Читать книгу Social Minds in Drama - Golnaz Shams - Страница 24
2.3 The Status of Drama within Narrative Studies
ОглавлениеPostclassical narrative studies have the potential to provide a starting point for a structured narrative theory of drama. One would assume that a broader definition of narrative and the advent of numerous postclassical approaches to narrative studies would have paved the way for an abundance of theories on the long-neglected genre of drama, but surprisingly this did not happen. At least the playscript still remains ignored and undiscovered in the great leap from classical narratology to the more modern approaches. Only a little practical analysis has been done on the playscript so far. What the emergence of the newer turn curbed was an active interest in drama as performance. Great, seminal work has been done on theatre and drama studies, which has added a whole new niche for narrative studies and transmediality.
Whereas Genette was interested in a special representation of events that would only allow regarding novels as narratives, the postclassical’s redefinition of narrative – what would include storytelling regardless of medium and mode – broadened their reception of a more transgeneric and transmedial approach that would readily embrace drama. Chatman believes that the similarities between the genres are more important than the differences. Adopting a more liberal attitude, Chatman states that any text devoted to storytelling is a narrative, and all narratives share narrative features such as temporal structure, characters and setting (1990). Jahn writes about the importance of stage directions and different narrative levels in drama that had been neglected thus far (2001). Richardson (1997 and 2001) begins to write on the narrativity in drama and some of its narrative features like frequency, point of view and voice. Pfister (1991a) focuses on a communicational theory of drama, Elam (1980) on the semiotics of drama. Fludernik, taking the cognitive aspect into account, underlines the importance of characterisation with regards to experientiality (1996). Nünning & Nünning, see the need for a narratology of drama and address this in their Erzähltheorie (2002). With the exception of Jahn, all of these works have a strong preference for the performative aspect of drama. The playscript in these studies is only one aspect to be considered among other aspects such as sound, light, costumes, the acting, audience response and much more. By neglecting the playscript once again, narrative studies are missing out on a wealth of narrative material that, by means of postclassical analytical tools and frames, could provide a new method of analysis. The modern paradigms could provide a different reading and a better appreciation of the playscripts.
As was mentioned before, traditionally, the main arguments against drama as narrative have been predominantly either due to its mimetic nature or the ←56 | 57→lack of an overt narrator. These differences seem to matter more than obvious similarities between the novel and drama, such as plot or storyworld, characters, temporal features and so on. These arguments became outdated once narrative studies moved further away from their formalist/structuralist heritage and critics started to argue about the degrees of narrativity. The ongoing debates about to what extent the stage directions are actually diegetic and on whether dialogue sequences in a novel are mimetic underlines the fact that the boundaries between the concepts of the diegetic and mimetic are “more porous and unstable than is usually imagined” (Richardson 2001: 691).
As far as the concept of the narrator is concerned the more traditional approaches opted for a narrator figure or agent who mediates a narrative, who tells the story. This type of approach excludes most types of drama. With the emergence of postclassical narrative studies, however, these arguments lost, or rather, should have lost their validity. The definition of narrative became broader. It included plays because plays tell stories, stories about particular people and what happens to them in particular circumstances and of what these experiences feel like. Chatman, for example, is one of those theorists who believes that plays tell stories and consist of storyworlds; thus they contain a narrative world, a “diegesis”. He argues:
Is the distinction between diegesis and mimesis, telling and showing, of greater consequence (higher in the structural hierarchy) than that between Narrative and the other text-types? I find no reason to assume so. To me, any text that presents a story – a sequence of events performed or experienced by characters – is first of all narrative. Plays and novels share the common features of a chrono-logic of events, a set of characters, and setting. Therefore, at a fundamental level they are all stories. (Chatman 1990: 117)
And, thus, he introduces his new diagram of text-types:
←57 | 58→
The realisation that drama also narrates is not really a new idea, but ironically the conclusion that “therefore it is a narrative” remained unacknowledged for a long time. This might be due to the only recent interest which postmodern narrative studies have taken specifically in the genre of drama. Manfred Jahn (2001: 675), for example, elaborates on and updates Chatman’s diagram:
Jahn uses the term “genre” as the overarching term in his diagram and does not use the term “text-type” as Chatman did. He continues with the division of narratives and non-narratives. Then within the category of narratives, he makes the distinction between the written and the performed. This distinction is very important. Jahn’s essay is one of the early texts that makes this distinction and categorises different approaches to drama accordingly. Jahn’s narratology of drama is widely acknowledged and very practical because his categories embrace different ways in which drama can be analysed. Jahn situates himself within a more modern and seminal postclassical narrative trend and a reception-oriented one. He notes that there are three interpretive ←58 | 59→approaches to drama: Poetic Drama, Theatre Studies and Reading Drama (2001: 660). In the first approach drama is seen as purely text-based, in the second it is performance-based and the third approach is a synthesis of these two as it calls for studying or reading the playscript and simultaneously taking into account its performative potential. Jahn himself seems to favour this synthetic approach and develops most of his later theories off of it. What seem to be missing though are illustrative examples and analytical work, taken from playscripts. All of Jahn’s examples are either from the staged performances or from the plays that are considered to be the exceptions: the memory plays or plays with overt narrators. It seems that even though postclassical theorists are eager to break away from the restrictions of classical narratology, they still feel uncomfortable to completely do away with those traditional concepts.
Even more radical and influential in embracing drama are cognitive narrative studies, with their shift to the concept of mind and consciousness. Once the focus of the narrative becomes the nexus of the mind of readers and/or characters, the concept of the narrator or the mimesis/diegesis dichotomy become less relevant. The best example of this trend is Fludernik’s concept of experientiality. Within the parameters of cognitive studies and experientiality, the discussions of character construction, and perception become important, rendering the notion of drama as narrative unproblematic. The absence of the narrator or of certain textual features is no longer of importance since
[a];ccording to Fludernik, narrativity does not consist in a set of properties that characterise narratives, but can rather be conceptualised as a sort of measure of how readily a given text can be processed as a story. Since her understanding of narrative and narrativity centers on an anthropomorphic kind of experientiality, it can readily embrace drama as a narrative genre: the fact that plays always feature characters on stage guarantees that they project consciousness, experience, speech, and stories. (Nünning/Sommer 2008: 334)
Because of these new articulations, one would assume that there are now no more obstacles standing in the way of a narratology of drama and that the field was levelled for the analysis of playscripts. However, the corpus of theoretical and analytical work done on drama in general and on playscripts, in particular, is surprisingly sparse. Most of the existing bibliography deals with theatre studies or performance studies; that is to say, with the performative aspects of the genre. By predominantly focusing on the intermedial and transmedial aspect of drama as performance, the playscript is seen only as one of the subsidiary aspects belonging to the production of the play on stage. As I have already noted ←59 | 60→in section 2.1, the playscript has been ignored in classical narratology as well as in postclassical studies.
Fludernik, for example, in her “Narrative and Drama” makes a compelling argument for drama as narrative and criticises the “blind eye” narratology has turned to the similarities between novels and plays (355). She argues that “the absence of a narrator persona or an act of narration does not inevitably disqualify drama from the narrative genre” (358). Later she adds “a definition of narrativity that does not focus on plot, but on fictional worlds and/or experientiality, can likewise absorb drama” (359). But then, every explanation and every elaboration she makes is automatically about the performative aspect of drama. It seems as if the only way she visualises drama when talking about the genre is on stage:
All drama, in fact, need, to have character on stage, and from this minimal requirement narrativity is immediately assured, if one defines narrativity as I do in Towards ‘Natural’ Narratology. A character on stage guarantees consciousness and usually speech; by dramatic convention, he or she is additionally located in a space-time frame that resembles human experience of space and time: the clock is ticking, time moves forward as the dramatic figure stands on stage, and this staging of the space-time continuum provides the concreteness of dramatic space which narratologists have traditionally found a necessary condition for narrativity. (360) [my emphasis]
Fludenik does not dismiss the concept of the playscript. The playscript is on a different narrative level; the discourse level. It is there that she states that reading playscripts and reading novels are different because when reading playscripts, the dramatic conventions call for, albeit metaphorical, a staging of the play in the reader’s mind (363). In this regard, the performative aspect of drama becomes more important.
The same preference for performance holds true in Richardson’s case. He too disagrees with narrative theorists’ lack of interest in drama (1991), and in numerous seminal essays he tackles with different narrative concepts in the genre of drama (1987, 1988, 1991, and 2001). However, all the example he uses too are taken from performances and it seems he too sees the realisation of drama on stage. I would like to argue that the newer concepts postmodern narrative studies initiate and especially the analytical toolkit cognitive narrative theory furnishes can provide a new perspective of the playscripts and a better understanding and appreciating of them; something that has been neglected so far.
The common lack of interest in playscripts does not mean that there have not been attempts to propose a theatre narratology within the broader poststructuralist narrative studies. There have been a few of this kind, but not many deal extensively with playscripts; those critics who do actually propose a few rules and theories about drama as text fail to provide examples. Most of the ←60 | 61→practical and analytical work is done on the performance aspect of plays rather than the playscripts. Let me illustrate this point. A very good example of the described tendency is Eike Muny’s Erzählperspektive im Drama (2008). Muny has written one of the more elaborate books arguing for a narratology of drama. He concentrates on two main concepts: focalisation and the narrator. Ironically, the narrator seems to be a concept many critics are reluctant to let go of, even though moving within the paradigms of postclassical narrative theory. What Muny justly criticises, nevertheless, is the preference most of the works on drama have for plays with an overt narrator figure. According to Muny, a search for analytical work done on plays would show a tendency towards epic drama, memory plays or plays with a “generative narrator”.48 Muny believes that a comprehensive theory should encompass all types of plays; since most plays are considered to have narrators that are latent, covert and impersonal.
He also criticises those who believe that the ultimate realisation of a play is its performance and that its textual form is of secondary importance.49 Muny is clearly against the marginalisation of the stage directions and introductory passages and believes that they should be taken seriously and be regarded as part of the (diegetic) narrative world of the play. He makes references to Jahn’s categorisation of drama in Jahn’s “Voice and Agency in Drama”.50 Muny’s contribution to the study of drama and narrative is important and provides much detail. Anyone who wants to focus on the narrative instance and on the concept of focalisation is provided with ample examples and a theoretical framework. However, Muny does not concern himself much with characters, their consciousness and the social setting of the storyworlds in drama.
Vanhaesebrouck in his “Towards a Theatrical Narratology”51 applies a quite different tone in his approach towards a theatrical narratology. He is one of those critics who believe that a theatrical narratology should exclusively deal with theatre as performance and disregards the playscript entirely. Ironically he talks both about watching and reading plays in his arguments: “…narratologists gradually started paying attention to the reception, to the actual reader and spectator. How does he or she derive signification from the narrative network to which they are exposed while reading or watching?” He predominantly argues against a ←61 | 62→tradition of “logo-centric” close-reading of playscripts and advocates a focus on the dynamics between narrative studies and specifically visual semiotics, which he believes can only be gained by studying performance. Though his approach is a thoroughly cognitivist approach, it deals only with the performance aspect of drama and leaves the ignored playscript undiscussed.
Fludernik’s ideas on drama52 come closest to what I would like to achieve through a synthesis of a drama narratology and Palmer’s approach. Coming from within a cognitive tradition, as already mentioned earlier, and basing her approach on her concept of experientiality, Fludernik regards the cognitive experience that the anthropomorphic inhabitants of the storyworld undergo as the most important feature of narrative, in this case, drama. Thus she argues that the absence of the narrator persona does not pose a problem and does not inevitably disqualify drama from being considered as narrative (358). She underlines her assertions and the importance of the existence of characters and their consciousness.
Later in the essay, she suggests, like Jahn, that the playscript has an intermediary position between the “plot” level and the “performance” level, and that the playscript already incorporates the performative potential of the play (362). In her model Fludernik is dealing with both playscript and performance. She also elaborates on the reading procedure of a playscript and states: “In reading a play, we imaginatively ‘stage’ it in our minds…. owing to the explicit staging information in the stage directions – it involves more visualization than does novel reading” (363). This is quite interesting since not only does she make an immediate comparison between reading a playscript and a novel but she also touches upon an important criterion of the playscript and the stage directions: their narrative function. Though I am not sure if we can so readily argue that every playscript involves more visualisation than every novel, I would say it depends very much on the (quantity and narrative quality of) stage directions and the descriptive quality of the narrative in the novel. The statement is, nevertheless, of immense value. Fludernik is pointing out an issue that not many theorists have tackled; a reverse argument one could say that of how much performative quality a novel does have. She asks, once we see novel and drama as similar and consider both as narratives, whether we could compare narrative elements in drama and novel. Could we argue in the same way about narrativity in drama as we do in novels, and could we do the same to novels and discuss the dramatic level or even the performative ←62 | 63→aspects in a novel or other types of narratives as well? These questions help us see a more complete definition of narrative fiction which does not limit itself to generic differences.
For the purpose of this study I have chosen (textual) narratives. To qualify as such, they must consist of fictional worlds, storyworlds that inhabit at least one human (-like) consciousness that experiences in some way that storyworld. As I mentioned before I maintain that there is a niche for a narratological model focusing on playscripts. I believe cognitive narrative theory can provide very good analytical toolkits which one can apply to playscripts. The analysis of playscript independent from the performance is a valid endeavour. Jahn’s introductory work of written/printed vs performed and assigning separate categories for both scripts and performances already pave the way for a narratological model of drama. In this work, then, I would like to propose one such model. The model I am proposing is concerned with playscripts only. All the theory and concepts I will be using are taken from cognitive narrative studies, mainly following the approach Palmer suggests. For reasons of space, as already discussed in the introduction, my focus will be on Palmer’s theoretical framework to trace the construction of the fictional minds in the plays of Ibsen, Wilde and Shaw. After examining the construction of the characters’ consciousness in different narrative parts of the playscripts regarding their intramental relevance (in Chapters Four and Five), I will analyse the intermental dynamics between the characters (Chapters Six–Eight). Using Palmer’s concept of intermentality I will find collective minds at work in the plays and determine the dynamics of group formation. Before the analysis of the playscripts, I would like to elaborate on some major concepts of drama especially in relation to narrative studies in the next chapter. I will first explain how the concept of characterisation has been developed in narrative studies so far. Then I will move on to explain what existing theories have to say about character and consciousness in the embedded and doubly embedded parts of the playscript, and also in the stage directions. I will point out how these approaches can benefit immensely by applying Palmer’s approach of consciousness construction and intermentality to consequently achieve a better and richer reading experience of the playscripts.
←63 | 64→
15 Marie-Laure Ryan further compares the two approaches with the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics categorisation of grammarians and further states that if we regard narrative as a discourse that conveys a story, as a mental representation it should not be tied to any particular medium. (2007: 27).
16 “In contrast to his formalist predecessors and structuralist colleagues, Genette had no intention of designing a fully coherent and self-contained theory of narrative. This sparked fundamental narratological controversies over Genettian concepts such as “focalization” (Bal 1997; Jahn 1996, 1999) and set the stage for numerous debates that were to result in postclassical narratology. Some of this criticism was addressed in Genette ([1983] 1988)” (Meister 2015).
20 Eder (2003),Kindt/Müller (2003), Fludernik (2005), Herman (2005), Mildorf (2010), Jaén and Simon (2012).
21 See Gerard Genette (1980), Porter Abbott (2008), Lisa Zunshine (2010c), and Gerald Prince (1987) to mention a few.
22 See Mandler (1984) and Herman (2002).
23 See Schank and Abelson (1977).
25 See Emmott (1997) and Jahn (1997).
26 See van Peer and Chatman (2001), and Dancygier (2011).
28 See Bortolussi and Dixon (2003).
29 See Cohn (1978), Eder (2003), and Fludernik (2003).
30 A more detailed account on character and characterisation in narratology will be provided in the next chapter.
32 For a detailed account of Herman’s arguments about the basic elements of narrative and the concept of qualia see Herman (2009).
33 This is a summary of Palmer’s ideas. For a detailed reading see: Palmer (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b, and 2010c).
34 The two concepts of “thought” and “mind” are very closely related in Palmer’s theory and thus often used interchangeably.
35 See Palmer’s essay in Style (2011, 45:2).
36 See Ryan (1991). Here Ryan states that according to the principle of minimal departure fictional entities are ontologically the same as real objects. Alterations are allowed when the narrative text specifically mandates a change.
37 There are a few exceptions within the genre of drama, such as plays where we have an explicit narrator figure who tells the story in form of a frame narrative as in Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, memory plays, and some of the epic plays. Also see Nünning and Sommer (2008) and Fludernik (2008).
38 For a more thorough discussion on ToM see Zunshine (2007, 2011, 2010a, 2010b), and Oatley (2011).
39 See Margolin (1987, 1989, and 1990a).
40 Cognitive sciences can be discussed in both a broad and narrow sense. The broad sense refers to the study of human cognition and is uncontroversial. In its narrow sense, cognitive sciences refers to how the neural information processing of our brain is similar to information processing of a computer. This sense is very controversial. Well-known sceptics of this narrow sense are Searle (see The Rediscovery of the Mind, 1992) and Damasio (see The Feeling of What Happens, 2000).
41 There are some theories that try to tackle this problem by introducing new approaches or new terms. Herman’s “Hypothetical Focalization” (2010) or Jahn’s notion of zero-focalisation may be cases in point.
42 For a more detailed account of schematic language representation, and speech and thought representation in fictional context see Fludernik 1993 (in particular chapters 5 and 8).
43 Damasio believes there are two types of emotions: primary and secondary. Primary emotions are more individual like happiness, sadness, fear and anger. Secondary emotions are more social like embarrassment, guilt, jealousy etc. (Damasio 2000: 50–3).
44 When it comes to the idea of the inseparability of thought and action, Palmer draws heavily on Wertsch’s ideas on the connection between thought and action in analysing cognition. This is explored in detail in Voices of the Mind: A Sociological Approach to Mediated Action (1991). Also related is Ohmann (1973).
45 For a more detailed explanation of the six issues Palmer explicates see his The Fictional Minds (2004:171–93).
46 See Ruth Ronen (1988), Catherine Emmott (1997) and Menakhen Perry (1979).
47 For more elaboration on Bakhtin’s ideas and especially his take on dialogism see Vice (1997).
48 The term comes from Richardson (2001).
49 Theorists who seem to have a preference towards performance are Prince (1987: 58), Poschmann (1997: 48), and Zipfel (2001).
51 Vanhaesebrouck (2004), this is an online magazine, hence no pagination. See: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inarchive/performance/vanhaesebrouck.htm
