The critique of the common theory of narrative fiction in narratology: Pursuing difference

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
Tommy Sandberg
{"title":"The critique of the common theory of narrative fiction in narratology: Pursuing difference","authors":"Tommy Sandberg","doi":"10.1515/fns-2019-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article aims to characterize a commonly misunderstood and neglected critique of narratology and insists that the critique could advance the narratological discussions if taken more seriously. I describe the notions of three individual critics and one group of critics and their suggested alternatives to what they hold to be the dominating description of narrative fiction in narratology. In turn, I take up Sylvie Patron’s linguistic approach, Lars-Åke Skalin’s aesthetic approach, and Richard Walsh’s pragmatic approach, as well as unnatural narratology (which is less radical), and suggest that they have a Difference approach to narrative fiction. The critique is contrasted with what I refer to as a Sameness approach, guiding the dominating description of narrative fiction in narratology. The Sameness approach relates novels and short stories to a notion of a default mode of “narrative” which is based on situated speech about something that has happened. This is, according to the critics, a mistake. The main thrust of the critics, although with some exceptions, is instead that narrative fiction needs to be approached as sui generis in order to be described effectively. Yet how this should be done is still open for debate.","PeriodicalId":29849,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers of Narrative Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers of Narrative Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2019-0003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This article aims to characterize a commonly misunderstood and neglected critique of narratology and insists that the critique could advance the narratological discussions if taken more seriously. I describe the notions of three individual critics and one group of critics and their suggested alternatives to what they hold to be the dominating description of narrative fiction in narratology. In turn, I take up Sylvie Patron’s linguistic approach, Lars-Åke Skalin’s aesthetic approach, and Richard Walsh’s pragmatic approach, as well as unnatural narratology (which is less radical), and suggest that they have a Difference approach to narrative fiction. The critique is contrasted with what I refer to as a Sameness approach, guiding the dominating description of narrative fiction in narratology. The Sameness approach relates novels and short stories to a notion of a default mode of “narrative” which is based on situated speech about something that has happened. This is, according to the critics, a mistake. The main thrust of the critics, although with some exceptions, is instead that narrative fiction needs to be approached as sui generis in order to be described effectively. Yet how this should be done is still open for debate.
对叙事学中叙事小说共同理论的批判:追求差异
摘要本文旨在描述一种普遍被误解和忽视的叙事学批判,并认为如果更认真地对待这种批判,它可以推动叙事学的讨论。我描述了三位批评家和一组批评家的观点,以及他们对叙事学中叙事小说的主要描述所提出的替代方案。反过来,我采用了西尔维·Patron的语言学方法,Lars-Åke Skalin的美学方法,理查德·沃尔什的实用主义方法,以及非自然叙事学(不那么激进),并建议他们对叙事小说采取不同的方法。这种批判与我所说的同一性方法形成对比,同一性方法指导叙事学对叙事小说的主要描述。同一性方法将小说和短篇故事与一种默认的“叙事”模式的概念联系起来,这种模式基于对已经发生的事情的情境演讲。在批评者看来,这是一个错误。尽管有一些例外,但评论家们的主要观点是,为了有效地描述叙事小说,叙事小说需要被视为自成一体。然而,如何做到这一点仍有待讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信