A THEORY OF NARRATIVE STANZEL PDF

adminComment(0)
    Contents:

Central Missouri State UniversityMark Johnson A Theory of Narrative, by F. K. Stanzel; translated by Charlotte Goedsche; xvi & pp. New York: Cambridge. Stanzel Theory Of Narrative Pdf 17 ->->->-> spawdelacseopror.tk Stanzel, F. K. , A theory of narrative / F.K. Stanzel ; translated by. Stanzel Theory Of Narrative Pdf Download. 1/4. Stanzel Theory Of Narrative Pdf Download. 2/4. 3/4. Central Missouri State UniversityMark.


A Theory Of Narrative Stanzel Pdf

Author:LORALEE MEDOVICH
Language:English, German, French
Country:Iraq
Genre:Politics & Laws
Pages:722
Published (Last):22.02.2016
ISBN:801-1-78426-152-6
ePub File Size:23.42 MB
PDF File Size:20.39 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Downloads:21333
Uploaded by: IESHA

Available in the National Library of Australia collection. Author: Stanzel, F. K. ( Franz Karl), ; Format: Book; xv, p.: ill. ; 23 cm. A companion to narrative theory/edited by James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz . 1 Histories of Narrative Theory (I): A Genealogy of Early Developments. Teller-Characters and Reflector-Characters in Narrative Theory (pp. ) The Encirclement of Narrative: On Franz Stanzel's Theorie des Erzählens (pp.

According to Genette, Drabble's novel is a homodiegetic narrative on the strength of the single 'relation' condition that the narrator is present as a character in her story. In order to assess the typical implications of such a scenario, and put them to work in an interpretation, we will also make use of Stanzel's theory of typical narrative situations.

Logging out...

For this line of inquiry, it is important to realize, first of all, that a homodiegetic narrator always tells a story of personal experience, whereas a heterodiegetic narrator tells a story about other people's experiences. According to Stanzel, Drabble's text is a typical first-person narrative in the context of narrative situations, we will prefer this term over homodiegetic narrative because the narrator tells an autobiographical story about a set of past experiences -- experiences that evidently shaped and changed her life and made her into what she is today.

Like other typical first-person narrators, she is subject to 'ordinary human limitations' Lanser : she is restricted to a personal and subjective point of view; she has no direct access to or authority on events she did not witness in person; she can't be in two places at the same time this is sometimes called the law against bilocation , and she has no way of knowing for certain what went on in the minds of other characters in philosophy, this restriction is called the "Other Minds" problem.

It is obvious that a narrator's handling of these limitations, and a text's relative closeness to, or distance from, such typicality conditions 'default conditions' can tell us a lot about the 'slant' or attitude of the narrative voice as well as the motives for telling the story.

Let us now turn to heterodiegetic narration and consider the beginning of George Eliot's Adam Bede first published This time, I am directly adding various annotations. This is what I undertake to do for you, reader. Jonathan Burge, carpenter and builder in the village of Hayslope, as it appeared on the eighteenth of June, in the year of our Lord A scent of pine-wood from a tent-like pile of planks outside the open door mingled itself with the scent of the elder-bushes which were spreading their summer snow close to the open window opposite [ It was to this workman that the strong baritone belonged which was heard above the sound of plane and hammer [ George Eliot, Adam Bede 49 Conceivably, you may be puzzled why this has been classified as a heterodiegetic text.

After all, aren't there three first-person pronouns two "I"s, one "my" in the first paragraph? True enough, but nothing follows from this. Any narrator can refer to him- or herself using the first-person pronoun. Looking at first-person pronouns and overlooking the context in which they occur is just like walking into a trap -- the notorious "first-person pronoun trap". Re-check the definitions above to ensure that the only thing that is relevant for determining whether a text is homodiegetic or heterodiegetic is the relation of the narrator to his or her story -- if they are present in the action, they are homodiegetic, if not they are heterodiegetic.

The first paragraph of Eliot's novel gives us the background setting of the story, uttered by a highly overt narrator in this respect the three first-person pronouns are relevant, but they project a vocal quality, not a relation. We are listening to an overt narrator but whether this is going to be a story of personal experience or not is still an open question. At the same time one can already sense that the exposition is presented by somebody who is above and beyond all the people and things in the story.

This is not really a remembering voice. Apparently the narrator knows all the facts, yet nobody is going to ask her how she came by her knowledge. When the story gets going in the second paragraph, all characters in it so far, at any rate are third-person characters.

Any first-person identifying an acting or speaking character in the action itself would be significant indeed because it would signal an experiencing I. But nothing like that happens.

As a matter of fact, we'd all be a bit disoriented, I suppose, if the second paragraph began with the words "The afternoon sun was warm on the five workmen there, and I was one of them". Remember, a heterodiegetic narrator is somebody who is not, and never was, a character in the world of the story. The fact that a heterodiegetic narrator has a position outside the world of the story makes it easy for us to accept what we would never accept in real life -- that somebody should have unlimited knowledge and authority.

Heterodiegetic narrators typically assume the power of omniscience -- knowing everything -- as if this were the most natural thing in the world. When inclined to speak overtly, heterodiegetic narrators can speak directly to their addressees, and they can liberally comment on action, characters, and storytelling itself as happens in the Eliot excerpt above.

Homodiegetic narrators can do that too, of course, but owing to their human limitations, especially their lack of omniscience, they tend to do it differently. Evidently, then, this is again a set of typicality conditions which we can use to enrich Genette's "pure" category of heterodiegetic narratives. Following Stanzel, we will call this type of heterodiegetic-overt narration and the typicality conditions associated with it an authorial narrative situation or just plain authorial narration.

Of course, an authorial narrator's comprehensive 'Olympian' world-view is particularly suited to reveal the moral strengths and weaknesses of the characters.

As pointed out above, Genette's categorical distinctions homo- and heterodiegetic , which are based on a clear-cut 'relation' condition narrator present or absent in the story , can be fruitfully complemented by considering the typicality features, expectations, and implications that come with Stanzel's narrative situations first-person and authorial narration, so far.

Things get a bit more complicated now because Stanzel's model has yet another typical narrative situation. Because it is a difficult type, and comes with traps of its own, I will approach it with due caution.

Narratology - A Guide to the Theory of Narrative

You can probably guess what is coming. Recall that in the preceding paragraph authorial narration was tied to a heterodiegetic and overt, i. We are now going to refocus our attention on the question of overtness and covertness.

All set? The mountainside sloped gently where he lay; but below it was steep and he could see the dark of the oiled road winding through the pass.

There was a stream alongside the road and far down the pass he saw a mill beside the stream and the falling water of the dam, white in the summer sunlight. Describe the consequences a with respect to narrative type Genette and b with respect to narrative situation Stanzel. In the Hemingway passage, the narrator's voice is much harder to determine than in all of the excerpts quoted so far, including the Cozzens passage.

There are three reasons for this: We do not get any of the expressivity markers that normally project a distinctive voice -- no first-person self-reference, no value judgments, no italicized emphasis, no indications of a moral agenda, point of interest or purpose, nothing of the sort. The narrator is not a co-operative storyteller.

He does not acknowledge any actual or hypothetical addressee s ; quite the contrary, he conspicuously flouts the maxim of addressee-oriented reader-friendly exposition normally expected at the beginning of a novel. After all, setting and characters have to be introduced somehow. Thus far into the text, however, we don't know where we are, we don't know who the characters are, how many there are, or what they are doing there.

And, incidentally, if you think they are talking in English as you are bound to do, what choice have you got? The only thing one knows at this point is that the scene opens in some exterior natural setting, a hilly terrain, evidently; it is daytime, and there are at least two characters talking to each other.

The main point, however, is that the narrator seems to withdraw or hide behind the main character whom we encounter even in the first word of the text. Minutely, from moment to moment, the text seems to render this character's perceptual horizon -- the things he sees, feels, and hears note how cleverly this is suggested by terms such as the "pine-needled floor", the "gently sloping" ground, the wind blowing "overhead". It won't take long and the text will also render this character's thoughts, plans, and memories, in short, the whole subjective landscape of his consciousness.

Then we will also -- but always incidentally, as it were -- learn more about the story's background -- that it is set in the Spanish civil war, that the two characters are engaged in reconnoitering enemy territory, etc.

But no, he does not do it. And yet you can be dead certain that Hemingway knows exactly what he is doing by using such a narrator. Certainly no critic would be silly enough to say this is a bad story incipit! How does the passage work? Clearly, it is both heterodiegetic narrator not present as a character in the story and covert inconspicuous narrator's voice.

In addition, one of the story's characters -- the central character, in fact -- acts as a 'central consciousness' as Henry James fittingly put it. The reading experience created by such a text is quite remarkable. Here are the technical terms that further describe the phenomena discussed above. The technique of presenting something from the point of view of a story-internal character is called internal focalization.

The character through whose eyes the action is presented is called an internal focalizer some theorists prefer the term reflector, see N3. Note that the Hemingway passage has two occurrences of the verb see, and more seeing and other perception is implied by various other expressions and constructions 'perception indicators'.

Even though there are two characters in the action, the subject of the various acts of perception is only one of the two. Just as we asked Who speaks? And, again following Stanzel, we will call the specific configuration of a heterodiegetic-covert narrative which backgrounds the narrator and foregrounds internal focalization a figural narrative.

The Hemingway passage quoted above is a 'figural' passage, and the narrative situation underlying it is a 'figural narrative situation'. The Cozzens passage quoted in N1.

If you need a mnemonic, link reflector figure to figural narration. No reflector figure, no figural narration. For good measure, here is the more general definition: figural narrative A narrative which presents the story's events as seen through the eyes of or: from the point of view of a third-person internal focalizer.

Because the narrator's discourse will preferably mimic the focalizer's perceptions and conceptualizations the narrator's own voice quality will remain largely indistinct. One of the main effects of internal focalization is to attract attention to the mind of the reflector-character and away from the narrator and the process of narratorial mediation.

Subduing the 19C overt narrator's intrusive presence, these authors opened the door to an unmediated access to a character's mind, and through this 'prism' or 'filter', to the story's events. Logically enough, the most radical reduction of narrative voice comes when the text presents nothing but a direct quotation of a reflector's thoughts -- as in the form of an 'interior monologue' N8.

Jump to F4. To recapitulate: in addition to Genette's two basic types of narratives homodiegetic and heterodiegetic our toolbox now also stocks Stanzel's three typical narrative situations: first-person, authorial heterodiegetic-overt and figural heterodiegetic-covert plus internal focalization. You will be relieved to learn that most prose narratives establish their narrative situation quickly, sometimes as we have seen in the very first sentence, and then stick to it throughout the whole text.

Be forewarned, however, that there are i texts that switch narrative situation from one chapter to the next e. Suppose somebody asked you whether narrative theory has anything of interest to offer on "How to write a novel". What you could say -- after duly pointing out that narrative theory is more interested in how narrative texts work than in how one can make them work -- is this.

The history of the novel shows that there are three tried and tested recipes. Recipe no. Finally, recipe no. Applying the technical terms defined above, see what you make of the following passage from Crome Yellow by Aldous Huxley first published : Chapter One Along this particular stretch of line no express had ever passed. All the trains -- the few that there were -- stopped at all the stations.

Denis knew the names of those stations by heart. Camlet was where he always got out, leaving the train to creep indolently onward, goodness only knew whither, into the green heart of England.

They were snorting out of West Bowlby now. It was the next station, thank Heaven. Can you say whether this a homodiegetic or a heterodiegetic narrative? Personally, I can't see any first person pronoun referring to somebody involved in the action.

This isn't what a narrator remembers, is it? The only story-internal character present at all is somebody called Denis, and he is referred to by the third person pronoun, "he".

It is surely unlikely that a first-person character -- an experiencing I -- should suddenly join him out of the blue. Therefore, most likely this is a heterodiegetic narrative. And so it is. But now for a few more challenging questions. First, what can one say about the quality of the narrative voice? Well, in the first two sentences, at least, we seem to be getting some background information on setting and railway lines.

This is roughly reminiscent of what we had in the Cozzens excerpt. So is this, too, an addressee-conscious narratorial exposition in a neutral tone of voice? Actually, no, this is not a very satisfactory explanation.

For, unlike the Cozzens excerpt, this one has plenty of emotional and subjective expressions in it -- expressions like "goodness only knew", "the green heart of England", "thank Heaven" -- and since these are strong voice markers they suggest a highly overt rather than a neutrally overt voice as in Cozzens. So this must be heterodiegetic-overt narration then? Nope, that isn't it, either. Note that the third sentence begins with the words "Denis knew", which is rather reminiscent of the figural style of the Hemingway excerpt N1.

What now? Is the text, and are we as readers, hovering between, or perhaps helplessly tossed among, different modes of narrative? Although this is not really a difficult text, the questions raised by it are difficult to answer on a theoretical level. Any strategy that helps explain how readers negotiate such texts is therefore most welcome. FID is a common abbreviation for free indirect discourse -- a term which I am sure you have come across hundreds of times already in your studies.

Put simply, FID is a technique for rendering a character's speech or thought. But there are no quotation marks, and often any identification of speaker or thinker he said, she thought etc. As a consequence, there is often no formal difference between FID reporting a character's speech or thought and a plain narratorial statement. Now, it may not be very important whether a sentence is the one thing or the other -- for instance, nothing may hinge on whether It was twelve o'clock; he had plenty of time to catch the plane is just the rendering of a character's thought or a piece of information given by the narrator, or even both.

Then again, it may make all the difference: suppose the clock is slow, the character misses the plane, the plane crashes In the light of this, consider "It was the next station, thank Heaven". If we take that to be a representation of a thought going through Denis' head, then we construe the sentence as FID. Read as a narratorial statement, the sentence might express the narrator's relief "thank heaven" to have finally come to this part of the story.

Of course, this second reading is an entirely far-fetched one. In order to test whether a sentence is FID or a narratorial statement, Toolan suggests to construct two unambiguous and fully explicit versions -- one which explicitly binds the sentence to the point of view of the character, and another which explicitly binds it to the point of view of the narrator.

The next step is to assess, on the strength of both content and context, which version produces the better "fit". Contrast these two versions, then: I, the narrator, can tell you, the reader, that it was the next station, thank Heaven. It was the next station, thank Heaven, Denis thought. As might be expected, given the context of the sentence and the general content of the passage, the second construction is much more plausible than the first one.

Hence we conclude that the original sentence is indeed an FID representation of Denis' thought we can even 'backshift' it to recover its original form -- "It is the next station, thank Heaven" is what Denis very likely thinks, and we see at once that it fits well. We will say that the FID test registers positively on the sentence in question.

The upshot of this is that we can now claim that the emotional tone projected from "thank Heaven" is not the narrator's but Denis'. Let us now extend the FID test and turn it into an 'IF test' this is not a common term , a test of internal focalization.

Internal focalization is mainly concerned with what is present or goes on in a character's consciousness -- thoughts as well as perception, feeling, knowledge. For instance, that list of oddly named train stations -- is that some kind of information that the narrator provides for our benefit?

Or does Denis simply rehearse this list in his mind? Again we should use context and content in order to decide this question. The sentence preceding the sentence in question actually tells us that Denis knows the names of the stations "by heart". Don't write this off as an accident; rather, take it as contextual evidence supporting the interpretation that he is now rehearsing them.

Huxley's text really requires us to make many similar decisions, and basically they all work out in the same way.

For instance, who is more likely to conceptualize the train's further progress as "creeping indolently onward", the narrator or Denis? Who does not really know or perhaps care where the train goes ultimately -- "goodness only knew whither" -- the narrator or Denis? Remember: a standard authorial narrator normally has a huge knowledge privilege -- up to omniscience, we said. Who is the originator of the image of "the green heart of England"? Well, I trust the pieces of the puzzle have long fallen into place.

Apparently, one can source all judgments and expressivity markers in this passage more appropriately in the internal focalizer i. And, somewhat surprisingly, this even goes for the very first sentence, the sentence that perhaps looked like plain narratorial exposition at first glance.

Compare: I, the narrator, tell you, the reader, that along this particular stretch of line no express had ever passed. Along this particular stretch of line, Denis assumed, no express had ever passed.

While the IF test is never absolutely conclusive, it allows us to argue for or against a particular option. In this case, we see that the internally focalized reading is quite an appropriate one. Admittedly, however, the story's first sentence could also be the incipit of an authorial narrative.

Narrative Theory

Which ingredients would actually have to be added to the text to make it an authorial one? Now see how the text, as it progresses, jells into a plain case of figural narration with all that's implied by it: Denis took his chattels off the rack and piled them neatly in the corner opposite his own.

A futile proceeding. But one must have something to do. When he had finished, he sank back into his seat and closed his eyes.

It was extremely hot. Oh, this journey! It was two hours cut clean out of his life; two hours in which he might have done so much, so much -- written the perfect poem, for example, or read the one illuminating book. Instead of which -- his gorge rose at the smell of the dusty cushions against which he was leaning.

Two hours.

One hundred and twenty minutes. Anything might be done in that time. Oh, he had had hundreds of hours, and what had he done with them? Wasted them, spilt the precious minutes as though his reservoir were inexhaustible. Denis groaned in the spirit, condemned himself utterly with all his works. What right had he to sit in the sunshine, to occupy corner seats in third-class carriages, to be alive?

None, none, none. Misery and a nameless nostalgic distress possessed him. He was twenty-three, and oh! The train came bumpingly to a halt. Here was Camlet at last.

Again, all distinct voice-indicating emotional expressions will attach more plausibly to the internal focalizer than to the narrator. This confirms what we found earlier, namely that any vocal quality of this text belongs to the character, not the narrator. Ultimately, we can say very little about the narrator's voice because the narrator effectively hides himself and his voice behind the presentation of the internal focalizer's voice and perception and consciousness.

One could also say he hides his own voice by imitating the character's voice.

Ready for another turn of the screw? As we are coming to the end of this section, I want to test our present toolbox by looking at two further examples. The first is the incipit of Jane Austen's Emma first published in For a fair division of labor, I propose to do most of the work at first, answering the simple questions, and then you get a chance to have a go at the hard ones. This is clearly an overt narratorial voice engaged in giving concise and reader-conscious expository information on the main character a block characterization, in other words.

The paragraphs that follow present additional background information on the Woodhouse family. The narrator introduces a governess, summarizes Emma's childhood and adolescence, and comments on the developing friendship between the two women thus: She [Emma] was the youngest of the two daughters of a most affectionate, indulgent father, and had, in consequence of her sister's marriage, been mistress of his house from a very early period.

Her mother had died too long ago for her to have more than an indistinct remembrance of her caresses, and her place had been supplied by an excellent woman as governess, who had fallen little short of a mother in affection.

Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in Mr Woodhouse's family less as a governess than a friend, very fond of both daughters, but particularly of Emma. Between them it was more the intimacy of sisters. Even before Miss Taylor had ceased to hold the nominal office of governess, the mildness of her temper had hardly allowed her to impose any restraint; and the shadow of authority being now long passed away, they had been living together as friend and friend very mutually attached, and Emma doing just what she liked; highly esteeming Miss Taylor's judgment, but directed chiefly by her own.

Some of character traits attributed to Emma are obviously wholly conventional, others strike one as slightly unexpected, perhaps deserving careful attention and intonation! Observe the projected tone of voice in "and Emma doing just what she liked", for instance.

At any rate, in the following paragraph, the narrator gets down to a crucial point -- the heroine's personality -- more directly. The danger, however, was at present so unperceived, that they did not by any means rank as misfortunes with her. Clearly, this is said in a judgmental voice, and whatever else may be entailed by the summary characterization of Emma it is not an entirely positive one.

You might also like: THE BEATLES EBOOK

What, do you think, is it in particular that is "unperceived" by Emma but apparently quite obvious to the narrator? Emma, continued. The paragraphs following the preceding passage now move from plain exposition of background information often using sentences cast in the past perfect tense to a presentation of more concrete events and action cast in the simple past, the novel's basic narrative tense.

The novel's action proper begins on the evening of Miss Taylor's wedding day, an event which causes a major change of state in the affairs of the protagonists. Stanzel: Books. Stanzel, arguing that the novel provides an example of the figural narrative. Narrative typologies Franz Karl Stanzel's theory of narrative 89 Grard.

A Theory of Narrative. I want this title to be available as an eBook. Out of Print. Author: F. Date Published: March Stanzel is equally emphatic on this point: while the authorial narrator and the first Toward a Cognitive Theory of Narrative Actsbrings together in one volume cutting-edge.

The purpose of this book is to provide a clear and systematic account of the complexities of fictional narration which result from the shifting relationship in all.. This chapter introduces the basic elements of narrative situation, the combination of. Download book PDF.

Download Citation on ResearchGate A Theory of Narrative The purpose of this book is to provide a clear and systematic account of the complexities of fictional narration which result from. Franz K.All set? Admittedly, however, the story's first sentence could also be the incipit of an authorial narrative.

Welt als Text. While such prologues tell us a lot about the quality of the narrative voice cp. I was nineteen at the time [this is the age of the experiencing I, the present narrating I is clearly older, presumably wiser, more advanced on her "career"], an age appropriate for such adventures, and needless to say I was not married.

The first is the incipit of Jane Austen's Emma first published in To Narratology, M.