Monday, 18 March 2019

Warhol, Robyn R. (2005) “Neonarrative; or, How to Render the Unnarratable in Realist Fiction and Contemporary Film” in A Companion to Narrative Theory (eds.) James Phelan & Peter J. Rabinowits: 221-230. Oxford: Blackwell.


‘disnarrated’ – those passages in a narrative that consider what did not or does not take place. (Prince 1988: 1) – 221



when disnarration or unnarration lead to genre change, they are participating in what I will call “neonarrative”, or narrational strategies for making narrative genres new. – 221



Varieties of Unnarratable in Classic Realist Fiction



Prince’s Dictionary of Narratology defines “the narratable” as “that which is worthy of being told; that which is susceptible of or calls for narration” (Prince 1987: 56). If “unnarratable” (which Prince does not define in the dictionary) is to be the antonym of this term, then it would mean “that which is unworthy of being told,” “that which is not susceptible to narration,” and “that which does not call for narration” or perhaps “unnarratable” as “that which, according to a given narrative, cannot be narrated or is not worth narrating either because it transgresses a law (social, authorial, generic, formal) or because it defies the powers of a particular narrator (or those of any narrator) or because it falls below the so-called threshold of narratibility (it is not sufficiently unusual or problematic)” (Prince 1988: 1). – 222


1.      The subnarratable: what needn’t be told because it’s normal

2.      The supranarratable: what can’t be told because it’s “ineffable”

3.      The antinarratable: what shouldn’t be told because of social convention

4.      The paranarratable: what wouldn’t be told because of formal convention



Narrative in Film: Stretching the Boundaries of the Unnarratable



1.      The subnarratable

2.      The antinarratable

3.      The paranarratable



Disnarration and Unnarration in Film

Thursday, 14 March 2019

Prakasam, V. (2017) “Perceiving the Discourse” in International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (Volume XLVI, Number 1: January 2017): 86-95.


Text is constant and discourse is the variable, and the discourse perceived is dependable on the perceiver’s background and disposition. – 86



Background = Talent + Training + Toil

Disposition = Motivated bias + Personal mood + Depression + Enthusiasm + Excitement + Ideological stand + Academic orientation



No perception is objective; all the interpretation is bound to be subjective. - 87

Shen, Dan (2005) “What Narratology and Stylistics can do for each other” in A Companion to Narrative Theory (eds.) James Phelan & Peter J. Rabinowits: 136-149. Oxford: Blackwell.


Difference Between “Discourse” and “Style”



Discourse according to Genette (1980)



1. Tense: Relation between story-time and discourse-time

a. Order

b. Duration: Actual duration of the events and textual length.

c. Frequency

2. Mood: Forms and degrees of narrative representation

3. Voice: Way the narrative is implicated



Sequencing in style is of three types:

1.      Presentational

2.      Chronological: Syntactic ordering

3.      Psychological: Choices of words for the point of view



Reasons for the Boundary



Stylistic analysis

-          the use of language

-          uses foregrounding

-          uses the findings of linguistics



Narratological analysis

-          focuses on the relation between story events and their arrangements

-          works on “anachrony”, i.e. deviation from chronological events

-          uses the findings of linguistics metaphorically



Across the Boundary

Current Practices and Future Studies