Narratology in the New World

Narratology in the New World.

Critical Analysis of Tzvetan Todorov’s “Structural Analysis of Narrative”

By Elisabed Lejava S1779869 B1179095

Structural Analysis of Narrative by Tzvetan Todorov is his introduction to the discipline of literary theory known as narratology. The aim of his text is to present a method of structural analysis in literature, and demonstrate its usage on a mono-centric narration series such as Boccaccio’s Decameron. The essence of the theory proposed by Todorov establishes five transition points through which narrative originates and flows. According to it, equilibrium is the first stage of the story, where everything is as it should be. It is succeeded by disequilibrium, in which initial balance is disrupted by a certain event. Third stage is the acknowledgement of current situation followed by an attempt to repair the occurring distortion. The final stage of the narrative theory concludes in restoration of the old equilibrium or an establishment of a new one. Todorov explains his method of literary structural analysis by showing a simple breakdown of of the narrative using x and y variables and their interpolation with an action-consequence chain. Later, he applies it to several stories and presents a general conclusion, where he redefines hierarchical ambiguity of literature, science, and poetics. Author’s final thoughts are summarised in words of Freud where the importance of scientific method resonates with Todorov’s need to standardise the practice of analysing literary works.

Todorov begins by stating that term “structural”, which he uses in defining the type of literary analysis, is seen today to be “more misleading than enlightening”. He proceeds to explain how this scientific term is theoretical, internal, and non-descriptive, and concerns itself with metaphysical manifestation of a narrative in a literary work. Author argues that the structural analysis which he employs differs in attitude from both- the internal approach to work introduced by New Criticism, and the abstract psychoanalytic one dealt by Marxists. To sum up, according Todorov’s structural analysis, by comparing real literary works to each other, one can propose theories about the structure of abstract literary concepts, “a kind of propaedeutic for a future science of literature.”

This concept is especially important to overall discipline of criticism, as previously there has been numerous debates on finding a universal way of assessing works of literature. Todorov says that this type of analysis is “no longer satisfied” by a pure description of a work, nor by its interpretation in psychological, sociological, or philosophical terms, and sees it as the best stepping stone towards unification of scientific method and empirical knowledge.

Next, author presents an exert from Henry James’s essay “The Art of Fiction” and opposes his views on critics using terms like “description”, “narration” and “dialogue” due to them never being found in their pure form, and allegedly being harmful and unnecessary due to a novel being a continuous, “living thing”. Using examples from basic principles of physics, Todorov argues that there is no need to find such terms in their pure state, and draws an analogy of temperature being a theoretical concept that is always present but as a characteristic of something, never on its own. To diffuse the second argument, Todorov once again resorts to science, in this case the field of biology.

He compares the uniformity of work to a human body, in a scenario where a medic does not require to abandon concepts like blood, nerves, or muscles and the fact that they are found together does not prevent him or her from distinguishing them from each other. Later, Todorov discusses the stigma around applying scientific principles to literary arts, to which he responds with disagreement. Primary argument against this symbiotic coexistence between science and arts being labelling them as “objective” and “subjective” respectively. Author refutes this notion by saying that a critics work can have “varying degrees of subjectivity”, and that no science is completely free from bias. He concludes by highlighting the absurdity of requiring complete lack of subjectivity from social sciences when even natural sciences are affected by it.

In upcoming part of the text, the concept of plot is brought up, and its role is clearly determined once Todorov’s theory of structural analysis is applied to Boccaccio’s Decameron. Though ignored by many critics, plot is a primary element used in structuralism, and Todorov shows how narrative

flows between five transition points that serve as a fundament for his theory. He examines plots of four short stories from Decameron, and draws a conclusion that all four have common elements which he presents in a schematic formulation. He generalises the production of this a schema of common plot elements, and presents a list for “examining and describing plots”, categorised by narrative modality, point of view, and sequence. He then concludes, based on these same stories, that the “complete plot can be seen as the shift from one equilibrium to another”, with equilibriums being a pre-existing condition, that either gets refuted or is restored over the course of the plot.

Additionally, Todorov offers alternate clauses for a more complex plot, in which adjectives play part in characterisation of main heroes, and thereby change the flow of a narrative at a very early stage.

He acknowledges the possibility of going back from schematic representation to an individual tale and presents three categories of literary analysis based on which one may do so. He highlights, that the goal of his analysis is not knowledge of Decameron, but rather, understanding of its plot, and previously mentioned categories are the ones aiding the reader in doing so. Todorov proceeds by explaining his borrowed term “equilibrium”, and states that it refers to a stable, but not static system of exchange. This can be seen in some stories from Decameron, as in “avoiding the punishment” scenario, a new equilibrium replaces the old one. Author draws out a few general conclusions by once again touching upon the topic of science vs literature, and quotes Ortera y Gasset, according to whom “Science is concerned not with things but with the system of signs it can substitute for things”. Author claims, that if one views literature the way he or she views science, then literature becomes an attempt by poetics of dealing with itself. Additionally, he mentions hierarchic ambiguity that results from comparing literary arts to sciences, and concludes that discussion of methodology in poetics is its principal goal, just like experimental procedure and theoretical background are crucial to scientific method.

Todorov uses multiple techniques to effectively convey his point regarding the existence of a link between science and literary arts. He begins with a straightforward tone, laying out the structure and the points that he wishes to touch upon in the very beginning of the essay. Acknowledging the abstractness of his topic of discussion, author immediately narrows it down to terms that he defines by contrasting his way of analysis to previously existing ones. In his view, Marxist and Freudian or psychoanalytic approaches are not satisfactory when it comes to toggling between the internal and external, or poetics and description: “it is always a question of going continually back and forth, from abstract literary properties to individual works and vice versa”. He creates structural analysis of the narrative to be a first stepping stone into the field of science of literature. Todorov uses Boccaccio’s Decameron to test out his method of structural analysis, a choice more frank, rather than surprising. With its rich, yet minimalistic storylines, Decameron is one of the best mediums for Todorov’s experiment, and author treats it like one. A schema that he creates in order to visually demonstrate the flow of narrative and a listing of categories to describe plot overall resembles a work of a scientist, rather than a humanitarian. His ways of presenting hypothetic, abstract concepts by creating a set of rules and following them is identical to how experimental analysis takes place in most applied sciences. Interestingly so, approval for this very approach was voiced by John Crowe Ransom of New Criticism, where he expresses the desire for a critic to be of a scientific background, a chemist, or an engineer.

Todorov proceeds by refuting some of the arguments against science in regard to literature, and then continues to use scientific methodology when defining the concept of plot. He opposes the idea of science and literature being separate by once again showing a clear links of interconnection between the two fields. He states that there are no sciences that are completely free from subjectivity, and they, much like humanities, contain abstract concepts, ones that exist only in theory. This is a verifiable statement, as indeed, as even the most quantitative sciences employ such concepts, for example the speed of light (Physics), 0 Kelvin (Chemistry), imaginary numbers

(Mathematics). He echoes a common mentality in criticism that an ordinary reader reads a book differently from a critic, yet he does not concern himself with judging this phenomenon: his narrative does not deviate into philosophical discussions of right and wrong, and stays on a clear path. This is the evidence of what one must do with his proposed method of structural analysis; “The object of our study must be narrative mood, or point of view, or sequence, and not this or that story in and for itself”.

When it comes to the five stages of narration flow, Decameron hits the mark. However, it is unclear whether Todorov’s structural analysis is universal. In today’s word, an unorthodox narrative can be seen in many pieces of modern literature. Popularisation of genres such as supernatural and time travel in which timelines are skewed, or nihilist tragicomedy and realism, where a happy ending and a resolve is not guaranteed have created doubts in applicability of Todorov’s analysis. A piece of modern pop fiction Piercing, by Rue Murakami is an example of the latter, where five stages of narration are unclear or nonexistent. The plot consists of a protagonist’s overwhelming desire to stab his newborn with an ice pick, who later attempts to divert this impulse onto a prostitute. According to Todorov’s theory, the final stage of the narrative would be the protagonist either proceeding to fulfil his desire by stabbing either the baby, or the prostitute, or reestablishing a new equilibrium by coming to terms with his bloodlust. The story ends however, with neither scenarios happening, leaving the reader with a sense of incompleteness, unfulfillment, and pure chaos.

Todorov’s use of scientific terminology enables him to present strong conclusions and a sufficient basis for his theory on structural analysis of a narrative. His techniques involve a stylistically direct way of presenting a topic, logical, manual-like body of the text, and a small, but precise conclusion.

He presents attestable arguments throughout the essay, and relies on facts and principles in order to convey his points in a documented and standardised manner.

References

Todorov, Tzvetan. Structural Analysis of Narrative. Philadelphia: A Forum Fiction, 1969.

Murakami, Ryu. Piercing. London: Bloomsbury Paperbacks, 2013.