Critical Perspectives for Literature, Criticism and Culture - Essay Example

? Critical Perspectives for Literature, Criticism and Culture Introduction The twentieth century displays radical organization in presentation of the narratives. The structuralized narratives however can be associated with the work of Aristotle in poetry. Aristotle poetry had a distinction between diegesis and mimesis (Kunstverlag 2009). The debate on the role of narrator became pronounced at the beginning of twentieth century. The prominent icons behind the debate were Percy Lubbock and Henry James. They describe narrative as a powerful way of telling stories. Characteristics of these narratives are featured on its presentation. Narration analysis in the pre-structural period was behind the famous contributors such as Wayne Booth Edgar Morgan among others (Kunstverlag 2009). Analyzing Narratives is particularly suitable for the structuralist or to some extend semiotic analyses. Basically some consideration of notions and the rhythm qualifies it to be considered in a systematic analysis. Pre-structural narrative The plot in the narratives is commonly used by the narrators to express styles such as suspense. The Russian contributor (Sjuzet) and the English novelist differed in the style of narration. The English novelist (Forster) was famously known for his narration basically based on the chronological order. Suspense was particularly the most common expression in narratives. It was commonly used by the narrators as survival tactics (Kunstverlag 2009). Norman Friedman came up with a topology of organizing a plot. His topology was detailed on how a plot would be conducted where the participation of the characters was paramount. The plot was basically organized to ensure the high magnitude was achieved based on the impact on the audience. The plot was meant to be attractive and to ensure the receivers get the vivid picture about the story being narrated. Basically the outline of the plot included development of the atmosphere where generation of a problem and its solution was developed. It is then followed by the pathetic plot. Basically this plot provides a scenario where the protagonist suffers, main the weaker protagonist headed to failure. It is expected to instigate pity, the ending of this protagonist is usually unhappy. A tragic plot is also featured in development of the narrative. Interestingly, the tragic plot takes emotion to failure of the attractive protagonist (Fludernik 2009). In this case, catharsis is achieved. A punitive plot represent the failures of a character have is partly loved after being brought down. The sentimental plot however features the success of a hero who has been silent in many instances. Plot on character Basically the character plot would involve the change in the character; usually naive changes in one way or the other. The plot of maturity features the major characteristics achieved in the critical maturity of the narration. Expectations are high after a critical maturity is achieved therefore the narrators’ takes higher responsibilities as they set not to disappoint the readers. A reformist shows how the main character was in trouble while immature but changes his fortunes to a solution through a reform. To ensure reality is included in the narration, the plot includes testing plot. the major characters would be made to face reality and fail to some extend to give their ideal characteristics and take the normal mood of a typical human being. After some crisis, more trouble headed to the major protagonist (through plot degeneration). Plots of thoughts Thoughts in a narration determine the course of the protagonist. It changes protagonists in thoughts thus major character feel the responsibility of ensuring theme is understood. A relevance plot is drafted to display that the major character indeed complied with the feelings developed. When the disillusionment occurs, the protagonist faces an up hill task of convincing the receivers that the behavior can be justified. A negative attitude on the features however the fate may have already decided. The early developments in the literature were mainly based on the static characters and the effects of the static development. The character analysis was seen in the work of E.M Foster involving various categories of character. The word people were divided so that it can be easily recognized. Basically there are number of activities that the human beings are mandated to do; birth is basically uncertain and cannot be explained (Fludernik 2009). Food, love, sleep and death; these characteristics are generally found to be important in the human life. Unlike in the novels, Forster identified the importance of separating characters from the major and the minor and also based on the consistency. There are passion that could not be shared such as the relationship between the newborn and the death. The work of the comedians in a novel is highly appreciated that in the usual normal life however in a tragic plot, their function may not well or equally important since no one would be bothering to listen. Humor was basically described as flat character they were basically formed and developed from a single idea. The formation did not change with time as it just remained two dimensional since its inception. Contrary to the flat characters round characters creates a complex scenes thus their relevance in a variety of plots. They character is always unique and the readers will always amused even in a tragic plot. Basically the pre-structuralist highlighted the strong relationship that existed between the character development and the narrator. It is the basis for the study of narratives where models of narratives have been developed using the idea. For instance Henry James used fiction in his investigative model. He meant to develop a belief from the readers would take the fictions in his novel as communication (Fludernik 2009). His way of communication echoed the work of Tolstoy among others. They used various techniques to enrich their narrations. He described the situation as important in the narrative because it calms down emotions which have been attached to the narrative. Classification featured by various artists in the pre-structuralist developed somehow a detailed; Friedman model was considered the most comprehensive. Narration was based on the omniscience; impersonation was commonly used. Narration uses the words such as ‘I’ as and expression of witness by the protagonist. It was used by the narrator to mean occurrence of events. The narrator whose participation does not feature in the events occurring in the narrative suggests participating in raising its point of view. Though omniscience was pronounced in most of pre-structuralist narratives, there was some fault in organization (Fludernik 2009). The drama lacked a clear organization. Also the narrator was not allowed to give only a certain view. Basically the setup suggests that the characters and the narrator were distinctly different. Narrator may have not been part of the fiction in the narrative According to the theories on pre-structuralist narratives, the scope of analysis was limited to a certain point of view. Critics suggest that the pre-structuralist took into consideration informal elements. According to Booth a critic and pre-structuralist master, he found fallacy and other faults were found in these narrative (Fludernik 2009). There narrator wasn’t reliable enough in the context of bridging the fiction and the facts. He criticized the way the narrator was being presented; the use of “I” meant the narrator was already part of the drama. The narrator in this case can be seen as the major character, or a protagonist in the narrative. Booth criticized that the relation between the fiction and narrator should be such that the reader has a vivid communication on the fiction. Structuralist According to Todorov, the basis of Structuralist is not the art but a manifestation of structure that can be useful in reiteration. Its basis is theoretical rather than the descriptive analysis. Structuralist does not have relation with the external connection such as the Marxism theories or the analyses related to psychology. Structuralist narrotology according to Todorov is basically an inductive approach (Ryan 2004). It is real manifestation of work being done as it heads to a precise presentation of narratives. The focus on the in the Structuralist is basically on the intrinsic properties. The approach is more objective as compared to the other approaches. Todorov for instance believe that the approach hardy contain the element of subjectivism. Analysis of the plot analysis is basically a feature that is being analyzed in relation to the Structuralist narrotology (Ryan 2004). The structure found in sentences and in narratives can be analyzed when featuring in the schematic formulation. The Structuralist narratology witnessed a radical restructuring of the narratives mainly on the faults found on the pre- Structuralist narratives. The scholars established distinctions and methods of narrations. The narration at this stage different as the narrator differentiated between the story and the narrators. Basically the narratives where being related to each and classified to provide a systematic style of narration. The semantic structures were up for restructuring based on the presentation of stories. Semantic were to differentiate between actions, narrations and functions. Barthes describes narratives as a show of how the meaning may be impact and not on how they construct. He describes the concept of text and its meaning, structural idea and the concept of the infinite structuring. Basically a narrative is a process that involves construction for realization of personal system. Barthes refers to codes in the analysis in the pre- Structuralist text (Ryan 2004). He classified the codes according to groups. The first group was the codes of destination where it comprised of the cultural, chronological and the scientific codes. Another set of codes were mainly featuring actions. This was mainly featuring anecdotal (Fludernik 2009). The view of the narrative at this stage was basically to be more precise on the work. Various alterations are done to ensure the text content and the presentation has been matched together in a perspective suggesting unity. Authors such as Chatman did his comparison of features in text and in visual. The major happening during the event was the display of the scrutiny of agents, the actors involved and the final conclusion on the comparison. There was a proposal by the Greimas that actantial schema be used in the narration of stories. The Russian folk teller had a different perspective on the narratives. He preferred classification of narratives based on the roles and functions. He had a total of thirty one functions featuring in his collection of tales (Ryan 2004). Each of the functions may not have appeared in the folklore however it can still be associated with the text in the folklore. Their function was to describe a character in the story regardless of the traits of each. Structure was extended and by the work of Greimas using the actantial model. The model features on the relationship between stories that were present in the actants. The variants featured as the main feature components in the Structuralist (MacFarlane 2007). The schema in a variant of 6 terms can be classified in terms of the variants available. The six variants are sender, receiver, subject, object, helper and the opponent. The sender and receiver acts in addition with the subject and object in manifesting the actants. The opponents are common in a situation where the actors are more than one; there is a likely event that the enemies appear. Therefore the level of the story constitutes the actants being used. The features in the Structuralist are better than the ones in the pre- Structuralist as they are bound to the psychological features characterization (MacFarlane 2007). This however is equally less important when compared to the influence it has in the philosophical study. Structuralist suggests the use of grammar in narrative to be universal so that the sentences in a narrative represent units which are universal (Nayar 2010). Some characters would just represent mood in the text. Text organization is considered in three stages of classification, from a small unit to the text formation. Basically this may allow the formation of a sequence that would enable a science like analysis in narratives. However this may result in the introduction of science, the original flavor may not be lost easily basically because the background events. Those proposing the Narrative discourse insist that there is a difference in the presentation using the verbal, drama, story telling among others. Basically a story can be told in different ways and the happenings be taken care off. In the case of verbal presentation, the effects of distance and has to be considered (Nayar, 2010). The trends in Narrative discourse is concerned about the performance in the domain where the classification of the order, duration and the frequency of the happenings. Post-structuralism is the key feature of the current intellectual trend involving the school of ideas which have superceded into history of ideas. Post-structural theories generally try to seek understanding of the various issues in the society by criticizing and deconstructing the cultural and social processes in the modern life (Herman 2005). They have taken the path of criticizing the ideas of structuralism by the fact that they have simplified every process in life to being an interrelations and a binary opposition. Post-structuralism holds the fact that a meaning in language is wider and diverse and can be interpreted in different perspective, to get into a meaning of a process then it is deconstructed hence getting to know more than just understanding the apparent surface meaning (Herman 2005). This generally implies that one single process or a text can have different meanings and understanding depending on the perspective in which it is viewed. There are several areas in which in which the post-structural theories differ from the structural theories mainly in the perspective of understanding and analysis. The inadequacy and the shortcomings of the structuralism attributed to the development of the post-structuralism by the intellectuals who felt to be unsatisfied with the latter (Heinze 2011). Post-structural theories are based on the assumption that all the entire analysis and understanding of phenomenon is structured in such a way that it can be explained in one common perspective (Sandra 2009). The second assumption is that there is one true reality despite the existence of the realities taken from several other perspectives. From the two assumptions it criticized the structuralism fact that human is developed by the enlightenment thought and portrayed human humans to be influenced by its social interactions with the environment hence symbolizing humans as subjects to the interactions. These post-structural theories suggested that the subjects are embedded into the cultures and the societal structure and thus each holds a definite position in it. They are the composition of the society and are responsible for the activities that happen every day. The identity of the subjects is characterized with the same values and meanings as well as groupings and activities (Sandra 2009). These approaches of post-structural theories are considered to be anti-humanist because of its critics on the divine wholeness of human, this has been argued by the pioneer intellectuals of this theory that this perception that the inhumanity issue is just but a view of human nature and do not apply on individuals. The vision of reality is fragmented as opposed to relations of binary oppositions according to the structuralism; this implies that the human social processes can be studied separately in several parts. Another key feature of post-structuralism is the implied opposition towards the grand narratives and the Meta theory feelings and considers them to be fictions and lack of an apprehend reality therefore this theory subscribes for the specialty concepts. The physical self according to this theory is studied on the basis of time and history and therefore language plays an important role in building the cultural and social reality. Post-structuralism argue that the limits of human experience is set by the discourse of knowledge and that certain language is developed slowly and gains ground and usage. The notable is development and usage of irony, metaphors and metonymy which are mainly in the regard to particular ideologies (Sandra 2009). These theories also puts focus and emphasis on the analysis of the cultural codes, cultural codes are crucial in determining human social behavior in the various context of life. They do not support objectivity hence the construction and development of a meaning means that there is a lot of emphasis on some major aspects and also a significant part is ignored, the subjectivity orientation is justified by the post-structuralist by arguing that they deconstruct meanings in the society thus opening up new ideas and understanding in the society. The deconstruction aspect on the post-structuralism is emphasized mainly on language, culture and society. Derrida a major critic of structuralism argues that language is just but writing and does not have any control over the subjects this also applies to the institutional and frameworks that have been establish to control the subjects, he implies that humans are not chained to any structures or frameworks(Gruyter 2010). In general post structural provides that prediction of history by use of meta narratives and grand theories are illusions and not real and history are just mere happenings by chance thus the aspects of history such as plots, twisting of events, turns and happenings are not planned or speculated but they all happen by chance. References Alber, J., & Heinze, R, 2011, Unnatural Narratives - Unnatural Narratology. Braunschweig: Walter de Gruyter. Fludernik, M, 2009, An Introduction To Narratology. Freiburg: Taylor & Francis. Gruyter, W. d, 2010, Handbook of Narratology. Handbook of Narratology , Vol. 19. Herman, D., Jahn, M., & Ryan, M.-L, 2005, Routledge Encyclopedia Of Narrative Theory. London: Taylor & Francis. Kunstverlag, D, 2009, Patrons and narratives of the Parler school: the Marian Tympana, 1350-1400. Michigan : Deutscher Kunstverlag. MacFarlane, S, 2007, The Hippie Narrative: A Literary Perspective on the Counterculture. Chicago: McFarland. Nayar, 2010, Contemporary Literary And Cultural Theory: From Structuralism To Ecocriticism. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Ryan, M.-L, 2004, Narrative Across Media: The Languages of Storytelling. Chicago: U of Nebraska Press. Sandra Heinen, R. S, 2009, Narratology in the Age of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Read More