A New Approach to the Definition of the Narrative Situations

A New Approach to the Definition of the Narrative Situations

F. K. STANZEL

F. K. Stanzel is one of the earliest and most outstanding narratologi-sts in German. His Narrative Situations in the Novel: Tom Jones, Moby Dick, The Ambassadors, Ulysses ( 1971) was published in German as early as 1955. However, the impact of his work on the narratolog-ical scene was comparatively small outside the German-speaking countries before the belated translation of A Theory of Narrative. In Narrative Situations in the Novel Stanzel precedes Wayne Boothand the French structuralists in the analysis and further development of basic tenets of Russian Formalism, such as the opposition 'fabula/ siuzhet'. He also foreshadows Genette differentiation in ''Discours du rcit'' ( 1972) between focalizer and narrator, which Stanzel calls 'reflector' and 'narrator'. Other oppositions such as 'scene/summary' and 'telling/showing' are also analysed by Stanzel. In A Theory of Narrative, he attempts to devise a comprehensive typology of all the ways in which a novel might be structured. Starting from the Platonic difference between mimesis and diegesis, Stanzel defines the essence of narrative in terms of the generic concept of 'mediacy', the presence of a mediator, a narrator whose voice is audible whenever a piece of news is conveyed, whenever something is reported. Mediacy is 'the generic characteristic which distinguishes narration from other forms of literary art' (p. 4 ). Stanzel further differentiates three basic narrative situations: 'the first person narrative situation', in which the mediator is a character and belongs within the world of the other characters; 'the authorial narrative situation', in which the narrator is outside the world of the characters, at a different level, and 'the figural narrative situation', in which, instead of the narrator-as-mediator, we find a 'reflector', defined as 'a character in the novel who thinks, feels and perceives, but does not speak to the reader like a narrator' (p. 5 ). Stanzel's definition of the 'reflector' -- a term borrowed from Henry James -- as a narrator 'who does not speak' shows his intuitive need to account for the difference between 'who sees' and 'who tells' and his failure to separate these functions theoretically.

The distinction was made later by Genette and Bal, who introduced the concept of focalizer. Another important notion Stanzel proposes is that of narrative levels, which is also found in Roland Barthes ( 1966) and is further developed by Genette and Bal.

In the excerpt reprinted below, Stanzel proposes a typology of all narrative situations conceivable, based on three constitutive elements -- person, perspective and mode -- and their corresponding binary oppositions. Stanzel's sixfold typological axis (p. 167 ), arranged circularly, is intended to account for all possible in-between varieties, concrete examples of which are given in the titles of individual novels in the outer ring of the more complex figure (above). Analysis of a particular novel according to Stanzel's typology should reveal its narrative profile, that is, the dynamics of its narrative process as well as the rhythm derived from the alternation or predominance of particular situations. If carried out transhistorically, Stanzel claims, this analysis should be capable of accounting for the evolution of all narrative forms through history and even of predicting the genre's possible developments in the future.

The constitutive elements of the narrative situations: person, perspective, mode

Mediacy as the generic characteristic of narration is a complex and multi-layered phenomenon. In order to use this generic characteristic as the basis for a typology of the forms of narration, it is necessary to break down this complex into its most important constitutive elements. [ . . . ]

The first constitutive element is contained in the question 'Who is narrating?' The answer may be: a narrator who appears before the reader as an independent personality or one who withdraws so far behind the narrated events that he becomes practically invisible to the reader. The distinction between these two basic forms of narration is generally accepted in narrative theory. The following pairs of terms are usually applied: 'true' and 'scenic narration' ( Otto Ludwig), 'panoramic' and 'scenic presentation' ( Lubbock), 'telling' and 'showing' ( Friedman), 'reportorial narration' and 'scenic presentation' ( Stanzel). ¹ While the concepts proposed for the narrative mode of a personalized narrator are relatively unambiguous, the terms designating scenic presentation conflate two techniques which often occur in conjunction but which must be distinguished in theory. One of these is the dramatized scene consisting of pure dialogue, dialogue with brief stage directions, or dialogue with very condensed narratorial report. This procedure is well illustrated by Hemingway short story 'The Killers.' The other technique is the reflection of the fictional events through the consciousness of a character in the novel without narratorial comment. I call such a character a reflector to distinguish him from the narrator as the other narrative agent. Stephen in Joyce A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man has this function. Because of this ambiguity I should like to introduce another distinction. Narration can be considered to be effected by two kinds of narrative agents, narrators (in a personalized or unpersonalized role) and reflectors. Together these two comprise the first constitutive element of the narrative situation, the mode of narration. By mode I mean the sum of all possible variations of the narrative forms between the two poles narrator and reflector: narration in the true sense of mediacy, that is, the reader has the impression that he is confronted by a personalized narrator, as opposed to direct or immediate presentation, that is, the reflection of the fictional reality in the consciousness of a character.

While the first constitutive element, mode, is a product of the various relations and reciprocal effects between the narrator or reflector and the reader, the second constitutive element is based on the relations between the narrator and the fictional characters. Again, the multiplicity of possibilities is delimited by two polar positions. Either the narrator exists as a character within the world of the fictional events of the novel or else he exists outside this fictional reality. In referring to this situation I shall also speak of the identity or non-identity of the realms of existence of the narrator and the fictional characters. If the narrator exists in the same world as the characters, he is a first-person narrator according to traditional terminology. If the narrator is existentially outside the world of the characters, we are dealing with third-person narration in the traditional sense. The time-honored terms first-person and third-person narration have already caused much confusion, because the criterion of their distinction, the personal pronoun, refers in the former to the narrator, but in the latter to a character in the narrative who is not the narrator. In a third-person narrative, for example in Tom Jones or in The Magic Mountain, there is also a narratorial 'I.' It is not the occurrence of the first person of the personal pronoun in a narrative outside the dialogue which is decisive, but rather the location of the designated person within or outside the fictional world of the characters of a novel or a story. The term person will be retained nevertheless, as the distinguishing attribute of this second constitutive element because of its succinctness. The essential criterion of the second constitutive element, however -- and this cannot be overemphasized -- is not the relative frequency of occurrence of one of the two personal pronouns 'I' or 'he'/'she,' but the question of the identity or non-identity of the realms of existence to which the narrator and the characters belong. The narrator of David Copperfield is a first-person narrator because he exists in the same world as the other characters of the novel, Steerforth, Peggotty, the Murdstones and the Micawbers; the narrator of Tom Jones is a third-person narrator or an authorial narrator because he exists outside the fictional world in which Tom Jones, Sophia Western, Partridge and Lady Bellaston live. The identity and non-identity of the realms of the narrator and the characters are fundamentally different prerequisites for the narrative process and its motivation.

While mode focuses the reader's attention primarily on his relation to the process of narration or presentation, the third constitutive element, perspective, directs the reader's attention to the way in which he perceives the fictional reality. The manner of this perception depends essentially on whether the point of view according to which the narration is oriented is located in the story, in the protagonist or in the centre of action, or else outside the story or its centre of action, in a narrator who does not belong to the world of the characters or who is merely a subordinate figure, perhaps a first-person narrator in the role of observer or a contemporary of the hero. In this way an internal and an external perspective can be differentiated.

The opposition internal perspective-external perspective embraces an additional aspect of the mediacy of narration different from the other constitutive elements, person and mode, namely, that of the orientation of the reader's imagination within the time and especially the space of the narrative, or, in other words, that of the regulation of the spatio-temporal arrangement with respect to the centre or the focus of the narrated events. If the story is presented from within, as it were, then the perceptive situation of the reader is different from when the events are seen or reported from outside. Accordingly, there are differences in the ways in which the spatial relations of the characters and things in the represented reality are treated (perspectivism-aperspectivism), as well as in the restrictions placed on the knowledge and experience of the narrator or reflector ('omniscience'-'limited point of view'). ²

Narrative theory in the past has dealt with the state of affairs described by the opposition internal perspective-external perspective in diverse ways. Eduard Spranger, a psychologist, essentially anticipated my opposition more than half a century ago with his distinction between 'reportorial perspective' and 'inside view perspective.' ³ Later, Erwin Leibfried termed perspective the mostimportant factor in the differentiation of narrative texts. ⁴ On the other hand, in the work of Pouillon, Todorov, and Genette, ⁵ what I call perspective is subordinated to other components, specifically to those which coincide largely with my concepts of mode and person. [ . . . ] The triadic basis proposed here as a basis for the three narrative situations has proven itself in practice, as is evidenced by its application in numerous studies of narrative theory over the last twenty years. ⁶ It will thus be retained in spite of the fact that most of the recent typologies of narrative theory are designed either as monadic ( Hamburger) or, more frequently, as dyadic ( Brooks and Warren, Anderegg, Doleel, Genette). ⁷

Dorrit Cohn has proposed the elimination of the constitutive element perspective from my typology, suggesting that it coincides essentially in its content with the constitutive element mode. ⁸ I cannot agree to this suggestion for several reasons, one of them being that this elimination could also remove one very important advantage which my system has over dyadic or monadic ones. This advantage lies above all in the fact that the triadic arrangement brings out very clearly the character of the system as a continuum of forms, while the dualistic character of the monadic and dyadic system always leads to more abrupt differentiation by confronting one form group with another directly. ⁹ [ . . . ]

The narrative situations are thus constituted by the triad mode, person and perspective. Each of these constitutive elements permits of a great number of actualizations which can be represented as continua of forms between the two extreme possibilities. [ . . . ] Thus each of the formal continua corresponding to the three constitutive elements can be comprehended as a binary opposition of two discrete concepts. For my three constitutive elements and their corresponding formal continua, the binary oppositions are as follows:

My theory of narration based on the narrative situations distinguishes itself from [other] theories principally by the fact that it projects a triadic system in which all three constitutive elements are taken into account in the same way. In each of the three narrative situations another constitutive element or pole of the binary opposition associated with it attains dominance over the other constitutive elements and their oppositions:

If the narrative situations are systematically arranged in a circle according to the correspondences existing among them so that the opposition axes belonging to the narrative situations intersect this circle at equal intervals, the resulting diagram will clearly illustrate the coordination of the narrative situations and their relations to the poles of the opposition axes. [ Figure 2 ] shows the dominance of one oppositional element but also the participation of the contiguous oppositional elements, which exercise a secondary effect on the narrative situation. Thus, for example, the figural narrative situation is distinguished primarily by the dominance of a reflector-character and secondarily by the internal perspective, on the one hand, and by the non-identity of the realms of existence, that is, third-person reference (to the reflector-character), on the other. ¹⁰

Figure 2

The typological circle

[ . . . ] As I have already stated, the points corresponding to the ideal types of the three narrative situations are located at one of the poles of each of the three axes of the typological circle which represent the three oppositions. (See diagram of typological circle, p. 162, and [ Figure 2 ].)

Compared with simple dyadic or simple monadic systems, a number of advantages result from the triadic arrangement of a system such as this:

Each narrative situation is defined by three constitutive elements (person, perspective, mode). The concept is thus determined more comprehensively according to generic theory than are the types of a monadic system based on a single opposition.

The triadic structure of the typology permits the arrangement of the types in a circle. The circular form reveals the closed nature or inclusiveness of the system, on the one hand, and its essentially dialectic character, on the other. The secondary constitutive elements of each narrative situation involve the suspension and in this sense the resolution of the oppositions which define the other two narrative situations. In the first-person narrative situation, for example, the contrasts in mode and perspective between the authorial and the figural narrative situations are suspended.

The arrangement of the narrative situations on the diagram of the typological circle makes it possible to illustrate the systematic locus of all conceivable forms and modifications of the main types. In this sense the typological circle can be regarded as an inclusive continuum. This continuum incorporates the unlimited number of variations of the main types and the modifications which approach each of the two contiguous types.

The typological circle connects ideal types or ahistorical constants -- the three narrative situations -- with historical forms of narration, which can be described as modifications of the ideal types.

Between the ideal types of narrative situations as ahistorical constants and the historical forms of narration, as recorded in the history of the novel and the short story, there exists one more very revealing connection. Of the six narrative situations which could have been established at the six poles of the three oppositions, only three were actually realized. These three types are those which have been developed most frequently in the history of the novel. This approach is advantageous in that the vast majority of the works can be readily classified in terms of one of the three types of narrative situations. Consequently there remain only relatively few novels which are situated near the unrealized but theoretically possible positions. This decision in favour of the majority of those typical forms which have developed historically can be revised at any time, should the future development of the novel demand it. [ . . . ]

The diagram of the typological circle thus reveals a close relation between the system of narrative situations and the history of the novel and the short story. For example, if one entered all novels recorded in the history of the novel in the appropriate places on the typological circle in chronological order, one would find that until pshortly after the turn of the century only certain portions of the typological circle were 'colonized,' specifically the sectors in which the positions of the first-person narrative situation and the authorial narrative situation are located. The sector representing the figural narrative situation, on the other hand, does not begin to fill until after the turn of the century, slowly at first, but then -- after Joyce --more quickly. As I have already mentioned, this tendency continues in the most recent development illustrated by Beckett's works, by those of the nouveau roman and by the Americans Barth, Pynchon, Vonnegut, among others. Seen in this light the diagram of the typological circle looks like a program for the structure of the novel which is being gradually realized, as it seems, by historical developments of the novel. Without the cognitive device of the typology and the system of interrelationships among individual narrative forms which the typology reveals, this correspondence between the general system and the particular historical form would scarcely be so evident.

Finally, the diagram of the typological circle also offers an approach to the modification of the theory of norms and deviation. Because of the arrangement of the forms of transmission of a story on the typological circle, a deviation from one type is always concurrently an approach toward the type of another narrative situation. The operations which Jacques Dubois and his collaborators perform on the norm of narration illustrate this point. Insofar as such operations as detraction, adjection, immutation, transmutation ¹¹ relate to elements of the narrative transmission of a story, they amount to shifting the locus of a narrative on the typological circle away from one narrative situation and toward another. The model norm-deviation is thus replaced by a new one, namely the concept of a closed continuum of transformationally generated forms, in which, strictly speaking, there can no longer exist a norm and a deviation from this norm, but only a continuous motion from form to form in either direction along the typological circle. What appears as deviation according to the norm model turns out, on the basis of my model, to be a historically consistent step in the further realization of the structural potentialities of this genre.

The Development of a Critical Concept,' PMLA 70 ( 1955): 1161ff. STANZEL, Narrative Situations in the Novel: Tom Jones, Moby Dick, The Ambassadors, Ulysses, trans. James P. Pusac ( Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), p. 22.

See N. FRIEDMAN, 'Point of View,'1169-78.

See EDUARD SPRANGER, ''Der psychologische Perspektivismus im Roman'' rpt. in VOLKER KLOTZ (ed.), Zur Poetik des Romans ( Darmstadt, 1965), pp. 217-38.

ERWIN LEIBFRIED, Kritische Wissenschaft vom Text: Manipulation, Reflexion, Transparente Poetologie, 2nd edn ( Stuttgart, 1972), p. 244. The new approach to the definition of the narrative situations on the basis of person, perspective and mode has, I hope, made it clear that the term narrative situation does not merely mean perspective, as Leibfried implies.

See JEAN POUILLON, Temps et roman ( Paris, 1946), pp. 74-114; TODOROV, ''Les Catgories du Rcit Littraire'', Communications 8 ( 1966): 125-59; GRARD GENETTE , Narrative Discourse ( Ithaca, NY, 1980), pp. 185-98, where perspective and focalization are subordinated to the aspect of mood.

A partial list of such works is given in STANZEL, ''Zur Konstituierung der typischen Erzhlsituationen,'' in Zur Struktur des Romans, ed. BRUNE HILLEBRAND ( Darmstadt, 1978), pp. 568ff.

See KATE HAMBURGER, The Logic of Literature, trans. Marilynn J. Rose ( Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 1973, pp. 3ff. and 311ff.; JOHANNES ANDEREGG , Fiktion und Kommunikation: Ein Beitrag Zur Theorie der Prosa ( Gttingen, 1977), pp. 43ff.; ERWIN LEIBFRIED, Kritische Wissenschaft vom Text: Manipulation, Reflexion, Transparente Poetologie ( Stuttgart, 1972), pp. 244-5; CLEANTH BROOKS and ROBERT PENN WARREN, Understanding Fiction ( New York, 1943), pp. 659ff.; GENETTE, Narrative Discourse, pp. 30-2; LUBOMIR DOLEEL , ''The Typology of the Narrator: Point of View in Fiction,'' in To Honor Roman Jakobson ( The Hague: Mouton, 1967), pp. 541-52. Doleel further develops his typology in the introduction to his Narrative Modes in Czech Literature ( Toronto, 1973).

See COHN, ''The Encirclement of Narrative. On Franz Stanzel's Theorie des Erzhlens,'' Poetics Today 2 (Winter 1981), 174ff. and 179-80.

Note how the forms in the dyadic system suggested by Cohn are located in clearly differentiated sectors or quadrants, while the individual forms in my typological circle with a triadic basis can always be located on one of the continua linking two narrative situations. See COHN, 'Encirclement,'163, Chart II, and 179, Figure 2.

The principal objections to my typology on a triadic basis can be divided into four groups. One group demands a reduction of the three constitutive elements to the third-/first-person opposition ( Hamburger), to which the teller/reflector opposition is then subordinated ( Lockemann, Staffhorst). The other group demands the reduction of the three constitutive elements to the teller-reflector opposition, to which the third-/first-person opposition is then subordinated ( Anderegg, Herbert Kraft, and others). A third group wants to subordinate person and mode to perspective ( Leibfried, Fger). The fourth group suggests abandoning the constitutive element perspective ( Cohn, Lockemann, Staffhorst and others). Considering the incompatibility of the objections and the suggestions for change, it seems to me that it remains to be a real advantage of my approach that it embodies all three constitutive elements without postulating an order of rank for them. See ALBRECHT STAFFHORST , Die Subjekt-Objekt-Struktur: Ein Beitrag zur Erzhltheorie

( Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 17-22, and HERBERT KRAFT, Um Schiller betrogen ( Pfullingen, 1978), pp. 48-58.

JACQUES DUBOIS et al., Rhtorique gnrale ( Paris, 1971), pp. 187ff.