Curs practic anul III IDD[1]. G. Colipca.pdf

  • Published on
    26-Oct-2015

  • View
    45

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Literature

Transcript

<ul><li><p>UNIVERSITATEA DUNREA DE JOS DIN GALAI DEPARTAMENTUL PENTRU NVMNT LA DISTAN I CU </p><p>FRECVEN REDUS </p><p>LECT. DR. GABRIELA IULIANA COLIPC </p><p>CURS PRACTIC DE LITERATURA ENGLEZ </p><p>THE LANGUAGE OF LITERATURE </p><p>GALAI 2008 </p></li><li><p> TABLE OF CONTENTS </p><p> I. ON NARRATIVE ............................................................................................ 5 I. 1. GRARD GENETTE AND HIS THEORY OF NARRATIVE DISCOURSE............. 8 </p><p>I. 1. 1. ORDER .............................................................................................................................. 9 </p><p>I. 1. 2. DURATION..................................................................................................................... 11 </p><p>I. 1. 3. FREQUENCY ................................................................................................................. 13 </p><p>I. 1. 4. MOOD.............................................................................................................................. 14 </p><p>I. 1. 5. VOICE.............................................................................................................................. 17 </p><p>I. 2. MIEKE BALS NARRATOLOGY ................................................................................ 18 I. 2.1. TEXT: WORDS ............................................................................................................... 20 </p><p>I. 2. 2. STORY: ASPECTS......................................................................................................... 25 </p><p>I. 2. 3. FABULA: ELEMENTS.................................................................................................. 33 </p><p>II. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS................................................................. 37 II. 1. MODERNIST SHORT STORIES............................................................................... 37 </p><p>II. 1. 1. JAMES JOYCE THE DEAD..................................................................................... 37 </p><p>II. 1. 2. VIRGINIA WOOLF A HAUNTED HOUSE............................................................ 62 </p><p>II. 2. POSTMODERNIST SHORT STORY........................................................................ 64 II. 2. 1. DAVID LODGE HOTEL DES BOOBS .................................................................... 64 </p><p>II. 2. 2. FAY WELDON WEEKEND...................................................................................... 70 </p><p>III. FINAL ACHIEVEMENT TESTING ....................................................... 80 </p><p>BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 81 </p><p> 3</p></li><li><p> 4</p></li><li><p>I. ON NARRATIVE Nowadays, narratology is unanimously acknowledged as one of the most efficient instruments that allow for the better interpretation and understanding of texts. It is true that it has mainly developed throughout the twentieth century. But, as Ducrot and Schaeffer point out, it has not arisen ex nihilo. (1996: 149) Writers and literary theorists have shown their interest in the what and the how of different literary species ever since the Antiquity. Among the first issues thus theorized upon is the relationship between reality and fiction, translated for the first time into the dichotomic pair of mimesis and diegesis by Plato and Aristotle. Opposed to diegesis, i.e. summarizing narration, and defined as direct imitation of reality, prone to the representation of evil (see Mitchell, 1995: 14-5), therefore totally rejected by Plato,1 mimesis is rehabilitated by Aristotle. In his terms, mimesis can no longer simply be reduced to semblance, but it functions as an analogical cognitive vector, which implies the creation of virtual models based upon similarity to the serious models of reality. (Schaeffer, 2002) That means that both indirect-narrative and direct representation become varieties of mimesis. More thorough in his analysis of forms of mimesis, Aristotle has largely discussed the distinctions between literary genres considering different criteria such as the mode of representation, the mimetic status of the represented object or the truth/ the likelihood of the narrative that directly influence the readerships response to it. That is how he has given literary theory the first narrative typologies. (For more details on Aristotles plot and character typologies, see Aristotle, 1996 and Prvu, 1997: 21-2; 52-3) Over the next centuries at least until the end of the nineteenth century writers and critics have drawn upon the Aristotelian theory of mimesis, showing more concern with the extent to which literary works managed to comply with the constantly debated upon and redefined principle of verisimilitude. There have been, of course, some who, more or less explicitly, have investigated different aspects of narrative structure, calling into question the pre-established conventions of novel writing and challenging the readers expectations. Cervantes, Diderot and Sterne are but a few cases in point. Nevertheless, it is only from the nineteenth century on that narrative techniques become the subject of more systematic analysis and Flaubert or Henry James are among the first to pave the way for the development of narratology as a well-defined approach to narratives. The twentieth century has witnessed the development of different narratological schools. Especially over the first half of the century, the so-called Anglo-Saxon school has brought an important contribution to the creation of the first narrative models. Percy Lubbocks study, The Craft of Fiction (1921) is worth mentioning in this respect for having provided a typology of narrative situations in which two sets of criteria are combined: on the one hand, the opposition between showing/ telling (as a result of Lubbocks enlarging on the mimesis/ diegesis distinction), on the other hand, the distinction between different modes of representation or points of view2 (i.e. the panoramic </p><p> 1 In constructing their narratological theories, both Grard Genette and Mieke Bal (whose narratological models will be further discussed) refer to Plato and Aristotles different conceptions of narrative. Both theorists emphasise particularly Platos dislike of mimesis whether represented by direct speech or descriptions that led him to rewrite parts of Homers work, so that he might transform it into pure narrative characterized by indirection and condensation. (see Genette, 1980: 162-3 and Bal, 1997: 37) 2 As further discussion of narratological models will show, contemporary narrative theory does not consider the concept of point of view to be valid, owing to its confusing mixture of categories pertaining to two different </p><p> 5</p></li><li><p>survey, the dramatized narrator, the dramatized mind and pure drama). His typology has represented a starting point for Norman Friedman (1955), for instance, who, while relying mainly on the same criterion of the point of view, further refined it so as to encompass eight distinct narrative situations (i.e. editorial omniscience, neutral omniscience, I as a witness, I as protagonist, multiple selective omniscience, selective omniscience, dramatic mode and camera).3 </p><p>The interest in the main levels/ layers of investigation of narratives has led other theorists like E.M.Forster (1927) to express the distinction between the what and the how in terms of story and plot (two terms that ever since have been widely circulated in Anglo-American criticism). In order to make his readers better understand this distinction, he proposed an example that has already become classical and on the basis of which he could logically derive the definitions of the two terms. He compared thus: </p><p>The king died and then the queen died with </p><p>The king died, and then the queen died of grief. and further with </p><p>The queen died, no one knew why, until it was discovered that it was through grief at the death of the king. </p><p>The first example is a story, a narrative of events arranged in their time-sequence. (Forster, 1966:221) The second is a plot, i.e. also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality, whereas the third is also a plot but with more mystery in it, with the time-sequence suspended and capable of further high development. (1966:221) And if Forster has taken a first step forward towards more clearly delineating the possible levels of analysis, Wayne Booth, although still maintaining the confusion between focalization and voice in his distinguishing between dramatized/ undramatized and reliable/ unreliable narrators, has, nevertheless, the merit of having clarified another essential aspect of narrative communication. According to him, the process of narrative production involves several instances pertaining to different levels, such as the narrator (on the internal communication level) and the implied author, itself distinct from the real-life author (on the external communication level). Anyway, narratological studies seem to owe their boom to a more general interest in the formal properties of literary texts, epitomised by two major critical trends, namely Russian Formalism and, respectively, Structuralism. The studies of Russian Formalists like Vladimir Propp, Boris Tomashevsky or Victor Shklovsky have reached results that come very close to Forsters. The central distinction between what they term fabula/ sjuzet is roughly similar to Forsters story/ plot. So, the fabula consists of the fundamental events, in their natural, logical and chronological order, with an accompanying inventory of roles of the characters and settings, whereas the sjuzet comprises the different techniques that authors choose to employ in representing in various manners the fabula. Inspired by linguistic studies, the Formalists have devised methods for describing a story as linguists describe sentences, i.e. without regard to the meaning it may communicate, only to its structure. </p><p> narrative layers, namely focalization and narrative voice. That is why, whenever this concept is referred to, inverted commas are used. 3 Ducrot and Schaeffer point out that, over the second half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries, the so-called Anglo-Saxon and German schools actually developed in parallel focusing on the same issues regarding the modes of representation and the narrative perspective. (1996: 150) The most significant contribution seems to be that of Franz Stanzel whose narratological model relies on three narrative categories, namely person, perspective and mood. (See Genette, 1980: 187 and Lintvelt, 1994: 160-5) </p><p> 6</p></li><li><p>(Avdanei, 2002:9) Propp, above all, is known for his transformational-like grammar of tales based on functions that involve different types and spheres of action. Closely related to Formalist theories in their goal of analysing literature according to modern linguistic models (such as Saussures), Structuralist theories have also taken up the task of creating a universal grammar of narratives. With its Structuralist representatives, the French school of narrative theory has finally managed to impose in narratological studies.4 Roland Barthes, Tzvetan Todorov, Benveniste maintain the two-fold distinction of fabula/ sjuzet translating it into French terms as histoire/rcit. (On English grounds, the French terms will be transposed by Seymour Chatman, for instance, into story/ discourse.) </p><p>Narrative </p><p>Histoire/ Story </p><p> Rcit/ Discourse </p><p>Events </p><p>Characters </p><p>Setting</p><p> In an attempt at more accurately identifying the fundamental structural units and the principles that govern their arrangement in narrative texts, A. J. Greimas has drawn on Propps theory and has reduced both the number of functions (to three main types of structures: contractual, performative and disjunctive) as well as the roles of the characters. Particularly his actantial model,5 made up of three binary pairs subject/ object; sender/ receiver; helper/ opponent has remained among the most influential and most widely applied until nowadays. Tzvetan Todorovs work has developed along the same lines, but in a more refined manner (following the mechanism of the structuring process from propositions to sequences and texts), on the basis of the analogy between the structural units of language and the structural units of narrative. The need for clarity in the definitions of narrative categories and in the identification of the level of analysis has led the more recent generations of narratologists to replace the two-fold model with a three-fold one. The one to have first put forward the idea is Grard Genette, who, as Michael 4 The only more remarkable contributions of the French school before the 1960s belong to Jean Pouillon (1946) and Georges Blin (1954). Pouillon, in particular, is often referred to as one of Todorov and Genettes most important predecessors for his three-fold typology of narrative situations made up according to purely modal determinations. Genette, for example, finds it more acceptable in comparison with others that mix up mood and voice. (see Genette, 1980: 188 and Lintvelt, 1994: 54-5) </p><p>Of course, the discussion of Structuralist narrative models should not be limited to the French School. The Czech school, represented by Lubomr Doleel (1967, 1973) has put forward an interesting combination of functional and verbal models. Taking into account both linguistic criteria and traditional concepts like objective/ rhetoric/ subjective or Er-Form/ Ich-Form, Doleels typology is rather a hybrid between narrative and linguistic theory, yet worth mentioning as an interesting stage in the development of Structuralist narratology. Despite Doleels contribution, however, the Czech school could not rise to the level of the French one, which has dominated and revolutionized narratology studies over the last decades of the twentieth century. 5 Unlike Greimas, who tends to be more synthetic in his approach to narrative syntax, Claude Brmond, also inspired by Propp, has tried to refine, almost exhaustively, the actantial typology. That makes his model more difficult to apply and hence, less used than Greimas. </p><p> 7</p></li><li><p>Toolan puts it, has argued in his accounts of poetics that the business of technical manipulation and presentation of the basic story, originally covered by discourse, involves in fact two distinct levels. (1992: 10) Thus, besides the level of histoire/ story, the levels of rcit/ narrative and narration/ narrating have to be considered. This new model has been widely accepted by other narratologists, who, nonetheless, have brought their own contributions to improving and correcting it. Among them, Rimmon-Kenan and Mieke Bal have perhaps most notably challenged the Genettian theory. Genettes histoire rcit narration model has be...</p></li></ul>