Talk:Narratology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ladysydb. Peer reviewers: MGray1196.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mb1809.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Improvement
Hello, everybody! I don't really know how that with the collaboration of the week functions, but I doubt that this article will be the next one. So I'm gonna try to sort it out, anyway. If anyone would like to help, I would first propose to sort out (to divide them into sub-categories) articles from the Narratology category and list them all in the main one. That would be a good start, but I realize what a huge work that is so I'll try doing it myself on the weekend, if no one does before me. Afterwards, we can add short summaries for each sub-category and give an overall view on the topic. That shouldn't be too difficult, and then anyone can add whatever one wants about history, development, etc. Thank you for reading this. --Koveras 17:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds great :)--Nectar 00:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I don't think you should summarize those specialized articles in Category:Narratology:
 * Many, like cliffhanger, are just plot points and film tropes that don't have anything to do with the general topic
 * The overall article should stand on its own and offer a real overview
 * I would suggest, for better or worse, to start with a definition of Narratology (the science), then show its different aspects, theories etc. Maybe also talk about its history (how it came about that people started analyzing stories). To get there, one might read about it, ask a specialist in the field, or get inspired by other encyclopedias. Just my 2 cents. Peter S. 12:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got your point, Peter S., but there is already more than enough material for an article in the English Wikipedia (well, apart from the definition and history), and moreover, I prefer to work with what I've got already... But these are just my personal 2 cents, I only say that I'd be a bit troublesome for me to write entire essays on the topic instead of just sorting the available info. :) --Koveras [[Image:Flag_of_Russia.svg|25px]] [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|27px]] 13:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've completed what I was talking about earlier - see my sandbox. It's got really big, sorry, but there was simply too much material. I also took the liberty of messing with the categories. If anyone has specific wishes of how my article could be improved, please, state it here. This page has been removed from the CotW, anyway... --Koveras 11:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's impressive; put it up and see what people think of it. I wonder if Narrative Techniques might go better immediately before Plot Structure. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Impressive, indeed. Great job! Yes, just put it up and we'll keep working on it. Peter S. 00:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-) I'll put it up right away. :) --Koveras [[Image:Flag_of_Russia.svg|25px]] 11:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Major over-haul"
MC.Pearce Sorry guys but this article has some large factual errors. For example, the concept of a plot gap is actually a pre-condition for most narratives, eg. 'Who dunnit?' Apart from the introduction which mentions Todorov, the article bears little relation to academic narratology. I was going to add bits, but this would be silly without a major over-haul.


 * You are welcome to correct any factual mistakes you find in the article and to expand it by adding sections with academic data (actually, that was my idea all along). As for the plot hole, then it is a term used to describe "a gap in the storyline when it goes against its own logic, contradicts itself or simply leaves unanswered questions". Please, note the sequence: while I agree that some questions may and should stay unanswered, I do not see how self-contradiction and illogical plot twists may be key features of a story (except when we are talking about post-modernism or some other specific genre). --Koveras [[Image:Flag of Russia.svg|25px]] 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is a travesty. Comic books and video games do not belong in an article on literary narratology, especially because their archetypes are completely separate from those commonly found in literature. All of the "stock characters" listed are from comic books, video games, or B movies. This is what happens when you let unqualified people with an inappropriate, factually inaccurate agenda edit an academic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.71.89 (talk • contribs)


 * It is allowed to continue only if "qualified" people don't edit it. Please help if you can. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I can be called at least a semi-qualified person as far as narratology is concerned; I came here out of curiosity and I have to say I agree that I don't find this article a very good introduction to the subject of narratology - I pity the student who tries to use this as a resource in writing even a very basic essay.

However, this is not because it refers to 'stock characters' from comic books etc - after all, Roland Barthes illustrates his contribution to the field almost entirely with examples from Goldfinger - but because it makes no attempt to introduce narratology as a body of knowledge with a history and with controversies. What we have here is an almost random mass of technical definitions, with no explanation of where the terms come from, how they fit together, what their theoretical basis is, what reasons there might be for preferring alternative terms, etc. Some of the terms I don't recognise, and I can't even guess where they came from. Others I certainly do recognise, and they certainly don't belong together: for example, 'story arc' and 'peripeteia'.

In my opinion, this needs more than an edit - it needs to be started again from scratch. That's not to say that everything here should be permanently deleted, just that an article on an academic sub-discipline needs an organisation based around the historical development of that sub-discipline, the kind of questions it tries to answer, the various approaches to those questions, and the problems with those approaches. I'm sure that plenty of the current content could eventually be re-inserted, once there was a structure in place that would enable readers to make sense of it all.

Ninj 21:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly agree that this article needs to be started again from scratch! I suggest that we discus a preliminary plan for the article here on the talkpage! I suggest that we begin with a short definition, move on to a relative brief historical overview and hereafter structure the article around general thematic headlines. I have done a brainstorm. Please continue it or write your comments!

Great start! Let's get going.

Ninj 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a table with preliminary suggestions for a structure for the revision of this article (below). Please do do not hesitate to make any changes, and/or give your comments below!!

Besides, although this article needs a thourough revision, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. The many good things about the existing article should, of course, be incorporated. Jeppebarnwell 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that. It strikes me that a lot of what's currently in the article would probably be useful to people, but isn't strictly 'narratology'.

For example, all those terms like 'MacGuffin' (Hitchcock's, I think), 'Mary Sue' (used only in the fanfic community, as far as I know), and 'Fonzie syndrome' (???). These are exactly the kind of words I can imagine myself using Wikipedia to find out the meaning of. But is an article on narratology the best place for them? I mean, they're useful for discussing narrative media, but not necessarily in an academic context. And then there are the words like 'story arc' and 'back story' - I'd guess these are words that TV producers and scriptwriters developed for talking shop, which then filtered through into more general usage.

Would there be a case for one or more parallel articles to be created covering non-academic (eg. professional and fan) terms for discussing narrative?


 * Yes. The article as it is is a reasonable glossary of terms.  It doesn't have anything to do with narratology as I came into contact with it though.

Ninj 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the outline
'What is narrative' is a minefield. I'd suggest we stay away from it - let's just note that it is   necessarily presupposed in some way by the discipline of narratology, but that it is a very problematic term. Then we can include a link to the 'narrative' page and leave it at that. Attempts to define narrative belong there, not here.

Of course, this makes the question of what narratology actually is rather difficult to deal with - it's the scientific, semi-scientific, or pseudo-scientific study (take your pick) of something that has no universally agreed definition, even among practitioners of the discipline.

But then again, it's no good trying to pretend things are more settled than they are.

Ninj 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather fond of H. Porter Abbott's definition in the Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Because it's an introductory text, he pitches a pretty wide tent, which I feel would be best here.

Thomas1617

Factual narratives/Historiography: Hmm. I'm not sure this belongs - historiography is an entirely different discipline. The same would go for all sorts of other things, like the sociolinguistic study of storytelling, or Narrative Analysis therapy, or the ethnographic study of oral culture, or theories of the importance of narrative to ordinary cognitive processing. We can't cover every approach to the study of every kind of narrative - narratology is something quite specific, and there are other Wikipedia pages to discuss other disciplines. Of course, a hyperlink wouldn't go amiss.

Ninj 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

M.C.Pearce I have added some content to the table (although I am not good at formatting it). I agree with Ninj on what the scope of the article should be, that is limited. Most of the narratological literature discusses fictional plays, prose and poems, and their general structures. Going too far from this won't give a balanced impression of what narratology has been about. The common cognitive ground could perhaps be dealt with in a 'current narratology, and onwards' section.

I've removed the recently added claim that a Prof. Maloney coined the term 'narratology' - I've NEVER heard that before, and the reference given doesn't appear to substantiate it. As far as I know, 'narratology' is simply an anglicisation of Todorov's term.

Incidentally, nothing much has changed with the article as a whole, which seems as confused as ever - I know my stuff when it comes to narratology (relatively speaking, of course - I've never published on it, for example), but I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't feel confident to delete all the spurious things like 'Evil twin' and 'Dumb blonde'.

Ninj 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Do you any of you think the section I added is appropriate for this page Ladysydb (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting non-narratological content
This entry has changed very little in the last few months. Every time I look at it, I become more aware of how bad it is. I'm going to delete everything that doesn't relate to narratology as an academic sub-discipline... and that means most of it. My students will be handing in assignments on narratology in a few weeks time, and I'd like to spare them the embarrassment of being misled by this. A short but accurate entry is much preferable to a long and inaccurate one.

I realise that some people may feel offended by my removing so much. I'm not saying that all the content I'm deleting is bad. I'm just saying that it doesn't belong here, because, whatever it is, it isn't narratology. I'm sure it would be perfectly welcome in a different entry, but I don't know which one.

Ninj 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with you. Someone has reverted your cut. qp10qp 23:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cut the material again - he apologised, so thanks for bringing the matter up with him.

I think that some of the material I cut could be put back, but only in a more ordered and logical structure. The outline suggested above would be okay, except that there's a huge amount of work to do in filling it out and it doesn't seem like anyone has time. I think we should classify this article as a stub and keep it simple until someone's got time to do it properly. Thoughts? Ninj 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tags added for restructure and rewrite. I think those best describe what needs to happen with this article. --Ssault 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the one remaining paragraph and therefore removed the tags. It's not that I think it's great or couldn't do with further rewritings, just that it's now in a state where it's more informative than misleading. As a stub, I'd say it's good enough to stand without the warning tags - though a stub is most certainly all it is. Hopefully someone will have time to fill out the table above and then we can think about making this into a proper article.--Ninj 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job Ninj. It was very much needed!!!

Narrative Theory
Can someone tell me why this page was redirected. I would like to create a page for narrative theory, because it it part of interpersonal communication. Most of my information comes from Leslie A. Baxter and Narriative theory needs to be different from "narratology". i would like to create a page for narrative theory, but don't want it to be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.115.218 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also a page for narrative theory that appears to require some disambiguation or re-direct, in order to allow for the often synonymous use of the term with narratology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungrysolace (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is probably a redirect because no one has written an article on it yet. The correct article title should be Narrative theory (note the capitalisation). Draft an article in your userspace first, add plenty of citations that provide evidence for each "claim" that your article makes, so that other people may go and check the facts for themselves, perhaps ask for some feedback on your draft at Requests for feedback, then paste it into the re-direct page. You can reach the page "proper" by clicking on the link at the top of this article that appears when you try to search for "Narrative theory" (i.e., allow it to redirect you here, then follow the link that tells you that you've been redirected). Happy editing. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Theorists of Narratology
This section could be better organised to reflect its title. At least, a list of influential names. And perhaps a brief para on their particular contributions. Preferably, all arranged in chronological order, to augment the reader's understanding of the history of the discipline. Alternatively, in alphabetic name order. yoyo (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Discipline, science or field of study?
On reading the current article, I don't know. Is narratology: yoyo (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) a science?
 * 2) a discipline?
 * 3) a (possibly cross-disciplinary (autocorrect suggested "cross-dressing"!)) field of study, which is neither science nor discipline?
 * 4) something else entirely?