You are on page 1of 3

In the work Revisiting narrativity Prince tallks about concept of narrativity in

literature.Meaning the way in which the author

Narrative has been minimally defined as the representation of at least one
event, one change in a state of affairs.
For me, as soon as there is an
action or an event, even a single one, there is a story because there is a
transformation, a transition from an earlier to a later and resultant state
narrative represents at least one
event and one resulting state of affairs not logically entailed by that event likewise do not capture is that different narrative texts exhibit different kinds
or different degrees of narrativity
Now, narratologists have long made (implicit) distinctions between different
narrativities. Aristotle, not surprisingly, provides a kind of early example.
His consideration of mythos leads him to a number of judgments about
various plot types and, by extension, different sorts of narrativity: the imitated
action must be complete and whole just as it must be of a certain
magnitude (neither too small nor too big!); dramatic rather than episodic
plots ought to be devised; complex plots are preferable to simple ones; sameness
of incidents should be avoided; and so on.
William Labov, in his influential study of oral narratives of
personal experience and tellability, compared not only pointed and pointless
stories but, more specifically, narratives that are complete in the sense that
they have a beginning, a middle, and an end and more fully developed
Hayden White made a fundamental distinction
between narrating (reporting a series of events in chronological order) and
narrativizing (imposing story form on events or making the world speak
itself as a story). And Paul Ricoeur was led, through his analysis of time and
historical knowledge, to distinguish between the plots of (fictional) narratives
and the quasi-plots of (modern) historiography as well as between the
characters of the former (individual human agents, say) and the quasicharacters
of the latter (entities like nations or cultures)
The notion of narrative is
repeatedly called upon to characterize this or that domain, practice, or object
and - with the spread of anti-foundationalism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism
- narrative becomes one of the most common hermeneutic grids
of our time.
I argued, for instance, that the narrativity
of a text depends on the extent to which that text constitutes a doubly
oriented autonomous whole (with a well-defined and interacting beginning,
middle, and end) which involves some kind of conflict, which is made up of
discrete, particular, positive, and temporally distinct actions having logically
unpredictable antecedents or consequences, and which avoids inordinate
amounts of commentary about them, their representation, or the latter's
the presence

of disnarrated elements - representing what did not happen but could have affected narrativity in a positive manner.
several elements positively affecting
narrativity: transactiveness rather than non-transactiveness (in other
words, actions as opposed to mere happenings); transitiveness rather than
intransitiveness (events involving an agent and a patient, as in Peterinsulted
Paul, instead of an agent only, as in Mary smiled); deep or remote causality
as opposed to a lack of it (so that the first events, chronologically speaking,
are linked to the last ones in significant ways); specificity instead of
generality (rather than sequences fitting any or indefinitely many sets of circumstances
like Countless people were born and died, the narrative act
would figure sequences contingent on specific sets like Wellington was born
in 1769 and died in 1852); singularity instead of banality (with the consequent
avoidance of repetitiveness and the kind of superficial diversity
whereby the more things seem to happen, the less things actually change,
(Coste 1989: 62); and the presence as opposed to the absence of alternative
courses of action for the narrative participants.
narrative texts create a
world by depicting particular entities and events and they make that world
coherent and intelligible by evoking a network of relations - causal links,
psychological motivations, goals, plans - among the entities and events
different modes of narrativity, including the simple
narrativity of fairy tales or urban legends (where the semantic dimension of
the text primarily springs from a linear plot revolving around a single problem),
the complex narrativity of Balzac, Dickens, or Dumas (where narrative
structures appear on both the macro- and the micro textual level and where
semantic integration obtains between the main plot lines and the subordinate
ones), the figural narrativity of lyric, historiographic, or philosophic texts (in
this case, the sender or the receiver constructs a story by reshaping universal
claims, collective entities, and abstract concepts into particular characters
and events), and the instrumental narrativity of sermons and debates (where
narrative structures appearing on the micro textual level function merely as
illustrations or clarifications of a nonnarrative macro textual level).
He point( edness) of a narrative or any other kind of text depends not only on
the constituent features of those texts but also on the context.
should be distinguished from what is sometimes called reportability or tellability
(what makes a narrative worth telling, interesting, appealing in a given
A sexist
French formula for successful narratives valorizes the elements of mystery,
religion, sex, and aristocracy
narrativity is said to depend on the extent to which a text
involves a hierarchical organization as opposed to a mere temporal concatenation
of events (some of the latter should be of greater moment than
others); and such a hierarchical organization can be brought about by commentary
an integral and irreducible feature of narrativity. On the
one hand, its existence does not represent a counter to the argument that

different people often (but not always) agree on the comparative narrativity
of different texts. On the other hand, it can help to explain in part disagreements
in narrativity judgments. I find text A more narrative than you do
because. I do not take it to involve inordinate amounts of commentary, for
instance; and you consider text B more narrative than I do because you think
it favors specificity rather than generality.