeveioping characters need not be limited to one trait. K�t being flat involves having more than one quality and developing consequence of the restriction of qualities and the absence of such characters do not develop in the course of the action.g. Joyce ' s Bloom) and others which are simple but developing (e. a fiat character is both simple and unde­ veloping.i · 40 psychological AP (Attributive Proposition ) ' . is nervous.g. thus endowing a static character with complexity In order to avoid red uctiveness. serving some f nction beyond themselves (e. 1 904) . caricatures. e. although static. pp. together with 'por­ a s very �uch 'a live' but also create t h e impression of depth. like Stephrn in Joyce's A in the text. Orig. psychological and physical attributes implies a psychological snakes. e. dis tinguishing between ' flat' and single trait or around one dominant trait along with a few secondary ones. 1 927)' Furthermore. fingernails tions implies a fu rther psychological AP' . caricatures. As to implication. similarity. 7.X and loves his mothe r � AP'. Forster's distinction is of pioneering importance. (3) Forster seems to confuse two criteria which do not always overlap. In the second. 75. and sometimes The development is sometimes fully traced or Strether in James's Portrait The . three of its forms are memioned by Garvey ( 1 978. As a around a single idea or quality' and therefore ' can be expressed ( 1 963. the allegorical Everyman) . on which the effect we call 'character' depends.g. In the first. contrast. namely those that are not flat.10 developing. At the op­ posite pole Ewen locates complex characters like Dostoevsky's one can distinguish infinite degrees of complexity. p. continuum rather than according to exhaustive categories. p. long to this pole. ' I n their purest f orm. as in the two examples given above. Characters who do not develop are often minor. ity. it still contributes to the cohesion of various traits around the proper name. there are X sees a snake. and types are not only simple but also static. At the opposite pole there Great Expectations clearly have more than one quality. the prominent trait i s grasped as represent­ ative ofa whole group rather than as a purely individual quality Raskolnikov or James's I sabel Archer. and X has an Oedipus complex: (3) 'a set of X becomes fearful -+ (:2) 'a set of psychological attribu­ X hates his father X bites his ficti onal characters which are complex but undeveloping (e. of course. while in fact many flat characters.g. one out of the various qualities is exagger­ a ted and made prominent (e. as in the case of Miss H avisham i n Dicken's Great Expectations ( 1 860/6 1 ) . whereas a round character is both complex and nuances f ound i n a c tual works of narrative fiction.

penetration into the 'inner life '. co-presence is not in itself a reconciliation." Discussion of a character's 'inner life' is a far cry from referring to Emma Woodhouse as 'it' or treating characters as 'actants' (see pp. The co-presence of such contrasted concepts in this chapter is not an oversight or an inconsistency. �I ". and it is verbally formulated by the narrator.'2 The third axis. characterization.42 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics only implied by it. This factor will therefore be studied mainly in relation to narration. a solar year with its four seasons (hut not in the arctic zone) . continue to experience . seen only from the outside. Of course. The first two will be examined in relation to story: time as the textual arrangement of the event component of the story.ocieties continue to experience time and to regulate their lives by i t Some of our notions of time are derived from natural processes: day and night. and the very fact that it may be grasped as an inconsistency can serve as an indication of one aspect of the work that remains to be done before an integrated theory of character becomes feasible. presumably. and having analysed story in isolation in the two previous chapters. Doubts have been cast as to the validitv of considering time a constituent of the physical world.����� ' I /� . their minds remaining opaque. is the angle ofvision through which the story is filtered in the text. and charac­ terization as the representation in the text of the character component of the story. I shall now proceed to discuss text in its relation to story on the one hand and narration on the other. as when Miss Bates in Austen' s Emma ( 1 8 1 6 ) turns from a funny figure to a figure ofpathos without a detailed tracing ofthe distance traversed. focalization. �. focalization. but i�dividuals and . to the likes of Hemingway'S killers (in the story bearing this name. 4 Text : time 'I I' Having insisted on the interdependence of the three aspects of narrative fiction i n the introduction. but a gesture toward the reconciliation suggested earlier. Three consecutive chapters will be devoted to three textual factors: time. 33-5 ) . I . whose consciousness is presented from within. A person shut off from all perc("ption of the Outside world would still . 1 928) . General considerations Time i s one of the most basic categories of human experience. etc. ranges from characters such as Woolf's Mrs Dalloway or joyce's Molly Bloom. The third factor.

l But 73 The second should be read by beginni ng with chapter g t h e sequen ce i ndicated a t t h e end of each a n d then followin chapter . and therefore cannot even when we compare text . clock-. i . but the libera­ tion is never complete because a complete one. the Argentine writer J u lio Cortazar defies linearity by making the order of the chapters variable. the solar year) or imposed upon it by machines constructed to this end repetition within irreversible change. Strictly speaking. with chapters 57.e.1 7) that story-time.is the mainstream of temporal experience: time as an intersubjective. W e have already seen (pp. 1 6. social convention which we establish in order to facilitate our living together. . be­ a linear presentation of inf ormation about things.. I t can become measurable only when a repetitive pattern is discerned within it (e. as long as we remember their 'pseudo' nature they remain useful constructs for the study ofan �mportant facet of the story-text rclations. however. and almost exclusivelY in very simple narra· t ive s : I n practice. sentences in the paragraph. to an ideal 'natura l ' chronology. letters in the word. here is the beginning of the latter 'sequence': 73-1-2-1 1 6-3-84-4-7 1 -5-81-74-6-7--8--93-68-9But even here chap ters I -56 are to be read in order.44 the Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Text: time 45 .the natural and the personal . Such a conception was given metaphoric shape by H eraclitus early in western history: "You cannot step twice into the same river. etc. In between these Nevertheless. metronome-time). paradoxically. pp. cause language prescribes a linear figuration of signs and hence after chapter. a sort ofone-way street. conceived of as a linear succession of events. correspond to the m u l t ilinearity of "real' story-time. To say this. 1 04-1 0-65. as (for example) in Virginia To the Lighthouse ( 1 92 7 ). it is also a constituent factor of both s tory and text. and so on. In a 'Table two I n its own way this book consists of many books . Text-time is equally problematic. f or other waters and yet other waters go ever flowing on. although the text . word after word. reverses the order of words in the sentence. he writes: be represented in a narrative text. will destroy in telligibility. Orig. but books above all. thus making it possible or him to recuperate the origi n al order ( 1 972. not a temporal. is no more than a conventional. publ. To become socialized. chapter two extremes . But time is not only a recurrent theme in a great deal of narrative fiction. . ofInstructions' preced ing the novel. . we find that a hypothetical 'norm' of complete correspond('nc(' bf'tween the two is only ran-Iv realized.g. The narrative text as text has no other temporality than the one it metonymically derives from the process of i ts reading. with The first can be read i n a normal fashion and ends chapter 56. the flux must be made measurable. in Hopscotch ( 1 967. . The disposition of elements in the text. The repetitive aspect of concepts of 'circular time ' .t Text-time is thus inescapably linear.lways unfolds in linear I J I . 1 963). There are some modern attempts to liberate n arrative fiction from these constrai n ts. conventionally called text-time. Thus both story-time and text-time may in fac t be no more than pseudo-temporal. Ong. in Spanish � publ. The pecu liarity ofverbal narrative is that in it time is constitutive both of the means of represent a­ tion (language) and of the obj ect represented (the incidents of the story ) .1 55 i nterspersed between them.. succession of his own thoughts and f eelings. Thus in Beckett's Watt there are a f ew sections where Watt. We read letter after letter. . in French 1 953)' Similarly. To illustrate this procedure. What discussions of text-time actually refer to is the linear (spatial) disposition of linguistic segments in the continuum of the text. t h e experience of time may Woolf's time is sometimes taken one step further and seen as a refutation of Heraclitan unidirectionality. dimension. as in Nietzche's and Borges's ( calendar-.' Today we might add that not only the ob ject ofexperience but also the experienc­ ing subject is in a constant flux. if possible. pragmatically convenient construct. sentence after sentence. Time 'is'. Like a n y o t h e r aspect o fthe world. it is a spatial. ) Thus time in narrative fiction can be defined as the relations of chronology between story and text. public. But the n arrator explains these inversions to the reader before reproducing them. at leas t partly demented. is not only to define time but also to imply a f ew in­ escapable complications. is bound to be one-directional and irreversible.t i me to the convelltional story-time. Our civilization tends to think of time as an u n i-directional and irreversible flow. I 62�. .

second. creating various kinds of discordances. said his mother. Statements about duration would answer the question 'how long?' in terms like: an hour. etc.·'ri��'1''''�£�r:::' ''�=:��1�=-. c. p. who is only a mi nor character in the first section of A la rechtrche du temps perdu. from x till y. . The narration. etc. ends with Frederic's being summoned by a note from his friend Deslauriers to join him downstairs: Frederic hesitated. after. I t i s under these headings that Genette sets out to examine the re­ lations between s tory-rime and text-time. ( 1 970. i. anyway'. Whereas the example from Flaubert is homodiegetie. p. this need not correspond to the chronological suc­ cessIOn of event5. abo � t another character. The narration returns. 24) The acco u n t of the father's past history is subordinate to that of Charles Deslauriers himself. a f ormer inf antry officer who had resigned his commission i n 1 8 18. '�'· . had returned to Nogent to marry. However. Statements about frequtmcy would answer the question . as it \'I. c figure in t h e text i n the ordrr b. The 'first narrative'. The first type of analepsis can be illustrated by an example from Flaubert's Sentimental Education. las t . Orig. whose action takes place on 1 5 September 1 840. 2 begin s as follows: Order The main types of discrepancy between story-order and text­ order ( .' Time in general may be viewed in three respects: order.e. I · ' 'how often?' in terms like: x times a min u te. Proust's UII amour de II " . Genette).'ere. or s tory-hne Cheterodlegeuc analepsis ' ) (the term 'diegesis' is roughly analogous to my 'story ' ) . bef ore. appear in the order c. modi­ fications and examples of my own. and most often deviates from it. a section whose action takes place during Marcel's boyhood. 90: Analepses provide past information either about the character. but beatings failed to break the lad's spirit' (p. aprolepsis is a narration the future of the story. with some reservations. Under frequency he looks at the relations be­ tween the n u m ber oftimes an event appears in the story and the number of times it is narrated in the text. 48) . Ie on the other hand. 77. they of a story-event at a point before earlier events ha\'e been mentionl'd . a page. event. a month.'the temporal leve1 of narrative with respect to which an anachrony is defined as such' ( 1 972. event. referring mainly to Charles Deslauriers. p. or . as it were. to a past poi n t in the story. I Ijl:'"i:1! I ' analtpsis is a narration of a story-event at a point in the tex t after later events have been told. 24. the main topic of the analysis: 'Few children were thrashed more frequently than his son. If events a. Chapter I .� Under order Genette discusses the relations between the succession of events i n the story and their linear disposition in the text. ( 1 970. or story-line mentioned at that point in the text ('homodiegetic analepsis' .somewhat circularly . Conversely. is . a. He picked up his hat. the most exhaustive discussion of the discrepancies between story-time and text-ti � e i s Genette's ( 1 972._ :·. p. bf'('omes the protagonist of the second section. Under duration he examines the relations between the time the events are sup­ posed to have taken to occur and the amount of text devoted to their narration. pp. according to . and with his bride's dowry he had purchased a post as bailiff which was barely sufficient to keep him alive. then. To my knowledge. in order to avoid the psychological as well as the cinematic-visual connotations of these terms. Statements about order would answer the question 'when?' in terms like: fir st. b. a year: long. duration and frequency. Both analepsis and prolepsis constitute a temporally second narra­ tive in relation to the narrative onto which they are grafted and which Genette calls 'first narrative'. whose action tak es place long before Marcel's birth. short. I s h a ll f ollow Genette in re­ Charles Deslauriers' father. An ' Swann ( 1 9 I 9) is a heterodiegetic analepsis. a then 'a' is analeptic. b then 'c' would be proleptic. and the following account wIll rely heavily on his. takes an excu rsion into baptizing them 'analepsis' and ' prolepsis' respect ivelv.. in French 1 869) Chapter 1 980. 25).1 82). 'Don't stay out too late. pub\. Swann.anachronies' in Genette's terms) are traditionally known as 'flashback' or ' retrospection' on the one hand and 'foreshadowing' or 'anticipation' o n the other. and so on.tJ ��!t� ��� f' + 46 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Text: ti m e 47 suc�ession. But friendship won the day.

'Golden' . Thus the allude to a of Forking Paths' is said to be b ulk of Borges's 'The Garden short time before his execu tion. are you listen­ 'Speech is silve r but silen ce is golden. . Experienced readers." hence they are 'external analepses' in Genette s terms. in fact. in French 1 970) . pub!. revolving around the q uestion 'How is it going to happen?'6 Prolepsis. at the fire.\i') \ . with mere ly two eyes. Again like rnal) . he n arrates his nt' ipate s what for his past self (and for the 'prese often antic r so for his present narrating reade r) was a futur e but is no longe will suffice: self. This phenomenon may call for the i ntroduction of false preparations (Barthes's 'snar�s'. they replace the kind of suspense deriving from the q uestion 'What will happen next?' by another kind of suspense. in Genette's terms) of the type envisioned i n Chekhov's famous dictum about the necessary connection between the presence of a gun on s tage and a future murder or suicide. even t. These in turn may become a recognIzable convention. Other analepses may conj ure up a past which 'occurred .J. now that I noose) it occurred Mad den. ' 974. calling for the introduction of false snares which are. 85. of course. prolepsis can also ple omn iscien t narra tion.1 5. the pe�le d willo w.internal analepses ' ) . p. or combine both (mixed).s A well known example of internal analepsis is the accoun t of Emma's years in the convent in Flaubert's A1adamt Bovary ( 1 857) . though one is homodiegetic "and one heterodiegetic. us for bemg a mout h like a snow man. so-called first-person . . or story-line figuring at that or sto�-line (homodiegetic) or to another character. who was later famo age of twenty­ stupi d and alwa ys to blam e and who. but "with out hea. It was nol even would it was ('xactly that same qual ity whic h in later years .. then the analepsis is considered 'mixed'. and so on. may easily recognize such information 'plan ted' for later use. whereas a mere preparation ofsubsequent events is on the whole grasped as such only in retrospect. Mary ing? Wha t was I sayin g?' a nose �nd Mary Macgregor. in the strict sense of telling the future bef its time. as the following exam in so-called tan Brodie shows: from Muri el Spark's The Prime ofMissJ . especially in highly conventional genres. or a period beyond the end of the first narra tive (exte point at which it is period anterior to i t but posterior to the Faulkner's narrat ed (intern al) . n arratives' lend themselves to the use of prolepsis better than n the admi ttedly retrospective char­ other types . When they occur. true preparations. prolepses can refer either point in the text character. event ." ". at least in the western tradition . ev�ke a past which precedes the starting point of the �rst narrative. Genette argues. 48 N a r r a ti ve Fiction : Contemporary Poetics Text: time 49 Both these analepses. p. Orig. dicta ted by the spy-n arrator a own past as a spy and From this vantage point . 1 4. sometimes a gap which is not felt as such until it is filled-in in retrospect. 98) . .� • -. ) ( 1 974 . summed up after later events in Emma 's life have been told. 45 . lump y. One example of this phen omen on s nothing to me In the mids t of my hatred and terror (it mean have mocked Richard now to speak of terror. begms before the starting poi n t of the first narrative but at a later stage either joins it or goes beyond it. O rig . pubL in Spanish 1 956 be effectively used But. These years..t. If the period covered by the analepsis . now that my throa t yearns for the ltuou s and doub tless happy warrior did to me that that tumu not suspect that I possessed the Secre t. are obviously posterior to Charles's first day at the new school . a ?un that IS never used. Orig. lost her life in a hotel ( J 9 7 " pp.- -- . sif " ) i " -� . In a pure prolepsis the reader is confron ted with the future event before its time. �� - . three. should be distinguished from a ore preparation of or a hinting at a future occurrence ('amoret'. Prolepses are much less frequent than analepses . becau se withi more natural for the narrator to acter ofsueh narra tives it seems future which has alread y become a past. analepses. I would like to stress. Such analepses often fill in a gap created previous­ ly. On the: whole. after the starting point of the first narrative but is either repeated analeptically or narrated for the first time at a poi n t in the text later than the place where it is 'due' (. In tor describ('s the father's vio�ence 'Barn Burn ing' the narra rations: and then compares this qual ity with t h a t offumre gene the older broth er His fathe r mou nted to the sea! where s with the gau n t mule s two savage blow alreadv sat and struck sadistic. the starting point of the novel (Genette ' 972. ventu red. e. they can cover either a (heterodiegetic). p. pubL ' 96 1 ) to the same Like analepses.g. .

to it'ave her home . She would . h e would have hit me again . Thus.""'--"&"""-. their ' normal ' place i n t h e first narrative. he was to tell h i mself. or hop i n g is a part of the linear unf olding of the first narrative in ' Ev e l i n e'. pp. such events as with the f ollowing passage fromJamesJoyce's ' Eveline': outside the story he n arrates. not be treated as her m other had been. ill a distant unknown country . f the simple re as on t h at ther e is no vvay o f m ea s u r i n g text-duration. ��-. concrete pavement and afterwards crunching on the cinder field t h en' path before the new red houses. I t is only the content of the memory. ' I f ! had said they wanted only tru th.�""�<#""'�"ffl�_! PA••' . One time there used to be a Few people passed. avenue. She was She sat by the window watching the evening invade the people's childre n . . I t is n o t awkward to say that episode A com es a fter episod e B in the l i near d isposi tion of the text or that epis od e C is told twice i n the t ex t . It is because of the present motivated anachronies is di fferent from that of the narrator's in that they do not fully devi a te fro m chronology. " ':. in Form a h st terms. posterior to the end of t h e first narrative (and nothing else will be said about it throughout 'Barn Burning') the prolepsis is also Another external prolepsis i n the same work narrates in world of ' Barn B u rn ing' ( t hough not necessarily to that of the Faulkner saga as a whole) . Eveline. fearing or hopi ng. even t C happens only on ce. Orig. a\'t'nue used to play t ogether in the field . and stich statements are quite si mi l ar to those we c a n m ake a b o u t the story: even t A precedes eve n t B i n the chron ology of [ h e s tory.f . i • · -t"l·� - .was eff cted by a narra tor who is situated e cognitive or emotiona l act chat such events retain. Text: time would not be l i k e that. . h opes.'7:>: �=�"--". Orig. 1 9 ' 4) In contrast to the other ex a m p les . The act of remem bering. fears . The status of the character­ ( 1 97 1 .'. it in wh i ch they used to play every evening with other "' . The o nl tr ul y y t e m pora l measu'r c a\'a ilable is the time of reading a n d t h i s varies f rom read er [0 reader. The last two can be quite easily tran sposed from the time of the story. playin g with other people ' s children (analepsis) or being res­ pected in the new country ( prolepsis) will probably appear twice: once as an occurrence i n the past or a pro jected occur­ rence in the fu t u re.:. jus tice.not l i ke thei r l i t tle brown houses. and on c e as a part of a present act of remembering. But since this potential story-l i n e is prolepsis (hence the prolepsis is external but homodi ege tic) : attached to the boy. publ. publ. but bright brick hOllses with shining roof The child ren of t h e s. !'iow she was going to go away l i ke the others. at least partly.5. Th en she would be married . and in her nostrils was the odour of dusty cretonne. the t em poral shift . . here the analepses and prolepses are not d i rectly a ttri �utable to th � narrator but fi l tered through (or. fearing. providing no objective S tan dard . striking and reigning back in the same movement.she. twenty years later.whether an aleptic or proleptic. . if w e abstract t h e s tOry from t h e text. she heard his footsteps clacking along the tired. p . . But j t is m u c h m orc d i /li c u l t to describe in parallel te rms t he duration or of the t ex t a nd t h a t or t h e story. fear. ' advance what will happen twenty years later but rem ains ( P· 1 67) In all the examples given so far. ( 1 96 1 . or hope that constitu tes a past or future even t . 1 939) The comment about the fu ture generations eff cts a transition e from the father to other characters or another story-line and hence constitu tes a heterodiegeti c prolepsis in relation to the external. regardless of th e conventio l n a t u re of this time. II I Narrative Fi ction: Contemporary Poetics cause his descendants to overrun the engine bef ore putting a m o tor car i n to motion . 1 65. 3 4. e t c. the ob ject of n arration preceding the Later. to the linear­ na ity (s pace) of the t ex t . . People would trea t her with respect then. B u t i n her new home. Her head was leaned against the window curtains. m otivated by) the character's memories. Then a man from Belfast bought the fi eld and built houses in it . the d ifficul ty in herent in the notion of tex t-time is perhaps more d i s t u rbing in conn ection with dura­ tion than it is in connection wit h order and frequency. The man out of the last house passed on his way home. Compare aU the above examples D uration As Genelt e points o u t .

A dIalogue can give the impression of report­ m� everythmg that w�s said in fact or in fiction .'as rich.:�!"#-"J& F ! i 52 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Text: time 53 . The maximum speed is ellipsis (omission).8 The measure yielded by this relation in general is pace (or speed ) . adding nothing . 1 · . and al though lhere is plenty of space on a gravestone to contain. pub!. months. He v. This convention probably � rises from the fact that a dialogue is a rendering of langu �ge m language. the narrator makes a point of giving the reader 'an opportunity of employing the wonderful sagacity.-� . we remember. . pace 10 narratlvc IS the unchangcd ratio between s lOry-duration and textual length. Germany. ' -''''' ''''"""' " "" � �. pub!. For order. The effect of deceleration is produced by the opposite procedure. bound in J . pp. a temporal/spatial . . in fact. one can still speak about it as 'order' . whereas the linguistic rendering of non-verbal occurrences does not seem to call for any particular fixed rate of narration. cannot manifest complete �orrespond �nce.1. text-time. It I S advisable to attempt a re-definition of the relations between the two 'durations' and posit a different type of 'norm' . Orig. ho � rs. accordmgly. relative to the 'norm' established for this text. vary from summary to summary. Constancy of . The degree of condensation can. pp. . years) and the length of text . publ. da�s. ' " !. of which he is master. 1 904) as well as that of Chandrapore i n Forster's A Passage to India ( 1 963. happy: one day he abandoned his wife for the sake of a vouthful mistress: he loved. devoted t? I t (10 hnes and pages). which has been consIdered by some a case ofpure coincidence between story-duration and � ext-d uration. only by convention that one speaks of temporal equivalence of story and text in dialogue. where some segment of the text corresponds to zero story duration. in French 1 857) . not between t":o durations but between duration in the story (measured in mmutes. � ' ''''=''�' ." Taking constant pace as a 'norm '.. 1 7. 7 I . 1 70-1 ). postulatmg an eqUIvalence between two d urations as a hypothetical :norm'. 49-5 1 . pub!. 1 924) begin the respective novels with a descriptive pause.. was not loved: and his life ended 'in disaster. it is also more difficult to find a 'norm' against eration is produced by devoting a short segment of the text to a long period of the story. p. It is. but in practice these are conventionally reduced to summary and scene. Genette theref proposes to use constancy of ore pace.< . i. On the other h �nd. when each year in the life of. Here is one example from the opening of Nabokov's Laughter in the Dark: Once upon a time there lived in Berlin. as the 'no�m' agai �st whic� to examine degrees of duration. 9-1 I . producing multiple degrees ofaccelera­ tion. 1 749. a man called Albinus. The effect of accel- �or this reas�m. the 'norm' is the possibility of exact coincidence between story-time and .. rather than adequation of story and text. This is the whole story and we might have left it at that had there not been profit and p l easure in the telling. On the other hand. and although text-time actually means the linear disposition in the text. pp. the pace is accelerated through a textual 'condensation' or 'compression' of a given story-period into a relatively short statement of its main fea­ tures.g.2 I . Quoted by Booth 1 96 1 . the �efore. where zero textual space corresponds to some story duration. In Fielding's Tom Jones.lIa' :<. the minimum speed is manifested as a descriptive pause. whIch to descnbe changes of duration than it was to find such a point of reference for order. The relations in q uestion are. Orig. relatlOnshlp. Since it is impossible to describe the varieties of duration on the b�si� of an i naccessible 'norm' of identity between story and . Such a pause in the middle of the narrative can be found in the longi�h description ofYonville-I'Abbaye which interrupts the action i n Madame Bovary between the Bovarys' departure toward this village and their arrival in it ( 1 965. 'J. since no event and no textual rendering of an event ca? dIctate an i nvariable reading time. respectable. Even a segment of pure d ialogue. -. to It. character is treated in one page'throughout the text. Orig.. by filling up these vacant spaces of time with his own conjectures' and then leave him 'a space of twelve years' in which to exercise his talents ( 1 964. text. of course.e. pp. . for example. I n summary. Orig. there is no way of . every word in the text presumably standmg for a word uttered in the story. c. between these two poles there is an infinity of possible paces. namely devoting a long segment ofthe text to a short period of the slOry.I � F i :1 1 " : :. we can discern two forms of modification : accelcration and deceleration..'o The description of Sulaco and its bay in Conrad's Nostromo ( I 963. but even then It IS mcapable of rendering the rate at which the sentences were uttered or the length of the silences. Theoretically.

1 928) moss. � � -. which may be dated some time in 1 85 1 .. D iderot s Jacquu ki ataliste ( 1 796) and Le nelleu de Rameau ( 1 82 I ) as well as several works by the Spanish author Pio Baroga.. the cold awakening in the tent. ( 1 965. PP· · p I. e. 57.. the protagonist. and he had other loves.' " "'hat the hell do you put it on the card for?' 'That's the dinner' . will be the expansion or deceleration constituting the bulk of the novel. stamped. The purest scenic form is dialogue. Ewen 1 978) . '!-I1adame Arnoux!' ' Frederi c ! ' l . like a damp cracker going off. and besides. and the promised details.' 'The clock says twent y minutes past five'. I n scene. the very flower offeeling.. H is intellectual ambitions had also dwindled.. like the nervous exchange between the unexpected customers and the res taurant owner in H emingway's 'The Killers': ' I 'll have a roast pork tenderloin with apple sauce and m ashed potatoes'.. story-d uration and text-duration are conventionally considered identical. what characterizes a scene is the quantity of narrative information and the r elative e/l:lcement of the n arrator. the bitterness of interrupted friendships..�_� .. He went into society. the second man said. repeated Charbovari! Charbovari!) . detail is. . ' I t isn ' t ready yet.- Text: time 55 I ! .M��M• . a detailed narration of an event should also be considered scenic.e .g.' ( 1 965._ l�- �J:} .. the passage looks more like a scene from a play than like a segment of a narrative. rose in crescendo wi lh bursts of shrill I ( 1 97°. Orig. r"'. and now and again sud­ d enly recommencing along the line of a seat from where rose h ere and there. . . the tedium of landscapes and ruins..L ��!�r�� -. p. Flaubert ' s Sentime1ltal Education takes some 400 pages to cover a period of roughly eleven years. The policeman looked all around him. He came to know the melancholy of the steamboat. p. he was a lone in his study when a woman came in. I I l I i voices ( they yelled. a stifled laugh. in Russian 1 933) Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics . and Frederic. the violence of desire.' �:�� J . open-mouthed.. Years went by: and he endured the idleness of his mind and the inertia of his heart . at llightfall. recognized Senecal. VI He travelled . '1 t's five o'clock. He returned.54 f ( : I._____ � .. According to some theorists (Lubbock 1 92 1 : Kayser 1 948. ·. �' ' ·.1 2) � � � � 1 J � ] - . . . 5. Toward tht' end of March 1 867. publ. then died away into single notes. A whole life is th'us summed up in a few sentences. This ends with a street-riot scene.. Complete novels in various periods in the history of literature were also written exclusively or almost exclusively in dialogue. with his arms spread out. 'You can get that a t six o'clock: George looked at the clock on the wall behind the counter. it may now be interesting to see an example ofhow a text modulates between two of them .I . publ. A cry ofhorror rose from the crowd. growing quieter only with great difficulty. The quotation s tarts near the end of Chapter 5 of Part III: Then Dussardier took a step forward and started shouting: 'Long live the Republic!' He fell on his back. the abridged version of a man's life.. But the ever-present memory of the first made them insipid. barked. In this view. . Such is. Consisting exclusively of dialogue and a few 'stage directions'. ( 1 969. as was said above. although dialogue is the purest form of scene. p. Orig. the first man said. . 3) Having examined each of the four main degrees of duration separately.. the rendering of the class's reaction to C harles Bovary's pronunciation of his name: ' �!� " " � 1'1 ·1 �l iJ :1 I A hubbub broke ou t . In this scene Frederic. Lammert 1 955. sees one of his former friends being shot by a policeman who turns out to be another former friend. George explained. ' I t 's twenty minutes fast.(Irlrl. always welcome. lor example. � _ :ol.: _�� _ . had gone. which are indeed always welcome. in this case scene and summary..

aVOIds confirmmg this inference to the very end. Whereas later indi­ cations make it probable that during that moment the uncon­ scious Marquis� 01'0. ostensibly an obituary article on a little known French symbolist writer. I n this text. sometimes with. Orig. O:dm �nly. Frequency. before reverting to a scene pace f the narratio n or oflhe renewe d meeting between Frederic and the woman he has always loved. A bsalom! ( 1 936). no event is repeatable in all respects. renden ng tnvlal events in detail.( 1 962. 1 806) where the most crucial moment in the story is dided in the text. In Chekhov's 'Sleepy ' for exampl� . When she has strangled him . IS told very bflcfly in a subordi nate clause: Laughing and winking and shaking her fi ngers at the green patch. . m German. ( 1 927. 39-90. the text coyly . As Sancho narrates. . acceler ation and deceler ation are often e�aluated by � he reader as indicato rs of importa nce and . we are in­ formed that his most ambitious li terary project consisted in writing again Don Quixote. To the same category belongs the less common phenomenon of narrating n times what 'happened' n times. the d espera � e climactic act of the scrvant . As the fictional narrator comments. I . Quixote impatiently com­ ments: Take i t that they are all across . e�1ipsis in d u ration clearly coincides with a permanent mformatIon gap (see chapter 9). how­ ever. she quickly lies down on the floor. i .1 Text: time 57 I j . in Spanish 1 956).baby-si� ter. nor i s a repeated segment of the text quite the same. From a theoretical point of view. corresponding to the number of journeys the fis herman u nd ertook. I '' I n scarcely a dozen lines of text Flaube rt compress�s some . . in Russian 1 888) Even more extreme ! s Kleist's 'The Marquise of 0. In this ex­ ?m ple. since here too each mention in the 1. Before his untimely death Pierre Menard managed to produce only Chapters 9. Frequency .e. Strictly speaking. is the relation between the number of tImes an event appears ill the story and the n u m ber oftimes i t is narr�t ?d (or men tio� e? ) in the text. the main event in Faulkner's _4bsalom . telling once what 'happened' once. whereas the less I mporta nt ones are compressed (i.ext corresponds to one occurrence in the story. This paradox is developed by Borges in ' Pierre Menard .1 6 1 6) . As in the a bove example. decelerated) . and in a minute is sleeping as sound as the dead. telling n times what ' happened' once. a temporal component not treated in narrative t ?eory before Genettc. This practice is parodied in Don Quixote when Sancho tells the story of a fis herman who had to transport three hundred goats i n a boat that had room only for one. p. sometim es the effect of shock or irony is produ �ed b� s ummin g up briefly the most central event and . . in Spanish 1 605. Considered as mental constructs. sixteen years. all identical in every word to the corres­ ponding portions of Cervantes's text (orig. pub!. then. pp. I � I". ' i . p.e. s ince its new location puts it in a different context which necessarily changes its meaning. . Thus. or you will never get them all over in a year' ( 1 950. and repetItion is a mental construct attai ned by an ellmmall�n of the specific qualiti('s of each occurrence and a preservation of only those qualities which it shares with similar occurrences. 1 54) . the more common practice of telling once what 'happened' once may be seen as a specific instance of the more inclusive type 'telling n times what happened n times' (and 'n' here equals I ) . the very same text coming from a French Decadent esthete and from a retired Spanish soldier takes a completely different sense. laughs with delight that she can sleep. Orig.:­ I ' il Frequency. is narrated thirty-nine times. 1 47· Orig. acceler ated) . and do not go on coming and going like that. it becomes clear that he i ntends to tell the event three hundred times. Varka steals up to the cradle and bends over the baby. the murder of Charles Bon by Henry Surpen. the more importa nt events or conver­ �auons are glven m detail (i.e.e. pub!. Repetitive. repetition-relations be­ tween story events and their narration in the text can take the following forms: Singulative. This is the most common narrative form. sometimes without changes of narrator. involves re'pe �JUo� . and examples are therefore unnecessary. Varka. i. pub! .was raped by the Count F-. 38 and a frag­ ment of Chapter 22. But this is not always the case. Author of the Quixott' ( 1 974. ce� trality. the former gaining in richness from the i ntervening changes in history and culture. pub! .. j � t .

is the construct a rrived at? By assembling various character­ indicators distributed along the text-continuum and. s u bversion can only be conceived of against the background of (or even within) a network of possibilities. inferring the traits from them. 47-8). However. They took the udder of the cows. . e . Ken a n . that opened to their furrow f the grain . 8. lying and responsive when the crops were shorn away . of course) . such as this chapter has a ttempted to outline. Orig. To eli m inate i t (ifthis were possible) would be to eliminate all narrative fiction. prefiguring thereby the cyclic nature of the relationship between the generations and within each generation ! ' I t has often been suggested that o n e of t h e characteristics of modern narratives is the subversive treatment of the various categories of time. the pulse of the blood of the � 5 Text: characterization . or possi bly some other kind of noun ('she was a real ! . These traits . p. and these are the subject of the present chap­ ter. i teats of the cows beat into the pulse of the hands of the men. in this general erences cannot be presentation of characterization such diff explored. telling once wh a t 'happened' n t i mes. as one construct within the abstracted story. p. But there are elements which are most frequently. f eeling the pulse and e or the body of the soil. ' The firs t type names the trai t by an adjective (e. may or may not appear as s u ch in the text. i t should be remem bered hierarchies in chapter erently that the same means of characterization may be used diff by d ifferent authors or in diflerent works by the same author and sometimes even within the same work. conversely. it does not invalidate the categor­ Ies presented here. . character-indicators may serve other purposes as well (see the point about the reversibility of The passage is clearly i terative. 36 ) . (Rimmon­ f orthcoming) . narrating in one ti me the recurrent activities of the Brangwen men over the years: Their lif and i n terrelations were such. There are two basic types of textual indicators of character: 'he was good-hearted ' ) . Moreover. narrative s u bject. then. however. though not exclusively. 1 980. associated with characterization . i . duration. style . While this seems to me basically true (with � any exceptions. any elemen t in the text may'serve as an indicator of character and. In the study of particular texts. ( 1 973 . etc. an abstract noun ( ' his goodness knew no bou nds ' ) . pub ! . 3 .58 Narrative Fiction: C on temporary Poetics ocalizer. the cows yielded milk and pulse against the h ands of the men. 1 9 1 5) Character. I n principle. pp . while the treatment of time may undergo various changes. direc t defini tion and indirect presen t ation ( Ewen 1 97 J . How. a n d became smooth a n d supple after their ploughing. can be described in terms of a network of character-traits. f Iterative. . when necessary. time itself is indispensible to both story and text. Such is the opening of Lawrence's The Rainbow.g. O n the contrary. It is these indicators that I seek to define under the heading of 'characterization' . and clung to their fee t with a weight that pulled like desire.

..:�r�0::"'��.� .:. ome of these ways will be enumerated in the followmg dISCUSSIon."'t..:'':: '-y • • s. p.:' ��"". when erred t ? closure and su ggest iveness and indetermina�y. On the other hand. '.:1. pp.. it is not less characteristic of t he character. I · I I : bitc h ' ) or part of speech ( ' he loves only h i mself' ) . ' _ --- .t � traditi onal no velists.. are pref fi nitivenes s and when emphasIs IS put o� the a� uve role of ! he de . i ts dramatic impact often suggests that the traits I t . their views need not be taken as a reliable affirmation of these q u ali ties in a character whose exceptionality may be only in the eyes of mediocre beholders. 51-2).'-. .- "PU" :" " %f . roughly until the end of the last cen tu ry. habitual actions tend to reveal the character s unchangmg or static aspect. leaving to the reader the task of inferring the quality they imply. .' . 'l' ..' � I . Both one.':. 1 88 1 ) .:". � � Action A trait may be i mplied both by one-time or non-r? uti e) actions._t· Y :.. . it displays and exemphfies It m van? us �ays.!:r·-·r : f: • t . often playing a part in a turning point i n the narra � ive.. t he explici tness and guiding capacity of dIrect defimuon are often considered drawbacks rather than advantages.. or are i m mediately exemplified by specific behaviour.*.: .. I 60 N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics u.:.e. act of omISSIon \somethmg whIch the character should. III an mdlvlduahstlc lzatJon and cI ass.i� . her imagination was remarkably active . � and relativis tic period like our 0 .� 1 . and by habitual o� es..reco� me. sO ?lethin g per­ . like Eveline's dusting o the house i n Joyce's short s tory beanng her name ( 1 9 1 4·) · One-tIme � � � Definition is akin to generalization and conceptualization. on the other hand.. definition is less frequently used in twent eth-century fiction and indirect presentation tends to predommate (Ewen � ? ! 1 980... As a result. '''".. 61 r . reader. 49 .:. .--. _.this i s how Henry James's narrator defines some prominent traits of the heroine of The Portrait oja Lad ( 1 966. but does not do) . 94. . :�:. t h t' general­ izing.�:.. .. Orig. I I Text: characterization Direct definition 'Isabel Archer was a young person of many theories. serving reflexively to charac­ terize them as much as (if not more than) Isabel. If narrow­ minded. . H . as well.. tl '\ I.'7C� __" _ _ ".�.. . Moreover. I t i s also both explicit and supra-temporal..:.n ed I. '_'':T�� � � _ �. Alt hough a one-time action docs not reflect constani qualities.":�: . t::.. for example. � ' C sa .' ' :. . By co� trast..t i m e and habitual actions can belong to one 01 t he f ollO\\!ing categories: act of comm iss ion (i. or prt'sentt'd together wirh other means of character­ ization. Her thoughts were a tangle of vague outlines . = . ' � � . The second type. The beholders' comments may thus be an indication of their own dis t rust of theories or paucity of imagination rather than a trustworthy defini tion of the character they discuss. . classificatory nat ure of defini lion was considered an asset. the reader is implicitly called u pon to accept the definitions. B u t when these exceptional q uali ties are attribu ted to Isabel by an authoritative n arrator. fica tion are less easily tolerated. .�-�·'::::� .j. The economical character of defimtlOn an Its ways o capacity to guide the reader's response .:C: " : " --. .1 03 ) . .. publ. �.� any oth. . often having a comic or ironic effect .:l _.':." .te. . This i mpression may be alleviated if the defini tions seem to emerge gradually from concrete details. . Indirect presentation ' A presentation is indire�t w e� rathe r than mentioning a trait. reveals are qualitatively more crucial than t h e numerous habits which represen t the character's rou rine. '... : d ft:!i • . 942).' -' . they would probably have carried less weight.'I _. -.'11 . 'f:ltt' it�� l�f ". :��.-. O � th e . I n the early period of the novel. Had the same words been spoken by the people of Albany. I ts explicitness and 'c1used' effect did not d i s turb a li terature actions tend to evoke the dynamic aspect of the character. . and the economy of defini tIon IS gras ped as reductive.:�::.:. . . i ts dominance in a given text is liable to produce a rational.. Consequen tly.= _ iR'§ � :.:.:'.��-� _ . genera 1" . .:. contrary. dull characters call someone 'a person of many theories' or consider that character's imagination 'remarkably active'.e. 8&-9. like Meursauh's m u rder of the Arab JI1 Camus s L Et­ ranger ( . pp.. ' -= ""� .O:"'. . does not mention the trai t b u t displays and exemplifies it i n various ways. as when a character clings to old habits in a situation which renders them inadequate. .2 • er where these qualities manifest ed themselves in .. . . '. .:. Such naming of y a character's qualities counts as direct characterization only i f i t proceeds from t h e most authoritative voice i n the text (on 'voices' see chapter 7 .t�' _". formed by the character) .M.:r. . and contemplated act (an . when the h uman persona l i ty was grasped as a combination of quali ties shared by many people. i n the present day. l Mi'i """"=='""-" " � -.. authoritative and static i mpression.

pub!. ers symbolic sig­ She [ I sa bel] knew that this sil e n t. ' : which became to the child's i m agination. I?ed h ttle head bol dly . Orig. bir d I n h e r hand s. ( 1 96 1 . . . so th'at the chi c g her two Jla n � s slowly el l sho uld r U Il I n to the �: S peech A cha ra cter's speech . Whereas in the passage from Lawrence the symbolism lies in 1 1 9. rom The Portrait o a Lad conf again taken f f y. porary PoetIcs � Text: characteriza tion 63 :� C: mother-hen again. 25) Isabel ' s not opening the door to the street symbolically s uggests her pref or i l l u sion over reality. arr es t ed the u rge . sa w a tea r f all on her wris t . . ' Me (on e.m mto t e rive the d row nin g wo ma � r and save � n rem ain s an o ?ses slO n to hIm con cer n in the tex and a cen tra l t. the c pa SSI vit y or shr ink � hara cter 's ing fro m act ion .a place Connie's behaviour i n this scene symbolizes her yearn ing f or warm t h . cha racterAl l t�e se kill ds of act ion can (bu t n . I n it. e e? not) be endo sym bolI c d I m ensi wed with a on. . ee 109 mce M a ry in stead ofblam fro m �ing n i ce to ing her. p ub!. . 30. the c � ara cte r) . . bli nd ly. she had never assured herself that the vulgar street lay beyond. h e t wo c a chI ck: ome across a hen and . ho ldi ng ou t h i . motionless portal opened into t h e street. .tim e) m urd er urs au lt's an d Ev eli n ' . Sud denly he . according to its d iffe rent moods . gently guiding it toward the mother-hen. p. a d there it B u t i t l i fted its hand � stood .1 'on e-tl . S0 adora ble! softly . � I h are not h i ng against Jews as an individual ' . squ at tin g bes ide h c r. can be indicative of a trait or traits both throu gh i ts con tent and t h rough its f orm. has bec om Ha mlet. It is mainly the _ Conte n t ofJason 's sta temen t in Faulkner's tha t sugges ts his bigotr y: els e. . crying) .-:1 Then sud denl y Sand y wan ted to km � to Mary Macg a nd thought of pos sibili ties of f regor. all absent i n her marriage. . whether i n conversation or as a silent activity of the m i n d . Two exa mpl es the fi rs t lOve sce w�1I su ffi ce . 1 96 1 ) Sa nd y s lat en t prope nsi ty to be ki n d . the second example. For a cru . p. ' m e act 0f om ISSI can tur n to ano the ' r novel by C on we s La hute ( 1 9 fail u re of the cha � 56) . She took the between her h d s . . I 'Th ere ! ' he sai d. p. thc f l owing p assag Ol �m aI nm � laten t . l ove and maternity. a region of delight or of terror. Orig. s ft I ts r or . Ha bi t u al om iS SlOn s char Em ily ( 1 930) . Her face was averted and she was crying blindly. ' ' I give every man his due. She was kner l i n g an d ho l d ' f orw a rd . A to p ay h er con tem pla t act m ay bO th imp trai t and suggest l y a laten t poss ible reas o . He came quickly toward her and crouched beside her again . Cou rse . s (ha bit ua l) d ust act s of com mis sio mg are bo th n . as we�l as I S era MISS Brod ie' s i nfl '� sure under uence can be gl i lll p sed act . un rea li zed plan or i n ten tio n f . 1 73. ( 1 9 7 1 . of e the pro ver bia l pro totyp e of this isti c. . The ker per . regard less of religion or any t hing The Sound al/d tIlt FU�)I ( 1 965- p. But she had no wish to look o ut. . f this would have interf or ered with her theory that there was a strange. � he n con tem pla ted act s beco � n thI S Con templated e habl ual . . I says. . . as acterize F a u l kn er ' s wh en she re e ated ly neglects m u n i cip al tax es. some clean _s looked sha rply roun . ( 1 966 . .� I t . She had never opened the bolted door nor removed the green paper (renewed by other hands) from its sidelights. ' I t ' s j u st the race . � � th �� MlSsJean Brodie: nificance on an act of omission: acts of commission (taking the chick between the hands. and p u t ting it back in t he coop . presence. taking the chick from her hands. a characteristic which erence f will la t e r play an i m portant part in her t ragic career. 1 928) . . because she was afraid of the hen. . just whe �h e soun d of MIss Brodie's n i t was on e tlp of San dy's nic e to Mary Ma cgr tongue to be egor. was a l so an a m u sed f watch ing wit h ace the bol(tl ittl e . Shortly before ne bet wee n C o n ga m eke epe r in La me C hatterley wrence's novel t and the . ay be ImplIed. if the sidelights had not been filled with green paper she migh t have looked out upon the little brown stoop and th e well-worn brick pavement. and d and gave a ht t le S o cheek y!" she said ' peep " . unseen place on the other side . s h and to l i ttl e d rab thing her. CI a. Orig. as i n e from Spark ' s T Pn me of he 62 Na rrative Fic tio n: Co n t ern . 193 1 ) 1 j . pub !. . the ract er-na rrato 0 J u.

One should distinguish in this connection between those external features which are grasped as beyond the character's c?ntrol. Thus the stereotypic traits of a Jew and a rabbi are evoked by the Hebrew and Yiddish expressions as well as by the t u rn of phrases in the following passage from Bellow's Herzog: 'And she took hold of . Style may be indicative of origin. Herzog? Through and through. such as height. with those behemoth eyes . the secon � has additi?nal �ausal overtones (Ewen 1 980. bef ore his body is in the grave. . A coat' 'A garment. 1 I i. 60) . Narrative Fiction : Contemporary Poetics But the inner contradiction (he gives people their due regardless of religion. pp. or profess ion. ' I . A causal connection . external appear­ ance was used to imply character-traits .I j 1. However. pp. The form o r s tyle of speech i s a common m eans o f character­ ization in texts where the characters ' language is individ u a ted and distinguish ed from that of the narrator. � ikr hair-style and clothes. I n fact . . Herzog. but only under the influence of Lavater. ' ( 1 973.) . ' 37-8 · Ori g. Similarly. how lazy you are. ' m ay . Both klllds can be found III the t i 1 . Agalll . yet dislikes the Jews as a race) and the underlying cliche ('some of my best friends are Jews' or some similar expression) clearly play a part in stressing the specious l ogic characterist ic of his (or any) bigotry. wha t one character says about another may characterize not only the one spoken about but also the one who speaks (see p. But I know you. Herzog. Action and speech convey character. This is the case of a l so r .1 . such time-bound descriptions tend t o characte�z. 'therefore' he is brave. here too.a rabbi. Some heir he's got! Some kaddish! Ham and pork you 'll be eating. ofhis own time (see example m Ewen I gSO.traits through a cause and effect rel a tion which the reader deciphers 'in reverse': X killed the dragon. But even in our century. Whi le the first group charactenzes through contiguity alone. a n d his theory of physiognomy has the connection between the two acquired a pseudo-scien tific status. dwelling place. the fferen ce is not absolu te. . pub! . 1 27) · �� � External appearance Ever since the beginning of narrative fiction. you little thief. 59) . ' 964) In addition (0 the social aspect of a character revealed by his style.V)aizov bigdo b)odo?' 'And he left it in her hands' ' Left what?' 'Bigdo . f 1 . though nOl dommant. Mothers' hearts are broken by mamzeirim like you ! Eh! do 1 know you. social class. And you. for a descripti on of a charaet�r's extern al appearance or environment may refer to a �peclfic poi nt i n time ('on that day she wore a black coat etc. The impact of his th�ory on Balzac a nd other nineteenth-century authors was great mdeed. Lavater analysed portraits ofvarious histOricaI figures as well as people .e a tran sitory mood rather than a 'relatively stable or abldmg personal q uality' which is Chatman' s definition of a character trait ( 1 978. the metony�ic relation between external appearance and character-traits has re­ mained a powerful resou rce in the hand of many writers. external appearance and envlfonmeni. ' 'of what? Beged' 'Beged. 57-B) III order to demonstrate the necessary and direct connection between facial features and personality traits. length ofnose (feat � n:'s whICh g�l scarcer with the advallcement of modern cosmetics and plastic surgery) and those which at least partly depend on him. a hara c ter's shabby dress or dIrty room not 0nly connote h'IS t �te of depression but also result from it. Another differen�e ween the two kinds of indirect i �dicators is that the � rst IS I cated i n time wher�as the second IS non-temporal. as wh en . a Swiss philosopher and theologian ( 1 7411 80 I ) . p. p. be presen t. Thus the abundance o f subordinate clauses and the recurrent qualification of sta tements in the language of many of Henry j ames's characters implies their tendency to follow all the nuances ofa thought or feeling as well as the painstaking quality of their in tellect. colour of eyes. individual characteristics can also be suggested by i t . . Y uses many foreign w Text: characteriza tion ord s 65 ' therefore' she is a snob: But indirect presentation may 'l e Y on a relation of spatial contigui ty. Moses. Mamzer! I 'm sorry for your father. t he garment' 'You watch your step. Your mother thinks you'll be a great lamden . when the scientific validity ofLavater's theory has been completely discredited.

66

N arrative Fiction : Con temporary Poetics

Text: characterization

67

description of Laura, the heroine of Porter's 'FloweringJuda s ' , and both suggest her repression of warmth , sexuality andjoie de vivre: (a) . . . but all praise her gray eyes, and the soft , round under lip which promises gayety, yet is always grave, nearly always firmly closed. ( 1 97 I , p. 389 . O rig . pub! . 1 930) . . , this simple girl who covers ber great round breasts with thick dark cloth, and who hides long, invaluably beautiful legs under a heavy skirt. She is almost thin except for the incomprehensible fullness of her breas ts, like a n ursing mother's . . . . ( 1 97 1 , p. 39 2 )

Zol a. However, the causality post ulated by this doctrine is less marked in Balzac's use of spatial meto!lymies than in Zola's. Th is difference may be illustrated by a detailed comparison (which I cannot unde� ta�e he�e) of, say, the desc�iption of the . , Maison Vauquer and Its mhabltants m Le Pere Conol ( 1 834) and at of the mine and i ts workers in Germinal ( 1 88;). th
Reinforcement by analogy

(b)

A t times the external description speaks for i tself; at other times its relation to a trait is explicated by the narrator, e.g. 'his brown eyes expressed sadness and i nnocence'. Such expJanations may function as disguised definitions rather than as indirect charac­ terization. This happens when a non-visual quality is attributed - as in a synecdoche - to one part of the character's physique rather than to the character as a whole (e.g.) 'her intelligent eyes' instead of 'she is intelligent' ) . Ewen calls these 'seeming descriptions' and distinguishes them from the kind of external appearance discussed so far (I gSa . p. 6 1 ) . Environment A character's physical surrounding (room, house, s treet, town) as well as his human environment (family, sociaJ class) are also often used as trait-connoting metonymies. As w i th external appearance, the relation of contiguity is frequently sup­ plemented by that ofcausality. Miss Emily's dilapidated house, with its clouds of dust and i ts dank smell. is a mt'tonymy of her decadence, but its decay is also a resul t of her poverty and her morbid temperament. Again as with external appearance, a pseudo-scientific connection between character and environ­ ment was established in the nineteenth century. The doctrine of race. moment and milieu. expounded by the French historian and philosopher Hippolytc Tainc ( 1 828- 1 893) had a decisive influ ence on the use of environment in the writing of Baiza• and

I treat analogy as a reinforcement of characterization rather than as a separate type of character-indicator (equivalent to direct definition and indirect presentation ) because its charac­ terizing capacity depends on the prior establishment, by other means, of the traits on which it is based. A grey and dreary landscape, for example, is not likely to i mply itselfa �aracter:s pessimism. but it may enhance the reader's percepu�n of �hls trait once it has been revealed through the character s action, speech or external appearance,) . . The differentiation between analogy and other mdlcators of character should be carried a bit further. Since metaphoric (analogous) elements tend to be i mplicit in metonymies, one may question the distinction between what I call analogy and such forms of metonymic presentation as external appearance and environmen t. Does not the rigidi ty of Laura's dress paraJlel that of her personality, and is not the decay of Miss Emily's house analogous to her own decline? The answer to both questions is Yes. and yet these indirect presentations are based mainly on contiguity, a relation either absent from or much less dominant in the analogies d iscussed here. Moreover, as we have seen above. indirect presentation often involves an implicit story-causality. Analogy, on the other hand, is a purely textual link, independent of story-causali ty. As Ewen poin ts out, many - though not all - analogies may have developed out of concep­ tions involving causality. like the medieval belief i n the cause and efleet relations between disorder i n the human world and upheaval in nature, b u t they are grasped as purely analogous characterization when the causal connection is no longt>r strongly opt>rativc ( I g80. p. 1 00) . Although the transition from one type to the other is nei ther abrupt nor neat and the two may

!1 ;
I

! j
I

I . 1 ·
!

fi
1 .'\

I:

I I

o!'t en overlap in pra ctic e, the dist inct ion is s till vali d· in prin ­ cIple. . Three �ays in whi ch analogy can rein force characterization w1l1 be , dIscussed belo w. wi thou t pres umin g that they are e� h� us�lve. In all three, the ana logy may emp has ize eith er the slm l !ant y or th� con tras t. betw een the two elem ents compared . and I t may be eith er exphcit ly stat ed in the text or imp Jicit y left for the reader to discover . According to Ham on ( 1 97 7, pp. 147-50. Ori g. pub ! . 1 972 ) nam es can parallel. charac tertraits i n four way s: ( I ) Vis ual, a� . whe n the lette r � IS assocIated with a rou nd and fat character and the I:tter I with a tall thin one (his exa mp le). (2) Aco usti c ;vheth er Ill , ono�atop oeia , like the buz z of flies in the nam � Beel�ebub ' r In less strictly ono ? matopoeic form , like 'Ak aky . Aka kIev ltch . In Gogol 's 'Th e Ove rcoa t' ( 1 842 ), ridi culed by the . ve�y o.und ofh l name. ( Art 3) icul atory, like Dickens's 'Grad­ � � grmd m Hard Tzmes ( 1 854) , sug gest ing the ma in qua 1ity of the cha r� cter by the mo u thin g of the nam e and the m uscl e acti vity i t ;eqU lres . (4) Morphological , like the presence of'boeu J' ( bull ) in Bov/ary' or the com bina tion of 'hors ' + 'la' (ou t + there) in the nam e of Maupass n t 's mys teri ous crea ture . Ie Ho rla ( 1 887 ). � Close to Ha � on s last categor y, though not necessarily based on . morphologI al combinations � are the sem anti c connections whI ch Ewen dIscusses ( 1 980, pp. 1 02-7 ) . In allegories the name r("presen �s the ain trai t(s) of a character: Pride, L ust. � Good �an .. An .m eres tJng con temporary usage of this is to be fou �d m Z.In o ev�s The Yawning � hts ( 976 ) �oVlet s�c� e7 In a flood of brief Heigches 1of sucwhi ch castigates sket h ster eotypes as Careers It , Slan dere r', 'Ch atte rer', 'Sociologist ' and at last ,Tru th-t , . But elle r even non -all egorical text s ofte n hav e rec urse to � seman t c para lleli sm between name and trai t Mrs ? � . N ewsome m Jam es s Tht' Ambassa dors ( 1 903 ) represen ts the new , world . the betr aye r In Spa rk's The Prime o }.Jiss ./eaTl Brodie is j call ed , San dy Stranger , , nd the self-eff acin g bea uty who gave � her nam e to M.a upassan n story is nam ed 'Madem oise lle Perl e' ( 1 886) . So� etJmes the an alog y is based on literary or mytho­ . ca l logi a llUS IOns, as in the name 'Daeda lus' jnJ oyc�'s A P�rtrait Ana logous names

68

Na rra ti ve Fic tion : Con tem porary Poe tics

I)

1 Ii
Il

I
I

f
I

of the Artist ( 1 9 1 6) , transferring to Stephen the creativity, pride and possibility offal! associated with his Greek a ncestor. Rather than stressing similarity, analogy can also emphasize contrast between name and trait , frequently creating an ironic . effect This is the case when Razumov, son of reason (from a yes lish root) , is shown in Conrad's Under Western E ( 1 9 1 I ) to Po b e governed by unconscious motives much more frequently than by reason, often precisely when he prides himself on his rationality. Like similarities, contrasts can also be underscored by literary allusions. "Vhen the name Laura, borrowed from the glorified beloved of Petrarch's sonnets, is bestowed on a lov<;­ denying revolutionist in Porter's 'FloweringJud� ' , �e result.is a clash which ironically underscores the perverSIOn mvolved m . Laura's asceticism Although 'Ulysses' is not the name of the main character i n Joyce's novel ( 1 922), its title-position sug­ gests an analogy with the main character, Bloom, and the contrast between the mythological hero and his modern counterpart sheds ironic light on the latter. Analogous landscape As we have seen (pp, 66-7), the physical or social environment of a character does not only present a trait or traits indirectly but, being man-made, may also cause ·it or be caused by it (x lives in a very poor neighbourhood, therefore he . cheerless, or IS - the other way round - Y is depressed, therefore his house is neglected). Landscape, on the other hand, is independent of man, and hence does not normally entertain a relation of story-causality with the characters (although a character's choice to live or pass his time in a certain natural location may suggest a cause-and-effect relation ) . The analogy established by the text between a certain landscape and a character-trait may be either 'straight' ( based on similarity) or 'inverse' (emphasiz­ ing contrast). Catherine and Heathcliff in Bronte's Wuthering Heights ( 1 847) are similar to the wilderness in which they live, just as the nature of the Linton family parallels the peacefulness of their dwelling place, On the other hand, in Bialik's narrative poem, ' I n the City ofSlaughter' ( I 90+) , the cruelty ofth(" killers (as wdl as the indifference of God) is emphasized by the sharp Contrast between the pogrom and the idyllic landscape in which it

i

,

___

O< �_�'-

.-

Friedm a n 1 955, B ooth 1 96 1 : R om berg 1 962) tre tw ' at · 0 re I at ed b u t d' er liT ent q uesti ons as I f th " ey were inter chan geabl r. " e , B nefl y lo rrn ula te ' d , t h ese q uestIo ns are who se.es?' v, ' who spea k ' O bVlo usl)' s, ' � , a person ( a n d . by a n logy, a narr a tive agen t)' � , capa bl e of is both speakIng and seem g. and even of domg ' ' th m gs a t bot h the sam e tIme - a state of a ffair ' s whic h facir t , I a tes t h e con r.uSlon l , , , be t ween t h e two aCtIVI tIes , Mor , ' eover . I t I S a ' ' Imposs l bl e I most ' to spea k With out betra ymg som , ' ' " e pers onal ' po ' VI e ' 1f only th roug ( mt 0 f h the very lang uage used B u t a erson a n bY a P nalo gy, a narr ativ e agen t) is also , capa l e of u n d I n g to t elJ w efta k h at anot h er person sees or has seen , Thu s s p , an d s e ei ng . ea k mg ' ' ' . Ilarr atIOn an d IDcaliz a tlOn may r. , b u t ne ed not a t tn b U ted ' . ' . be t0 t h e sa e agen t . Th e dIst incti , � on bet ween the activi ties I two . 1 ' S a theo ret I cal necessIty , a nd only on its bas ' m t erre a tio IS Can t h e . ns betwe en t Ilem b e stud ied with precis ion , S pec lfi c exam pI es wIII , I hop e, mak ' e clea r both the r r. lor th e con eason s , ' fu slon an d t h e I m pI ' ' Icatl ons of the disti nc tion , I t IS generaIIy a ' greed that in Joyce's A Portrait , of the A rt;,t a l mos t every t hlng ' .., IS seen t h rough S teph en ' s eyes , Acc ordi ng to B , any S Usta i oot h ' n ed I nSI d e View, 0f wh a teve ' ' ' r dep th ' tem po t u rn s th e ch 'I . ran y a racte r w h ose mm d IS s h Own ' i n to a n a rrato r ' ( 1 6� ) , I fthi s is acce 96 I . pted , Step hen beco mes not only , I a vCh IC l c o f I IDea I zatJon ( 'fi ' a oca I' Izer ) b u t a I so a narr a tor " 3 How ever e ven . pas sages w m h ere th e Ia ngu age ge s as close as p ossi ble � ' transl a t i on ' to a of Step hen , s perc eptio ns . verb . al com m ulllCatlO a nd n on -v ' n er bal r. loca I Izat lOn rem aIn sep arat e, ' " Tak e .. for exa m p Ie , th e Op ' enIng of the novel:

72

... .u;" I.,,; , ;JS'2J!j. :{

N a rrat ive Fict ion: Con tem por ary Poe tic s

f:�;tt :'
I
i

- - � '�" ' .
Tex t : f ocalization
I

73

,

b

Expectations,

Sim i l arly, f ocaliza tion a n d narration are separate in so-called first-person retrospective narratives. although this is usually ignored by studies of point of view! Pip , in Dickens's Great 'You are to wait here, you boy' , said Estella and dis­ narrates events that happened to him in the past:

dure if he himself were the narrator of his story (although one could perhaps argue that child ren often do this ) .

thi ng. a baby who stil wets the bed (see the next paragraph in the novel) is incapable of f ormula ting complete sentences lik e those q u o ted a bove, For another. in this passage Stephen is . ref erred to in the third person ( "he', him ') , an u nlikely proce­

II
Ie t

a ppeared and closed the door.

of those a ccessories was not favourable. They had never troubled me bef ore, but they troubled me now, as vulgar appendages. Although this is a record of things as the child saw, f elt, u nderstood them, words like ' accessories' and 'appendages' are clearly not within a child's vocabulary . The narrator is Pip, the ad ult, while the focalizer is Pip, ilie child,;

I t ook t h e opportunity of being alone in the court-yard, to look at m y coarse hands and my common boots. My opinion

( 1 978 ,

pp.

9 1-2. Orig.

pub!.

1 860/6 1 )

�'

'

The implications of the f oregoing discussion can now be . f ormulated explicitly:

1 I n principle, focalization and n a rration are distinct activi­
I n so-called (James's The ties,

I

( 1 963 , p , 7 · O rig . p u b! , 1 9 1 6) The lang u a ge not o n l y conv evs the pe 1'l:ep tion. of th e Ch I s a I so cun t a m 'ld , I t ', ' ,s c ' ' h I l d I' S h expressIO ns. \.et it is not Stephen s I <t n guage , n o r IS ' . . S . tep h en t h e narr ator In t h is pass a ge. For one
'

Once u po ' n a lIme an d a very good ' tIme it was there . moo cow was a COm mg d own alon g the roa d and this moocow was co m i n th a l g d own a I ong t h e road m e l a nice ns l i t t! e n a me d baby boy tu ck 00. ' " H ' S a t h er told him that yory: his f ther lo a oked at him t h ro g a g lass: he had a haIry face. H e w a s ba y t uck b oo, The moo cow cam e do wn the roa d w h ere B e l t ' Y B yrne I Ived : she sold lemo n pla t t .

2

3

consciousness (or 'reflector') is the focalizer, while the user oftlH' third person is the narrator. Focalization and narration are also separate in first-person retrospective narratives.

Ambassadors, Joyce's Portrait) ,

'third-person

centre

of

consciousness' the centre of

5 However, focalization and narration may sometimes be combined , as will be shown in the next section.

4 As far as focalization is concerned, there is no difference between third-person centre of consciousness and first­ person retrospective narration, In both, the f ocalizer is a character w i thin the represented world. The only diff er­ ence between rhe two is the identitv of the n a rrator .

p. : . . when the perception th rough which the s tory is rendered is that L'Etrangn. the garden begins.6 Exte rnal f�cali �a ti o n is fel t to be close to the narrating agent. One test for distinguishing between external and internal f ocalization is the attempt to 'rewrite' the given segment in the first person.de green leaves . B u t external tor and character is minimal (as in Camus's when the temporal and psychological distance between narra­ Focal ization can be either external or internal to the story. 2 9 ) . 37) · This is the type off ocalization predominant in Fielding's There is no personified focalizer here (or anywhere else in Jealous . p. expressions like 'she would see and at first sight the f ocalization may seem external. among the banana trees crossing of the rows of trees can stilI be clearly f ollowed. p. . This type generally takes the f orm of a character-focalizer.the f ocalization is external (Barthes 1 966. pp. Just as the focalizer can be external or in ternal £0 the repre­ sen ted even ts. in French 1 957) the opposite slope of the little valley. h a s come i n t o the bed room by t h e inside door opening onto the central hallway.. i' • tends to be endowed by readers with the quali ties ofa character. 83-5) . p.. ! ized will be taken i n to accoun t in the f ollowing classifica tion. B alzac's Le nre Coriol ( 1 834) . this corner'. and Its vehIcle IS therefore called ' narrator-f ocalizer' (Bal 1 9 7 7 . .:.. On the other side of this rail. The Position relatiue to the story TomJones ( 1 749 ) . . focalizati on has both a sub ject and an ob ject. whereas the ob ject (the 'f ocalized ' ) is what the focalizer perceives (Bal 1 97 7 . with tiny longitudinal cracks. streaked The heavy hand-rail of the balustrade has almost no point dIfferent facets off ocalization w i l l b e discussed. The sun cannot be seen between their thick clusters of \\. the tWO parallel classifications do not necessarily coincide (which is why I choose 'external/internal ' ocalizer f one and 'without/wi thin' f the other) . where their specific manifes tations i n Types of focalization Two criteria will be used i n this section to discuss the different type� offocalization: posi tion relative to the story. it is not clear whether this feasibil ity can be defined in strictly grammatical terms or in the much more elusive terms of verisimilitude . Narrativ es. B u t i n ternal focalization is sometimes no more than a textual stance. .the f ocalizcr. words . 39-40 . 33) . either . She does not look at the wide open window through which . 2 1 0) . The gray of the wood shows through. and Forster's A Passage 10 India ( 1 924) . . a l though even such an u n personified stance As the term suggests. pub!. Orig. a good six feet below the level of the veranda.:. left on top.she would see this corner of the terrace..from the door . . are not only f ocalized b some­ y on� bu t also on someone or somethin g (BaI 1 9 7 7 . on B u t from the far side of the bed room the eye carries over the of the plantation. The sub ect (the ' f j ocalizer ' ) is the agent whose perception orients the presentation . I f this is feasible .:-_ . However. 'from the focalization can also occur in first person narratives. like little Sartoris Snopes in Faulkner's ?f the narrating self rather than that of the experiencing self. However. the locus of i n ternal focalization is inside the represented even ts. problematic example is Joyce's 'Araby' ( 1 9 1 4) which will be discussed below (pp. 1 95 7 ) or which things are observed . so the f ocalized can be seen either from without or f rom within .. Both focalizer and f ocal­ So f ar I have discussed f ocalizatio n and i ts veh icl e . ( 1 g6 5 . y) far side of the bedroom the eye carries over the balustrade'. _ __ .� _ . Morrissette ( 1 963) was the first to conject ure . Here is a classic example from Robbe-Grillet'sJealous y: 'Barn B urning' ( 1 939) or Pip the child i n many pa rts of Creal Ex pectatiOns.' However. however . The categories established here wil l be more fu lly t �eated in the next section. Now she has turned back toward the door to close i t behind her. and d egree of balustrade and touches ground only much further away. . if not . the regular criss­ same is true of almost all the property visible from here .the segmen t is i n ternally f ocalized. to mention only a few tcxts.as many readers after h i m have done . . since this sector has been under cultivation only recently. .. p. . An mtercsting. In other 74 N a rrative Fiction: Con temporary Poetics Text: focalization 75 N o w A . An ex ternal f or or 1 .that 'the eye' is that of the jealous husband whose vision 'colours' the in­ f ormation conveyed i n the text . 20� Genette 1 9 7 2 . . persIstence. 'the property visible from here' imply a positiol1 within the s tory f rom However. r � .

: :. ( 1 96 2 . :". as in many Biblical narratives: And Abraham rose up early in the morning. as in the passage q uoted from Jealousy and i n many narratives b y Kafka and Hemingway. sense of 'focalization' is too narrow. In the second case. �ielding �ithe � a pan � �. ra lc position of a narrator-focaliz�r. and went unto the place which God had told him.ing of 64) . : ::::�:: :��: � �:�. '==� :�. 1 cross the Australian desert. Orig. and rose up. �� : ::�. if the character-focahzer IS • • ill Ii I . the reader IS given a glimpse of the woman he left behind in Sydney ( 1 960. especially when she herself is both focalizer and focal­ ized.:. ' � ? �� <.' where he collapses.l ·"�i:�22. and clave the wood for the burnt offering. Panoramic views are frequen t in the beginning 973.. 427) when he announces his decision to return to the coast and abandon the search for the missing expeditio n. yet onJy his external actions are presented. The degree of persistence will be taken up when relevant! acet The peruptualf by two Percep tion (sight. when f?�al­ A panor amic or simult aneou s view is imposslbl � or to an u npersomfied �SltlO? ization is attached to a character int ernal to the story. his feelings and thoughts remaining opaque. I n such cases. 265. . sorrow and sacrifice ahead. This distinction between fixed. but his or her perception may also be confined to the outward manifestations of the fOcalized. as in White's The Solid 1'1-1andala ( 1 966). like Molly Bloom in Joyce's Ulysses ( 1 922). I n the first case. I Abraham is about to sacrifice his son. or shift among several. .hi �self is s�ruggling to ( 1 960. and took two of his young men with him. penetrating his feelings and thoughts. p.� :. She was prepared for the big things and the deep things. fo"Ii.9 Such is the descrip the Conrad's Nostromo ( 1 904) and that of Chand rapore m ..::�.".�-�=�= . This is what happens in the following passage from Lawrence's Sons and Lovers: She [Miriam] did not at bottom believe she ever would have him . as in James's What }Jaisie Knew ( r 8g7). I n the first.! i.." � �u : ��. aneous' focahz atton of thmgs happenmg m view or a 'simult diffe rent places.��:C!": ' .) is determined main coordinates : space and time. hke tragedy.ch � rocky out­ crop. Certainly she never saw herself living happily through a lifetime with him. for she did not trust herself to Support everyday l �fe." 2: : 2-d. an internal focalizer may perceive the object from within. And in sacrifice she was proud.:::�: �:�: n ay i O h u ' m within. I n the beginning of this chapter. A simultaneous focalIza tIOn suggests that the leader of the rescue party is gazing at the same 'inhospitable rocks i n the ncar distanc e' (p.. or end of a narrative or of one of i ts scenes (Uspensky 1 tion of Sulaco in the beginn. only the outward manifestations of the objec t (person or thing) are presented. hearing. 394) . � l < and m uI tip. pub!. The ome has come to discuss the various facets of the phen�men�n an� to show how the external/internal criterion mamfests Itself m each. ' .. '��:�:'··" ?.l . but i t can also alternate between two predominant focalizers. I t was the sufficiency of the small day-life she could not trust. (Genesis 22: 3) r I I · . that 0: a the focalizer takes a pomt limited observer. and Isaac his son. vari- n 0f 'Trans lated' into spatial terms the external/internal posItio the form of a bird's-eye view v.ion apPli' than to the focahzer. Orig. She d id not believe in herself primarily.. the last survivor of the expedi tion just manages to rea. the external focalizer (narrator­ focalizer) presents the focalized from within. s �ell. and saddled his ass. pub! . I stated that the purely visual . doubted whether she could ever be what he would demand of her. Degree o fpersislnlce Focalization may remain fixed throughout the narrative. etc. SPACE . the focalizer is located at This is the classic� l far above the object (s) of his percep tion.-� · . p. Sim �l t�neous opening of Forster's A Passage to India ( 1 924) Voss focaliz ation can be conven iently exemphfied by WhIte s 957)' While Voss . : �: :��O�:::�: : 1:': X O o Facets of focalization I I I I"Ji . p. in renunciation she �as s trong. II .==-. 1 9 1 3) Similarly. as in Faulkner's The Sound and tlu Fury ( 1 93 1 ) . She saw tragedy. Later...

is restricted by definition: being a part of the represented world. belief. The prince did not think of checking it. _.'W. whereas an Internal focalize r is limited to the 'presen t' of the cha�acters (Uspen sky 1 973. 'A Rose for Emily' is agaIn a useful exampl e. he does so out of rhetorical considerations (like the attempt to create an effect of surprise and shock in 'A Rose for Emily'). However.. The knowledge of an internal focalizer. it is clearly a knife: It must be supposed that some such f eeling of sudden horror. knowing the end when he starts the narrat l(:�n. This choice of an in ternal focalizer lends plausib ility to the withho lding of informa tion TIME . on the other hand. the determining components are again two: the cogni tive and the emotive orientation of the focalizer towards the focalized. the psychological facet concerns his mind and emotions. _ _ Text: focalization The psyclwlogicalf acet 79 ! : u . the opposition between external and i nternal focalization becomes that be­ tween u nrestricted and restricted knowledge. 82) The object i n Rogozhin's h and is an unspecified 'something' to the unknowing prince. Y� t �� ch ses not to divulge his retrospective D? underst andmg .�:� _ __ '_ �. . (Quoted by Uspensky 1 973. and when he restricts his know­ ledge. where the same event is first seen through the eyes of Prince Myshkin who knows and suspects nothing. the external focalizer (or narrator-focalizer) knows everything about the represented world. .IO As the previous sentence suggests. p. On the other hand. pp. he cannot know everything about it.__ � _ . 1 1 3 ) . ' used to create the shock effect when the d iscovery of Homer's corpse is narrated.:. The narrator and the focalizer in this narrative are the same 'person ': an inhabit ant of Emily's town. and then . ____ . conjecture. t ! .through those of the external focalizer: Rogozhin's eyes glittered and a frenzied smile contorted his face.two paragraphs later . . I n other words. To the narrator-focalizer. Knowledge. internal focalization IS synchronous w i th the informa tion regulated by the focalizer. Conceived of in these terms. on the other hand.. I� i Whereas the perceptual facet has to do with the f ocalizer's sensory range. I : Ext:rnal fo�lization is pan chronic in the case of an unper­ somfied focallze r. _ ' _ __�_ _ __�-o. memory . the temporal posi tion of the two vis-a-vis the narrated events shows them to be separate agents. hmmn g hiS percept ions to those of the towns­ people at the time of the events. and retrospective in the case of a character �'ocalizing his Own past. together with the other terrible sensations of the moment. The focalize r is thus not the �iti� en as narrator but the townspeople (includ ing himself) as lImited observers at an earlier stage. 6 7.. Uspensky gives an interesting example from Dostoevsky's The /diot ( 1 868). In principle. had suddenly paralysed Rogozhi n and so saved the prince from THE COGNITIVE COMPONENT " . He raised his right hand and something gleamed in it. an external focalizer has at his disposa l all the temporal di� ensions of the story (past.t i 1: t ·1 j � ! . present and future) .-.these are some of the terms of cognition. The narrato r is temporall � external to the story.

when the inner states of the focalized are left to be i m plied by external behaviour. and all other i deologies in the text are evaluated from this 'higher' position. -. . ruin and death . modal expressions . : � � �. 2 3 . Under the spruce by the hedgerow.I. 8) . leaving the emotions to be inf erred from them. B u t when the foca l ized is also hu man . others may be mutually opposed.:.. 85) · I n its emotive transformation. everything seemed asleep. consists of ' a general system of viewing the world conceptually'. woodlice crawling.. . 'as if'. I f additional ideologies emerge in such texts. involved) f ocalization. The first type restricts all observation to external mani­ festations. Orig. This facet ' often referred to as ' the norms of the text' .: I. along which. indicators such as 'he thought'. Putdiff erently. Some of these positions may concur in part or in whole. When the f ocalized is seen from within. the ideology or of the text (or i ts q uestioning of ideology) emerges from a 1M ideologicalf acet b I and the vine. the focalized can be perceived either from without or from ' . p : 8 2 ) 1 1 T H E EMOTIVE COMPOl'ENT within.. The subj ectivity of an i n ­ ternal focalizer can b e seen b y comparing two occasions o n which Emma Bovary looks at h e r garden at Tostes. the single authoritative exter­ nal f ocalizer gives way to a plurality of ideological positions whose validity is doubtful in principle. the 'norms' are presented through a single dominant perspective. a plaster priest was readi n g his breviary. p. As was said above (pp. The second type reveals the 'inner lif of the focal ized . uni nvolved) v. the fru i t tree covered wi th straw.suggesting the speculative status of such implica­ tion ."". p. four flo wer-beds with eglantines sur­ rounded symmetrically the more useful vegetable garden. l i ke a great sick serpent under the coping of the wall.-:. 8-9) .. . and the very plaster. 'subjective' (coloured. as in Hemingway's 'The Killers' ( 1 928) where the nervousness of the killers is implied by their frequent glances at the clock and their recurrent irritated q uestions.t� � " . in Russian 1 929) ' Dostoevsky. . Since the garden itselfis inanimate. (Quoted by Uspensky 1 973. ' i t seemed to him ' . the 'externaUi n ternal' oppo­ sition yields ' objective' (neutral. PP . I n the simplest case.:. they become subordinate to the dominant focalizer.. the i n terplay among them provoking a non-unitary. On the other hand.. on drawing near.. .'. "." ¥. I n Crime a1ld Punishme1lt ( 1 866) .=._ I I I � . 'he fell'.-. 80 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics the inevitable blow of the knif which already was coming a t e Text: f ocalization 81 him. pub!. ran between two mud walls covered with espal iered apricot trees. in accord­ ance wi th which the events and characters of the story are evaluated ( Uspensky 1 973. of course. Right a t the bottom. in French 1 857) The same garden is later seen by Emma as a place of disease. I n the middle was a slate sundial on a brick pedestal. Orig. f example.. . one saw the many-f ooted . either by making him his own f e' ocalizer (interior monologues are the best example) or by granting an external focalizer (a narrator-focalizer) the privilege of pene­ trating the consciousness of the f ocalized (as in most n ineteenth­ century novels). I n more complex cases.. 'he knew'. the cure i n the three-cornered hat reading his breviary had lost his right foot. the psychological facet of focalization is relevant only to the human f ocalizer perceiving i t.. a correl ative ofher desperate mood a t that time: On fine days she went down into the garden. p. II ' i I . 'he recognized ' often appear i n the text. No birds were to be heard.-. to a thorn hedge that separated it from the field._. ' polyphonic' reading of the text (Bakhtin 1 973.of ten occur: ' apparen tly'. that of the narrator-f ocalizer.. ' i t seemed '. thus transforming the other evaluating subjects into ob jects of evaluation (Uspensky 1 973 . the ideology of the narrator-focalizer is usually taken as authoritative. Uspensky calls these 'words of estrangement' ( 1 973. immediately comes to mind . had left white scabs on h is face. � " r. under the spruce bushes. scaling offwith the frost.. es­ pecially by an external focalizer. 74-5) . T h e first occurs bef ore the period of her great ennui and is theref ore neutral in character: The garden.e - . 'eviden tly'. his own subj ectivity is no less relevant than that of the focal izer. longer th a n wide. etc. publ. Th e de w had left a s ilver lace on the cabbages with long transpare n t threads spreading from one to the other. ( 1 965.

publ. ideology also plays a part in the story (characters ) . But names are not the only verbal means of mdlcatmg focalization. but they can also be formu lated explic idy. Orig. the use ofthe va.- ---. the norms of a narrator-foca lizer may be implic it in the orientation be gives to the story. most Russians switch to 'Napoleon' and those who do not. In i tself. Bonaparte.. focahzers. focaliz ation is non-verbal: however. and yet her name was like a summons to all my foolish blood' (p. p . on the other hand. .�. • The interrelations among the variousf acets The perceptual. p. i t is expre ssed by langua ge. 28) betrays the adult narrator as focalizer through the evaluative adjective . .. ( 1 97 I . the perceptual focalizer is usually the young. except for a few casual words. In the early s tages. although he is pre­ sented as an unsympathetic character from the ideological point of view (Uspensky 1 973. An Interes ting example of such si[!. p. They were Napoleon and two adjutants escorting him. on the other. sometimes by those of �IS . psychological and ideological facets may conc�r but they �ay also belong to different. �p. A sentence like ' I had never spoken to her. . call him 'Napoleon' and later ' L'empereur Napoleon' . . As .12 .. I shal� therefore limit myself to a few examples from joyce's 'Araby ( 1 96 1 .n In this narrative.. narrating Pip (Chatman 1 978. in Russian 1 864-9) As Uspensky says. . Thus both the presence of a foca lizer other than t h e narrat or and the shift from o?e focaliz er to anothe r may be signall ed by lang u age. '. 2. i ' j uxtaposition ofRaskolnikov's views with his own perform ance.through explici t discus sion of his ideolog y. Orig. or even 'Buonaparte'. whereas the ideology tends to be focalized by the older. That this may be true ofaU facets of focaliz ation will be suggested in the con�l uding para­ graph of tbis chapter. Sonia. . experiencing Pip. With the progress of his conquests. even clashing. and the anonymo us officer in the bar. .. pub!.:. ' I To say that focaliz ation is conveyed by variou s verbal indica tors is not to cancel the distinction between focaliz ation an d narra­ tion with which I began . as well as with the opinio ns of Razum ihin. 3 ' ) .--. judging from the voices and the thud of hoofs. \: - t . Uspensky sh�ws ( ' 97 3 . nor is it specific to narrative.like Raskolnikov .. The overal l langua ge of a tex t is that of the narrator. Shifts in naming can indicate a change of focalizer within the same paragraph or sentence. had ridden up to h i m and stopped. thereby make a strong national point. Svidri gailov. p. but focaliz ation can 'colour ' it in a way which makes it a ppea r as a transposition of the percep tions ofa separa te agent. was inspecting the dead and wounded . on the one hand.0-43) . The whole gamut of stylistic possibilities has not yet been established. HIS language is sometimes 'coloured' by his perceptions at the ti�e of narration (external focalization). 3 1 0. .. .attitude toward Napoleon at this moment of the narrauve) ( 1 973. In Great Expectations.• -<. 'Bonaparte' because it corresponds to hlS chanFied .-. 1 05 ) ' Verbal indicators o f focalization 1.nall ing is nami ng. making a tour of the field of batde . younger self (internal focalization) . emphasizing his nati�>nality. The french. A character may repres ent an ideological position through his way of seeing the world or his behav iour in i t .rious names of Napoleon 111 Tolstoy s War and Peace betrays dIfferences as well as changes of attitude toward him. doubling his foreignness by stressing that he is not even French. and in narrat ion.. an adult narrat�r . Here is an example from the encounter between Napoleon and Prince Andrey who lies wounded on the field of Austerlitz: He [Andrey] did not turn his head and did not see the men who. Simi­ larly. and someUmes remams ambiguous between the two.ov ( 1 880) : the psychology of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov is often revealed from within. � 82 Narra tive Fictio n: Conte mporary Poetics Text: f ocalization 83 . the Russians call him ' Bonaparte'. in additi on to its con t ribu tion to focaliz ation. 'We may suspect a transition from the poi� t of view ofa detached observer (who uses the name 'Napoleon ) to the poin t of view of Prince Andrey (who would use the � ame . 1 9 ' 4) . 1 58) . Thus. but also . like every thing else i n the text . . . A similar discrepancy between the psychological and the ideological facets can be found in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karama<. tells about himself as a child (of an unspecified age) . Thus.

. the stress is on the world of religious ceremonies in which the child imagines himself a hero. I 'I �( I I I' ! j ..reflects the child's associa tion between the world of religion wi thin which he was brought up with the world of the bazaar which he endowed with a quasi-religious dimension. ·r I. 29)' The language is that of the narrator. 33) ' The alliteration in 'driven and derided' . as is the choice of 'gazing' which echoes the description of the houses in the opening paragraph (.offers no definitive clue. As the vision of the child. Similarly. . If he is the n arrator.I I. the stress is on the cliche­ nature of the child's imagination. forgetting can only be recognized in retrospect.. -. But is the self-awareness ( ' I saw myself') that of the child in the time of the (P· 2 7 ) ! . the comparison of the silence of the deserted bazaar to that of a church . I I ! I I I I I I I I I Perhaps most interesting are those cases where choice be­ tween an external and an internal focalizer is problematic or impossible. the argument goes . and my eyes burned with anguish and a nger' (p.gazed at one another') and the link established between tht' ' blindness' of the child and the 'blind street' of the begi nning. 'anguish and anger' is obviously tha t of the narra tor. 'I imagined that I bore my or chalice safely through a throng offoes' ( p. I f the focalizer is a character. but in the future it may modify the post-Genettian theory presented here. t � -. I . 29) could easily be attributed to a child by virtue of its simplicity.. but the focalizer can be either the n arrator or the child. � � .. and The Mmwirs o Vidocq. . This view can be chal­ lenged by the suggestion that focalization is not only related to these aspects of narrative but actually subsumed within them.. Or consider the last sentence: 'Gazing up i n to darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity. unpublished ) .'I recognized a silence like that which pervades a church after a service' (p. This hypothesis is not yet developed enough to carry full conviction. As the vision of the n arrator. For the child . Take... In this chapter. . Text: focalization experience or that of the adult years la ter? The sentence . the disappointment is similar when both rituals are over. I liked the last best f because i ts leaves were yellow. -... then his acts of perception are part of the story. focalization is just one of many rhetorical strategies at his disposal. . 32 ) . Another indicator of an i nternal child-focalizer is the emotive.. focalization was trea ted as a textual factor rela ting to both story and narration. thus disappearing from the analysis of ' text' altogether (Ron. non-seq uitur sounding formulation of the causal explanation i n the following passage: Narrative Fiction: Con temporary Poetics ' C _�'t . the pages of which were curled and damp: The A bbot by Walter Scott. although the lexis and syntax of ' i forgot whether I answered yes or no' (p. • I .- -. f example. and the tone is ironic.. I ' � 'foolish' .. The words 1 forgot' thus poin t to an external f ocalizer by signalling temporal and cognitive distance from the event. ! I fou nd a few paper-covered books. On the other hand. The Devout Communicant.

speaking of the implied author as a construct based on the text seems to me far safer than imagining it as a personified 'consciousness' or 'second self. while the narrator can only be defined circularly as the ? . Implied . 1 5 1 ) comes up with the follow­ ing diagram: Real implied authors are often far superior in i ntelligence and moral standards to the actual men and women who are real authors. it has no voice. often designated as ' the author's second self' ( 1 96 1 . Its relation to the real author is admitted to be of great psychological complexity.g.reader .voiceless and silent. .1-2) or Bierce's 'Oil of Dog' ( 1 909. the implied author of a particular work is conceived as a stable entity. work ideas. every text has a n implied autho� and implied reader. Distinct from the real author.J J ! f. the implied reader is also a con­ str uct. !ser 1 974. W en � hc latter are present. Like the implied author. According to this view.. p. Indeed. they are 'represented' by substitute agents which Booth and numerous others (e. belief emotions other than or even quite opposed t o those he has in real life.' More than -just a textual stance. He. the implied author also differs f rom the narrator. by all the means it has chosen to let us learn. and h as barely been analysed. 1 48) author •. the implied author can kll us nothing. An author may embody in a s. Perry 1 979) call the 'implied author' and 'implied reader'.(Narratee) -. the communication proceeds from ImplIed Thus. p. 67 and e1se� where). he may also embody different ideas. In any event. beliefs and emotions in different works. it has been put forward that the two need not be. except to suggest (Booth 1 96 1 . p. Booth's implied author appears to be an anthropomorphic entity . According to Chatman. no direct means of communicat­ ing. 1 50). the source ofthe norms embodied in the work. but a narrator and a narratee are optIOnal (hence put in parenthesis in his diagram ) (p. so the latter is distinct from both real reader and narratee (see pp. ( 1 978.Narration: levels and voices 87 7 N arration : levels and voices Th e participants i n the narrative communication situation Seeking to articulate the views of narration promulgated most notably by Booth ( 1 96 1 ) within a semiotic model of com­ munication . In presenting the distinc­ tion between implied author and narrator.in opposition and by definition . In this sense the implied author must be seen as a construct inferred and assembled by the reader fro m all the components of the text. Thus while the flesh­ and-blood author is subj ect to the vicissitudes of real life. Chatman ( 1 978. the implied author is . through the design of the whole. and just as the former differs from both real author and narrator. Chatman seems to give it a specifically semiotic interpretation: Unlike the n arrator. . identical. with all the voices. and in fact are often not.• author Implied ( .1 2) for example do not su bscribe to the norms of the narrators of these texts. � Real reader ' i ' t i- Of the six participants enumerated in this diagram two are l eft outside the narrative transaction proper: the real author and his equally real counterpart. It instructs us silently. 1 1 8-1 9) . or better.!\arrator) -. p. In the text. ideally consistent with itself within the work. Most readers intuitively f eel that the implied authors of Browning's 'My Last Duchess' ( 1 8. the implied author is the governing consciousness of the work as a whole. the real reader. 75) that I I: narrative 'voice' or 'speaker' of a text.

This chapter will there­ f ore deal with two participants only: the fictional narrato� and the fictional narratee. agent which is at the very least implicitly ad�ressed by the narrator. The implied au thor and reader WIll be The same goes f the narratee. p. con­ siders a narrative without a narratee. theref \ onn of narration. For me. 228 -34). On the contrary. it can entertain various temporal relations with the events of the story.. . a subject) . Thus I cannot accept the statement that just as there may or may not be a narrator.cation betw�en author and reader is less relevant to the poeues of narratJve fiction than its counterpart in the tex t. communication is confined to the implied author and the implied reader. that the implied a voice (i . Whereas the first modification I propose is the exclusion of the implied author and reader from a description of the communication situation. I propose to distinguish f orms and degrees of percep­ tibility of the narrator in the text. 2 This is not to deny the significance of the concept of implied author or its usefulness in the analysis or even mere comprehension of narrative fiction. the real reader. 1 48). This is the case of Camus's L 'Etranger ( 1 942) which Chatman. . This last point is one of two major difficulties I find in hatman's scheme. I define the narrator minimally. even when the narrator becomes his own narratee. In­ stead o f Chatman's dichotomy between absent and present narrators. are classified by Genette under four headmgs ( 1 972.. 1 ' : " . 1 50) " In my view there is always a teller in the tale. Furthermore. - ! author to narrator to narratee and finally to the implied ·reader. at least in the sense that any utterance or record of an u tterance presupposes someone who has uttered it. or f orgotten letters and diaries. then it seems a contradiction in terms to cast i t in the role of the addresser in a communication situation. Only f our of Chatman's six participants are thus relevant to my conception of narration: the real author. but a fuller analysis of these con­ structs will be reserved for chapter 9· The relations between narration and story Temporal relations Since narration is an event like any other.88 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics � . one day in L 'Etranga. It follows. e. to mention only a few texts where thlS most y � activity serving the needs of narration. the narrator the narratee.' My second ob jection to Chatman's scheme concerns his treatment of the narrator and the narratee. 1 70). on the other hand. pp. there is in addition to the speakers or writers of this discourse a 'higher' narratorial authority responsible for 'quot­ ing' the dialogue or ' transcribing' the written records. if � Its d efining property (as opposed to the narrator) is that it 'has no voice. A narratee of this kind is always implied. there may or may not be a narratee' (Chatman 1 978. Chatman. as I have suggested in the introdu tion. These . ' �. When a narrator and a narratee are absent. If the implied author is only a construct. p.� Even when a narrative text presents passages of pure dialogue. author cannot literally be a participant in the narrative com­ munication situation. the notion of the implied author must be de-personified. they need not. manuscript found in a bottle.::-" . my second suggestion calls for the inclusion of the narrator and the n arratee as constitutive. the narratee is the or d mentioned when relevant. I believe that this concept is important and often crucial in determining the reader's attitude to such a ma jor component as the narrator (mostly in cases of unreliabil­ I � Narration: l evels and voices 89 . unlike myself. and is best considered as a set of implicit norms rather than as a speaker or ore. . A story may be cast in epistolary f orm in which every sentence expresses only the then-and-there relationship between the correspondents' ( 1 978. factors in narra­ tive communication. see pp. The distance between tht' narration and the events varies f rom text to text: around fifteen years in Great Expectations. believes that 'Though diary-entries may and often do narrate. although the one who writes a letter is thus a f it may not intend to or be conscious of narrating. My claim is that if it is to be consistently distinguished from the real author and the narrator. the empirical process of communi._ . Dickens's Great Expectations ( 1 860/61 ) and oolf's Mrs Dallowa ( 1 925) . as in Fielding'S Tom Jones ( 1 749) . The writing of a diary or f req uent f orm of narration is used. But a narration . as the agent which at the vel)' least narrates or engages in some ity. no direct means of communicating' (p. 1 00-3 ) . not j ust optional. Common sense tells us that events may be narrated only afte r they happen ('ulterior n arration'). Unlike Chatman.

. Kurtz) is reduced to a voice. The events may include speech-acts of narration . reporting or d iary entries. ( 1 957. constitute a second degree narrative. hence a . Vvnereas examples abound in Biblical prophecies. of course. A character whose actions are the ob ject of narration can himself in tum engage in narrating a story.X I I of Milton's Paradise Lost ( 1 667). and Portnoy addresses his is the events themselves: the pilgrims' journey to the shrineofSt Thomas a Becket. etc. a narrative whose predictive nature is confirmed by the historical knowledge of the modem reader. narration is of the f ourth type. more he writes. Such narratives within narratives create a stratification of levels whereby each inner narrative is subordinate to the narrative within which it is embedded. I mmediately subordinate j novels in Nabokov's Tlu Real Life o Sebastian Knight ( 1 94 1 ) . the more he will have to write about.e. like Sebastian's to the extradiegetic level is the diegetic level narrated by it. the adult Pip of Great Expectations tells about his childhood. Conrad's Heart oj Darkness ( 1 902).---. complete modem texts written in the predictive vein are rare. and with your right shoulder you are trying in vain to push the sliding panel a little further . as when Chaucer's pilgrims take turns at telling stories. Classic examples of this type are epistolary novels. In principle. But there may also be narration in the story. Pip's falling in love ""ith Estella. narration also has a duration (i. generally using the f uture tense. then. Within his story there may. It is at this a level that the narrator of Chaucer's Tlu Canterbury T les ( 1 390 -1400 approx. in both cases a character p Subordination relations: narrative !£vets ( Marlow. . Narratives within narratives are again an ex ceptio n. the time it takes to tell something) . ) presents the pilgrims. for example. is a n arra­ or tion which precedes the events ('an terior narration' ) .- 90 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics N arration : levels and voices 91 after the event (normally in the past tense) is not the only possibility.g. f obvious reasons. I nstead. A third type of narration is simultaneous with the action. 9· My translation) .g. In this hierarchical structure. . addressing h imself in the second person. Portnoy's struggles with his Jewish mother. . in which the writing ofletters often serves both to narrate an event of the recent past and to trigger an event of the near f uture. \ I> I� Il' I 1= I I I� When telling and acting are not simultaneous but follow each other in alternation. Tristram realizes that all he has recorded is the first day of his life. To com lete the enterprise of writing thus seems impossible. e. . you are lifting it up and you feel your muscles and tendons. the place in which it occurs need not be mentioned. Narration thus always lags behind living. of course. curses or dreams of fictional characters. Such is the vision cum explana­ tion of the future given to Adam by the Angel Michael in Books XI. the exploits of the pardoner. The paradoxical result of ignoring this convention is wittily dramatized in Sterne's Tristram Shandy ( 1 760) . Like the duration of the act of narration. The distance between story and narration is not the only temporal determination of the latter. the highest level is the one immediately superior to the first narrative and concerned with its narration (Genette 1 972 calls this the 'extradiegetic level'. e. p. Any prolepsis is. but sometimes the present. and so on in infinite regress. a 'pocket' of anterior narration. I t is a kind of predictive narration.6 In Butor's La Modification the narra­ tor. seems to be verbalizing his actions while perf orming them: You have put your left foot on the copper rabbet. describes in detail the ship on which Marlow's narration takes pl ace. that 'complaint' to the silent psychiatrist. such as Laclos's Les liaisons dangereuses ( 1 782) . Much less frequent. be yet another character who narrates another story. or written.. I t also establishes m any analogies between Marlow's n arration and the s tory he narrates: both narration and events happen in the heart of darkness. After a whole year of writing. namely 'intercalated ' . and consequently the Most of what was said up to now was concerned with the narration oj the s tory. And yet most fiction conventionally ignores this duration and treats narration as if it were instantaneous (narratives within narra­ tives are often an exception to the rule ) . nor does the reader feel the need o f r such specification. Thc stories told by fictional characters. your suitcase . his 'diegesis' being roughly analogous to my 'story') .whether oral. this type of narration tends to appear in narratives within narratives in the form of prophecies.

1 97 1 . 45. l e t it be said who Lucy Tartan was' ( 1 964. A n a n alogy which verges o n identity. Tristram Shan�y also pl ac es narratee and story on the same level: it does so when an absolute truth . is known i n French as mise en ab ymt. p. functions and significance.g. Sebastian (diegetic leve l ) . p. answering some such question as 'What were the events leading to the present situation?' In this case. it is the story n arrated and not the act of narration i tself that is of primary i m portance. �---�. I t c a n be described as t h e equivalent i n narrative fiction of something l i ke M a tisse's famous painting of a room i n which a m i n i ature version of the same paintings hangs tion f mise en ab or yme. to divu lge and who dies bef ore uttering the word which could have changed the lives of all those who could have benefi ted from the d isclosure. PP· 489-5 1 2) . explains how Sutpen lost hIS mnocence and came to be the self. making the hypodiege­ tic level a mirror and reduplication of the diegetic. ThIS fu nction predominates in Nabo­ kov's many: the story of Sebastian's last novel. to the same period' ( 1 967._ __ . 1 94 1 ) . see Rimmon 93 hypodiegetic level ( i . as mention mise en ab yme briefly. novel similar to the novel in which he appears. thus: some h ypodiegetic narratives maintain or advance the action of the first narrative by the sheer f act of being narrated. Narration is always at a higher narrative level than the story i t narrates.. slmllanty and contrast. in particular in the A Thousand and OTU! Nights is a classical example. Orig. 4 1 ). - 92 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Narration: levels and voices (on this and other analo� es i n this novel. 1976b. In add i tion to undermining the sep­ ara tion between narration and story. the hypodiegetic level by a diegeric (intradiegetic) one. 1 852) . Ever since G ide's expression of a predilec­ 1 Acliollalf unction: the technique has been much discussed. V desperately tries to reach the dying Sebastian in the belief that ance' ( 1 97 1 . Sometimes. (hypo-hypodiegetic level) is strikingly analogous to V ' s quest f or ' the real lif of his half e' -brother. 857-8 it is written here.. Absalom! ( 1 936). These functions are someti mes present separately. the transi tion is not marked .:ant (a hypo-hypodiegetic level) . 162. and the only condition her stories e 1 967. Unf ortunately.. Orig. e .reliant. he treats the n arration (extradiegetic level) as if it were contemporary with the narrated events (diegetic level) and should theref ore fi ll-in 'dead periods' i n the story.e. 35 3). A famous example from Gide's own work is The Counltr eiJers ( 1 949) where a character is engaged in writing a f I can only I unction: the hypodiegetic level offers an explana­ 2 Explicativef tion of the diegetic level. To give one example out of f The Doubtf Asphodel ul comment like 'While Pierre and Lucy are now rol ling along u nder the elms. sometimes in com­ bination. however. French-speaking world (e. Thus i n The Canttrbury Tales: And he began to speak. types. pub!. without going into the variety ofits I 3 Thematic f unction: the relations established between the hypodi�getic and the diege �i c levels are those of analogy.' . � _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ �_ · _ · _ r . . p. When the narrator i n Melville's PieTTe. In Faulkner's Absalom. The subject o fSebastian ' s novel i s a dying m a n who has a secret. Thus the diegetic level is narrated b y an extradiegetic narrator. a-moral person h e is. because of the limited scope of the present study. but Sebastian dies. i. Dallenbach 1 977. In a similar fashion. a level 'below' another l evel ofdiegesis)' . . as when the presen tation of 1\1rs Shandy i s interrupted by: ' I n this attitude I am determined to let her stand f five or min utes: till I bring up the affa i rs of the kitchen . Thomas Sutpe n ' s narration of his childhood to General Compson. and it it too late f the extraordinary revelation to come from his lips or 'He has something to tell me. p. The General Prologue. negro � e . with right good cheer. Hypodiegetic narratives may have various functions in rela­ tion to the narratives within which they are embedded. especially of the insulting conf rontation with the have to fulfil is to sustain the Sultan's a ttention. 11. something of boundless import­ . B aI 1 978 ) . p u b! . Scheherezade's lif depends on her narration . regardless (or almost regardless) of their content. His tale anon. ' . The narrator's d igressions in Tristram Shandy have a similar effect. and the discreteness of levels is transgressed. Ricardou on one of the walls. described i n his journals as a transposition ohhe theme ofa work to the level of the characters ( 1 948. The transition from one narrative level to another is in principle effected by the act of narration which d raws the reader's attention to the shift. or the Ambiguities addresses the reader with a The Real Life o Sebastian Knight.

255-6). 255-6). It is '" " . precisely their being absent from the story and their higher narratorial authority in relation to i t that conf ers on such narrators the quality which has often been called 'omniscience'.e.s The novel repeatedly on e 'is Douglas. the adult Pip is a higher Tom Jones ( 1 749). A narrator who does not participate in the story is called 'heterodiegetic' (Genette reverses the hierarchy. etc. and finally his reliability are crucial factors in the reader's understanding of and attitude to the story. n amely: familiarity. Christine Brooke-Rose's the interchangeability of narrative levels. resulting In a paradox which the text itself puts in a nutshell: 'Whoever you invented invented you too' ( 1 975. like the level of which he i s a pan (Genette 1 972. the intradiegetic The Turn o tlu Screw ( 1 898) f the characters' innermost emotions. . the extent of his participation in the story. Compare Fielding's. 'Omniscience' is perhaps an exaggerated term. i narrative told by the extradiegetic narrator. from 'above'. Al though not omniscient in principle. narrating subject � nd narrated object. pp. transf orming a narrated object into a narrating agent and vice versa. P · 285)· Modern sel f -conscious texts often p lay with n arrative levels in order to question the borderline between reality and fiction or to suggest that there may be no reality apart from its narration. 1 44-6) . Nevertheless. In James's y extradiegetic narrator is the anonymous T . unlike the other extradiegetic has knowledge of simu ltaneous events happening in different place s . However. Estella's marriage and divorce during the period her childhood-admirer spends in London and Cairo: he is aware of . on a lonely stroll or during a love-scene in a locked room). To this category belong the narra­ tors of Fielding's Great Expectations. Balzac's Pere Goriol ( 1 834) . like the f ormer extradiegetic narrators. and knowledge of what happens in several places at the same time ( Ewen J 974. and Sons and Lovers are i n no sense participants i n the stories they narrate at least in some manifestation of his 'self'.g. pp. presence in locations where characters are supposed to be unaccompanied (e. higher and lower level collapses.as I shall soon argue . the degree of perceptibility of his role. p. ' above' or superior to the story he narrates i s 'extradiegetic' . Thro ( 1 975) is an extreme example of Extent o participation in tlu story f Both extradiegetic and intradiegetic narrators can be either absent from or present in the story they narrate. 255-6) . h podiegetic) . the characteris­ tics connoted by it are still relevant. (hence they are both extradiegetic and heterodiegetic). knowledge of past. is 'homodiegetic' (pp. container and contained. The extradiegetic narrators of Tom Jones. The very distinction between outside and inside. etc. e. as it were. Heart o Darkness f f ourth degree and the ( hypo­ the The Canterbun' Tales. . the need f revenge or motivatin g Miss Havisham's manipulation of Estella to break me n's hearts. if the n arrator is also a diegetic character in the first narratorial authority in relation to the story which he narrates. present and future. especially f or modern extradiegetic narrators. and the hypodiegetic narrator is the gover­ ness .g. as it were. when narrating the story he knows 'everything' about it. 2 55-6).. There can also be narrators ofa hypodiege ti c ) . 53). Ptre Goriot. whereas the one who takes part in it. I t is therefore according to these criteria that the variety of narrators will be presented. On the other hand. He knows the solution to the enigma concerning the identity of the mysterious benefactor ( a cruci a l detail h e withholds from the reader f a long time): he or I �. in principle. or i n tradiegetic narrator (Genette 1 972. Like them. A typology o f narrators The narrative level to which the narrator belongs.that of Dickens's Great Expectations ( 1 860/6 I ) . pp. The criteria are not m utually exclusive and allow for cross-combinations between the different types. Examples are Marlow in Conrad's pardonf'r in third degree (i. 1 972. but also . then he is a second­ degree. pp. e. Balzac's and Lawrence's narrators to Pip of Narrative level A narrator who is. with the characters' innermost thoughts and feelings.94 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics N arration: levels and voices 95 asking the 'dear reader' to help Tristram reach his bed ( J 967.g. Lawrence's Sons and Lovers ( 1 9 1 3) .

. 1 928). . p. i.' (Austen 1 974. they narrate their own story (auto-diegetic narrators. The degree of participation of homodiegetic narrators (be they extradiegetic or intradiegetic) varies from case to case. 1 81 6) or ' Mrs Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself (Woolf 1 974. 223). though she was over fifty. In narrative fiction. Nevertheless. On this side there was no shade and no trees and the station was between two lines of rails in the sun.. Pip ( extra-homodiegetic) and the pardoner (intra-homodiegetic) play a central role in the respective stories they narrate (pro­ tagonists-narrators) . 'Ai said'.. Ole Anderson 'had been a heavyweight prize­ (p. all this would be shown directly. p. Close against the side of the station there was the warm shadow of the building the open door into the bar. i j f I f . merely identi­ fies. 54). In less pure cases. . pp. 5. The briefsummary of i . fighter' of its narrator (see example in chapter 4. there are many signs of overtness which Chatman 3 Temporal summary: ' S ummary presupposes a desire to account f or time-passage. intradiegetic ones can also be either heterodiegetic or homodiegetic. the opening of 'Hills like W hite Elephants ' : The hills across the valley of the Ebro were long and white. J j . and grown very white since her illness' ( 1 974. made of strings of bamboo beads. with a comf ortable home and happy disposition .. Orig. narrator' s presence occurs even in Hemingway. 37· Orig.) and de­ scribes the restaurant as well as the characters' external appear­ ance. such an account' (Chatman cannot but draw attention to the one who f elt obliged to make ( 1 978. and a curtain. 66) . I I �. Although the narrator's presence is much less perceptible in Mrs Dallowa then it is in Emma.not a heterodiegetic narrator. Such statements also imply an assumption that the nar­ ratee-reader does not share this knowledge. I 1 � 1 I i I j.or. p. Consider. Thus a few signs of overtness can be detected ( 1 965. On the other hand. . light. even in a text whose narrator is almost purely covert. the dialogue is 'quoted' by someone. p. and the language is that of a narrator. On the other hand. an assu mption which characterizes one of the narrator's roles. Chaucer's pardoner and Lockwood in Wuthtring Heights ( 1 847) narrate stories in which they also participate as characters: they are theref ore intradiegetic-homodiegetic. in the stories she herself narrates. at three points in the text the narrator's presence becomes more perceptible. £ t r In a play or a film. relegating additional details to bracketed statements either in the form of observations by other characters or in that . Who could that ' someone' be ifnot a narrator? Moreover. r 2 Identification o characters: f Statements like 'Emma Wood­ house. He is thus a homo. for example. pub!. H ere is a neighbour'S observation from which we learn about Clarissa's age and illness : 'a touch of the bird about her. is often praised by critics for the covertness identify the former to the reader at the very beginning of the text. she does not appear as a character.9 Hemingway's 'The Killers' . Lockwood's role is subsidiary (wi tness-narrator) . vivacious. handsome. However. it has to be said in language. She is theref ore an intradiegetic­ heterodiegetic n arrator. pub!. it is f . Like extradiegetic narrators. . An account a 1 978. Austen's narrator goes beyond identification to provide a whole characterization of the of Mrs Dalloway's own thoughts. etc. blue-green. betraying knowledge of the past: ' H enry'S had been m ade over from a saloon into a lunch-counter' Orig. heroine. bef ore' (p. 5 1 . 220-52) lists in mounting order of perceptibility: 1 Description of setting: This relatively minimal sign of . 6I. Pip tells a story in which a younger version of himself participated. . Orig. -­ '- � 96 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Narration: levels and voices 97 n arrators. to satisfy questions in a narratee 's mind about what has happened in the interval. pubL 1 925) show prior 'knowledge' of the character on the part of the narrator who can therefore Degree ofperceptibility This ranges from the maximum of covertness (often mistaken for a complete absence of a narrator) to the maximum of overtness. to communi­ cate to others what they don't know. ( 1 965 . Woolf's narrator. and rich. p. hung across 1 928)'0 I I. the same ' someone' who stricted to dialogue. publ. on the other hand. clever. . almost entirely re­ identifies the speakers ( 'Nick asked'. to keep out the flies. Scheherezade is a fic­ tional character in a story narrated by an extradiegetic narrator. p.e. ofthe jay. 6) . in Genette's terms) ..:v elt even in the former through the identification. Nick 'had never had a towel in his mouth 65) . p. 0. put diff erently.

_ . judgements. " .. 6 Commentary: p. she was in the habit of taking f granted.- . Such is the beginning of Tolstoy'S Anna Karenina: 'Happy families are all alike.. pub! . etc. But there are other passages in the same novel which are more directly j udgemental: It may be affirmed without delay that I sabel was probably very liable to the sin of self-esteem. ( 1 964.. and to her one more of his... I always knew that' I n Dickens's ( 1 963. a society or humanity at large. . p .. 53-5) imply the presence of a narrator as well as his notion of what should be told in detail and what could be narrated with greater conciseness. ---. the pas­ sage quoted above from ment. 3. Her thoughts were a tangle of vague o utlines which had never been corrected by the j udgement of people speaking with authority. definition also suggests an abstraction. f whom he has ( 1 964. every hour.. as when the narrator of Carson McCullers's The Sojour­ ner' explains the state of mind behind the ageing character's or sudden tenderness toward his mistress's son.. Esther opens her narrative thus: '1 to the story. 346. pub!. Esther apologetically comments on her f eeling of inadequacy as a narrator.) as we do about the characters whose behaviour he i nterprets. 1 853) . 1 48. f or I know 1 am not clever. U nlike interpretation. . event. Tess was trying to lead a repressed lif but she little divined the strength of her e.--_ . pub!. p. and it had led her into a thousand ridiculous zigzags. The Portrait of a Lad verges on judge­ y .. An example from Hardy's f 5 Reports o what characters did rwt think or sa A narrator who y: they deliberately conceal is clearly felt as an independent ( P· 50) The third type of commentary.--' . j udgement and generalization relating Bleak House.--- . This is how Henry James 's narrator defines the heroine of The Portrait ofa Lad y: Isabel Archer was a young person of many theories.. D 'Urbervilles: Tess of the Every day. Orig. . 30. Like many interpretations and definitions. Orig. . de­ velops a whole theory about the possibility of vampire-like relations among fou r of the guests in the country-house he visits.as though an emotion as protean as his love could dominate the pulse of time' ( 1 97 1 . f or example. Orig. brought to him one more little stroke of her nature. 49. can tell things of which the characters are either u nconscious or which source of inf ormation. her imagination was remarkably active . or she treated herself to occasions of homage. generalization or summing up on the part of the narrator as well as a desire to present such labelling as authoritative character­ ization. commentary on the narration is concerned not with the represented world but with the problems of representing it. 1 88 1 ) I i Such definitions tend to carry more weight when given by an extradiegetic narrator than by an i ntradiegetic one. pub!.- -' - 98 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics N arration: levels and voices 99 Albino's whole lif in the opening of Nabokov's Laughter in the e Dark as well as the compression of sixteen years i n Flaubert's always had neither time nor patience: 'With inner desperation he pressed the child close . is not restricted to a specific character. have a great deal of difficulty in beginning to write my portion of these pages. pub!. pp. on scanty evidence. . his tendency to polarize human beings... 1 89 1 ) Commentary can be either on the story or on the narration.�-. Perhaps more revealing of the narrator's moral stand are Sentimnztal Education (to mention only examples of summary quoted in an earlier chapter.. generalization. 195 ' ) ' I n terpretations often provide inf ormation not only ject but also about the in terpreter. Orig.. p. his priggishness. From his elaborate speculations we learn at least as much about him (his highly developed imagination.-. Orig. The about their direct ob narrator of James's The Sacred Fount ( 1 90 ) ). own vitality. but her reservations do not undermin e the fictional reality of the story she narrates.. or situation but extends the significance of the particular case in a way which purportedly applies to a group.. I n matters of opinion she had had her own way. in Russian 1 8 73-6) . that she was right. she of ten surveyed with complacency the field of her own nature... f 4 Definition o character: Whereas an identification of a character implies only the narrator's prior knowledge about or acquaintance with him. p. One form of commentary on the story is inter preta­ tion. every u nhappy family is u nhappy in its own way' ( 1 950 .

q uite often tell things t hey do not fu l l y know.-" . publ.. Reliability A reliable narrator is one whose rendering of the s tory and commen tary on i t the reader is s upposed to take as an a u thorita­ tive account of the fictional t ru t h .. What is s u spect in reporting of the evalu ation of Sutpen ' s acts rathe r than her previou s exampl e). o� : when the facts co�tra­ e dict the narrator 's views . A young n arrator would be a clear case oflimited knowledge (and understanding ) .---�� . u ndermin ing the reliability of its � � I � user. Orig. events themse lves (as in the g of The third potentia l source of un reliability is the colourin heme.'-. ofcourse. l ook i ng down Narration : levels and voices 101 P· 30) . Various factors in the text may indicate a gap between the norms of the implied author and those of the narra..hlS oregOIng views may seem to some readers. I I · Ii .... _ _ . ' lThe figures given h e r e a r e incorrect. The main sources of u n reliability are the narrator ' s limi ted knowledge. and his problematic value-scheme. it may have a boomerang effect . :'vloreover. _.. such was the proud record of the Lynch family when \Natt entered 1\·1 r Knot t ' s service . adult and mentally normal narrators a. � .� 1 00 � aITative Ficti o n : Contem porary Poetics Compare this with Becke t t ' s Wall where the history of the Lynch family is followed by a f ootnote: Five generations. of his children. when th� views.. she presents hI m a: a in having a male child first.. be diff erent degrees of u nreliability. I was born ofh � nest parents acturer of the hu mbler walks of l ife . ­ -. . . no matter how �bJ ectlOnable .. the l atter IS J udged to be unrelIabl behind the narrator's (bur how docs one establish the ' real facts' back?) : when the outcome of the action prov�s th� n �� t�r � � wrong. The trouble WIth the f t however is that the values (or 'norms') of the statemen � implied a thor arc otorious ly difficult to arrive at. Absalom! narrates in great d e t a i l Sutpen's fight with his in one My name is BofTer Bings. The consequent cal­ culations are therefore doubly erroneous. 1 0 1 .. . provoking reflections abo u t fictionality and textuality which arc typical of self-conscious narratives.. and reliability can then be negatively defined by their absence. 1j : ' II 'i 1. However.. i... like Faulkner's Benjy i n the first section of . the adolescent who tells the disturbing events of his recent pas t in Salinger's The Catcher in the R. i t emphasizes the status of the text as artifice. Thus Rosa i n ( J 9:1 I ) .. his personal involvement. in French 1 953) The very use of a f ootnote in a work of fiction is u n usual and automatically draws attention to the presence of a n arrator reflecting on his own narration. I was not there through the square en trance to the loft' ( 1 972. a charact erizatio n clea rly dIstorte this instanc� is Rosa's (even ifj ustified ) rage.. An unreliable narrator.edged images.. to see the two Sutpen f was n ot there. -. ./�. p. .. double.. ' 0f h er l Imlled Rosa's narration is suspect not only because p e�s�nal invol�emenL h �r knowledge but also because of her jury res� lung from hIS of Sutpen.. my father bemg a manuf of dog-oil and my mother havin g a small studio in the shadow I i .. SUs�lclon may anse m e reader's mind ' and when the narrator s language contaInS internal contr dictions.g. A the narrator 's account by a questionable value-sc narrator's moral values are consid ered questionable if they do work.e ( 1 95 J ) . is one whose rendering of the story and/or commen­ tary on it the reader has reasons to suspect.-. . . and then adds: 'But I negroes in the presence aces .. a doubt is retrospe ctive ly cast over hlS relIabIlI ty 111 reporting earlier events. B u t how can the reader know whether he is s upposed to trust or distrust the n a rrator's account? What indications does the text give him one way or the other? Signs of unreliability are perhaps easier to specifY. -. -. : 1'I. Conseq . �f other c ar� cters consisten tl y clash with the narrato r s. the footnote contra­ dicts the inf ormation given in the text. � . on the other hand . . e. ..". thus undermining either the credibility of the text or the reliability of the n a rrator or both._ .. iI ii Ii : t ( 1 97 2 . nine hundred and eight years. ..-. I n any case. • . twen ty-eight souls. -'0""" " --. 1 �. and the like. . --... her undying sense of In hat red s cceed sulti ng proposal that he would marry her only lfthey � in u �ntly.lso The Sound and the Fu'f)' Let us take as a concret e exampl e a funny and terrifying passage from Am brose Bierce 's 'Oil of Dog': Absalom . I ' . There can . d by her subjective demon . I f not tally with those of the implied author of the given implied author does share t R e narrator's v�l u �s then t e the latter is reliable in this respect. An idiot-narrator would be another.

800. The sequel of the action also suggests that the horrors practised by the Bings family cannot be treated lightly. incon­ gruities and understatements be the narrator's way of exposing the horror and immorality of which the child was innocent? As a counter-argument one may recall that even after the events the (P· 803)· narrator does not feel remorse for the immorality of his youthful or behaviour.-.. It had been my custom to throw the babes into the 1 03 �.' � .which may be ailled ambiguous narratives .-�� . he deplores a tactical error.. The governess 111 James's The Tum of the Screw. ( 1 952. it difficult to decide whether the narrator 15 rehab Ie or unreh­ able and if unreliable ... In other words. the father and mother. p. can be seen as a reliable narrator telling the story oftwo haunted children. is likely to be reliable. pp. even a passage with so many markers ofunre­ liability is problematic.1I N arratees Although only scanty attention was paid to narrat� es bef� re the last decade.. 1 78-96. j udgements. 'it cannot greatly matter in put it into this cauldron. I said to myself. are not important in a population which increases so rapidly. When the intervention of the townspeople forbids the continuation of the business.. II � ten giving rise to the possibility of lematic value-schemes. when an extradiegetic narrator becomes more overt. though of the village church. not a moral faul t and this is what the implied author invites the reader to criticize. putting the reader in a position of constant oscillati n � between mutually exclusive alternatives.�. narrators (important recent studies of the narratee.. Orig. . where such a narrator conunuously contra­ dicts himself. prof essions. 1 909-1 2 ) Contrasts and incongruities i n the narrator's language alert us to a possible unreliability in the narrator's evaluations. . does so in the shadow of the village church) as 'honest'? How can one describe nature as thoughtfully providing a river into which these unfortunate babes can be thrown? Understatements oper­ ate in a similar way: having thrown one baby into the cauldron. i t � '. not necessarily in his reporting of facts. these 'are not important i n a population which increases so rapidly'. M any texts mak e � . Cases lik� Robbe-Grillet's Lt Vtrytur ( 1 955). and hence the butt ofthe irony shared by the implied author and reader. .. and prob­ . are Prince 1 973. they are subject to limited knowledge. his chances of being fully reliable are diminished. of unreliability. Boffer is only concerned about making sure that his father would not distinguish the bones ofa baby from those ofa puppy. J river which nature had thoughtfully provided for the pur­ pose. couldn't the narrator be seen as ironically telling the experiences of his younger self? Could n ' t the contrasts. � r. " :. Intradlegeuc narrators.- ·". . especially when they are also homodiegetic. Bu t self-irony may operate here too. unwittingly reporting her own hallucinations .-----.make such a decision impos­ sible.� �� �- . where she disposed of unwelcome babes . pub!. A covert extradiegetic narrator. to take the most f amous example. personal involvement. And what if some deaths result from this manoeuvre? Well. Uncertainty is not confined to cases where both unrealiability and irony could be attributed to the narrat r. implying the horror of all the rest precisely by confining the explicit indigna­ tion to the most morally neutral act. moreover. the narrator comments in his understating tone I nterestingly. especially when he IS also heterodiegetic. on winch my account is based. but only 'f a heedless act [ throwing the baby into the dog cauldron] entailing so dismal a commercial disaster' (p . are extremely un­ usual. . t . Some texts . neurotic narrator.. 803) .. but that night I did not dare to leave the oilery f fear of or the constable. How can one speak of a mother who disposes of unwelcome babies (and.. g�ne�lizations are not �lwa� s compatible with the nonns of the Imphed author. attempt to take each other's life and end by boiling together in the cauldron: 'A disagreeable instance of domestic infelicity' . are on the whole more fallible than extradiegetic ones..' " ..to what extent. . · 0 -- _ . since his interpretations. . and the f ew deaths which may result from administering another kind of oil f or the incomparable ol.. thereby becoming unreliable. because they are also characters in the fictional world. . but she can also be considered an unreliable. 'After all ' . Instead of being considered unreliable. As such. eager to continue their . Genette 1 972. 1 02 N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Narration : levels and voices : I . they are as indispensable to narrative fictIOn as . My father will never know the bones from those of a puppy. .ean. However. � �.

. Madam. I beg leave to repeat it over again. 26<r. Then. the temporal and hierarchical rela­ tions between narration and story. f narrative may. whose unreliability he repeatedly . or Cecile in I. In any case. without which his status as dis­ tinct f rom the real reader would be meaningless. and these add interesting complexities to the problem of narration. participation i n the story. at least. Mme de Merteuil. the narratee is the agent addressed by the narrator. 2 53-6 1 ) . can be unreliable. Sir.g.. cannot allow you that ref uge. covert narratee is no more than the silent addressee of the Like narrators. . I t is to the rendering of speech that the next chapter will be devoted. 265) . That I told you as plain. i.-� j �U· . p. 260). Tristram Shandy. you have not missed a word. was concerned with the rendering ofbolh events and speech. by direct inference. as r r � f' .How could you.. Madam. and hence the happens 'when the values of the implied reader evoked by the lhe narrator' (Chatman 1 9 78.. situated at the same 'Madam' is thus to be distinguished from the implied reader (or extradiegetic narratee) whose attentive perusal of this novel is thereby indirectly solicited. and all the criteria f or classifying the latter also apply to the f ormer. -. . the psychiatrist in Port/lO y's Complaint) . 82) I I � o Darkntss. The La Chute. I :- I extradiegetic. i.. 265-7. ' . contain both an extradiegetic and an n arrators. Using narrative level as a criterion. or his actions extradiegetic narratee (parallel to or identical with the implied reader) is granted reliability. intradiegetic. through the narrator's inf erences of his possible answers (Camus. j ust as it may include both types of Taking the second criterion. say. I ntradiegetic butt of the irony shared by the implied author and reader.My pride. . Sir. Extradiegetic narratees can be shipmates aboard the Nellie listening to the latter's s tory in Heart adressed directly by some narrator. Sir. Papist ! You told me no such thing. '. This narratees. e. we can distinguish pp. pp. implied author are at odds with those of the narratee evoked by .es liaisons dangercuses) and those who do not (e. speech is an event like any other. I must have m issed a page. that my f ather was not a papist. and the narratee. "t:-' :=% �. whereas an overt one can be made perceptible (Les liaisons dangereuses) .1 ) . we can distinguish between those narratees who play a part in the events narrated to them (e. or Marlow's Mrs Dallowa y.e. 1 956) . narrative. p.g. the narratee's actual answers or TM Canterbury Taus) . The narratee is some­ s tresses : gentleman and narrator. ( 1 967. and one who is also a character within the first addressed directly by some narrator. I lltradiegetic narratees are always Thousand words.g. narratees can be either covert or overt. the Sultan in A Thousand and One Nights being addressed by Scheherezade. A communication situation. e..e. The f oregoing discussion of the participants in the narrative intradiegetic narratee. I ndeed. narrative level as the narrator (Genette ' 9 7 2 . Madam. i. The same by definition. Madam.. As Chatman has shown ( 1 9 7 8 . The narratee is. of course. Chatman 1 978. i . . comments (the pilgrims in narrator. i n between a narratee who is 'above' the first narrative.. enters into a dialogue with a narratee addressed as · M adam'. b ! 1i H . pp. the Sultan in A as. the various kinds ofnarra­ tors. could tell you such a thing.Then I was asleep. p.No.e. [. on the other hand. sometimes not. not only the narrator but the narratee as well can be either reliable or unreliable. be so inattentive in reading the last chapter? I lold you in it. -r 1 04 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics N arration: levels and voices 1 05 I · I times f ully personified. but it has characteristics specific to it.g. .:q:. Valmont.

I. ' Mimesis'.g. dramatize!' (e. instead of directly and dramatically exhibiting events and conversations. there is nothing inherently good or bad in either telling or showing. pub!. The characteristic feature of diegesis is that 'the poet himself is the speaker and does not even attempt to suggest to us that anyone but himselfis speaking' ( 1 963. Like any other technique.' 'Diegesis' . I n the Poetics. the narrator seeming to dis­ appear (as in drama) and the reader being left to draw his own conclusions from what he 'sees' and 'hears'. not with narrative) does not confine ' mimesis' to the representation of speech but includes in it the notion of 'an imitation of an ! I t f t t • action' ( 1 95 1 . to be so exhibited that it will tell itself' ( 1 963. Thus dialogue. Aristotle (who i s concerned �. 1907-9). used by Socrates in the narrow sense of the direct rendering ofspeech. and Booth's The Rhetoric ofFiction ( 1 961 ) is to a great extent a defence of this method and a rejection ofwhat he considers an extreme and therefore distorting interpretation ofJames by Lubbock. direct speech in general would be m i metic. p. 34) · Used in this broad sense. monologue. make gestures and speak. In narrative. sum up and comment. Orig. ' Showing' is the supposedly direct presenta­ tion of events and conversations. From this point of"iew. in a way analogous to people's behaviour in reality. each has its advantages and disadvantages. referring here to the indirect rendering ofspeech. p. 'mimesis' is made to encompass diegesis as one of its types. all actions and gestures are rendered in words. The polarization ofdiegesis and mimesis reappears under the names of 'telling' and 'showing' or 'summary' and 'scene' in Anglo-American criticism of the end of the last century and the beginning of this. Perry Lubbock erected showing into the highest ideal to which narrative fiction should aspire: 'The art of fiction does not begin until the novelist thinks of his story as a matter to be shown. etc. p. talks about them. whereas indirect speech would be diegetic (a conclusion supported by the subsequent conversion of a Homeric scene of pure dialogue into diegesis).th drama. he atlacks novelists like Fielding. 'an imitation of an action' becomes a more problematic concept in it. Orig. 8 Narration: s p eech re p r esentation A brief historical account: diegesis an d mimesis public Socrates posits a distinction I n the third book of Plato's Re between two ways of rendering speech : diegesis and mimesis. is a presentation mediated by the nar­ rator who. 'Telling'. and their relative ' Narration: speech representation 1 07 . h as come to designate the capacity of literature to represent or 'imitate' reality (a broad sense which can already be found in Book Ten of the Republic). 265. it is ultimately irrelevant for a theoretical and descriptive study of narrative fiction. However interesting this normative debate is. the poet tries to create the illusion that it is not he who speaks. and the original Platonic opposition is somewhat neutralized. publ. was divorced by some modern narratologis ts (e. it is sufficient for my purpose to point out lhat on stage there are characters (actors) who act. 1 92 1 ) . Metz 1 968. 62. and consequently. The use of both terms in this book of the Republic should be distinguished from other meanings attributed to them in various stages in the history of poetics. I n mimesis. In the last twenty years the pendulum has swung back to telling. p. on the other hand. On the basis ofthis norm. sums them up. 1 962. on the other hand. on the other hand. 638) . Drawing inspiration from Henry James's famous injunction 'Dramatize. Without engaging in a discussion of the various possible meanings of an imitation of an action' . as we shall see later. Genette 1 972) from the act of narration and made to designate the abstracted succession of events (my 'story' ) .g. Thackeray and Dickens whose narrators tell.

'�': " T l\arration: speech representation esentatio n es of speech pr ' : . an eff mimesis. 295) gree represen ts. pp. . Language ..� - 1 08 s u ccess or failure depends on their functionality in th e given work. PP· 3 1-5). e with 'John looked at his wif . his lips How do narrative texts create the i llusion of mimesis? It is convenient to start the discussion with the verbal transcription line.y. . Compare John was angry with his wife' and left the house ' ."":�-� �':-t+i-�. ignoring the style or f supposed 'original' utterance.. 385) . . He stayed till late in the evening telling them about miracu­ 2 Summary. 96. mimetic La some degru: A form of indirect which creates the illusion of 'presen. pp. his eyebrows pursed. . s i n ce all such texts are made of Moreover. extreme unction on the firing wounded in a dressingstation d u ring a gas attack. but ling. U. It_ _ '. with hiS examples from Dos Passos s togeth er ! � flso I t any speCIfic atIOn occurred. banged the door The second account is more 'dramatic'. 1 973 . p. between differe n t d egrees and kinds of tel­ language . 52) there is a narrator who 'quotes' the characters' pp. Let us theref t u rn to the presentation of speech and its various degrees of 4 Indirect discourse. ar. ( The 12nd Parallel. 1 85-6) argues. a semblance of narrative can do is create an i l l u sion. N a rra ti ve Fiction: Contemporary Poetics r og The problem of mimesis Ii .. . a speech event in that it names the topics of conversation: lous conversions of u n believers. : was ( 1 938): ch act h �s Diegetic summary : The .. JrelY ' mime P� ge . As Genette ( ' 972 .. and I reproduce It �Im�st verbatim . and that Villa and Zapata were closing in on the Federal discourse m i metic illusion. e. th us reducing the directness of 'showing'.' : ' _'-�:. theref showing.: 3 Indirect content paraphrase (or: Indirect discourse) : A paraphrase (Ninetem-Nineteen. p .. e..g. ore tive about the creation of 'actional m imesis'. but even here I believe (see p.S. reduces the narrator ' s role to that ofa 'camera'.:. p.d language signifi es .!ff���#". All that a ore. :Z�:'�. 320) When they came out Charley said by heck he thou g h t he wanted to go up to Ca nada and enlist and go o.!: :l1!t. the very notio n of or the 'showing' is more problematic than i t seems to be f Anglo-American critics discussed a bove. which IS why the representation of speech comes closest to pure m i m esis.A.see . is not between telling and The crucial distinction.: Great \Var.2 ect. 258-9. as I have suggested earlier. orm of the of the content ofa speech event. Since t h e quan tity of i n f ' d u ration ' (chapter 4.1 speech. report that a spe 7 of what was said or how It - - telling war When Charley got a little gin inside him he started life.. a vision of the young Christ he'd seen walking among the leaves the anger to be i nferred by the reader. tnlogy. c le.'!�l!:'��:. Then he got up. but it does so through diegesis (in the Platonic sense).'er a n d s e c the ( Tht pnd Parallel.ng' or 'reproduc­ ing ' aspects of the style of an utterance. 54) .. less 'purely ' diegetic: Summary which to some de­ of non-verbal events. • j "-"'�:_ •• ·V4� .. because it gives more detailed in­ formation . rangi ng rom the 'pure ' di'eg: tic to the r AYP ogres sive � � tiC IS suggest ed m McHal e ( ) � /8.g . e. 1 87 ) . yams for the first time in his he ( T Big Mone..'"""" '.. no text of narrative fiction can show or imitate the action it conveys... can only Imitate language.. and the presence of the narrator under 'degrees of perceptibility' (chapter 7.. p .1 00). abow and beyond the mere report of its cont ent. Thus the illusion of ormation was discussed under p . his fists clenched.. withou sai d .:'ithout imitating.r--- . and contracted. � -.-' H". noth­ ing significantly new remains to be said from this perspec­ an imitation of events is achieved by s upplying the maximu m of ormam (Genette 1 972• i nformation and the minim u m of i n f more vivid than the first. 2 1 9) The waiter told him that Carranza's troops had lost Torreon District.:. _ . p..g. not merely mentions.bare .." '==':::::"="'.

. under the heading of The cognate aspects are discussed under ' f ocalization' (chapter ambition and literary taste . e.. 1 propose to devote some space to it separately. FID is only a part of a more comprehensive phe­ nomenon. r . . pretty soft. I f: DD present then : JD ( H e said : ' I love her') past and: FJD he loued her) (He said that past (He lOlled her) . : \Vhy the hell shouldn't they know.�-*+'f ":. �·5. ' . that's me. and i ts special s tatus within poetics. .:J . . or an utterance and a orthcoming) is perhaps the most extreme f alization. Dos Passos's suspension points) Looking 6) and 9) · I � t ii � • � . p . it has other indicators ­ l inguistic or thematic . he said : 'I love her ' ) . e. This is the typical form of first-person Fainy's head suddenly got very light. but the reported utterance is not syntacticallv subord inate to it. Perry forthcoming: Ron 1 98 1 ) : Therefore. which organizes some of the elements. B anfield i:' r I' I 1 973. Bright boy.g. g . e. ' Fellers.�_ __ ��. its most common functions... an' I could run a 22.. two focalizations.-' �- "r. *'" II I I I I·.. pp . .. Bal ( 1 98 1 ) 7ubs�mes the phenome�on . 1 978b. .. Kuroda 1 973. shows:. pp.: Fred Summers said. secondary frame is acti­ vated.... not only the co-presence of two voices but also that of the narrator's voice and a character's pre-verbal between two u tterances.'ineteen . subordinating the reported utterance: the conj u nction one form ofrcndering speech. and jez. 1 like reading fine.l-. (lllineleen-. ' the text and i ts reading' (chapter I l' � reading process .g. in spite of its being only waer F I D .. The f rame is not Combined D iscourse is formed when together with a basic the f ormal or official linguistic frame. + _" • • • ... both linguists and narrative theorists is free indirect discourse1 DD: The reporting verb is either directly present or implied by the use of quotation marks. . many theorists consider the phenomenon to be only partly l inguistic. al though i t is always stylized i n one way or another. I 10 Narration: s peech r ep r esenta tio n II I mediate between indirect and direct d iscourse (more about this type will be said in the following section ) . F I D : Deletion of reporting verb + conj u nction 'that' (e. .". i. Bronz­ 1 970. this war's the most gigantic 6 Dirtct discourse: A 'quotation' ofa monologue or a dialogue. 7 Free dirtct discourse: Direct discourse shorn o f i ts conven­ For him. i I I I Iii I' . I must finish Backward week . j.e. r _ .. is always r perception or feeling. ·. �..and once constructed. cockeyed graft of the century and m e for i t and the cross red f (Nineteen-Nineteen. the one that ( see. in my study. . 1 973: Pascal 1 962. He said that he loved her ) . under what he calls ' co mbined speech'.. 1 9 1 ) incongruent with the f ormal frame.. Free indirect discourse h as recently given rise to a prolif eration of studies o n the part of Among the seven degrees of speech presentation. under her concept of 'embeddll1g' whIch she sees operaung n u rses [sic) ' . 43 -4) Thu s Golomb ( 1 968. 2 5 1 -62) discusses.!.g.. .I. I i I i n t erior monologue."""' .: tional orthographic cues.� . 1 98 1 . briefly descri bing the main linguistic features of I t should be noted from the start that al though the 'orthodox' view limits F I D to a linguistic com bination of two voices.g. However. � ( The pnd Parallel. Page 1 972.i" .:-· .�. f.. 2 Tense-scheme 1 Reporting verb of saying/thinking and conj unction 'that' as the following list i appears.. 5 Free indirect discourse: Grammatically and mimetically i nter­ This creates the illusion of'pure' m imesis. weren ' t they off'n her and out to see the goddam town and he'd better come along .:... . 1 978: H e rnadi 1 97 1 . _-. p . ... .-J. The conj u n ction 'that' is absent ( �. . 1 978a.·I cHale 1 978..�• . 1'. a narrower concept than Perry' s is more relevant.� "':" ::. Perry (f oc in enlarging the s cope of the phenomenon: frame of discourse an alternative. Linguisticf eatures The linguistic features ofF I D give the impression of combining direct discourse with indirect discourse... Fifteen bucks a .g. He loved her) . a l ternative patternings which are activated in the 'narration'. linotype or s e t up print if anybody'd let me. Gee. 1 977. Cohn 1 966.-i. 1 972. for example. I D : The reporting verb always 'that' is optional ( b u t logically implied when absent e. ten dollars' raise..

This en ables the reader to make sense of . i n tel:iectio ns. i ' I 4 D ei ct ics (i. This function is. . without undermi ning the credibility of the work or of the implied author ( Ron I gB l .$.- 1 12 � "' - � ---. of thematic I n specifi c fictional texts F I D can have a variety or being analogo us to the governin g functio ns. are more general. unacceptable atti­ Thus FID preserves the deictic elements of DD.�.e.JI!».edged eff first . FID 'resembl in not being strictly subordi­ n d tense . lexical registers eatures f Admiss ible DD ID FID I n admissible Admissible would love her) ( H e would always love her) es ID in person To sum up in M cH ale's words. ( ' I lo\'e her' thus becomes 'he loved her' ) . 5 Questions DD ject Verb + S u b (She asked: ' Do ID Subject + Verb (She asked if FlD tudes . at least in some sens e. diff I The FID hypothes is (even ifnot thought ofin these terms) y is often n ecessary i n order to identif speakers and assign given speech-featu res or attitudes to them. opposed to the ect charac­ rom the double. / Ifthese are the first and second person in DD. Functions Thus F I D retains the 'back-shift' of tenses characteristic ofID. The fu nctions with which am concerne d here. Thus th ematic principle (s) of the work under consider Bronzwaer ( 1 970) shows how it conveys the theme of the . pp. . while it resemble s DD a sayinglt hinking. developi ng self in a novel by Iris Murdoch ( 1 9 78) sees FID as enacting and imaging the Similarly McHale 3 Personal and possessive pronouns .- - Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics past (He said: 'I loved her') past perfect ( H e said that ect present perf (He said: ' I have loved her ' ) fu ture ( H e said: 'I shall always love her') future pas t ( H e said he always u f ture past he had loved her) } Narration: speech representation 1 13 past perfect (H e had loved her) I· 6 or dialectic al Voc atives. such functions vary fro m text to text or from corpus to corpus. Verb + Subject (as in DD) you love me?') he loved her) ( Did he love her?) In cases of an ambigui ty concern ing the speaker. now ( H e lives i n in Jerusalem n o w ' ) i n Jerusalem then ) Jerusalem now) today that day today ( H e said: 'I live ( H e said he lived the next day there tomorrow here ID FID then modes of determin ism i n Dos Passos.� . they become third . ea vario us DD f t ures' ( 1 9 78. on the other hand. deviant' linguistic practices . 28-9). 25 2 ) . and in deictic ele­ n ate to a 'higher' verb of the word-ord er of question s. and are not I easily amenabl e to generaliz ation..:. However . person III both I D and FID. and the admissib ility of m ents.. con tribu ting ation. p. a contrast result i ng f teristic of F I D . . it also drama­ tizes the problem atic relations hip between any utterance and i ts origi n . discontin uous. demonstrative expressions ) DD now II I I i : . or even lies. 2 Even when d ifferf'nt segments can u l ti mately be attribute d to identifiab le speakers and more so when they cannoL F I D enhances the bivocalit y o r polyvoca lity o f the text by bringing i n to play a plurality of speakers and attitudes (McHale 1 978) .�" . " i .· _ . and estations in each of them may have varying thematic manif tomorrow here erent fictional texts.

following Voloshinov 1 973. Orig. For la nguage. On the other h and .- h avoc with such attributions. . all l anguage becomes .it can be grasped as marking literariness. p . while the '. constituting itself on linguistic iterability and cultural clichis whose direct u tterers are nowhere If F I D loses the status of a specific phenomenon in non­ perceptions.non-statistica l . as Derrida has repeatedly argued (e. ) .a kind of free indirect or discourse (f a more detailed discussion of the whole issue. a kind of I n a stronger .in operation if not in grammatical f orm . From this point of view. Oog. pub!. a miniature reflection of the nature of both mimesis and literariness. auditory or tactile . ' literariness' designates the specifically li terary (non-referential) aspect of literature (see Hawkes ' 97 7 . 'trans-linguistic' phenomenon. always 'quotes' other language. or better. There is theref ore no sense i n con­ . FID marks literariness is at least characteristic enough ofliterature or fiction to have a The concept ofF I D is meaningful only within mimesis (in the broad sense) (Ron ' 98 .3.within the narrator's reporting language. the tinting of the narrator's speech with the character's lan­ the implied author's attitude toward the character(s) involved.1 '4 N a rra ti v e Fiction: Contem porary Poetics Narration: speech representation 1 15 what Perry calls 'alternative patternings'. 49). :. Andj ust as FID is often seen to index mimesis.some would add: pre-verbal representing stream of consciousness. In a ness) . Oog. it paradoxically gains the status of a miniature reflection of the nature of all texts and all langUage. 1 970) . 1 978. 973.at the more frequently and centrally in literature than in other f orms guage or mode of experience may promote an empathetic identification on the part of the reader (Ewen 1 968. This polyphonic quality is which are not unitary in their discourse ( 'monologica1' ) but achieved both by the juxtaposition of several voices in the text anterior literary texts or aspects of language and culture at ormal mirroring large. in Russian theoreticians consider a principal characteristic of narrative 1 929). in Russian ' 930). the co-existence of 4 Because of i ts capacity to reprod uce the idiolect of a character's speech or thought . I .6 The co-existence of various voices in it creates intra-textual polyphony. . FID marks literariness simply by figuring the ironic and the empathetic attitude. 3 The plurality of speakers and attitudes. p. 1 967. contributes to the semantic density of the text (f orthcom ing). F I D is a convenient vehicle f or present. 1 977). A non-mimetic text would tend to play multiple. 4 1 . pp . According to Bakhtin ( . ' (in the broad sense of representation) fictional ring even when fou n d in other types of discourse (Bronzwaer 1 970. tive theory is d u e not only to its stylistic complexity but also to voices characteristic of F I D that the phenomenon seems more congenial to the silent register of writing (McHale ' 978. in it. it would experience in trying to perf orm orally the co-presence of .g. see Ron I gB l . ' 7. pp. whether visual. so . '.1 8. here again a double-edged eff ect may be noticed. 'the dis­ course. Perhaps most i nteresting are cases of ambiguity. speaks: nothing more' ( 1 974. and many others ) . From this perspective. 5 The FID hypothesis can assist the reader in reconstructing and a certain version of reality. the presence of a narrator as distinct from the character may create an ironic distancing. by being a paradigm. On the one hand.I . itself and by the text's integration of previous discourse.sense. the central tradition of the novel is constituted by texts mise en ob yrne of what some .. because the need to attribute textual segments to speakers as well as the urge to account f appar­ or ently false statements and reconcile seeming contradictions exists only when the text is grasped as in some sense a nalogous to (mimetic of) reality. mainly f or the variety called 'indirect interior monologue' (Banfield 1 973. 282. 7 '-3 f a discussion of the notion ofliterari­ or other pole . 36-8 ) . be it structing an F I D hypothesis in order to arrive at an unn ecessary and at best partial recuperation of the origin of u tterances. as Barthes says. pp. polyphonic ('dialogic') . mimetic texts. pub!. fiction. the language. McHale 1 9 78). I t is perhaps because of the difficulty a speaker Status within poetics The peculiar i n terest in F I D evinced by contemporary narra­ its constituting. McHale relatively weak sense. Whereas ' mimesis' names a relationship between literature H owe\·er. i n some sense. F I D seems like a f of the larger. where the reader has no means of choosing between of discourse. pub!. And although FID is by no means exclusively literary.

� .- ------ -�--� -- --.. depri\'es this phenomenon as well as the whole ofliterature of its privileged differential status.� • i :t . proj ects an image of such a reader. 9 The text and its reading il . it must therefore be studied through the eyes of the reader. .. its style. This virtuality contributes to the dynamic character of the reading process and gives the reader a certain degree of freedom (but only a certain degree. 1 .this title ofa section in Eco's book ( 1 979. 3 1 ).-. through its specific linguistic code. '� J :1 . p.. Just as the reader participates i n the production of the text's meaning so the text shapes the reader.1 "'.1 . (!ser I 97 1 b.-. -. . Once again FID reveals its double-edged nature. being common to all language. 2-3) The written text is conceived of as having a virtual dimension which calls for the reader's construction of the unwritten tex t (lser 1 974.l Whereas the Anglo-American New Critics and the French Structuralists treated the text as a more or les s autonomous object. P' 7). the new orientation stresses the reciprocal relations between text and reader: a text can only come to life when it is read. I l The role of the reader 'How to produce texts by reading them' . thereby creating inter-textual polyphony. a double-edgedness which is itself characteristic of many phenomena in literature. On the one hand it 'selects' its appropriate reader.'!i --of 1 1i . 3) i s an extreme formulation of a tendency that has become more and more pronounced during the last ten or fifteen years.� .il . the 'ency­ clopedia' it implicitly presupposes (Eco 1 979.-- - ------- 1 16 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics preservation of the linguistic register of the speaker orients the utterance toward previous ones.. and if it is to be examined. it may be argued that the citational quality ofFID . p.�- .. However. since the written text doe:... pp. exercise some control over the process) ...j . � .. On the othe r .- . from the Derridian viewpoint glimpsed above.

Iser. whether a specific individual or the collective readership of a period. it requires 'concretization' or ' realization' by a reader." I18 Karrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Narration: speech representation i. I shall concentrate mainly on those aspects of the reader-te:. implied or en coded in the text. in Polish 1 93 1 ) . Since literature belongs to this category. but will not represent the more far-reaching 'revisionism' of some reader-oriented studies.. I n this chapter I shall present some contributions of the phenomenology of reading to the poetics of narrative fiction. The reader is thus both an image ofa certain competence brought to the text and a structuring of such a competence within the text. an 'it' rather than a personified 'he' or 'she' (see also chapter j}. \ As stated in chapter 4. heterono­ mous ones are characterized bv a combination of immanent properties and properties attrib�ted to them by consciousness. a ' metonymic characterization of the text' (Perry 1 979. in spite of this new slant. the 'Informed Reader' (Fish ). At the other. Moreover. What was only implied in the previous chapters will be discussed directly in this. indwelling. the 'Superreader' (Riffaterre). Chatman. often inducing him to change his previous conceptions and modify his outlook. it developes in the reader a specific competence needed to come to grips with it. Ingarden distinguishes between autonomous and hett'ronomous objects. I I I plethora of appel at ions would take me far beyond the specificity of narrative fiction. or the 'Encoded Reader' (Brooke-Rose)? An analysis of the similar- I t� . more specifically Ingarden's application of Husserl's theory to literature ( 1 973. Thus heteronomous objects do not have a full existence without the participation of consciousness. sentence to sentence. but a few psychological observations which bear directly on the dynamics of reading inscribed in the text will be included in the next section. inherent) properties only. .- . Not only does it dictate a progression from letter to letter. the focus of the chapter (as its title implies) will remain the text. Consequently. Thus the analysis will modify a few structuralist assumptions. p. Problems like the reader's response or the formation of attitudes will theref ore not be discussed in detail. Thus analepses are often used to provide in­ formation necessary to the reader and prolepses to arouse the reader's expectations. The dynamics of reading IOCS and differences among the concepts underlying this 1 19 �- '-. 1 t should be clear from my declared focus that the 'reader' is seen in this book as a construct.2 Such a reader is 'implied' or 'ellcoded' in the text 'in the very rhetoric through which he is required to "make sense of the content" or reconstruct it "as a world'" (Brooke-Rose 1 980b.e. The advantage of talking of an implied reader rather than of 'textual s trategies' pure and simple (as DoleZel does. word to word..:t interaction which are specific to narrative fiction. . I. representing the integration ofdata and the interprt·tative process 'invited' by the text. it also imposes Upon the reader a successive perception of bits of inf ormation . the ' Ideal Reader' (Culler). I f . without the activation of a subject-object relationship. but who is the reader I am talking about? I s he the 'Actual Reader' (Van Dijk. 1 82) is that it implies a view of the text as a system of reconstruction-inviting structures rather than as an autonomous object. the relevance of the psychology of readers is fairly limited. because that is often at odds with the very project of narrative poetics. the 'Implied Reader' (Booth. the story is abstracted by the reader. p. and characters are constructed by the reader from various indi­ cations dispersed along the text-continuum. I' : !:ij :� if' � hand. 1 980. Orig. Perry). Recurrent references have been made in the foregoing pages to the reading process and the role of the reader. language prescribes a linear figuration of signs and hence a linear presentation of information about things. p. just as the text pre-shapes a certain competence to be brought by the reader from the outside.. 43). H owever. except when they are influenced by the 'temporal' unfolding of both story and text which characterizes narrative fiction. �. so in the course of reading. The philosophical influence behind most reader-oriented approaches is phenomenology. etc.. pub!. I t is sufficient for my purpose to point out that the list yields two diametrically opposed views and various nu ances bet� een them. l I . A re-perusal of the previous chapters can show that a reader of this kind was implicit in many qf them. the ' Model Reader' (Eco) . 1 60). i t is a theoretical construct. Jauss). At one extreme the concept is of a real . \Vhile autonomous objects have immanent (i. reader.

deVeloping them. By the end ofthe reading process. t r I r data of the text. for example. in comparison to painting (f example) or to double­ exposure effects in the cinema. the reader's initial impression of Anna lingers long after the less pleasant aspects of her character are seen to dominate her behaviour. 1 t should be noted.- --.4nna Karenina ( 1 873-76) . This may be caused by the co-existence of a few 'finalized' hypotheses which either complement each other in some way (multiple meaning) or mutually exclude each other without providing grounds for deciding between them (narra­ tive ambiguity) (Rimmon 1 977 . Thus._- . reinforcing them. 1 25-7) and this too may cause him t construct meanings which will have to be revised at a later stage...'.- � -----.:.. ... Although the 'correct' view is a subtle com­ bination of both presentations.. The reader. The text can direct and control the reader's comprehension and attitudes by positioning certain i tems before others. . This phenomenon. modify�ng them ' and sometimes replacing them by others or droppmg them altogether. 47). '.. . . does not wait until the end to understand the text.. Perry ( 1 979p. giving rise. I nterestingly..'\arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics The text and its reading 121 r I. _ - - .�� �" � ---.� . .. however. Miller 1 980. to ar�use pense or deliberately mislead tht. In Patrick White's The Solid Mandala ( 1 966).. p. intuitive. . --.---�---- . 1 0. In detective novels the end discloses a definitive solution to the problem which the narrative set out to solve: X is the murderer. The reader is prone to preserve such meanings and attitudes for as long as possible... reader by delaymg vanous �s or tS of inf mation (see pp. p. For example. Arthur is seen in the first half of the novel through the eyes of his twin brother..' : : even when these are meant to be understood as simultaneous in the story. to a recency effect' ( Perry 1 979. by which the above was partly influenced) . Thus at the end ofJames's 'The Figure i n the Carpet' ( 1 896) the reader cannot decide between hypothesis ( I ) ' there is a figure in Vereker' s carpet' and hypothesis ( 2 ) 'there is no figure in Vereker's carpet'. --� --�. __ . � . ( 1- .... narrative texts (and literature in gencral) can make a virtue of necessity and obtain various rhetorical eficcts from the linear nature of the medium. .. placing an item at the beginning or at the end may radically change the process of reading as well as the final product. the reader tends to reject th e former in favour of the latter. t . Some texts (mainly modern) seem designed so as to prevent the formation of any 'finalized hypothesis' or overall meaning by making various items under­ mine each other or cancel each other out. is referred to as 'u ndecidability' or 'unreadability' and taken to be charac­ teristic of literature at large {see. exploits the "powers" of the primacy effect. This view. artist-cum-Christ figure in the last part. then.--' . _l..-. The recency effect encourages the reader to assimilate all previous i nformation to the item pre­ sented last.� -- ---- -�. they encourage the reader to start integrating data from the very beginning (Perry 1 979. is followed by a presentation of Arthur as a sensitive. Y is the thief.. See also Perry and Sternberg 1 968b. that even rejected hypotheses may continue exercising some influence on the reader's comprehensi on. The degree of 'finalization' varies from text to text. both the primacy and the recency effects may be so strong as to overshadow the meanings and attitudes which would have emerged from a full and consistent integration ofthe � � t j 1 ! I . for example. narrated through his own perception. --".. Thus. I nstead of closure there is perpetual oscil­ lation between two possibilities. - . Z's death was caused by fire. -.-._ . as could be glimpsed from the examples given above.. . .. but ordinarily it sets up a mechanism to oppose them.- J 20 . in Tolstoy ' s . as limited in intelligence and incapable of interpreting the world around him. This may seem to some an unfortunate limitation of or language. Texts can encourage the reader's tendency to comp­ ly with the primacy effect by constantly reinforcing the initial impressions.� . However. but on the whole they induce the reader to modify or replace the original conjectures. an overall meaning which makes sense of the text as a whole. p. 53) sums up the results of psychological tests which have shown the crucial influence of initial information on the process of perception ('primary effe ct'). But sometimes the reader closes a book without a definitive solution.. we have seen.. Although texts provide information only gradually. 'The literary text. highly cher­ lShed by post-structuralists (or deconstructionists). '.. without forming ?eatly opposed possibilities. 57).-�-. the reader usually will have reached a 'finalized hypothesis'.. information and atti­ tudes presented at an early stage of the text lend to encourage the reader to interpret everything in their light.------- .'�. rather.... Linearity can also be exploited. however. From this perspec­ tive reading can be seen as a con tinuous process of forming hyp� theses.

but also - dija-vu model of coherence (or. pseudo-logical. 1 59).1 22 pp. 36. it \\ill introd uce u nfamiliar elements. When they are not. it seems to me. . frames' I· . The second form. it is in the text's interest to slow down the process of com prehension by the reader so as to ensure its own survival. For example. or how the reader makes sense o the text! which modifies. etc. transforms. When they are. a sharp confrontation between the expected and the actual ensues. or rejects its previous meanings or eff ects. r . done. and the reader waits to see whether his expectations will or will not be fulfilled. the reader often hazarding various cnce' in Hrushovski ( 1 976) . But if the text is unders tood too thesis by ref erence to such a model). 1 85� 1 ) . and the debate \\ith Rimmon-Kenan. ' intertextual frames' in Eco ( 1 979) and 'frames' tout court in Pcrry ( 1 979) . The paradoxical position of the text vis-a-vis its reader There is one end every text must achieve: it must make certain that it will be read. experienced. reading also involves guesses as to what 'is going to happen' in the sequel. and replacemcnt of hypotheses (sec p .' orms: ( I ) A further u u hzatlOn of sideration can take one of two f the past. i t preserves consistency and is theref ore preferable as long as it is possible. � . pub!. on the other hand. depends on it. in Russian 1 9 1 7 ) . In spite of differences in detail. . ects. . 1 2 1 ) . Culler's definition quoted above with Barthes's description of the codes: The code is a perspective ofquotations. in some sense. as it were. an integration which involves an appeal to various familiar models of coherence (Culler 1 975.! 'leaps' into the future. as an earlier stage of the text led the reader to believe. p. alread read. the underlying concepts seem to me similar. and this leads to an active re­ examination and modification of the past. Orig. Compare. Thus at the end of Faulkner's 'A Rose for Emily' ( 1 930) the smell incident is reconstructed and is now clearly linked with the corpse lying upstairs f f or orty years . or simply delay the presentation of expected. I nterestingly. in a . on the other hand. to f orm a hypo­ To use a frame. S � �h r� con­ A re-examination of the past f Intelligibility. reinforcing or developing i t without contradicting or . modifi­ c ati on. not with a rat or a snake killed by either Emily or her servan t. I' ' I� one hand.1 8. eff ects a complete re­ ' Gestalten' in Iser ( 1 97 I a) . So. 1 07. The first form of retrospective reconstruction involves only Making sense of a text requires an i ntegration of its elements with each other. 1980/8 1 . a mirage ofstructures . f ormal. O n the Gestalten familiar to the reader. wIth cancelling its previous meanings or eff every incident involving the possibility of arson in Faulkner's 'Barn B u rning' ( 1 939) . y that alread y. p. i t m u s t enhance i ntelligibility b y anchoring itselfin'codes. i n teresting items. development. its very existence. Orig. The additional patterning. so many fragments of something that has always been seen.5 These already­ natural-and-Iegible models have been variously called 'codes' in Barthes ( 1 970) . 1 2 . it would thereby come to an untimely end. In addition to harking back to the past. logical. The past is now assimilated to the fu ture. p. . � . frames. assimilation of the text to d/ja-vu models is called 'naturaliza­ tion' by Culler: 'to naturalize a text is to bring it into relation with a type of discourse or model which is already. the eff ect is one ofsatisf action but also ofa lulling ofin terest. is to ground a hypothesis ( 1 979. for example. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics The text and its reading 1 23 pp. 20. publ. the code is the wake of ( 1 974. PP· 59-60 ) . in order to be read it must make itself u nderstood. quickly. 'f rames of refer­ patterning and often causes surprise or shock ( Perry 1 9 79. p . linguistic. the text is caught here in a double bind. ( 2 ) The progressive integration of inf ormation often requires a retrospective patterning of earlier parts of the text. To this end. The dynamics of reading ca n thus be seen not only as a f ormation. put diff erently. it will mul tiply difficulties of one kind or another (Shklovsky 1 965. His emphasis) which can be chronological . in French 1 970) Even closer to Culler ( though not influenced by him) is Perry's f orm ulation: 'This construction of the reading process on the basis of models with which the reader is familiar is a use of a set o f spatial. natural and legible' ( 1 975. p. the reader will go back to previous incidents in order to accumulate all the d etails which may explain the father's motivation. 1 38 ) .

Tha t is the state of aff airs? What is the situation? Where is this happen­ i ng? What are the motives? "'hat is the purpose? What is the speaker's position? \". 'a body of maxims and prej udices which constitute a vision of the world and a system of values ' (Genette not grasped as natural but rather recognized by the given DELAY the text. I' .later.__ . curiosity or sus­ pense. In this section J shall examine two ways of slowing down comprehension and creating suspense: delay and gaps.'"""":"' . their trans­ f ormation. t hus stimulating in terest. p.cnts of the kind which will arouse ' a strong expecta t i on for the con t i n u a tion of the sequence. On t h e other hand.. 73-5. and the like.. . A more institutionalized literary model i s genre. make elements in telligible by rderence to specifically l i terary Unlike reality models.'oman' : ' 44 ) .-� . -. for example._ . Barthes's code of action seem natural and are hardly grasped as models. don' t stop reading now. Perry also relates the construction of hypotheses to the i n tegra t ion of data: any reading of a text is a process of cons t ructing a system of hypotheses or frames which can create maximal relevancy among the various data of the text .6 Reali ty m odels help n a t u ralize elements b y reference t o some concept (or structure) which governs our perception of the world... sec Todoro\' 1 970). 43) 'Models of coherence' can derive e i ther from ' reality ' or from l i terature.... r 830) p. and dismantling. e . and elements which would seem strange in another context are made intelligi ble w i t h in the genre (Culler 1 975.-. and a as exigencies or institu tions. : p.. or how the trxl 'Imlpts ' the reader to continue reading of the play ) . 1 969. coupled with a strong uncertainty as to how it should continue Delay consists in not imparting information where i t is 'due' in generalization like ' m odest women blush ' thus helps the reader i nterpret ' Zambinella blushes' (in Balzac's Sarrasinf. oriented toward the future or the past of the story ) . �arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Claud i u s i n Act J scene I. or the like. Self-survival. .- . made intelligible. . The text and its reading 1 2S simul taneously . Each of these h ypotheses is a sort of ' l a bel' consti t u ting an answer to q uestions such as: What is happening? ". Chronology or a and causality belong to this category (and St"t" chapter 4 f ( ' proairetic cod e ' ) is based on this type of model which tells us.�-r . with varying degrees of su btlety: ' th e best is yet to come. Rather they An elemcnt may t h us be accounted . Con tiguity in space is another seemingly natura l model. pp. . Narrative texts implicitly keep promising the reader the great prize of understanding ... . there a r e reality models which are society as generalizations or stereotypes. 'Zambinella is a v. so that som e expectations are rendered plausible. I I I · I i ' • comment on their pseudo-nat uralness ) . The fu t u re-oriented type consists in keeping alive the ques tion 'what nex t ? ' (and is thus related to Barthes's proairetic code) . f in terms of its con tri bution to the action (Hamlet does not kill or because this would have been the end Fa ulk ner'S 'A Rosc lor Emily' is described as decaying in order [0 evoke the degeneration of the Sou th ) .. or i t s illus tration ofa theme (the heroine's house in I ! !. r n). Like C ul l er. They suggest. But they must hI' I'\. Barthes's 'cult ural' code belongs to t h is category. eit her by reality mod els or by models derived from l i terature. Its conventions estab­ lish a kind of contract betwecn the text and the reader.as the constru ction of frames. but leaving i t for a later stage.which can motivate their ' co-presence' i n the text according to models derived from ' real i ty' . This need not involve any temporal displacement: events may be narrated in t he order in which they are s upposed to have oc cu rred. the text ' s very existence depends on maintain­ ing the phase of the 'not yet fully known or i n telligible' f as or long as possible. fro m literary or cultural conventions. or t h a t a baby cannot be born before his mother got pregnant. Thus a human being flying in the air can be made intelligible and acceptable if the text belongs to the genre of the Marvellous (on the Marvellous.'hat is the argument or the idea 'reflected' i n the text? And so on. Such models of coherence can be so fam i liar that they Although everything i n a text can u l timately be naturalized. I t f ( ' 9 79. 1 24 'WI. t h a t a ringing phone can either be answered or ignored. � .. Depending on the ormation belongs. temporal dimension to which the withheld inf delay can create suspense oftwo diff erent types: future-oriented and past-oriented ( i . others ruled out. literature models d o not involve a mediation thro�gh somc concept of the world. translated by C uller 1 975.

.' �. pp.1 . : . Both future-oriented and past-oriented delays can b e either i. Orig. to discredit another East German officer. He would much rather learn a bout Fanny's fate. i:1 . the hero's life is in danger. For example. I ndeed.. l.e. and he is thus held in suspense. into a guessing game. answer. '''rtlether the delay is f uture-oriented or past-oriented. his missing a train or losing a letter which contains usal to divulge information crucial information. the departure of a character. or . are part ofa scheme devised by Mundt and by Leamas's own superiors. reflecting upon the purposes and effects of his narration (see p. the opportunity is given to us to bring into play our own faculty for establishing connections . _ snare As we have seen above. this game is structured by various units which need not all appear in every text. but the reader's Cold ( 1 963) the reader is not informed until almost the end of down the East German intelligence officer. 2 1 5. .g. e. . I t thus introduces various retardatory devices. : I I make a narrative text? I n exactly the same way. or of me event the reader is now curious to learn about. involve only a portion or an aspect of the text (as in the Andrews) or global. Leamas.) .e. local. The first stages are marking the enigmatic ob ect ('thematization' of the enigma). I Joseph Andrews. A discourse between the poet and the player.' 1 26 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics The text and its reading 1 27 ( e.�.to use the Formalist terms which seem appropriate here . a character's ref out of fear. suggesting j the existence of an enigma concerning this object ('position' of the enigma) . it seems to be pushing toward a solution. c ·-=. the death of a character who bears certain information. the integration of information . or whatnot. akin to the one I have sketch­ ed earlier: on the one hand.g. The reader. belongs to the first category.they can be either artistically or realistically motivated. equivocation. 'No tale'. suspended answer. I n the second category. unknown to him. Fielding'S delay through the narrator's digression. in fact. the narrator interrupts the story of the ing of all this?' H ere story-time may go on. 80. the erence to various retardatory devices can be naturalized by ref either l iterature models or reality models. Following the introduction of the enigma. the creation of a gap) about the past or the present. of no other use in this history but to divert the reader' ( 1 962. 'n.. partial answer (Barthes 1 970. effect a major portion of the text or its entirety (as in detective novels or in 'The - 1 I GAPS How to make a bagel? First you take a hole . H enry james's The Figure in the Carpet' ( 1 896) abounds in this kind of motivation (see Rimmon 1 9 7 3 ) . 'why?'. . in Le Carre's The S y Who Came InfrOTn p comprehension of the narrated events is impeded by the omis­ the the book that the efforts of the British agent. it is only through inevitable omissions that a story will gain its dynamism. the text establishes a paradoxical process. there is a struggle which can end in the victory of either side. p.. an attempt to solve a riddle or a puzzle. :'. while on the other it endeavours to maintain the enigma as long as possible in order to secure its own existence. pubJ. .introduces a digression: . the text will delay the narration ofthe next event in the story.. i. etc. to bring . does not want to be diverted. and at least implicitly promising an Delay thus turns the reading process (or one of its aspects) I I above example from Joseph Figure in the C arpet' ) .' '". .e. I n order to increase the reader's interest and prolong itself. further questions can always be asked. The past-oriented delay consists in keeping alive questions like 'what happened?' 'who did it?'.t ! Ie !� . Thus whenever the flow is interrupted and we are led off in unexpected directions. No matter how detailed the presen­ tation is. (misleading clue) .1 6) . . . And how to ' . 203. delays are made plausible in terms of occurrences in the story itself. 1 26).-�". can be told in its entirety.. Mundt. such as 1I i I _ _ . a difficult and complicated plan is being put into execution. Holes or gaps are so central in narrative fiction because the materials the text provides for the reconstruction of a world (or a story) are insufficient for saturation.1_ + . discretion._"-·· " _ ". gaps always remain open. 'what is the mean­ sion of inf ormation (i.for filling in gaps left by the text itself. or of the eyent which will temporarily or permanently close off the sequence in question.• � · . blockage. says Iser. : :. Thus in Field­ ing's kidnapping of Fanny and instead of telling the final outcome ­ will the sequence end in rescue or in rape? . As B arthes has shown in his analysis of what he calls 'the her­ meneutic code' . 1 742 ) . formulating it. ��: = -" .

In the process of reading. is retrospective. I " . .' . Early studies (e. '.g.e. -"'1-- � 1 28 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics The text and its reading 1 29 . 45) . Eco 1 979) integrate them within the larger process of frame-selection. i i i· I� � !.. but it may also create a new gap by givin g a different sl �nt to al�eady-n�rrate? e�ent� . But sometimes a text can prevent the reader from asking the right question until it is answered. -. Later studies (e. . fill i t in. often temporary. But the choice offrames can also create gaps. �--:. or frames. An analepsis. h' dispersed in the text and thus also the filling-in ofgaps is effected by reference to models of coherence. . Permanent gaps... the question 'Who is Pip's secret benefactor?' is not seriously asked until the solution is provided by the events themselves. p. indeed this uncertainty is at the basis ofthe dynamics of reading. 'Are there or are there not real ghosts at Bly?' in james's 1M Tum of the f� -· 1 1i i I ..-t�· \�. pp. • I . exist in both story and text: the information is never given. trying to choose among them and (more often than not) con­ structing one finalized hypothesis. for example. \Vhen he is. or permanent. Thus Perry: 'The selection of any particular frame leads ipso facto to supplyi ng information (filling gaps) which has no direct verbal basis in th e text' ( 1 979. � ��"'�l�. the gap is prospective.. Temporary gaps result from a d iscrepancy between story­ time and text-time. The hermeneutic aspect of reading consists in detecting an enigma (a gap). and con­ tributes to the reader's dynamic participation in making the text signify.g. Whatever category the gap belongs to. it always enhances interest and curiosity. thus making it difficult to reconCile fresh ImpreSSIOns 'nth 'old' ones. and because clashes between them may give rise to further ques­ tions. but a gap in the text need not entail a corresponding gap in the story. I. Hermeneutic gaps can range from very trivial ones. it can b e either I - t t t I I ! i - ­ . to gaps which are so crucial and central in the narrative as to become the very pivot of the reading process ('Who done it?' in d etective stories. i _. both because the frames themselves cannot be saturated. prolongs the reading process. _ . Created bv temporal displacements. __ � . through various degrees of importance.. Perry 1 979. �i � . . A prolepsis may also create a gap by leaving out various stages between the first narrative and the predicted future. such gaps exist in the text alone. Thus a gap in the story entails a gap in the text." - • r"_ ' !II -� . __. Beardsley 1 958.. i. forming hypotheses. therefore she must have been born. 242) or do not require filling-in (many gaps in the Bible) . We have already seen that a past-oriented delay necessarily involves a gap. and replace­ ment. modification. I t . which are either filled-in automatically (Daisy Miller appears at the hotel. the reader cannot know whether a gap is temporary or permanent. on the oth er h and.:. Only after the fact does the reader realize that some significant information has been withheld from him. In Dickens's Great Expectations. on the other hand.. r I j.. in this case. 45-58) tended to concentrate on this species in its own right.1: . i. The Regardless o f the centrality o f the gap. J : :J Screw) . filled-in at some point in the text (as in most detective stories) . The reader may or may not be made aware ofthe existence of a gap in the process of reading.. The gap.. 263-93 and Rimmon 1 977. In th e abstracted story the withheld information will appear in its appropriate place in the chronology. distinction between temporary and permanent gaps can be made only in retrospect. remain open even after the text has come to an end (as in The Tum of the Screw). � :.. p. Perry and Sternberg 1 968b. The most typical gap in narrati\'e fiction is the hermeneu tic (also called 'information gap'). pp. searching for clues. .e. . and the reading-process becomes (at least partly) an attempt to . t fill s-in an anterior gap. - .

or non-narrative. deconstruction challenges the notion of differentia speci a which was central to my presentation (see jic chapter I . On the contrary. on the other hand. In other circles. news reports. de Man 1 97 1 . narratology also deals with a common denominator of various types of narrative. philosophical. but this is only to the good. deconstruction is interested precisely in the elements shared by novels. Seen in this way.'Il rhetoricity and fictionality. it investigates narrative elements in the very rhetoric of historical. 2 1 5) . 5 ) . Because of their tendency to draw attention to their ov. 'pre-medium' aspect from various narratives. And yet the poetics of narrative fiction is neither the newborn babe it may seem to the former nor the corpse i t may seem to the latter. For them. not least (from the point of view of poetics) because they 'make possible productive investigations of the relationship between literature and other modes of ordering and representing experience' (Culler 1 g8 I . contribute to the poetics of narrative fiction rather than undermine it. However. 1 979.Conclusion 131 \ 10 Conclusion Has this book been a n introduction t o o r a n obituary o f the poetics of narrative fiction? Both reactions are possible. this book can serve as an introduction. the study ofnarrative is no longer restricted to poetics but becomes an attempt to describe fundamental operations of any signifying system. similari ties between all types of narrative. These are exciting and promising developments. Derrida 1 967a. comic strips. this discipline is already considered dead or at least superseded by deconstruction. f or example. Chase 1 979. Brooks 1 977. Deconstruction. history books. they are often considered incompatible with the poetics of narrative fiction. it may be argued that awareness of the presence of narrative and fictional elements in supposedly non-narrative and non­ fictional texts need not cancel the differentia specifica of narrative fiction. literary narratives be­ come a kind of paradigm. From their point of view this book would be an obituary. Coping with the challenge represented by the new perspective. and psychoanalytic texts (sec. This common denominator is found to be the 'story' ­ a non-verbal construct which narratology abstracts from the verbal text as well as from other sign-systems. Among other things. M oreover. In many circles. these differences may not be the ones isolated by poetics so far. the poetics of narrative fiction is either ignored or treated with suspicion. pp. used to unearth narrative elements in texts where such consciousness is usually less explicit. 1 -3. I nstead ofdistinguishing between narra­ tive fiction and other types of narrative (as I have tried to do). Nevertheless. 1 979. yet neither seems to me quite adequate. non- fictional. It is with such an optimistic suggestion that I would like to conclude. 1 96 7b. it seems to me that deconstruction may. Felman 1 977. The discipline is stilI alive and kicking. Instead of abstracting a common. Norris 1 982). with this new awareness it is possible to re-examine each type of narrative separately and discover new differences within the similarities. 1 972. including some universities. dance. although (or perhaps because) it no longer enjoys the privilege of the latest fashion. rather than non-verbal. This is so. because their emphasis on narrative elements in texts tradi­ tionally classified as non-narrative as well as their tracing of fictionality in so-called non-fictional texts seems to do away with 'narrative fiction' as a separate category. is in terested in the verbal. As shown in chapter 2 . To be sure. films. psychoanalytic sessions and philosophical discussions cultural products traditionally classified as non-verbal. Lacan 1 966. p. poetics will be able to advance its own understand­ ing of narrative fiction by posing again ' the question of the distinctiveness of literature while also demonstrating the . perhaps in spite of itself.

. claims that 2 This distinction recalls cognate mappings of the field. 'Vi I I be to arrive where w e started t­ . p. 1 9) . -=-�: _� _ _ _ _ __ __ �__ p. 2 1) for example. . p.� _:--. 'texlt narralij' ( 1 97 7 . I' .��� . tology). not all theorists restrict 'narratology' to the transferable aspect of narrative (as do Todorov aspects of narrative. . Th i s kind of spiralling movemen t. _ t ." . envis.-. 4 3 ) w h o discusses i n this way the rel ations between t he text and the implied reader.M.­ .r _ --_ -. I ref rain from ('omp�ring them with m i ne . Four Quarltls) Notes L f � �-. Chatman's 'story' v.a_ _ _ . 'discoun' ( 1 966. Introduction f'� . my ob ject of study is at once broader and narrower than what is often called 'narratology ' . 66). p. � _ _ __ . Barthes's 1 ondioTl/ ..I I n this sense. .. . 'a(lions'. like the Formalists' 1 abuta' v._ ." . 'narm/ioTl' ( 1 966.. • . Some use the term to designate a study ofall ( 1 977. 1 3 she explicitly talks about two kinds of narra­ narration (plus perspective) is the narratological problem paT 3 U nfon uJlateiv since many readers of this book may not be f amiliar ' wi th the othe� c1assificati�ns. 6) . Tomashevsky 1 96:. Bal 1969 and Prince 1973). 'sjuf. p.. And the end of all our explorin g ( ' Li ttle Gidding' in \Ve shall not cease from exploration I t. -. will hopefully . 4-8) .--. I t is narrower in that it treats those transf erable aspects only in relation to their manif estation in literature..g. I t is broader in that it treats more aspects of nal rative fiction than those which are transf erable f rom one medium to another. . �..I 1 L. �. 2 1 5). ­ f. And k n ow the place for the first ti me. Todorov's 'hisloiTt' v.�_. and Bar s 'hisloirt'. exullmu (on p. . aged by Eliot in a completely diff erent con text. I. 'r/cit'.- I . pp. 1 26).tl' (e. p..' - i'-- 1 "': t - (Culler I g8 1 .. not i n other media. Of course. p. p. 'discourse' ( 1 978. I . !he d escription o f story and narration as metonvmies o f t h e text i s lflsp ired b y Perry (J 979. i • . .cen t rality ofli terary s tructures to the organization ofexperience' keep us all on the move: 1\ arrative Fiction: Contem porary Poetics .

ill be found in Derrida 1977. 26. there often results confusion between the two types ofcausal and teleological links distinguished above (pp. ­ j 1 2 Note that there is no distinction here between the text and the story or plot abstracted from it. pp. although it clearly antedates the transform­ ational-generative model in linguistics. Greimas 1966. of'stative' and 'active' events. as a result he was dead and buried). then he drank some poison. 1 973b. p. I prefer to begin with the more neutral 'event' and shall introduce the notion of function in a later section. 47-60. but both ofthem knew very well that the end was still a long. as this freedom applies both to the composition o the f story and to participants in the story. also in Pavel 1973a. pub!. pub!. a preliminary version of which can be found in 1978. Orig. the substance. 14 The final paragraph of the te:d (not necessarily evidence for the structure of the story. 15 Note that these are strikingly similar to Prince's 'minimal story' (p. but this seems an artificial terminological solution. 1 22 . However. Orig. However: the general conception . it is evident that a manipulation ofthe paraphrase m<ly transform many single events into minimal stories of this sort (e. 18) . Todorov 1966. lfI use 'plot' at all .g.1 34 I Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Notes 1 35 2 Story: events 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l This chapter relies h eavily on a d raft prepared by Moshe Ron: quite a few passages are copied verbatim from that draft. 13 By the way. One term often used to designate such a unit is 'function'. (b) For other statements about the obliteration ofindividuality by a sense ofuniformity see Mauriac in Roudiez 1 96 1 /2.-I t (a) 'Allotropy' means 'variation of physical properties without change of substance' ( OED). pp. Barthes 1970. and the style have undergone serious changes. with the consequence that story and plot are contrasted as mutually exclusive narrative forms. The king died ->0 The king was alive and well. a serious flaw. so that (unfortunately for me) Ron can no longer be held responsible for the weaknesses of the chapter. . 20--2 . in French 1 964. beautiful life would begin. I shall also treat Propp's theory under the heading of 'surface structure'. As the term implies. In order to avoid this confusion. Ron's Oedipus chart tags the sequences with the name of the character whose long-term interests (though not necessarily conscious will or knowledge) are at stake.and I am rather wary ofa term which has become too vagut' in ordinary critical usage . pp. 1 976. Thus Oedipus' intent and his attempt to ward off the dangers of which he l earned from the oracle at Delphi do not have the same status as his failure to do so (this is true ofall the sequences ending in failure on the charts). 553 and McCarthy 1 96 1 . 1 7-1 8): the intent or volition of a character may be mistaken for a structural principle of the plot. 1 76.I take it to designate one type of story (the type which emphasizes causality) rather than a narrative form opposed to the story. p. Note that my own study speaks of 'aspects' rather than 'levels'. An argument diagnosing translatability as a presupposition of metaphysical discourse ". See Hjelmslev I ¢ I . p.. then. 3 Story: characters �i: �-. 'mor­ pheme' etc. since this term involves a specific view of story. in French 1 972. the order of the items. however. I . as Prince does ( 1 973). p. Others presuppose some version of this claim by treating models evolved for one semiotic and cultural domain as unprob­ lematically transferable to another domain. confusingly rendered into English in the 1 977 translation as 'narrative utterance'. p. pub!. Like Greirnas. 1 26-7. p. 187. 1 2-1 3). In this model Pavel borrows the tree-like presentation used in transformational grammar. Henault 1979.) is the minimal unit ofmyth. Orig. See. in Russian 1899). A classical structuralist move. Pavel 1 973b. That Bremond's method cannot consistently represent the possible discrepancy between the participants' intent and the narrative relevance oftheir actions is. Greimas uses the term 'monce narratif'. and Groupe d'Entrevernes 1 9 79. This goes back to my point on pp. . The determination ofthe basic story-unit is a point much in debate. a 'my theme' (coined on 'phoneme'. p. unpublished typescript. whereas in the sequence pitting Oedipus against the sphinx (Chart II) all three stages are within his awareness and consistent with his role as agent. In recent years Pavel has been developing a highly promising model under the name of 'move grammar'. long way away and that the most complicated and difficult part was onlyjust beginning' ( 1 927. Greimas 1 970. 1 5-16.) is clearly meant to forestall any sense of closure: 'And it seemed to them that in only a few more minutes a solution would be found and a new. 39-4 1 . 1 3 7 for ways of dynamizing the square with the help of which Greimas represents the deep struc­ ture (on the square see pp. I believe. p. I. One way of circumventing this problem would be to speak. 16 However. The clearest and most explicit account of such considerations is in Pavel. pp. Characters often do not realize what they are doing. 25-7· See also Barthes 1 966. pp.

er­ 3 Since I follow Genette rather closely. Anat Epstein. name becomes a character.: -:. . 'smt'. on the other hand. p. pp. 2 One should note. p. . pp. � (.. . 5 Text: characterization oregoing general considerations are based 'on Moshe Ron 's I The f lecture notes. 7 The traditional typology of narrators will be modIfied III chapter 7 with the help ofGenette's diff erent categories.. however. i'. How­ on which the f ever. . ' . see Chatman's own statement which ignores the directional dimension: 'Events travel as vectors.--.mily s or and Baron's defiant ride in a yellow-wheeled buggy. Hrushovski's theory. M.-=--�. . on the other hand. analogy . r. 6 Genette in f act says that prolepSIS IS incompatIble WIth suspense ( 1 972. 1 980. and examples are mine he -I -1 J _ � II 1 2 l owe this point to Professor H. I pref to acknow­ or er ledge here a debt greater than footnotes can express. from which I often quote verbatim without page ref erence. I have.?_ (b) Ewen speaks of direct and indirect means of charactenzanon.g. . _ - . this tendency was attacked by Knights in 'How many children had Lady Macbeth?' ( 1 964.tv. e 1 0 Not every pause is descriptive.. 538-68. 1 29). " horizontally" from earlier to later.':-= =:!:I_�"' l>-! < . 33-62. . Barthes on Robbe-Grillet. Daleski. 1 964). and not every descnptlon IS a pause (Genette 1 972. 75) . suggested by Ewen in 1 97 1 .. I am grateful to Professor H rushovski for stimulating discussions 8 I • t time-spans staked out by the events' ( 1 978. p. 1 933).: . � -:-:-:�=-"l�'-"a: i4iA r :. . Ji (a) A great deal of what is said i n this chapter derives from Ewen 1 97 1 . considering self -plagiarism a legitimate acti\. 'happened' several times but a diff erent number ofumes. . • . this was already proposed by Gunther Muller m 1 948. and that even in the same book there are diff erent statements about the same sub ject. Traits. ! ! I . 37-8) is based. Ther� IS an interesting example of this type in Faulkner's 'I" �ose � Emily' or ( 1 930). This was pointed out to me by a graduate student. 75-99. no longer categorically maintained. (b) For an interesting discus­ sion of how a function becomes a proper name and how the proper character as a network of textual signs.. 1 05). pp. 7 Barthes's own term. f orthcoming). which estabhsh supra-linear links. with modifications and examples ofm� O\\.. I shall not give page ref ences f every point taken from him. 3 As is well known. 9 In this connection. two f actors w� h tone down the <: irreversibility of text-time: (a) the f act of wnung and hence the possibility o� re-reading : (b) t?e existence of quasi-spatial patterns . is replaced in 1 980 by the 'mimetic and symbolic axis'. 1 0 This point was made by Prof essor Baruch Hochman in a personal presentation. ' 9 I t should be noted at this point that add' IDonaI d'ffi cuI Ues 0fiten I emerge when story-duration is neither discussed n�r i� �able. See also Rimmon 1 976a. since the selection. " . S More about gaps in chapter 9. Since the latter seems to me of a diff erent order from the first two. I rctain thc original classification. 1 2 8-9).. but this is fairly unusual (Hrushovski.... and these are not identical with linguistic ones. pub!. one shoul d remember that Greimas is concerned with narrative (or semiotic) categories.---.. p.. What will be introduced below is only a part of Hrushovski's theory of character which is itself a part of his unified theory of the text (both f orthcoming). An outline of the general theory can be f ound i n Hrushovski 1 974. f or example. 6 I t is possible f or a character to be concentrated in one textual segment._ ::-" "" =. synthesis.. The text narrates four times an event which IS SaId to �a e � happened every Sunday f a period of about two years . 1 3 This third axis. but i t is still interesting that the subordination to action is Chatman explicitly models his theory of character on psychological theories of personality. instead. whereas Barthes considers character a textual junction. conversation. Forster himselfirnplicitly recognizes this possibility when he speaks of 'the beginning of the curve toward the round' ( 1 963.. 1 46) Genette says that hIS typology of frequencies does not include another possibilit� f which he kn�ws or no example. 1 976a. namely that of narrating several tImes � event whlch . � 8 · As Genette says. . Orig.. 1 979. I I In a footnote ( 1 972. pp. cit' as 'story ' and 'text' in order to 4 I 'rewrite' his 'his/oirt' and ' ri . On directionality see also Even-Zohar 1 968/9..-�'--" 1 36 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics 4 Text: tim e Notes 1 37 4 Although Hamon takes a sentence for convenience. I . is able to account f the directionality or ignored by Chatman. In fact.. preserve the consistency of my own termmology throughout the presentation. is much less anthropomorphic. • . extend over should i n no way be held responsible f or the weaknesses of the ollowing presentation (pp... not as a full being. . see Kermode 1 979. The above f ormulation i� my m �cation. 5 (a) It should be remembered that even in 1 970 Barthes sees 2 There is a clear i nteraction between the 'anti-novel' and the structuralist '�choor i n France (see. e.

1 943): 'f ocus of narration'. 3 This is a modified version of a classification proposed by H . Stan�el .. Nevertheless. where such definitions clash with indirect characterizations. Je I I Uspensky gives this example und �r t�e. � . Gibson ( 1 950) talks about the 'mock reader' .a non-personal lmphed entIty ­ tion (Chatcan be said to have 'chosen' the means of communica 48) .- 6 Text: focalization 2 however. pub!. 7 This distin ction can be profitably related to the aJQS of penetra- ocalized ) . 9 I t 12 (a) Uspensky also shows a similar handling of Russian . . Uspensky does not use the term 'panoramic'. However..retained because it may be one of the causes of the conf usion which I am trying to explain.p-2). in his terminology) of f ' planes' language). on the other hand. Daleski in his l ectures of 1 965. with my own modificatIons. 1 30 and elsewhere). Orig. therefore he killed the dragon. The f pub!. 10 his . In I gSo he seems to hesitate between subordinating it to indirect presentation (p. His 'non-f ocalized' corresponds to my 'external f ocaliz­ ation' and his 'internally focalized' is analogous to my 'internal focalization'. treating them as if they were people) . changed his labels. in fact. Uspensky does not dlstmgwsh rather than emotive f between these two types. in Russian 1 970) . tion into the inner lif discussed in the chapter on character (pp.�. 5 I n 1 97 1 Ewen treats 'analogous characterization' on a par with direct and indirect characterization. J 8 and narration as if they were the same phenomenon. . ( I � I ) and Ron (unpublish ed). however. p. 2 However. . treating both together under 'psycho­ . there is a touch of personification at this point of the discussion . 206-7). 5-6) f seems to be close to mine. man 1 978.e.. narrative agent rather than to a living perso� . pub!. 5 The situation is. Indeed. 1 92 1 . since the narrator Pip also often acts as focalizer. theref ore she uses many foreign words.- .rubnc sU � �tI�e/ob jectIVity and objectiVity belong to However it seems to me that sub the emotive component more than to the cognitive �ne. t. 2 I t is also difficult to see how 'it' . . His third category ('externally f ocalized'). . on a par. 1 . JectIve. 1 . and the story is sometimes focalized by the experiencing child and sometimes by the adult narrator. is based on a different criterion and will be integrated elsewhere in 7 Narration: levels and voices 1 3 I am grateful to Ruth Ginsburg for working on thIS text WIth me. and. since his first category includes only one mean(s}. this is why I use the term 'agent'. � 8-9)' Gen ette's classification is based on two differen t cntena: while the ers to ocalized ref ocalized and internally f diounction between non-f ocalizer). 1 0 These terms should be taken metaphorically when applied to a .-1.The terminology pertaining to narrCltion will be modified i n chapter 7 . speech in War and Peace. exemphfy . 4. internally focalized and externally f ocalized ( 1 972.ow� presentatIOn. which I borrow from Lubbock 1 963.v. as is Uspensky's ( 1 973. . . he does not confuse the two in his discussion of Stephen ( 1 96 1 . mor!! complex.. I I I I I I tween the narrator and the author. p. 1 . ocalIzatIon (or pomt OfVI�W . 48) and treating it as an independent type of characterization (pp. .� � � 1 38 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Notes 1 39 -e. pp. suggest a misleadingly hierarchical con�ption. . 4 The 'natural ' causality is: X is brave. Uspensky does not alwa�s . and the result is perpl exing. *�- f �- . my discussion.. 3 Although in the book as a whole Booth talks about 'point of view' Genette also links 'f ocalization' to the term proposed by Brooks and Warren ( 1 959. I have grave doubts about the validity of the personification of narrative agents (i. . there are texts. As should be clear from my . 1 . that be�'een internally posi tion of the perceiver (the f the . .�gru �ve ocalization . 1 63 ) . but also on similar categories suggested by Chatman ( I 978).. ject (the ocalized and externally focalized refers to the perceived ob f . . �e passages from The idiot. . these seem to me to be based on different criteria and will theref ore be in tegrated into other parts of this chapter. pp. WIth . Stanzel' s use of'external' and ' internal' ( l g8 1 . .t . �rench logical'. ':� . (b) Uspensky trea� such verbal mdlcators ac e other f �� (�r as a 'phraseological plane'. I also avoid the term 'plane' because It seems to me to � 6 My distinction between external and internal focalization deliber­ ately departs from Genette's classification of rl cits into non­ focalized. Y is a snob.' ". I s.dis� gulsh ocalization . 1 00-1 ) on which my comment above is based.ee phraseology as a way of conveying focalization not as one of Its : facets. like Lawrence's Sons and Lovers ( 1 9 1 3) . nor does he dlStmgulsh be­ between narration and f e'. 99-100) in spite of an insight into its diff erent status (pp. M. Daleski includes 'act of the mind' and 'symbolic act' in the same classification. _ ollov. p.·ing discussion is based mamly on � spe?sky ( 1 973· Ong. As Bal has convincingly �rgued ( I � 77: pp. Orig. . . ' 0.

I " ..- .. .. -=-. see Yacobi IgBl . . What is conventionally accepted as 'simultaneous narration' is then a narration which is minimally distanced from the action. 239 n.t� -�:.i!l . 6 I fone accepts Derrida's view of' diff lrarue' ( 1 973) no narra tion can ever be simultaneous with the action.. free indirect discourse wiJI henceforth be abndged as FID.with Sternberg . nouw ( 1 980. Barthes ( 1 970) in France..=.:t'''' . . not below). " " !!< "'�":l :=" . .. pp'. Booth describes the same phenomena as 'dramatized' v. but the examples are mostly mine. 9 These are Chatman's terms ( 1 978.--. I I For a different approach to unreliability.. mimesis under the I I _ _ To mention only the most prominent representatives of this orientation: Riffaterre ( 1 g66) . Chatman does believe in non-narrated stories (see also p. 1 93. 'undramatized' narrators ( 1 96 1 . I include his ' non-narrated stories' under the category of covert narration. Banfield ( 1 973) demonstrates the implausi­ bility of such derivation..I I I I I 9 The text and its reading tf i� I . no� two ways of per�eiving. 1 97-252). pp. 78) expresses a similar view in agreeing with Booth. . ' . 1 40 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Notes 1 41 • _ t 1 ! I' I. 24. " 3-26. Spitzer 1 928 (and see the instructive synthesis in Hebrew byJoseph Ewen 1968.... . on the other hand. . IgSa). this connection an MA thesis by Ruth Gmsburg which has helped � . For reviews of works by Eco. pp. ._ . t . p. 238-5 1 ) .. 2 1 3-22) respectively. 1 974. 8 This text is mentioned in the New Accents series by both Hawkes ( 1 977) and Fowler ( 1 977) for various experimental techniques. in German 1 957). =!It:r. . 1 5 1-3).. � �_ ". 1 979 and . 1 0 Note that 'on this side' mayindicate a combination ofthe narrator's reporting with a focalizer's perception. Orig. . and Jauss see Doleiel ( 1980. or between utterances in different texts' ( 1978. Bakhtin and Voloshinov we�e not interest� in the linguistic distinctions among types of discourse but ill translinguistic distinctions 'based on th� kinds and degre� of dialogic relationships holding between different utterances ill a text.".. 1 974b. I prefer Bal's 'hypodiegetic' ( 1 977. I n Germany and Swiuerland the phenomenon was called 'erlebte Rede' and investigated by such people as Biihler 1 936: Glauser 1 948. I n I srael the phenomenon was variously discussed as 'combined speech' (Golomb 1 9(8). Brinker ( 1 980. . il .' . For a detailed discussion of this novel see Rimmon-Kenan 1 982. 1 976. The impression one gets is that in spite of his desire to forestall potential objections... Contrary to Genette. Pp. McHale also lists various indices which make readers recogruze FID. appears to be in­ fluenced by the linguists Kuroda ( 1 973. 1 97 1 b.� :: . II . on this issue.:: '' !Il :I = r.. 4 1-59. . pp. publ. 251-2 . pp... 257). 1 975) and Banfield ( 1 973. 1 9j8b. 4 Such statements undermine Chatman's caution when explaining that his category of'non-narrated stories' could be called 'minimal­ ly narrated' (e.g. Genette apologizes for this confusion on p. pp. to the German scholar Kate Hamburger ( 1 973. . Ullmann ( 1 957) was the first to introduce the term 'free indirect stvle' into English criticism.. 263).. Chatman's view.. I ngarden. See further discussion in Bal. I believe that these are two ways of narrating. Warning ( 1 975) and Jauss ( 1 977) m Germany.. p. I I This imitative capacity of literature has not always gone unchal­ lenged. 1 40-58: English abstract pp. As McHale points out. xii-xiii). I gB l ... Although the study ofthis phenomenon received a special impetus in the last ten years. Sternberg ( 1 97¥-.. 5 Fowler ( 1 977. Prince ( 1973) and Culler ( 1 975) in America. � � n = ". ! . 59-85) to Genette's 'metadiegetic'.----. perceptions becoming here one of the objects of the-narratIOn. Iser ( 1 97 1 a.2 1 0) . pp. 3 4 5 J II I t 6 heading of'mode'.I. ' t ''''' . """ """' .. I would like to mennon ill . 1 8 1-8). considering it not a feature ofnarrators but an aspect of the reader's organizing activity and extending the notion to the whole fictional world. Meyer 1 957. 1 976a).. As opposed to the traditional grammancal View which denves ID from DD and FID from ID.Il' �' r�''''-:'''''. a. 1 974.a$ �. I gB l ) who in tum are close. 7 My discussion of narrative levels relics heavily on Genette's ( 1 972. 1 978). ''' . pp.. 1 55 about a passage from Joyce's Ul yssu: 'There is no narrator' ) . dIrect discourse as DD and indirect discourse as ID. 8 Narration: speech representation :2 3 See the debate between Bal and Bronzwaer ( 1 98 1 . I . 1 47).. pp. . · •• r. 1 978a. However. . p.. See chapters 6 and 8 (the section on FID) . � '"' ''' . Genette treats the whole issue of diegesis v. Like McHale ( 1 978.1 968b) in Israel..� . I retain the seemingly derivational description as a convenience in expositi�n. there are earlier descriptions which should be mentioned.. 'repre­ sentro speech' (Ewen 1 968) and 'combined discourse' (Perry forthcoming) . E co ( 1 979) in Italy: Hrushovski ( 1 974.. !ser. and is strongly contested by deconstructionists today. :.. . Hamburger 1 95 1 . ". 2 03-12) an Ba:­ .=a= ::-::f':. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ � . and these are not only grammatical. because the latter is confusing in view of the opposed meaning of 'meta' in logic and linguistics (a level above.L . 1 969. p. pp.. 1 976) and Perry ( 1 968a..-. fish ( 1 970..l-· .-':'. " 'hat follows relies heavily on � cH e 1 9�8. In France it was cal�ed 'style indirect libre' and studied mainly by Bally ( 1 9 1 2) and Lips ( 1 926). pp.

I shall poin t this out. 287: Eco ' 979.. and would also like to �schew tht: problem of the mimetic. who speaks about 'motivation' rather than 'naturalization' . the moti\·a· tion or naturalization is not based on reality itself but on a mode:-l :'\otes 2 . pubL in Russian 1 925) . ' fl �t '� .: . ' 3 II j' the human mind constructs to be able to conceive of it) \'. but they may also be basic ideological differences. 'motivation' and 'vraisrmblabifiJatiolz' . In order to avoid a termino_ logical confusion I have chosen to adhere to one p resentation.�. 'rhetorical or reader­ oriented motivations' . ' 980. ' ' " t I .r-' .L �. calls the two principles 'quasi-mimetic or referential' v. _4 IIIEI!'�' ��'_ �� � . The text misleads the reader on purpose by appealing to his reality models. . . j Il ' I . However. 1 : 4 5 I I' Hj '. 'J ' . . . ' 37-8). • • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ii!!I!! �-':��&!i�""'£:t i=!! :::':":"��:'� � � . Sternberg has rightly ar�ued (forthcoming) that the 'compositional' is actually a sub­ ty e of the 'artistic'. I would like to emphasize that both types are based on modtis. this is a misleading interpretation. and I would have been tempted to equate it with 'naturalization' for the sake of an elegant synthesis. can be f ound in Iser ' 97 I a. [ 43 " p I! I. Similar comments on the dynamics ofreading. # \ .. as well as for differences among the Formal­ ists themselves). as Sternberg points out ( forthcoming) . I have decided to avoid confusion and cling to 'naturalization'.' � ' I 6 .f > � ' l' . My own terms will thereforr. 975. According to Culler. 'aesthetic or rhetorical'. while 'naturalization' is reader-oriented.. '. 7 In the specific context... . 32: Brinker ' 980. . Part of the problem may be solved if one follows Perry in seeing both author and reader as metonymies of the text. The thesis i s entitled 'The I mpossible Task of the Reader: A Reading of Kafka 's Texts' (The Hebrew U niversity ofJerusalem. compositional and artistic motivation (Tomashevsky ' 965. !: �. 'motivation' is based on means-ends relations while 'naturalization' concerns forllls and conditions ofintelligibil­ ity and integration. . 'I " . The original. and there are others which he does not mention. Moreover. 'motivation' derives from Russian Formalism. . p. Formalist distinction was tripartite: realis­ tic. However. Sternberg (forthcoming). 206. 'Motivation' is also used by the Tel-Aviv school. -. 'motivation' is author-oriented. In Hebrew)..: . or referential status of reality in fiction. since Zambinella is a castrato.. though sometim es couched in different terms. The foregoing paragraph is based on Moshe Ron's lecture notes. in spi te of the foregoing explanation.).� -� �. he poin ts out su btle differences among them ( . For grammatical convenience I shall continue saying 'he' .e. "".'��'ll� . r .br. " . These may be differences in m ethodological emphasis (ibid. Nevt"Tlhdess. Perry ( 1 979.." . quasi-mimetic. . . 283. pp.. 36-4 2 ) talks about 'model oriente:-d motivations' v . 'naturalization' is often used in structuralist poetics as interchangeable with 'recuperation'. .. _ .L_!:. although it is also used (often with a different emphasis) in Structuralism (see Stern­ berg (forthcoming) f the difference between Genette's use and or that of the Formalists. pp. '::':"': !. p.' ·-':"::" ·A �_.'reality model(s)' ( i . and Perry's seemed the most exhaustive."- N arrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics me organize some of my thoughts on the subject. Orig. and since this chapter is more reader­ oriented than author-oriented. "" hile the three other terms originated in French Structuralism. pp. \Vhere the two notions can be con­ veniently related. 'literature model(s)'.

Faulkner. Orig. Forster.( 1 97 1 ) 'Bam Burning'.1 2. G ustave ( 1 965) Madame Bovary. Orig.( 1 965) The Sound and the Fury. London: Dent. Orig. pubJ. 1 928. in French 1 869. Flaubert. Samuel French 1 953. Saul ( 1 972) Watt. in . Henry ( 1 962) Joseph Andrews. -. in The Collected Writings o Ambrose f Bieret. Orig. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pubJ. in Spanish 1 963. ( 1973) Her�og. Consequently. in Harmondsworth: Penguin. in Colucted Storns oj William Faulkntr. London: Macmillan.( I g62) TomJonfs. in Bierce's The Parenti­ cirk Club. The first series consists of those narrative works which are either quoted or d iscussed in some detail. the second series is quite extensive ( though not exhaustive). Slwrl Story Masterpieces. i n Warren . Paris: Minuit. 1930. Dos Passos.f ! . Borges. Orig. publ. Orig. Orig. in Selected Tales o Tchelwv. pub!. publ. in Russian 1 899. 1 74-9. Orig. 1 909. pubJ. in Spanish 1 956. pubJ. Orig. publ. New York: Dell. 193 1 . London: f Chatto & Wind us. publ. The second series includes all the theoretical studies mentioned. 1 74-2· -. H ardy. Absalom! New York: Vintage Books. f Conrad. 1 936. Those works which are most important fOT this study are annotated and marked with an asterisk. in Spanish 1 605-1 6. in Labyrinths. New York: Norton. Edward Morgan ( 1 963) A Passage to India. Orig. Joseph ( 1 975) Hta rt o DaTIauss . . Chau cer.( 1 970) Smtimental Education. " .S. but does nol include works which are merely mentioned in passing. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Orig.� t r :1 j References t The items listed here are presented in two series: ( I ) works ofnarrative fiction and (2) theoretical studies. London: Dent. pub!. Orig. 1 939· -. London: Chatto & Windus. Harmondsworth: Penguin. so as to represent is many as possible of the texts which have influenced my thinking on this sub ject. Jorge Luis ( 1 974-) 'The Garden of Forking Paths' and 'Pierre Menard. publ. 1 904. Orig. Orig. London: Hamish Hamilton. publ. Thomas ( 1 963) Tess oj tJlt D 'Urbtrvilles. Orig. William ( 1 950) 'A Rose for Emily'. Harmondsworth: Penguin. publ. Author of the Quixote' . Harmondsworth: Penguin. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Dickens. Cortazar. Orig. 1 390-1 4-00 approx. Charles ( 1 964-) B/tak House. C ervantes. Brooke-Rose. pubL 1 902. Paris: GalIimard. Orig. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ambrose ( 1 952) 'Oil ofDog' . Albert (cds). Harmondsworth: Pengwn. New York: Random House. I I Orig. Orig. Julio ( 1 967) Hopscotch. -. publ. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pubJ.f eiters). pubJ. Geoffrey ( 1 934) Tht Canterbury Tales. Fielding. Bu tor. p ubl. -. Orig. pubJ. quoted or analysed. 189 1 . Orig. Ong. Christine ( 1 975) Thru. Chekhov. Orig. Robert Penn and Erskine. Works of narrative fiction Beckett. including many items which would appear in other New Accents books in a 'Further Reading' section. in Selected Tales o f Tchelwv. Ernest ( 1 965) 'The Killers' and 'Hills Iik� Wh� te Elephants'. 1 964-. publ.A. Michel ( 1 957) La Modification. -. 1 853. John ( 1 938) U. New York: Modem Library. New York: Signet. Miguel de ( 1 950) Don Quixote. Hemingway.- References . pub!.( 1 978) GTeat ExpectatiOn!. pub!. Orig. Anton ( 1 927) 'Sleepy'. NY: 145 . Garden City. in Russian 1 888. -. New York: Citadel Press. !'<ew York: Signet . 1 860/61 . Garden City Books.( 1 972) Absalom.( 1 963) NostTomo. 1 924-. pubJ. Bierce. publ. Andre ( 1 94-9) Les f aux monnayeuTS (The ClJU1IUr. in French 1 857. Gide.Men without Women. London: Calder & Boyars. _ ( 1 927) 'Lady with a Lapdog'. Bellow.

1 9 1 9. narrative text) and the discussion of focalization and narration. Orig. Ann Arbor. H enry ( 1 959) The Samd Fount.)' History. D. H armondsworth: Pen­ )' guin. 1 92 5. Essais sur La signification narrative dans quatre romans modtrnes. 1 96 1 . 1 963. Orig. H armondsworth: Penguin. ( l gS l a) 'Notes on narrative embedding'. Orig.2. __ __ 202-10. New York: Norton. jt Banfield. pubJ. 3. 1-39· * ( 1 978a) 'The formal coherence of represented speech and . Woolf. H . Harmondsworth: Pengum. Alexander ( I gS l ) TM Yawning Heights. Lawrence. Mich.. . pub!. Foundations ofLanguage. Orig.lssian Formalism. pubJ. Banfield's hypothesis (here and elsewhere) concerning 'speakerless' sentences has influenced some narratologists in talking about 'narra­ torless' narratives (e. Joyce. Chatman 1 978). pub\. 1 92B. �ew York: Dell. Nt'w York: Random House. White. New York: p Dell. Orig.( 1 966) The POTtrait o a iA4)'. Zinoviev. or: on focalization'. Orig. publ. 1 95 1 . v Ba�n. Particularly important are the hierarchical tripartite distinction (fable. . pub!. ( 1 96 1 ) Lad Chall(Tl�v 's LOlltr. . Poetics Toda 2. . Robbe-Grillet. Orig.( 1 97 1 ) The Real Lift ofSebastian Knight. Albert (eds ) . 1 1 6-23. I B8 1 . " ( 1 9B 1 ) ' Reflt"ctive and non-reflective conscIOusness 111 the language offiction' . Littirature. in German I B06. y. story. 1 760. . pub! . 1 930. Heinrich von ( 1 962) 'The Marqu ise of 0-'. Nabokov. Paris: Gallimard. -. pub!. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pub!. or the Ambiguities. 1 8gB.( 1 g64) 'The Figure i n the Carpet'.2. Marcel ( 1 963) Un amourdt Swann. -. publ. )" Orig. James Harry and Parks. ' James. Orig. Ong. Ref erences 1 47 Theoretical studies Aristotle ( 1 95 1 ) 'Pot"tics'. H armondsworth: Pengum. f pub\. Albert (eds) ( 1 97 1 ) Short Story MasttrpitCtS. Herman ( 1 964) Piem. 1 957· . pub� . Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. -- _ ( 1 97 1 ) IYaT and Peace. in Russian 1 976. Charles ( 1 9 1 2) 'Le style indirect libre en fran�s moderne'.. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Harmondsworth: Penguin. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Orig. Virginia ( 1 974) Mrs Dallou·O:)'. -. 1 9 1 4. in Dub/inm.r.. 1 94 1 . in Russian I B64-9 · Warren.orth: Penguin.( 1 978) 'Mise en abyme et iconicite'. Xew York: Grove Press. 1 9 1 3. Robert Penn and Erskine. Orig. Leo ( 1 950) AIlJW Karcni"a. pub\. Gmnanisch-Romanisch Monatsschri . Harmondswonh: Penguin. pub!. Poetics and Theory ofLiteratuTe. 1 B52. Poelics Toda. 9 .: Ardis.( 1 973) The Rainbow. Orig. Melville. Short Story Master pieces.. Bally. Mieke ( 1 977) Narratologie. Edd \<\'infield (eds). New York: Signet. Orig. New York: Dell. New York: Dell. and grammar meet literary history: the development of represented speech and thought'. ( 1 9B l b) 'The laughing mice. 1 91 5. John ( 1 965) TM S y U''lIo Came bl from tM Cold. ---. Orig. in Two NOl�ls �1 Robbe-Grillet: jealousy and In tM Lab yrinth. Paris: Klincksieck. 4 1 5-54. publ. Harmonds. Ann ( 1 973) 'Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech'." '. London: Rupert Hart-Davis. Orig. Kleist. E. Poetics Todf!J. Short Sto ry Masterpiect5. pubJ.. Orig. Tolstoy. . pub! . (cds) ( 1 973) Rl. Bakhtin. Murit"1 ( 1 97 1 ) The Priml of Jfiss jean Brodj�. Orig. 6 1 -76. Ong. in Russian 1 933. Nlw Litera. . in Smith. Le Carre.---. pub!.Bal. .2. -. Spark. 2.( 1 973) The Turn of the Screw and Other S tories. in The Marquise of 0and Other Stories. Robert Penn and Erskine. __ -_ __ . . ( 1 g6 2 ) Sons and Lovm. New York: Signet. J . and Bowlt. Patrick ( 1 960) Voss. pub!. i n TM Compleu T jamu. Mikhail ( 1 9 73) Problems of Dostoevsky 's Poetics. 1 90 1 ales o Henry f -. Katherine Anne ( 1 97 1 ) 'Flowering J udas'. Proust. Alain ( 1 g65) 'Jealousy'.---� 1 46 Narrative Fiction: Contem porary Poetics " . ( 1 97Bb) 'Where epistemology. TIle Great CTltics: An Antholog)' of Literary CTiticism. in Russian 1 929. S. Orig. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Harmondsworth: Penguin. London: Heinemann.. criticizing and modifying Genette's theory ( 1 972). 1 9 1 6. ill Russian 1 873-6. pub!. 2. pub\. Harmonds­ worth: Penguin. Porter. i n Warren. pub!. Albert (eds). Orig..( 1 963) A Portrait of tM A rtist as a )'uullg Man. thought'. McCullers. 28g-314· A lingUistically oriented study of free indirect discourse and related phenomena. pubJ. Orig. pub!. Robert Penn and Erskine. 4. pub\. Sterne. Ori g. -. 549-56 and 597-606. Vladimir ( 1 969) Laughter in the Dark. pub!. in French 1 957. 41-60. Laurence ( 1 967) Tristram Shand Harmondsworth: Pengui n. London: Rupert Hart-Davis. . 29. Orig. Orig. Orig. Carson ( 1 97 1 ) 'The Sojourner" in Warren. 1 B96.g. -. style. 10.James ( 1 96 r ) 'Eveline'.

57-79· . Poetics T of Some B ronzwaer. and Crosman. Monroe C. Wolfgang. ell ( 1 980b) 'Round and round the Jakobson diagram: a survey'. publ. A modd for the analysis of " New LiterD1)' istory. 1 20-48. Christine ( 1 980a) 'The readerhood of man'. Benveniste. ( 1 970) Tense in the Novel: An Investigation f o Linguistic Criticism. Princeton . 247-76. 1-27. ( 1 980) 'Critics in the act of reading'. Diacritics. · Booth. New York: Cornell Umverslty Press. Orig. Ill. Paris: Seuil. __ 28<r-3OO• -. Particularly important is the analy­ sis of . 1 . 60-76. Ing­ oday. 1 93-20 1 .Text. Comparative Lileralure.-" . Bremond. *-. this remains a seminal book. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.( 1 972) 'On the Formalist-Structuralist theory of character'. 203.2. Language and Sryk. 9. with i ts distinction between ' functions' (subdivided into 'kernels' and 'catalysts' ) and 'indices' (subdivided into 'indices proper' and 'inf ormants ' ) . ihre Jlorstu en und f ilIre Ausbildung im WerktJane Ausfens. pub!._.4 . Potentialities ocalization: a critical note'. M . 54-68· Chatman. Florida: University of Miami Press. in lmage-Music. Barnouw. Brooks. Cynthia ( 1979) 'Oedipal textuality: reading Freud's reading of Oedipus'. Roland ( 1 964) Essais Critiques. I nge (eds). Wayne C. By now a classical example of the type of analysis practised in the early 1 . Diacritics. Paris: Galli­ manl.( 1 966) ' Introduction a I'analyse structurale des reci ts ' . point of view and nan:ation.. 55/56.f '" . ymposium. 1 I . Roland. three functions and allows for bif Brinker. 1943. Oxf ord U niversity Press. Barthes. Helene ( 1 974) 'The character of "character" . Particularly important is th� section on chara�ter. 1 904. 1 . 8. ( 1 972) Critical Essa Evanston. I nspired by Propp. Barthes presents the codes underlying both the production of texts and their reading. 8. Georges ( 1 954) .]-1 1 2. New York: Harcoun.. •_- & Wang.. 9.1 2 . Paris: Seui!. W . 4.( 1970) 'Morphology of the French folktale'. BUhler. Orig.( 1 978) Story and Discourse. Wayne C. 2. Abounds in interesting examples from a wide range-of literary works. 9. The most systematic Anglo-American contribution to questions of point of view.story' . ( 1 977) ' I ntroduction to the structu­ ral analysis of narratives' . Booth.( 1970) S/Z. London: Macmillan. ci Beardsley. the notion of the implied author. 38 3-402 . London and New York: -. Menachem ( 1 980) Two phenomenologies of reading.y. Kayser. 3�36. . : -" 1 48 Narrative F iction: Contemporary Poetics . New York: Hill Press. Brace & World. Chicago: The Uni­ versity of Chicago Press. Com­ munications. Paris: Seuil. C. A. Poetics Today. orm criticizing its reductive trearment by f and suggesting an analysis in terms of a paradIgm of traIts. o Semiology. I n English.) Literary Sryle: A S -. H . ( 1970) Problmu in General Linguistics. ( 1 96 1 ) The Rhetoric of Fiction. In English. III SuleI­ ext. Semiotica. arden and Iser on textual indetermina cy'. Orig. Emile ( 1 966) Problbtus de linguistique glnirale. Brooks. ys. Cleanth and Warren. POttics __ ( 1 98 1 ) ' !\1ieke Bal's concept off Brook e-Rose. W. References 1 49 1 'story'. with an example from Joyce's Dubliners'. A synthesis of various theories of narrative in literature and film. ( 1 974) Slz. Yale French Studies. Dagmar Barthes. 2. 1 5:r82• ( 1 947) The W Wrought Urn. Susan R. Brooks. 8. Claude ( 1 964) 'Le message narratif'. • • 4-32• -. . Mass. urcation at every stage. s'. I thaca. 28. time._. Dorrit ( 1 966) 'Narrated monologue: definiuon of a ficllonal style'. My own study sometimes relies on Chatman and often dis­ agrees with him. 5. Blin. !2 1 3-!2!i. .( 1966) 'La logique des possibles narratif Communications.( 1 979) ' Fictions of the Wolfman: Freud and narrative under­ standing'. ( 1 95 8 ) Aesthetics: Problnns in the Philosoplry of Criticism. Essays man. The Reader in the T on A udience and Intrrprtlation. Marks Barthes's transition from structural to textual analysis. Brace & World. Philippe ( 1 977) Poltjque du rl t . characters. Bremond divides every sequence into .: Beacon Press. In English. Paris: Corti. Peter ( 1 977) 'Freud's masterplot'. Chase. Paris: SeuiJ. in Writing Drgru 'UTo and Elemenls Toda.4.( 1 970) 'Elements o fSemiology' . 72-8 1 . ( 1973) Logique du ricit. Through a study of Balzac's 'Sarrasine'. •_. ts and st:ucturaiISts. . Advocates plurality and reversibility. Boston. ( 1 965) Shakespearean Tragedy. J. pub!. the norms of the text. Bradley. London: Fontana. and Hamon. i n French f 1 964. Communications. Robert Penn ( 1 959) Undtrstallding Fiction. discussing even 1S. New York: Harcourt. ( 1 936) Die 'Erltbte Rede ' im cl/glischtn Roman. NJ : Princeton University stages of French Structuralism. � Cixous. -. 2. Seymour ( 1 969) 'New ways of analyzing narrative struc­ tuie. Although Booth's moralistic stance has often been criticized and many of his theories have undergone modification. Groningen: Walters-Noord hof. Coral Gables. Zurich: Max Niehans Verlag. : Northwestern Unh'ersity Press. types of narrators. In English. Stendhal tt les problemes du roman. Cohn. . Journal ofLiterary Snnantics. Cleanth Hebrew Univtrsiry Studies in Literature.( 1 97 1 ) (ed. " '\ See comment under next i tem .

James ( 1 978) 'Characterization in n�rrative'. PrincetOn. 538-68. New Literary History . Friedman. I '. Forster. ( 1 980) Character in Narrative (in Hebrew). A l u cid survey of structuralist theories of both poetry and narrative. . narrator. . f Hasi rut. ( 1 96 1 ) Introduction to Logic. ( 1 970) 'Literature in the reader: aff *__ Akademon. :245-68. .'arrative Modesf PJ-esenting Consciouslless oT in Fiction.( 1 978) Trans parent Minds: l. Jerusalem: *_ References 151 .-.r. I . 1 37-63.. ( 1 963) Aspects oj the Novel. Genette. 63-78.�t::�. and Proust. . pubL 1 953. Boris ( 1 97 / ) 'The theory of the f ormal method' . Shoshana ( 1 977) 'Turning the screw of m terpretatJon . in Mate jka. ( 1 980) Is There a Text in This Class? CambrIdge. Paul ( 1 9 7 1 ) Blindnm and Insight. 1 . -. Paris: Minuit. Conn. -.( l g8 1 ) 'The encirclement of narrative: on Franz Stanzel's Theorie des Er. Yale French Studies. Felman. In English. pp.poral frequency and the distinction between focalization and narratIon. 95-1 10. I thaca. . analysing both the system governing all narratives and its operation in Proust's A la recherche du temps perdu. 94-207. Victor ( 1 969) Russian FOT7Tl(1lism. *-_ ( 1 97 2 ) Figum Ill. Essai sur la mise Paris: Seuil. :27-37. . G{y ph. 70. 1 50 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Courtes. Fowler. til -. \o'11-iX• _ ( 1 978) A Dictionary oj Narrati. PMLA. or -. A brilliant combma­ tion oftheoretical and descriptive poetics ..4.ew York: Macmillan. A bnefoudme m ization. :. . .. New York: Oxf ord University Press. Poetics Tod(1)'. . ' 39. • : r. : H �ard U niversity Press. Lubomir ( 1 97 1 ) 'Toward a structu ral theory of content in prose fiction' .. . in Chatman.( 1 97:2) Marges de laphilosophie. 1 57-8:2. 2. jrv. . 1 9:27.( 1 98 1 ) Th Pursuit o Si f gns: SfflIiotics. Paris: Seuil. ( 1 968/9) 'Correlative positi ve and correlative . Readings in Rus­ sian Poetics. 1 . 5. . E. Walker ( 1 950) 'Au thors. I-II: . . Eikhenbaum. • • in n ar. Essays in the Rhetoric o f Conlnnporary Criticism. -. pub!. 1 8. Harmondsworth: Pengum. Cambridge. Paris: Hachette Universite. Seymour (ed.1 9. -. Dtconstruction. pub!. 7. Mass. 1 8 1-3. English abstract pp. XU-XlII. Even-Zohar.( 1 980) 'Eeo and his model reader'. Copi. 1 :2g-60. I I. Erlich. Some American discussions'. 1 23-6:2. Mass. Itamar . . -. I. J 1 60-84· Garvey . Tel Aviv: Sifri 'at Po'alim.: Northwestern University f Press. London and New York: Oxford University Press. . pub!.( 1 977) 'Signature event context ' . History-DoctriTZ(. ab )71Ie. . Norman ( 1 955) 'Point ofview in fiction: the development of a critical concept' . _ ( 1 974) 'Writer. J' n egative time in Strindberg's Th� Father and A D re�m PIa ' ( m . Roger ( 1 977) Linguistics and the Novel. de Man. *Culler. 1-30.Jonathan ( 1 975) Structuralist Poetics. Structuralism. Argues f a poetics grounded in a theory ofreading. Krystyna (eds ) . . Andre (I 948) Joumal I 88fJ-19 Gibson. in French 1 967. Poetics T oday. New Literary History. in Russian 1 925. Doleiel. Particularly new is the section on tem. Orig.. in French 1 97:2 . dealing with the complex relations between text and reader. Nietzsche.e Fiction (in Hebrew) . Paris: Seuil. Poetics Today.=aove fiCtlon (m Hebrew). 1 7:2-97. ectIve StyliStICS .(1 980) 'Fabula and Sjuzhet in the analysis of narrative. 1 I 1 ! I E nglish is attached to Ewen's 1 9 7 1 article. Poetics.Jihlens'.��IOn (m Hebrew). Literary S!)'u: A Sympo­ sium. Joseph ( 1 968) 'Represented sp�ec� : � concept m the t�eory of rut. Bloomin gton and London: Indiana University Press . Fish.: Yale University Press.: The MIT Press. H ebrew).. . Hasif Ewen. Dallenbach. 1 :2 . I 1Ij I emphasis on the latter. Derrida. rut. Hasif 1 4. . Eeo.tr � . Paris: Sewl. Umberto ( 1 979) The Rou ojtM Reader: Ex plorations in tM Semiotics o f T exts. [ . Literature. in S peech and Phenomma and Other Essa on ys Husseri' 's Theory' o Signs. Joseph ( 1 976) Introduction a fa sbniolique rumative tI discursive. 55/56. or Ferrara. Ladislav and Pomorska.�c� i . Unf i. Orig.ing M. M. -. pros e and it� uses in Hebr� fi.( 1 967b) De fa grammatologie. mock readers'. ":-\'11 . Enghsh abstract pp. in L 'Ecriturt et la diff irena. Orig.( 1 979) A lugories ojReading: Figural Language in Rousseau. -. 2. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. . :2 65-9 .0-5:2.). I . Evanston. -. Lucien ( 1 977) u ric-it spi culaire. pub!. Gide. Linguistics and the Stu�l' of Literature. . A collection of early and more recent ar� cJes.( 1 973) 'Diffc�rance'. London and New York: Methuen. English abstract p�. . Rilke. English abstract pp. and ImplIed a��or (m Hebrew). Orig. readers. Hasi t. ortunately available only m Hebrew. Fernando ( 1 974) 'Theory and model f the structural analysis offiction'. Orig. Grapples with the complex problem of character and presents a clear and useful analysis of �arious methods ?f cha �cte. � I �} NaTT�tlVt Discourse. WIth an College English. London : Rou tledge & Kegan Paul. 3. The Hague: Mouton. Stanley E. NY: Cornell University Press. 1 .3.Jacques ( I 967a) 'Freud et la scene de L'Ecriture'. _ ( 1 97 1 ) 'The theory of character . New Haven. Pans: Galhmard. speakers. Gerard ( 1 g6g) Figures II. NJ: Princeton U niversi ty Press. Ill. Paris: Minuit. as well as a presentation of the linguistic and anthropological basis of structuralism. Ir .

1 1 7-63. 279-99· -.o=.( 1 973) 'Les actants. 3. in Chabrol.: The University of Wisconsin Press. Terence ( 1 9 7 7) Structuralism and Semiotics. in the 1\ew York edition ofJames's works 1 90 7-9· . Madison. cit. or f Huxley. Ziva ( 1 974) Structuralist Poetics in Israel. gang ( 1 948) Das sprachlicht Kunstwerk. Seuil.a major technique in the prose of S. or ( 1 976b) ' Poetics.. Recommended to beginners hef ore tackling Greim as himself. _ ( 1 979) 'The structure of semiotic objects.. Lawrence. Lyon: Presses U niversitaires de Lyon. -. Harmondsworth: Penguin.( 1 97 1 ) 'Narrative grammar: units and le. College English. )'. Hrushovski. Tel-Aviv: The Porter Institute f Poetics and Semiotics. Baltimore. English abstract pp. .. Hans Robert ( 1 977) Asthetische Erfahrung und literarischr HtT­ Munich: meneutik. 1 884.( 1 976) Maupassant. in German 1 957. Algirdas Julien ( 1 966) Simantique structurale. v-vi.). 86. Y. Anne ( 1 979) Us en jeux de ta simiotique. . pub\. (ed. Diacritics. London: Heinemann. y New York and London: Charles Scribner's Sons.( 1 97 1 b) 'Indeterminacy and the reader's response to prose fiction'. 1ser. criticism._ _ • __ Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics .c ___ _ -. La simiotique du texte. model'. t Columbia U niversity Press. f ture.. science: remarks on the fields and responsibilities of the study of literature' .. *Hawkes. Asptcts of NaTTative.. An extreme structuralist view. 1 .). f ( 1 974) The Implied Reader: Pattems o Communication in Prose Fiction from Bun yan to Beckett. Louis ( 1 96 1 ) Prolegomena 10 a Theory o Language. Morris (ed.. 1 8-3 1 . New York: *-- I. The First E f pisode of War andPeace. DV.. -. -. Roman ( 1 973) The Literary Work o Art: An Investigation on thr f Borderlines o Ontology. publ. Roman ( 1 960) 'Closing statement: linguistics and poetics'. -. ext Hrushovski. Thomas A. Ill.: The M IT Press.. Paris: Presses Univer­ sitaires de France. al. pub!. One of the most important contributions to the phenomenolo­ gy ofreading. Introduction. 7. Sryie in Language. Algirdas Julien and Courtes. Joseph ( 1 979) Simiotique: un tlictUmnaiTI! raisonnl de la tMorie du langage. in Miller. John (ed. Halperin. in French 1 969.( 1 977) 'Elements of a narrative grammar'. in Shapira. 1 .ds' . Critical Pre/aCts b HenryJamts. J._. Orig. Orig. 350-7 7· James. les acteurs et les figures'.�:-'���l . Mass. Exrrcices praliques. in Barthes et. publ. Logic. Orig. sho\o\wg how the deep-structure semiotic square manifests itsdf at me surf ace structure. Ref erences f Hj elmslev.... Orig. Bern: A. * Hamon. Orig. 2 5 1-62. . in German 1 976..( 1 978) The Act ofRuuling: A Theory o Aestlutic Response. Evanston. Tniorit-Pratique.. Aldous (ed. Philippe ( 1 977) 'Pour un statut semiologique du person­ nage'. Balld I: Vrrsucht im Ftld der aeslhttischen Erfahrung. f Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.). op. pp. 33. Hernadi. 25.. Orig. publ. Paris: Seuil. Modem Lmzguage Now. Agnon: its use in the story "A Different Face'" (in Hebrew) . 363-76. 793-806. studying both the reader's role in 'actualizing' the text and the ways in which the text guides and controls such actualiza­ tion. publ. f Ingarden. 2 3-40.. Paul ( 1 97 1 ) 'Verbal worlds between action and vision: a theory of the modes of poetic discourse'. and Theory of Litrrature. 1 972. Groupe d' Entrevernes ( 1 979) AnalYse semiotique des Textes. *-.·- --�"" -"""'�-. Poetics and Tluory o Lilrra. Excellent classified bibliography. Paris: H achette.. Simiotique naTTative et �xtuelle.. reducing characters to their participation in me action. One of me few attempts at a systematic theory of character within a semiotic framework. Paris: Greirnas. London: Methuen. J akobson. New York: Oxford U niversity Press.: Northwestern University Press. C." � _c �. Developing the theories he started f orming in 1966 and 1970 (see above) . Orig. Henry ( 1 962) The Art o fth£ Novel. Bloomington: I n diana University Press. Greimas. iii-xxxv.-. pub\. H. (ed. Jam es. Benjamin and Ben-Porat..T'�'-.( 1 973) The Logic of Litrrature. Bern: A. Hamburger.( 1 970) Du Sens. Since this book is organized according to theoreticians. pp. Golomb. 1-25. Francke.( 1 g63) 'The art of fiction'. Glauser. Hillis (ed. HasiJrut.-. Fink. 1-2. Kayser. A clear introduction to Greimas's difficult theory. Greimas also applies them to a story by Maupassant. Wolf gang ( 1 97 I a) 'The reading process: a phenomenological approach' . Paris: Larousse.. Wis. Lisa ( 1 948) DiL erleb� Rede im englischm Roman des 19 Jahrlum­ derts. Henry Jamu: Selected Literary Criticism. Poetics Toda 1 . in Polish 1 93 1 . A three-dimensional _ 1 53 *-. 1 .�. H arai ( 1 968) 'Combined speech .) ( 1 974-) Tiu Theory of tlu Novel: New Ess'!Ys. Francke..a. Md: Johns Hopkins University Press. * Henault.�.�-� "----�-�.. Tel-Aviv: The Porter Institute f Poetics and Semiotics. it could be read as an important companion to my own study which is organized according to issues. New Li�rary History. Cambridge.•. A very useful introduction to structuralism and semiotics. in Sebeok.).) ( 1 932) The Letters o D. -. Kate ( 1 95 1 ) 'Zum Strukturproblem der epischen und drarnatischen Dichtung'. Baltimore. Benjamin ( 1 9 76a) Segmentation and Motivation in the T Continuum o Literary Prose. Paris: Larousse. Wolf -.

Kristeva.r � . Cambridge. Lacan. 1 933. Kiparsky. Knights. English abstract pp. (eds) ( 1 968) Imagined Worlds: Essa on SOT/U ys English Novels and Novelists in HOTUiur o J.. A more extensive L ubbock. Mary ( I g6 I ) 'Characters i n fiction'. Kenan's reply'.( 1 977) Plot and Meaning: Explorations in Literary Theory and English Renaissance Drama. ft I I ! 8 . in Ex plorations. [ 92 I . 1 9 [-206.: The MIT Press. Tomashevsky. Unpublished. J. Lips. Oxf ord: Blackwell. Paris: Seuil.S. pub I. j 603-3 1 . Poetits and Thory of Literature. 1 07. English abstract pp. __ with Sternberg. 1-6. Roy ( 1 962) 'Tense and the novel'. publ. Contains essays by Jakobson. op. 50. Languogt Scimas. and Reis. Page.:erted poem and related kinds' (in Hebrew) . 28. Hasi rul. 7. 1 7 1-91 . Hasi rut. N. ( 1 964) 'How many children had Lady Macbeth?'. London: Methuen. Paris: 155 1 t' * Lemon. Frank ( 1 979) Th Grnuis Har\'ard University Press. Marguerite ( 1 926) Le s!yk indirect libre. The latter contains the well known analysis of the Oedipus myth. Mack. Hillis (ed) ( 1 97 1 ) Aspects of Narrative.: Narrative Fiction : Contemporary Poetics �\ ! Ref erences ! \ i I . in Kiparsky and Anderson. oday. Kuroda. . .r I I i. h' . Meir ( 1 968b) 'The King through IrODlC eyes: the devices in the biblical story of David and Bathsheba and narrator's two excursuses on the theory of the narrative text' (in Hebrew) . Brian ( [ 978) 'Free Indirect Discourse: a survey of recent accounts'. I . socilti... and a be tter translation .'here epistemology.. Meyer. 1 . Christopher ( [ gS2) Deconstruction: T and New York: Methuen. Paris: Minuit. -. Toronto: Victoria U niversity. Poetics T __ ( 1 980) 'The figure in the carpet' . Claude ( 1 968) Structural Anthropology.3. New York: Columbia University Press. London: Longman. 1 .: University of Nebraska Press. Poetics. I .2. 1 1 I . 'defami­ liarization'. 1 . cit. Y. Toronto Semiotic Circle. Cambridge. . cit. Tynjanov. Percy ( [ 963) Orig. IC Metz. etc. S. introducing basic f ormalis t concepts: 'J abuUz' v.1 54 : . Miller. Bau ormen des Er. Orig. Poetics Today. Norman ( 1 972) Th LangUllge of Jane Austen. J .( 1 973b) I I j 'Plledre. Paris: Poi nts. Dorrit Cohn's Trans parrnt Minds' . Lee T. heory and Practiu. 1 5-54. New York: Viking Press. . 3. ! . Marvin ( [ 96 [ ) 'Character and event in fiction'. Lipski. and Anderson. j Klincksieck. __ ( 1 977) L- The Dual Voice: Free Indirect S peech and Its Functioning i� the Ninetemth-Crntury European Novel. pe Pascal. 5-30 • -. • Levi-Strauss. New York: New York University Press. 2 6 1 -59· sity Press. A very good survey of various theories of FID. Stuttgart: J. 263-92. The Cra of Fiction.( 1 978) Move Grammar: Explorations in Literary Semiotics (prepublica­ tion). Milner. English abstract pp. S. Particularly i mportant are chapters 2 and I I . . .( 1 975) 'Reflexions sur les f ondements de la theorie de la narra­ tion'. Li:vi­ Strauss's structural analysis of myth has had a decisive influence on the development of structuralist poetics. Eikhenbaum. Mass. cit. C. Shklovsky and others. 'motivation'. M . Thomas G. B. (eds) ( 1 973) A New York: Holt. Paris: Klincksieck. and Ottawa: Editions de I'Universite d'Ottawa. -. Menakhem ( 1 968a) 'The inverted poem: on a prin�ple of semantic composition in Bialik's poems' (in H ebrew ) . 76g-68. . I b . and Gregor. Ladislav and Pomorska. Paris: Payol.A . Kermode. Hasifrut. ( 1 973) '\\. Neb. Morrissette. E berhart ( 1 955) Metzlersche Verlag. 1-1 1. Poetics Toda 2. 'A guest in the house. in French 1 958. Perry. __ ( 1 976) La syntoxt narrative des tragedies de Corneilk. op. 1 89-9 1 .r��. [ 83-9 1 . Garden Ci ty. j *Matejka. 452-49. Orig. Bruce ( [ 963) Les romans de Robht-Grilltt. __ ( 1 973) S ech in the English Novel. . New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. .: Festschriftj Morris Halle. L. . j . publ. Kurt Robert ( 1 957) ZUT 'erltbtt Ruh ' im englischen Roman dtS zwanzigstenJahrhundtrts. Outline of a narrative grammar' . 249-87. 23. (eds) ( 1 965) RlJ. 2. ( 1 973a) 'Remarks on narrative grammars' . P. *McHale. Essays by ShkJovsky. Partisan Review. Mass. of Secrecy. Yale Review. John M . 202-1 8.Jacques ( 1 966) Ecrits I. discours..( 1 98 1 ) 'Islands in the stream of consciousness.:aJzlens. : . C. 40-82. Bern: Francke. M udrick. and Ruwet.. -. op. __ ( I g6g) 'Thf"matic structures in Bialik's poetry: the ID. collection than Lemon and Reis . Butt. McCarthy. Marion J. Rinehart & Winston. ' 'MI *. Tomashevsky and Eikhenbaum. 2. Brik. 57. London N orris. with many examples f rom Dos Passos's U. or Lammert. Reply to ShlOIruth Rimmon­ __ ( [ gSo/8 1 ) y. (eds) ( 1 975) Langue. ( 1 976) 'From text to narrative: spanning the gap'. Modem LangUllgeReview.. Christian ( 1 968) Essais sur La signif ation au cinima. Manchester: Manchester UnIver­ Poetics. Krystyna (eds) ( 1 97 1 ) Readings in Russian Poetics. style and grammar meet: a case study from the Japanese' .Ssian Fonnalist Criticism: Four Essays. in Kristeva et al. . Pavel. pp. Lincoln. 'sjuiet' . -.

Plato ( 1 g63) 'The Republic'. Characters are conceived of as 'roles' played in the action. ( 1 97 1 ) NaITatWe Situations in tilL Nrwel.( 1 977) The Concept o Ambiguity. Poetics Today. -. Tel-Aviv University and the Van LeerJerusalem Found­ ation.the Example o James. illustrated from Faulkner's A bsalom. -. Ecld Winfield (eds) ( 195 1 ) TilL Great Critics: A n Antholof!. and London: Yale University Press. op. In English. Poetics Todqy.( 1 980) 'Aspects of a grammar of n arrativc'. 1 . Leo ( 1 928) 'Zur Entstehung cler sogenannten "Erlebten Rede" " GRM. Ferdinand de ( 1 g60) Course in General Linguistics. 1 78-g6· -. Poetics Toda 2 . Scholes. and Cairus. *Shklovsky. f -fI9· -. * Prince. Ricardou. E. Hebrew University Studie! in Literature. 3. Paris: Scuil. -. Siman Kri'a. 3-24. GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Poetics and Theory ofLiterature. pp. New York: Norton. 423-59..(! 97 1 ) Pour une tMorn du nouveau roman. Ron. 2 1. French Rnriew.( 1 g82) 'Ambiguity and narrative levels: Christine Brooke-Rose's Thru '. Tel-Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Martin ( 1 968) 'The other self: thoughts about character in the novel'. Pouillon. pub!. See comment under Lemon and Reis. Vienna. Franz K.( 1 974) '0 Rose. 49-63..( 1964) Typische Forrnen des Toman. Degrts. Shlomith ( 1 978) ' From reproduction to production: the status of narration in Faulkner's Absalom. Roudiez.( 1 976a) 'A comprehensive theory ofnarrative: Genette's Figum III and the Structuralist study offiction'. Nathalie ( 1 965) L 'ere du souPfon. 489-5 1 2. 553-62. Princeton.several remarks about the definition of the phenomenon'. Poetics Today. 1 956. Perry is interested in the impact of the order of presentation on the reader's sense-making activity. -.32. Paris: Gallimard. Sarraute. Alain ( 1 963) Pour un nouveau roman. 2 79-99. . Stanzel. * Propp. Yale Funck Studies. 1 6. Austin. in Russian 1 928. Bertil ( 1 962) Studies in tm Narrative Technique ofthe First-Person Novel. VIenna: Braumiiller. Spitzer.'* 1 56 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics References 1 57 . Absalom!' . Exemplifies by a detailed analysis of Faulkner's 'A Rose for Emily' . Romberg. Orig. Riffaterre. 33-62. Both Bremond and Greimas developed and modified Propp's model. . Pottiqut. 200-42· j I Rimmon. I . 1 7-39.( 1 973b) 'Introduction It l'etude du narratairc'. I .Y of Literary Criticism.� . Conn. Smith.jean ( 1 946) Temps et roman. 1 . Victor ( 1g65) 'Art as technique'. op. Poetics Toda 3.. An important contribution to the construction of narrative grammar. Shlomith ( 1 973) 'Barthes's "hermeneutic code" and Henry James's literary detective: plot-composition in " The Figure in the Carpet" ' .. 1 83-207. Orig. The Hague: Mouton. Price. Robert ( 1 974) Structuralism in Literature. *-. H. july 1979.( 1 976b) 'Problems ofvoice in Vladimir Kabokov's The Real Lif o t f Sebastian Knight' . Moshe ( 1 981 ) 'Free Indirect Discourse. mimetic language games and the sub ject offiction'. Thou Art Sick: devices of meaning construction in Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily'" (in Hebrew) . (eds) . including a discussion of the notion of 'minimal story' as well as of the distinction between stories and non-stories. Paper presented at Synopsis 2: 'Narrative Theory and Poetics of Fiction' .( 1 979) 'Literary dynamics: how the order of a text creates its meanings'. Saussure. . gaps. -.( 1 976) Semantic D ynamics in Poetry: The Theory ofSemantic Change in the Text Continuum of a Poem (in Hebrew). Lund: Almquist & Wiksell. -. I . ( 1 955) Die typischen ErzP/llsiiuationen in romall. 327 ff.jean ( 1 967) ProblWitS du nouveau roman. in Lemon and Reis. in Mack and Gregor. . Orig. first and second readings. CCti�::: -\" . A bsalom!' Paper presented at the Second Inter­ national Semiotic Congress. y. As in the Hebrew articles listed above.. an interna­ tional symposium held at the Porter I nstitute for Poetics and Semiotics. -. Michael ( 1 g66) 'Describing poetic structures: two approaches to Baudelaire's "les Chats" '. Hillis Miller'. 35. Vladimir ( 1 968) Morphology o the Follclille. Paris: Gallimard. Plato: The Collected Dialogues. cit.3. Paris: Gallimard. Paris: Seuil.(forthcoming) 'The combined discourse .2. A pioneering study ofplot-structure. -. frames. pp. Chicago: The f f University of Chicago Press. I b. 35-64 and 3 1 1-6 1 . y. Leon S. Poetics and T heory ofLiterature. in Hamilton. Poelics Todl1:.( 1 980/8 1 ) 'Deconstructive reflections on deconstruction. NJ: Princeton University Press. cit. London: Peter Owen. 2. I n reply toj.(f orthcoming) 'Varieties of repetitive narration. Rimmon-Kenan. 36/37.. New Haven. 1 . disccrning thirty-one functions which always follow the same order. '" 1 : . . in French 1 9 1 6. -. 26. Texas: f University ofTexas Press. Discusses cen­ tral issues like primacy and recency effect. Gerald ( 1 973a) A Grammar ofStorns. ( 1 96 1 /2) 'Characters and personality: the novelist's dilemma'. james Harry and Parks. publ. pub\. -. 185-8. June 1 979. 14. Robbe-Grillet.

predominantly from War and F1aubert'. ( 1 975) The Fantastic: A Structural Approach.) Common Reader. 1 25-5 1 . This book includes material which previously appeared in article form in either Hebrew or English (see preced ing i tems) . spatial and temporal. Oxf ord: Blackwell. See comment under Lemon '. Paris: Seui!. -. *-. Discusses four aspects of point of view: ideological. -. Communications. narrative i n terest and t h e detective story' ( i n H ebrew ) . from a wide range of novelists. Essa on A udience and Inter ys pretation. Boris ( J Y(5) 'Thematics'. 295-3 1 6.1 6. pub! . I n English. in Russian 1 970.rs.ew York and London: Seminar Press. J o h n (cd . and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. j.2. Tel-Aviv University and the Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation . i n The York: H arvest Books.( 1 966) Les categories d u recit Iitteraire' . Todorov. with detailed examples more. Meir ( 1 9 74a) 'Retardatory structure. in Bann and Bowl ! . ( 1 965) Thiorie dt la littlratuTt. -. etc.( J 977) The Poeiics of PrOSf. in Russian 1 930. -. Orig. psychological. A representative article of the early period of French structuralism. 1 85-2 I I. An im­ versitv Press. publ.( I g6g) Grammaire du Dlcamiron. j une 1-2.Tomashevsky. Particularly in terest­ i' ing is the point about the way in which naming can convey point of Voloshinov. POtties Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics analysis of the fu nct ioning of gaps i n Henry James. Warning. -. Boris ( 1 973) A Po rt ies o Composition. in Halperin. �14 . fiction. f "0 spen�ky. ?\funich: Fink. Yacobi. Md. Hasi rut. NY: Cornell _"_ If ri -. Balti­ portant study of various aspects of time. Orig.) ( 1 975) RtzeptionsilSthetik.1 2 0. f .( 1 973) 'Some approaches to Russian Formalism'. 1 89-238. pub!.1 58 Sternberg. in Lemon and Reis. chara cter. ( 1 98 1 ) 'Teller-characters and reflector-characters in narrative Todqy. A compressed version of chapter f.)'. Potties and Theory of Literature. pp. narratiw transformations. op.. i n French 1 97 1 .( 1 976) 'Temporal ordering. Poetics Toda. Orig. I nge ( 1 980) The Readrr in the T ext. Woolf. i n Russian and Reis. I . A provocative article which dissolves the notion of ( 1 979) 'Theory of character: Emma'. Tzvetan (ed.( 1 970) InlJ'oduction Ii La littiratuTef antastique. Theorie und Praxis. pp. Orig. view.-'. The Hague: Mouton. op. pp. 'how to read ' . 5. with many examples. Princeton. Contains an extensive References 1 59 Ullmann. Suleiman. ci L . . 1 979. ci t . phrase­ ological. Stephen in p p . *-. Poetics Tod(l)'. *\Veinsheimer.( 1 978) Expositional Modes and TeTllporal Ordering in Fiction._.1 9 . Paris: Larousse. theory' . A study of pomt of view in fiction. 2 . ) . . pp. Berkeley: U niv �rsi ty of Calif ornia Press. modes of expositional distribution. character by i n tegra ting it into 'textuality'.( I 974b) 'What is exposition? An essay in temporal delimitation ' . 1 925. I..\'ew EJsa. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ 1 925. Valentin . of the other aspects ofnarrative fiction. 8. 1 1 3-26. NJ : Princeton Uni­ versity Press.( 1 g67) Littirature et signifoation. Joel I I I Poetics Toda Paper y. Textes desfonna­ lisleS russes. Exemplified by an analysis of I f �.( f orthcoming) 'Mimesis and motivation'. such as narrative grammar. and Crosman. 2 . Virginia ( 1 953) ' M odern fiction'. Rainer (ed.) of his Tlworie du Erziihlens ( 1 979) . ( 1 95 7 ) 'Reported speech and internal monologue in S!>'lr ill the FWlch SOi't1. pub!. 1 8I I 9. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprech t. and absences. Susan R. pp. Orig. 2. 1 64-80. t I I !. 6. -. presented at Synopsis 2: ( 1 973) Jfarxism and the Phi/osoplry o Language. New f York: Oxford University Press. and three models of rhetorical control in the na rrative text' . gaps . i and international symposium held at the Porter I nstitute f Poetics or and Semiotics. I Thr Tlwory o tlw Novel: . 25-70. New 1 50-8. I t haca. Paris: Seui!. x-xi. Tamar ( 1 98 1 ) 'Fictional reliability as a communicative prob­ lem ' . 'Narrative Theory alld Poetics of Fiction'. f English abstract pp. 6 1 -95. contributing more to the study of 'story' than to that Laclos's Us liaisons dangereuses. . publ.'II . Discusses central issues i n the poetics of narrati\'e University Press . ' Peace.

see order Aristotle: Poetics. 1 28 Beckett. 1 1 4. see narrator allotropy.! . see order analepsis. see narrative level actualization. -. 39: S/Z. ch aracler. Chaim Nahman: 'In the City of Slaughter'.sine.. . 1 14 Barthes. 35.' I: bifurcation (Bremond). 6 1 -3. Pere Goriot.-- acceleration. 1 3 Beardsley. The RI. ' 33. 74. 97 author: implied. 65. 8 1 . free indirect discourse. 53. polyphony. 86-9. Sorra. ' 10. see character Austen. 1 35 ambiguity. Ann. Monroe C. and character. --- j I . narration auto·diegetic. real. focalization. 75. ' 39. see story Bakhtin. " 5 Bal. Georges. ofnarration .. Ambrose: 'Oil ofDog' . name. Bellow. 3 octant. Jl8 autonomy. " t 11 j • � 1 " . Honore de. 16. 36.. 48. 95. Mieke. 1 0 1 -2 . 1 0 1 -4. 86-9. see also free indirect discourse. 71 Booth. 67 Banfield. see character acteur. 29. and characterization. see narration anticipation.-. '. 1 7. 64. '. I ' 1 Balzac. 64- I . Roland. Stl duration act. Samuel: W 45. spatial melonomy in. 42. of telling or \\-Titing. Wayne C. 1 00 att. 74. 93. 107 87. see narrative ambiguity anachrony. � -=--� --t::_ -- .og. 22 agent. 94-. J 06 attributive proposition (Garvey). see order analogy.. 1 24. Mikhail: focalization. Saul: Hm. i. 6 1 -3. see story Blin. 67 actional function. 3. 69-70 Bierce. 32. 30. see narrator autonomous objects (Ingarden).. 34-6. stt character action.. 86. I ndex j: t ' f. 72. u Bialik.. 66-7. . see characteriza tion anterior narration. 1 06.etoric ifFiclioll. 1 23-7. Jane: Emma. 34.

1 1 9: depth. 138. and spatial focalization.-. A. 69. Christine. 1 03. 77: Undrr Western E 69 constant (v. 27-8. 32. 66. reading process contradictories. 9 J . Set ocalizer f Cervantes. 67. classification. narrative. 45 covertness.). 44 Cixous. penetration into the inner lif 4 1 -2 . 1 7. 1 4 contiguity. 88. 33. ste also gap. 29-30. Camus. narrator: reliability Culler. 1 34. analogous.. 1 3.:-��� �. . 30' closure. 1 25.��. reading. Set narrator: perceptibility descriptive pause. development. 56 Chomsky. 1 6: in reality model.)-6. 1 1 9: Thru. 64.- � . traits. 70. 1 26. 4 [ . 1 2 I . psychoanalytical and psychological theories. 33. 34: allotropic states. 64. Noam. 7 . and character­ reconstruction.. 7 1 Browning.). 32. hermeneutic. 70: reciprocal. 30. see event causality: backward and orward. Au thor of the Quixote'.). - �*---.:. 2 7. 57 Chase... global. 1 36. 94 Brooks. mode of existence. suspense. Dorrit. 8 complexity. 34 deconstruction. 33: narrator's definition. narrator competence (v. 88. 9. C. . 53. 37. 1 23-4. character-indicator. 1 04-. 68-9... hierarchical structuring. 36-40. �' . iranct. 1 24. 86. �'''-:--· . 13.=:-. 1 3 1 -2._. 34. expectation. paradigm of traits. I 1 8 f Conrad. Johnathan.. I o� L'EtrangtT. 1 27. as textual signs. 1 3 1 character. 70. verbal construct.-. 1 2 7. 4 1 . Albert: La Chute.[ deep structure. performance._ . 59. 1 8. 93. 1 24. see also narrative. proairetic. character. Propp). 1 0. 7°. mimetic v. Lucien. 1 27. 1 0. 37. reading process de Man. i n minimal story. seeming description. in f indirect presentation. 1 25. tual. 1 6. 1 04. i n terdependence with action. 59-6 1 . name as label. 44. 65. 39-40. 1 25. 20 content paraphrase. 30. character. Cynthia. by name.. !�_�l"i�r � ! . 27 development... 6 1 . .. narrative relevance of.. 66 . 64.O-:""�_'"". indirect. 1 24 circular time. 61 -3. 1 34: narrativity. 32-3 character classification. 1 8. 6. Jorge Luis: circular time. 40-2. 3. 1 5. Emily: Wuthering Heights. 30. 3 [ ":3. 63.. 1 8. 66 Chatman. 9 1 . 4 1 characterization. see duration deterioration (Bremond). see also story centre of conscioilsness. 34-5: actions. 6: actant. 1 40: linguistic diff iterability. 94. see narration communication model. in story and text.. 6." . 6 1 -7. 34-5.1 1 defamiliarization. linguistic. see reading process delay. complexity. 42. \>\'. 59: and action. e. Julio: Hopscotch. dynamic v. Helene. 59-67. 1 04 Chekhov. .1 00. Paul. similarity.. 37. character­ focalizer. anonymous (pre-human) stratum. 74. 1 0. 82. set duration decentring ofman. Nostromo.. Joseph: Heart o Darkness. indirect presentation. " . Geoffrey: The Cantrrbury Tales. 1 1 0. contiguity. Robert Penn. see character classification CUllcretization. 1 38. 6 1 . principle ofcombination. variable. types. 32 Bremond.1 cultural code. 89. 1 2 Cortazar. 49: 'Pierre Menard. �. 8. see narrator: perceptibility communication.. 6. com­ munication model. semiotic view..1 3.ii:". . 70. speech. " . ofr�ading. 41 -2... environment. 96 Bronzwaer.) Brooke-Rose. 30. Anton: 'Sleepy'. 67.J. 34. narratee. yes.. 1 35: reduced to action. 1 25-7. 67-70. 37. 29. as agent. 1 6. static aspect.�� ���):�"-f�-������--�. Formalist view. 59. by landscape.'� . non-character constructs.. individuality. identification by narrator. 18 code (Barthes): cultural. Jacques. past-oriented.� y . Set free indirect discourse commentary. 66-7. 'The Garden of Forking Paths'. temporal displacement. and Vvarren. 40-2. 4 1 -2. 89 catalyst . repetition. 89: event. means of. Robert: 'My Last Duchess'. 29.' �� . . 87 Butor. 86-7.. 3 1 -4. 1 3 1 . 97. semic. and analogy. 29. 57 Bradley. 1 27. Ewen's classification. semiotic theories. 98. 39 Chaucer. principles of cohesion: contrast. Chomsky). t 25. Seymour..1 6 description of setting. � ""111- _ '. M. see code Dallenbach. causality in. 4 1 -2. Michel: La Modification. 1 3 1 . 1 30. Cleanth. see character classification . " 0 combined discourse (Perry). direct definition. implication. Sle name Copi. 70. Miguel de: Don Quixott. 8 chronology: natural. see characterization. 62. 69: i. attributive propositions (Garvey) . story model.. 1 22.- I external appearance. 6g-70. � -' '. 1 24: teleological. 34. 1 15. set reading process Cohn. 41 . language.. 1 3. 96. in event. see narratee. caricatures. semiotic. acteur. paradigm of traits.-"-.��·i'!' ·--� .. 1 23. 1 2 contrast.7. 64. future-oriented. 1 3 1 Derrida. in reality models. 3 1 -6. 66. 22-8 Bronte.. between characters. go Borges. 43.): narrator perceptibility. construction. causality in. defined. contraries (Greimas}. 74. allegorical figures. � ���. 36-7. 8. 64-5.. 94. spatial contiguity in. 69. Irving M.��r. 93 deceleration.. 35 coherence. local. paradigmatic nature of. '( te. 1 1 3. 1 2."- Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics Index 1 63 !.)-7. Claude. 38. name._ _ . 77-8.

74: 79: and f identity with focalized. actor.I . external. kernel. character-f dominant. 2. 77. 1 7. 5 I -6. � narration. 3. 57. 77-9. and narration. 1 5. see f order flashback. abstracted from text. 53-6: inf summary.A . 3. ' ' . 52-3: quantity of ormation. see also story: event. 68 atalislt. 80. 54 diegesis. 109. 80.-ling (Barthes) . 59. process (Bremond). 1 7: A Passage 10 India. point ofview. analogy in characterization. 70. 53-6. 106-7. v.1 ocalized: externally. Gustave: . 1 06-7: and mimesis. 1 06-8. 47. 4. 70. and f gB 73. stt order f Forster. dialogic (Bakhtin). Lubomir. Stt gap. 29. objective.John: U.. 99. simultaneous. 57-8. f bird's-eye view. see event enigma (Barthes). see narrative ocaliza tion. 1 3. spatial. Umberto. 34 . 8 1 . macro.f �-. 76. 1 08. jective/sub and ob 80. 80. Le neveu de Rameau. emotive component. 1 1 9 Dos Passos. 76-7. 92. in first­ person narrative. Henry. 74. acet. free indirect discourse. Stt cha racterization estrangement (Uspensky) . scene. 1 8 .7. 63-4 . 76-7. defined . 7$ ocalizer. arrangement. 'Barn Burning ' . non-fiction. 1 2 7. 46: descriptive pause. interior frames (Perry) . state. 22. see order Flaubert. 74.. 5 1 . 76-7. in Anglo-American criticism. see speech representation direct speech. and story. see delay external analepsis.ce. 8 1 : internal. 67-8: character classification. Platonic. and perception. T 89. 7 6 . 1 1 7. ch. Aristotelian . pace (speed) . fixed. I � Bremond's model. 4 1 -2. and time. centre of consciousness. 52: see also speech representation Dickens. n 74. r . 9 I . 3: narrative. 77. 82. 78. ocalizer. 74-6. 1 2 2 . Propp's model. temporal.1 0 Dostoevsky. 7 1 . causal and temporal principles . textual f variable. psychological f 79-8 1 . stt speech represen tation directionality. I 1 4 expectation. Great Exputalions. reality. " _ - logical facet. 54 . I 1 5 dialogue. 75. panchronic retrospective. Eco. 23. f 73. 1 3 1 Ferrara. 1 6. Stt reading process duration: text: duration external appearance. label. see narrative level: narrator Index 1 65 -- . ! ii. 82-5: from within/without. 77-8. 94. 56. and f e focalizer. 78. 79-80.S. see characterization ocalized. 49-50. 58. 95-6 . multiple.1 5. irana (Derrida). 9 1 . Fernando: character. 2. 'A or Rose f Emily'. 7 1 -4. inner lif of. 79. 53. succession of events. 80 . � ocalization (Genette). monologue. 1 6. 85. external/internal jective. 80. 73. types. 74. 82. William . v. 52. 106. � narrator. characterization. c h . . 8 1 Faulkner. 79: external. 3 olk-tale. 75 focalizer. participants in. 6. Denis: jacques lef 54. in nar­ ration. 1 6. Grime and Punishmmt. 75. 62 . 1 36 discourse. 79-80 duration (Genette). 74-6. 65 . 94. narratee. Joseph. 53 : ellipsis . SmtimenJai EducatifJn. from within/without. 8 I . Fyodor. 1 34. acceleration.1 . see focalized ex ternally f extradiegetic. joStph omjones. 56-7 . 48. order ' I . external. Ahsalom!. 8 1 . 41 . Shoshana. 53-6. 78-9. 74. possibility. . s tory 80. 2-5. 3. 128 erence frames of ref ( Hrushovski). 76. 77 "1' I. 74. 1 00. 72. ' - . 53. see characteriza tion direct discourse. 8 1 . 1 00 Felman. subjective. 53. speech representation. 79. 1 22-4. he 1 25: T Sound and the Fury. 74-6. satellite (Chatman).. 53-6. 1 6. 40. M. repetition. 54-5. study in poetics. 52-3. 22-7: catalyst. 140. I I I . 82. Diderot. 6 1 . 3. Set naITlJtion Dolezel. 1 6. 77: perceptual acet. 3. 95 first narrative. 78-9. potentiality. 53. 1 23 ree direct discourse.1 64 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics dynamics of reading. Charles: Blealc House. f 7 1 . 74. 20-2. 1 38. outcome (Bremond). 89. 2. 8 1 . see duration embedding (Bal). 77: cognitive component. external and internal. 55-6. 74. 66.person . 6 Fielding. 74.: character. 2 . joining (Bremond). 1 40 diff direct definition. internal. . see speech f representation free indirect discourse. non-verbal. ideo­ 76-7.I . story and plot. and narration. 90: norm. emotions and mind of. 1 26. degree ofpersistence. 6. 3. see event enchainment (Bremond). firs t. and text. 1 06 Ewen .Madame Bova ry. 1 29: Hard Times. E. 78-9. 1 5. synchronous. reflector. 22. 82: non-verbality of. 1 2 2 . 20-2 f oreshadowing. defined. 77-8. The Idiot. and unrestric­ ted knowledge. narrator­ ocalizer. narration. "'. 4 7 . internal. 8 1 -2. 82 . 4 1 . 1 0. 35 fiction: events.. TIlL Brothn-s Kar011lllZov. and story-duration ­ text-duration equivalence. 52. verbal indicators. position relative to story. 8 1 . reading process environment.1 . embedding. 77. 1 7 . 1 07.I : external.and micro-sequences. defined. ocalization. 5� mimetic nature of. 1 08. see speech representation distan. 8 1 . 43 . 74> Andrews. see also narrative level. enchainment. 1 28 ellipsis. 7: A bsalom. 2 7 . and norms of the text. deceleration. Jtt free indirect discourse embedding (Bremond). temporal perception. external v. simul taneous.

I 14: linguistic fea tures. : free indirect discourse . I 1 2: double-edged effect. su order i nterpretation. 103. narration. 1 3. Gerard. 'The Killers'.'" �". 8. histoire. see focalization immanent level ofnarration (Greimas). 1 29.- . .Jacques. 1 8 !ser. 1 22-3 Gide. 68.r-"'-. 1 28. I 1 3. see reading process i nterior monologue. 1 25 Hamon. 1 04 Lammert. 8 1 .'. prospective v.. enigma (Barthes). labelling... 2. 1 07 . 20.1 4. 1 2. in reality models.. I 1 2. see character classification intelligibility. 38. 7 implication. 44 hermeneutic. see reader improvement (Bremond). 9 1 . I 1 4. see story homodiegetic. Henry. 1 1 3. ridt. hermeneutic (Barthes) . I I I . 57-8 Friedman. 7 1 -4. 1 23 inversion. I I I . H arai: free indirect discourse (combined speech) . retrospective. focalization. I 1 3. focalization in 'Araby'. Thr Turn oftht Screw. 7: narrative grammar. story autonomy. 1 1 4: ironic distancing. reporting verb. singulative.1 3. 76 Genette. 63.J. 78. and story-time and text-time. 1 03.:-I' . Terence. I I I . 98.I 2. questions. 86. A Portrait oftJu A rtist as a Young Man. 74. 1 25. 3� deep narrative structure. Stt reading process Gestalten (Iser). 1 06. I 1 2. 1 37. 1 1 3: speakers. see name implied author. su characteri7.. 50. Thr Portrait ofa Lad. I 1 4. 98-9.. 1 28. i mplication .ation language. 1 28. su event Joyce. 1 2 i-9. Ernest. status in poetics.. Andre: The CouTUerftiters. 2 I gap. 92: reversibility of (Hrushovski) . 83-5. permanent. 1 3 1 Lados.. narrator homology. see characterization indirect speech. 9. Y. 33 Lacan. 62. see code: gap Hernadi. 90.� . see speech representation indirect presentation. 38. Eberhart. 1 14. deictics. �nd analepsis. hierarchy. 1 2� time. narration-story relations. 8. intetjections. 1 14. conjunction 'that'. character-trait. �{ >" · i Hawkes."{ . 98 . 6 1 . embedding (Bal). 1 06. I I S: polyvocalit)·. 1 1 3: see also speech represen­ tation frequency (Genette) . 6 Husserl. 1 28 Garvey.�. combined discourse. 4 1 ." ' ::Z' . free indirect discourse internal analepsis. 1 27 James . Stt also narrator: perceptibili ty intertextual frames (Eco) . centrality of. Wolf kernel. see narrative level. 4 1 . II1 grammar.. 14. Index 1 67 69. 35 . speaker identification. 54 landscape. 89-9� narrative level. see author implied reader. I 1 4. 37. I 1 5: vocatives. �� . s. 68-9. 99. I 1 3: trans-linguistic nature of. . '-: " . see narrator: perceptibility gang. see speech representation inform ation gap. 1 29. 1 1 6. 56. 56 I(uroda.. 37: and narrative levels. 93 Gogol. 7 . 40 generalization. dialectical features. Wolfgang. 1 24. 72 function ( Bremond) . UlYsses. dependence.I S. James: character­ reconstruction. see event Kleist. 46-58 genre. pronouns. 1 1 8 hierarchy: and character. I 1 4. 42: 'Hills like 'White Elephants'. I 1 4. 1 2 . . 54 I(ayser.'. Heinrich von: 'The Marquise of 0-' . 2 7 indirect discourse. repetition relations: iterative.� IM \ ij� : ! if. 9. 72-3. narratee. 1 08 Ingarden. antenor. 'Araby'. 48. 1 08: narratee. 7 immanent story structure (Greimas). indirect interior monologue. repetitive. 97 . monologue.1 6: stream of consciousness. 1 1 8 inner life. S. 1 2 7. 1 2 I . and focalization/ H amlet. I I I . 1 '1 3. . 'Eveline'. 1 1 4: functions of. 1 26. 1 28: information. I I Hrushovski. paradigmatic nature of. 1 28-9. 35: names. reality models. 4 1 -2. 1 03. TM Ambassadors. Nikolai. • ..I .1 4: and implied author. 4 1 .. 'The Overcoat'. 59 Iris/oirt (Genette). A. . ·' To" 1 66 I· Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics I 28. 3. Roman. Pierre Choderlos de: Les liaisons dangereuses. 68-9 Hardy. I I I .I 3: literariness of I 1 4.. 1 15 Hemingway. gaps. 99. narratee. 99: Thr Sacred FOUTIl. 36. 1 03-5. 1 1 7. see also narrative grammar Greimas. James.. 94. 76 judgements. 70: names. 75. 2 7 . Paul. 1 28. 37-40. Thomas: Tess oftM D 'Uberoilies. defined. 1 1 0 heterodiegetic. temporary. What Maisie Knew. thematic functions. see gap information and informant. 56-8. Norman.: character and action. I I I .1 4. set focalization. mimesis. 54. definition of poetics. see also narrator: perceptibili ty Genesis.. narrator ideology.. empathetic identification. 76 joining (Bremond). I I S . 96 Heraclitus.1 05. Philippe.� . 68 Golomb.. 'The Figure in the Carpet'. 34-6. see order. narrator heteronomous objects ( Ingarden). 1 1 0 labels. Benjamin: character construction. 1 I 8 hypodiegetic. Edmund. levels of narration. 2 2 function (Propp). plurality of. lexical registers. 46. tense scheme. mimetic nature of. 60. 7. see order. 94-5.contd alternative patterning ( Perry).

and reader. 72. or the the Dark. 22.J. see name Norris. 30. nar­ rative agent. 98. 65 Lawrence. 9 1 .. 94. 47. diegetic. 98. 8 1 narrativity. 1 1 9-2 1 . 1 1 . 92. focalizer. anterior. 4. 1 06. 1 34 Mudrick. John: The S y Who p Came Infrom the Cold. The Real Life ofStbastian Knight. 82. 92. extradiegetic. artisti c and move grammar." 1 3-27. 1 26 aspect ofcharacter. 7 narrative grammar. analepsis. au to-diegetic. 1 08.1 3 main story-line.1 00. and definition ofcharacler. 4B. 77. narrating agent and external focaliz­ ation. linguistic levels. 1 0� extradiegetic. 1 972). 2-5. see also diegesis. 1 10.1 6 Oedipus Rex. intradiegetic. 8-9 naturalization (Culler). and temporal summary. 95 -perceptibility of. 53-4._ ¥. 97-8 -reliabi lity of. heterodiegetic. 1 3 1 . covert v.1 03: verbalizes story. Carson: ' Th e So ourn er '. 7� narrating selfv. apparent level of. mist en abyrne. 94. H. 46-5 1 . go of. Bruce. John. temporal relations. free indirect discourse. 66. and story. h y podieget ic . 96. Bg-go. second. character-motivated. I . 97. narrator-focalizer.I . process of nomination. 82. focalization. 1 04. 54. 9 1 . 93-4. linearity of. 1 03. 8 1 . and participation in story.parole. norm of. 1 03. 49. 28 literariness (non-ref erentiality). Sons and Louers. 100-3. trai t. 3-5. 92 .1 2. 1 14. su narration. 98. free indirect discourse. 103 -second degree. 92. deep and surface. Herman: Pierre. 72. see reading process Nietzsche. 3 1 -2 multiple meaning. 4. 95. speech representation n a rrative . 1 36. 1 27: exp l ica tion by. 1 7 linguistic iterability (Derrida) . ste story Maupassant. 1 42 Metz. 2 narrative form. 9. 4 narra tive fiction: defined. 1 42. 9 Lipski. exp licative. 36. see focalization. proper. 8S. thematic. 1 33. extradiegetic. Oedipus. 33 narratee. 8 1 . 75 motivation. 94-6. 95-6. surface. 1 2 1 Mil ton. 1 1 . 16 natural language. 94. first. 96-7. 1 33 narrator. 62-3. 64. 7 1 -4. 131 n a rra tology. anachrony . go. Claude: deep narrative structure. and rhetoric. my themes.1 03. 74. users' competence in. 1 28. amoret ( Gene tte) . 9. 8. natural. 15. I . and mimesis. Guy de: 'Mademoiselle Perle'. 93. 7. distance. 1 2 7 Levi-Strauss. dependence. authoritative. witness. 5 1 . 1 06 Miller. 1 28. 9 1 -5: and story. 8. set reading process myth. fiction and reality in. 97. 52: real (author). 94-5. I 33. immanent level of. C hristopher. i nte r­ calated. 7 . 1 1 3. Bg-9 1 : ulterior. heterodiegetic and omniscient. 82. 9 1 . 94. typology of. 7. 44nomination. speech representation Morrisette. 86-9 narrative content (v. literature model. 94-5 narrative propositions. 1 2 1 narrative communication situation. 95 Le Carre.1 narrative ambiguity. as event. Jonn: Paradise Lost. speech representation. mimetic representation Index ] 69 language . 34 narrative level. 1 03. 9 1 -5. g6: Ht also narratee. 1 34 realistic. 94-6. 1 1 5. 50. 96. homodiegetic. 24-7 1 15 Nabokov. 47-8. 86-9. 46-8. 104 narration (narration. 103. experiencing self. 1 03. Christian. reliability of. 94. Hillis. 1 38. I 1 . 107 1 1 5. 67 metonymy of text. and covertness/overtness. 36-7. and in terpretation . 99. defined. 2 7. 68-9. 1 3 1 . 98. 94.1 00.: chemical illusion. 1 27. 9 1 . 33. 46-5 1 . 9 HZ name. � monologicaJ (BUbtin). 1 09. and language oftext. 94.1 I . 96. 1 03-5. and narrator. 93-4. Genette Ambiguities. 68 medium (sign system). 74-6. 98. 94. 94. 74. Marvin: mode of existence ofcharacter. 57. non-narrative. hierarchy. D. 93 ChatuTley 's Lover. text) . narrator-motivated.contd narration. 1 1 . Brian. as label. and focalization. as communication. 5 1 . 8 Melville. 9 1 -2. omniscient. 82. 90. and analogy with trait. and generalization. 93 metaphor in m etonymy. 1 08. narrative level natural chronology. 99. act rate of. 2.. 8 Lavater. 1 40. subordination relations. 1 0 linguistics. 91. speech minimal story. � and report of characters' thoughts or words. "" 1 68 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics mimesis: actional. 3: simultaneous. and identification of character. 1 1 5 monologue. 92-3. J 5. S aussure) . 96. 1 1 9. 2. narrator: order order ( Genette) . see also speech represen ta tion langue (v. 82-3. 1 03: digression by. I I 1 . 98: and description ofsetting. Stt reading process Lubbock. 1 08. homodiegetic. hypod iegetic. 94. within narrative. su story mise en ob yrne. 71 . 98-9 j McHale. and judgements. omniscient. Vladimir: lAughter in McCullers. free indirect discourse. 1 04. 29. overt. stt also narrative level. 8g. 1 08. 60. Percy. 98-9. 86-9.Johann Caspar. 1 03. and narrative level. 90.1 4. 92. Friedrich.1 2 linear chronology. diegetic ( in trad i egetic) . 89: verbal nature of. 1 4· 1 5 narrative structure: deep. focalized. and com­ mentary.1 3. 7. 92. 1 04. functions of: actional. I I . 90.

Stt focalization polyphony: Bakhtin. Nathalie. 66. reliability repetition. Stt event Saussure. 1 2 7. Victor. 1 3. 62. interand intra-te>. I 35. I I 1 : Anglo-American criticism. :1 . 1 23-4. retrospective patterning. 1 8. 8 . I 1 0. 24-7 Spark. see text reflector.. frequency. heterodiegetic and homo­ diegetic analepsis. see also reader real author. 46. 33 primacy eff ect (Perry). 1 26. "tual. and character reconstruction. 1 25: hermeneutic code. 109. 1 20. Stt focalizer reliability. 24-6. 1 1 3. Morphology ofthe Folktale. 49-50. structuralist criticism. realizes text.: The Catcher in lhe Rye. Menakhem. 39. 22. 97. 1 20. 48. 1 04 Salinger. external and internal prolepsis. 1 2 1 . competence). n arrator: perceptibility Shakespeare: King uar. 66-70. 7. 1 1 8 phrase-structure. 7.3. Rimmon-Kenan. 1 2 I . 72 Ron. 23 poetics: defined. 52. Stt duration Page. Sfe event setting. flash­ back. as textual strategies. 1 33. 74-5 : u Vl!)'tur. Vladimir: autonomy of story. 1 2 2. multiple meaning. 1 42 . 1 1 0. preparations. 1 24-5. 1 1 3. 1 23. 1 2 semic code (Barthes). Shlomith. 22. 7 1 pre-verbal perception. 1 20 perspective. see reading process recency eff . 1 1 9. 48-9. and omniscient narrative. order (Genette) . St( reading process ect riciJ (Genette). 69 Pouillon. see order proper name (Barthes). Set author real narration. 1 28. 86-7. 1 3 1 FUcardou.1 9. 15 speech: character's style. 1 I 9. 1 28. ] . name represented world. primacy effect (Perry) . 3 . 97. reality models. see order reversibility of hierarchies Index 171 . Berti!. defined. D.contd anticipation. 94. hesitation . tangibility of. norm.I I . 1 1 8. 1 07. 1 2 sequence. 1 28. competence. 21 Propp. Robert. Stt event. Stt code process of nomination. 49-50. description of. 46. free indirect discourse. 1 33 phenomenology of reading. 20-2 Proust. 1 43. I 1 8. 46. 7. applies Bremond. textual linearity. 2 point of view. psychology of. 47. 1 28. 1 2 2-3. 29: Jealousy. see name propositional functions (Propp). 70 Shklovsky. see narrative seeming description (Ewen). n 9. hetero­ diegetic and homodiegetic prolepsis. Philip: PortTlI!)" s Complaint. Stt reading process Prince.]ean· 93 Rimmon. 170 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics plot-patterns (Bremond). 1 2 7 . 86. Stt narrator: perceptibility perf ormance (v. 1 23. dynamics of reading. 1 02-4. see also d uration Scholes. 1 36. see narratee: narrator. temporal). _ t-� -l ' _ . process of reconstruction. see also gap outcome (Bremond). 1 7 ! (Hrushovski). 1 26. recency effect (Perry) . narration Sophocles: Oedipus Rex. 46. 34. mixed analepsis. 90. 1 1 7. see code semiotic square (Greimas). I 1 7. 1 1 5. 1 3 Pascal.1 9. 1 1 8. I 1 7. telling). 1 1 0 pause. Ferdinand de. 48. 1 2 second narrative. see narration reality model. foreshadowing.. 1 23 showing (v. 60. 1 09.. phenomenology of reading. implied.' ' . ' . 1 0 Plato: 17u Republic. 1 04. 1 1 5 . 1 04 Sarraute. real. 8 1 . 46. Shlomith. 64: I ! i i I . literature models.1 8. I Oi.:�. selected by text. narratees. Moshe. 70. see event. defined. 1 2 7. Thomas G. 1 06 plot. 1 25. comprehension. 4 prolepsis (Genette). first narrative. 49. 1 24.. i nteraction with text. Set narratee. I 1 7 . 49. gap. Marcel: Un amour de Swann. genre as literary model. 70.. Katherine Anne: 'FloweringJudas'. 1 1 4 Roth.1 0 paraphrase. narrator: reliability pace. 1 26. retro­ spection. 38. Geral d . 1 25. 47 psychological narrative. 8 scene. 36. 36 rhetoric. 46. gaps. 1 4. 1 00. Set characteriza tion seme: and character. 96-7: Set also characterization. mixed prolepsis. Forster on. proairetic code. 1 23-4. Norman. 47. retardatory devices. 1 3. Martin. see character: interdependence with action reader. Roy. 1 1 8.jt-. 1 26-7. 93. I 1 4 Price. stt free indirect discourse Porter. reading process. character. 86-9. hypothesis forming. 7 simultaneity. 68 spatial principle (v. see character classification perceptibility. 4. external and internal analepsis. 1 6. Muriel: The Prime ofMiss Jean Brodie. 1 2 7-9. 1 03-5 proairetic code. structural model. 1 1 9. see name production (narration) . 1 1 8. and first­ person narrative. Set duration Pavel. 1 1 9. 1 28. and narrator. enigma (Barthes). 8. Alain.Jean . naturalization (Culler). 48. 29 satellites (Chatman) . 1 22 Robbe-Grillet. 48-5 1 . st't also narration reading process. role of. 89. 1 24-5. 6 retruspection. 1 02 . indirect content. I 1 9-2� enhancing i ntelligibility. 1 23: delay. heresy of (Brooks). 1 2 1 . 1 27. 1 5: minimal story.1 6 polyvocality. 1 25-7. defamiliarizati on. A La recherche flu temps perdu. 46. 1 03 Romberg. 1 34 penetration into the inner l ife. prolepsis . 1 2 1 .1 9. unreadability. false and true. 1 2 1 . 108 sign system (medium) . Set event overtness. models o f coherence (Culler). 47-8. 8 Perry.

. and text and narration. 8. g l : form v.. autonomy of. deep structure of. 43. . paraphrase.. 5. 1 0. temporal nature of. 22: temporal succession. linearity of. 1 35. 1 26. of reading. Boris. 8 1 . 1 7: main story-line. 67: in indirect presentation. 8. Alexander: The Yawning Heights. dependence._. I S : linguistic. Leo: Anna Karenina. 32-3. 8. 76. 1 8. 1 06: summary.. 9 Tolstoy. indirect discourse. absence or presence. 45: see also narration: story textual strategies. 1 08. repetitive pattern. 1 1 4. t� . 27. 1 3. 60 Voloshinov. Hippolyte. 6-8. 1 3. 1 5. 1 25. 1 04 time. character. -i:. 1 7 story-duration. story: minimal summary. trans­ ferability of. -. subsidiary story-line. Chatman ) .1 9. availability to reader. 22-7: causality in. 97. 63-5 speech representation: dialogue. 1 1 0.1 8: and reader. 3 written text. 1 6: as theme. 1 1 1 . narrative. 1 1 1 . as abstraction. 1 6. 7. 45-6. story-duration v. 89. 85. 2g. 8 1 .contd and characterization. 77 witness. g3. 5 1 -2. 1 37. space of text. see also duration: focalization. 58.. see duration surface structure. 1 8. 9: unilinear. 6. structural nature of. causality. Stt delay Taine. 5 1 -2. I 1 7. temporal f focalization. 77. War arul Peace. 1 1 5 Weinsheimer. 1 3. norms of.. and focalization. syntagmatic nature of. and time.1 I suspense. of text." � . Tzvetan. 44. spatial nature of. Stt time temporal summary. Forster on. 67 Index 1 73 I . Boris. 5 1 -6. 1 8 : circular. 9 ulterior narration. 1 0. 54-5: story­ time. 1 1 9. Stt name transformation.. Grammaire du Dicamiron. 27. Sfe duration: pace Stanzel. frequency: order Todorov. free direct discourse. 8. 1 22-9: retardatory devices in.. Stt focalizer A Thousarul and One Nights. 56-8: and minimal story. 1 04.1 9: order. 3 voice.I 4. 1 06: diegetic summary. see also narrator: reliability Uspensky. see narration unreadability.1 3: direct speech. 99. 47. 44-5. 83: spatial ocalization. duration. produced by reader. availability to reader. 6. I 7. 44. 1 7. 1 6. 8. Set story style. 5 I -2. 1 20. 7 succession. textualized. 1 6. 66. Meir.. substance. . Mrs y. 1 5 trait. free indirect discourse. 32-3 White. self-survival of. see deep structure Transforma tional Generative Grammar. 1 2 1 .. 82. 83 Tomashevsky. 140. diegesis. I I g.. 44-6. 1 09. Franz K. Virginia. Stt event Sternberg. 1 1 0. monologue. Patrick: Tht Solid Mandala.. irreversibility of. Laurence: Tristram Shandy. I +. Genette 1 972). indirect content paraphrase. 6.. 4. 44 writing. . 79. g.. character. 9. 1 25. 1 06. 44. 8. Voss. see reading process unreliability. representation. 1 6. Itt story story-time. 1 5 state.1 3. g. 1 09: direct discourse. 2. 1 09. 44: temporal relations in Bremond's model. 1 6. pre-verbal. narration speed. Dallowa 42. minimal. Stt narrator Woolf. .1 6. virtual dimension ' of. go..1 3 : indirect speech. bifurcation (Bremond) . pseudo-temporality of. 78. 5 1 -2: and text. 3-4. Set event. multilinear. 27-8. 8 1 . 1 04-5 story (hisloire. set also free indirect discourse. ' ft . 1 3. 5 1 -2. 1 09. 44. 3-4. 43-4. Stt reader third-person centre of consciousness. 30. 77-8. 6. 78-9 verbal: non-verbal. To tIu Lighthoust. time of story v. 1 1 0.7 telling. 1 26-7. 33. constitutive units of. Set narrator: perceptibility text (dcit. naming.Joel. 6. process. see showing temporal organization. 68 Zola. 7 1 stasis (v. _ . 46-5 1 . ' � . 46-58. 1 22-5. frequency. speech . 5 1 -2. 1 20. �! � �. . / 0. unidirectionality of. 27-8. 9. spatial dimension of. 1 1 7 Zinoviev. 1 3. 5 1 . 32. Emile: Germinal. construct. constituent factor ofstory and text. d uration in. 6g. 8: transverbality of. intelligibility of. Valentin N. text­ duration. ch· 4 -text-time: frequency and order. ". 1 28 Sterne. " � 1 72 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics " . Genctte 1 972).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful