I grew up listening to my grandmother tell us stories around a fire. She spoke of legends from many moons ago, and tales from before “the fire-spitting machines” came to her village. I later learnt about how other people, like the Egyptians and Native Americans painted their unique stories on rocks in often sacred caves. These narratives gave history its first chance at immortality long before it could be formally documented in books, journals and documentaries as it is told today. Narrative is truly like life itself, it’s in all places and transcends both cultural and national boundaries[1]. According to Abbott, we are all born with an innate appetite for narrative; a form of discourse which is as old as the very history of mankind[2]. Considering how much I looked forward to my grandmother’s stories, I couldn’t possibly agree more.
So what is narrative?
Abbott defined narrative as "the representation of an event or a series of events[3]". In the light of how seasoned a storyteller my grandmother is, or the timeless work of world class painters, actors, and poets, I can’t help but wonder how narrative gurus like Stephenie Meyers (The Twilight series), J.K. Rowling (Harry Porter), or James Cameron ( Titanic, Avatar) would define ‘a narrative’. Perhaps the prowess of these iconic figures as narrators is clouding my vision; preventing me from seeing past the expertise of the narrator, to see their work for what it is, a representation of an event or a series of events[4]; a narrative.
As in any of the masterpieces by James Cameron, every detail is important[5] as the narrative goes from one level to another[6] , following a timeline created by the events as they unfold[7]. This “chrono-logic” nature of narrative is what distinguishes it from all other types of discourse[8]. A timeline created by the order of events is evident in all the forms narrative discourse may take, be it in pictures, myths, legends, stories, paintings, stained-glass windows or in the local news[9]. The timeline of the events since the tragic shooting of the Congress woman from Arizona is perhaps the most current example that exemplifies the chronologic nature of narrative discourse.
[1]Barthes, Roland and Duisit, Lionel. “On Narrative and Narratives”. New Literary History. Vol.6 No.2 (1975). p236
[2] Abbot, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p3
[3] Abbot, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p13
[4] Abbot, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p13
[5] Barthes, Roland and Duisit, Lionel. “On Narrative and Narratives”. New Literary History. Vol.6 No.2 (1975). p244
[6] Barthes, Roland and Duisit, Lionel. “On Narrative and Narratives”. New Literary History. Vol.6 No.2 (1975). p243
[7] Abbot, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002. page 4
[8] Abbot, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p16
[9] Barthes, Roland and Duisit, Lionel. “On Narrative and Narratives”. New Literary History. Vol.6 No.2 (1975). p236
I found your side note at the end to be a worthy addition to this piece. I think its interesting that people favor certain news sources over others when in reality they are all sharing the same story. Its all about how the story is presented and the person telling the narrative most definitely has a massive impact on how the narrative will be received. Good thought!
ReplyDeleteIn the light of the tragedy in Arizona, this distinction is becoming more and more apparent. From observing the blame game among the media houses that followed the shooting, it is clear that the same news can be presented and received so differently, depending on who is telling it and what their motives are.
ReplyDelete