Unnatural Narrative Theory (Richardson 2016)
Unnatural Narrative Theory (Richardson 2016)
Unnatural Narrative Theory (Richardson 2016)
Brian Richardson
Access provided by University of South Dakota (18 Sep 2018 07:23 GMT)
Forum
ABSTRACT: The article explains and outlines the basic aspects of unnatural narrative,
identifying central strategies and effects of the unnatural. It differentiates unnatural
or antimimetic elements from mimetic and nonmimetic ones and notes the differing
effects that unnatural elements can have on a given narrative. It notes some limitations
of existing narratological theory and offers methods for transcending those limitations.
After tracing out the history and development of key concepts and terms and explain-
ing the basic model of unnatural narrative theory, this target essay goes on to provide
an overview of the history, genres, and ideological associations of unnatural narratives
themselves, clarify some common misunderstandings, and point out some differing con-
ceptions among unnatural narratologists. It then discusses the major contributions of
unnatural narrative studies, notes current advances in the field, and speculates on future
developments.
Keywords: antimimetic, cognitive narratology, fabula, fictional minds, fictional
worlds, fictionality, interpretation, narration, reader, second-person narration, story,
structuralism, temporality, unnatural narrative, “we” narration
Style, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2016. Copyright © 2016 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
386 Style
Verses. For a pithy example of the unnatural in a single phrase, one may go
to Christine Brooke-Rose’s line in Thru: “Whoever you invented invented
you too” (53). Shlomith Rimmon–Kenan comments on that line—and
the narrative as a whole—in the following terms: “The novel repeatedly
reverses the hierarchy [of narrative levels], transforming a narrated object
into a narrating agent and vice versa. The very distinction between out-
side and inside, container and contained, narrating subject and narrated
object, higher and lower level collapses” (94). For an example centered
on events, we may adduce the following passage from Mark Leyner in
My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist: “He’s got a car bomb. He puts the keys
in the ignition and turns it—the car blows up. He gets out. He opens the
hood and makes a cursory inspection. He closes the hood and gets back
in. He turns the key in the ignition. The car blows up. He gets out and
slams the door shut disgustedly” (59). Here, an impossible sequence of
events is depicted.
Unnatural fiction is different not only from mimetic fiction but also
from what I call nonmimetic or nonnatural fiction. Nonmimetic narratives
include conventional fairy tales, animal fables, ghost stories, and other
kinds of fiction that invoke magical or supernatural elements. Such narra-
tives employ consistent storyworlds and obey established generic conven-
tions or, in some cases, merely add a single supernatural component to an
otherwise naturalistic world. By contrast, unnatural texts do not attempt to
extend the boundaries of the mimetic, but rather play with the very conven-
tions of mimesis.1
EXIG EN CY
In most models of narrative theory, both ancient and modern, there has
been little consideration of or space for highly imaginative, experimental,
antirealistic, impossible, or parodic figures and events. Instead, we generally
find a pronounced inclination or even a strong bias in favor of mimetic or
realistic concepts; often, fictional characters, events, and settings are ana-
lyzed in the same terms or perspectives that are normally used for actual
persons, events, and settings.2 In many types of narrative theory, the model
or default type of narrative was and still is a more or less mimetic one.3 This
is even largely true of structuralist narratology, despite its scientific posture
and desire to transcend humanism, as Luc Herman and Bart Vervaeck have
Forum 387
theory during the last quarter century. Nevertheless, it has not failed to
engender a very productive series of debates that are helping to clarify the
distinctive difference of fictional narratives.
DEFINITIONS
Each theorist of unnatural narratives tends to define the field slightly differ-
ently; nevertheless, these definitions largely cover similar areas and ranges,
and all of us tend to agree on which texts constitute paradigmatic cases and
which are borderline instances. To reiterate, for myself the unnatural consists
of events, characters, settings, or acts of narration that are antimimetic, that is,
elements that defy the presuppositions of nonfictional narratives, the prac-
tices of realism or other poetics that model themselves on nonfictional nar-
ratives, and that transcend the conventions of existing, established genres.
More specifically, I locate unnatural elements in the fictional storyworld
and in the narrative discourse. In the storyworld, unnatural elements may be
present as events, figures, settings, and frames. There are also cases in which
the discourse alters the storyworld. Prominent examples include verbal
textual generators, where words or other alphabetical patterns produce the
resulting text, as in the beginning of Robbe-Grillet’s Dans la labyrinthe (see
my “Beyond the Poetics of Plot” and Unnatural Narrative 58–59). Another is
“denarration,” in which the text negates or “erases” the events it had instanti-
ated in the fictional world.
In addition to these instances, we find unnatural discourse in many
second-person, first-person plural, and multi-person forms of narration. In
an unnatural second-person narrative, the “you” is employed in different
ways than it is in standard discourse, where it may be used as an apostrophe,
to provide instructions, to indicate a narrator is speaking directly to a narra-
tee (Camus’s La Chute), or to indicate that a character is speaking to him- or
herself. Unnatural forms do not normally occur in the actual world, but only
appear in works of fiction (or the rare work of nonfiction that employs tech-
niques derived from experimental fiction). Standard second-person fiction,
in which the central character is depicted as “you,” is one example: “Now
you hesitated, weighing the invitation. Sooner or later you would break up
with him, you knew. But not yet, not while you were still so poor, so lov-
erless, so lonely” (McCarthy 163). Reducible to neither first- nor third-per-
son narration but rather oscillating between the two forms, second-person
390 Style
We can also find still more daring and unlikely uses of “we narration” in
Zakes Mda’s Ways of Dying and Nathalie Sarraute’s Tu ne t’aime pas (You
Don’t Love Yourself ).5
At this point I would like to add an additional category of unnatural nar-
rative to those I have just delineated, and that is “unnatural construction.” I
will use this term to designate texts constructed to be processed in surpris-
ing and unexpected ways, particularly those that invert or defy conventional
reading practices. An obvious case in point is Laurence Sterne’s Tristram
Shandy, with its black and marbled pages, “misplaced” dedication, wildly
extended digressions, and so forth. Recent examples include B. S. Johnson’s
“novel in a box,” The Unfortunates, which comes in randomly arranged,
unbound segments, which readers are invited to assemble in whatever order
they prefer. Harold Pinter’s play Betrayal moves backward in time, as nearly
every scene depicted represents events from an earlier portion of the story,
thus inverting standard dramatic presentation. Carol Shields’s Happenstance
is a novel in two parts that were inverted before being bound together; each
part is thus physically upside down in relation to the other. There are no
instructions for using the volume; nor is the sequence of represented events
in the story a possible guide since each part covers the same time period as
the other. The reader must determine exactly how to process the book.6 In
each of these last three works, the events themselves are entirely mimetic,
even rather typical, and would qualify as unremarkable realism had they
been presented in a conventional manner. What is unusual is their man-
ner of presentation, which utterly transforms the experience of reading (or
watching) them. “Unnatural construction” is an admittedly elastic term and
one that different scholars will doubtless apply somewhat differently, and it
designates strategies that can, admittedly, rapidly become conventionalized.
Nevertheless, it seems to me to be an integral component of the experience
of processing unnatural narratives.
Since the terms I have used to describe my work have evolved over the years,
it will be useful to clarify them here. My first article on what may be called
unnatural narrative theory avant la lettre appeared in 1987; in it I critiqued
existing theories of narrative time and their needlessly limiting mimetic
biases and identified a number of examples from drama with impossible
392 Style
TH E MODEL
the story concludes by revealing that all the events happened in a dream. The
second scenario postulates a kindly scientist who, having turned into a giant
insect superhero, goes on to hunt down villains. The third possibility keeps the
man situated in a possible world that resembles our own and who keeps trying,
to the best of his new physical abilities and limitations, to act in accordance
with what is expected of him as the human he no longer is. Iverson explains:
These three examples are alike in that they all present the reader with combinations
of physical and mental attributes that are impossible in my world, but they differ
because they prompt rather different readings. As I see it, the mind in the first case
is naturalized by the fact that the transformation takes place in a dream, in the sense
that it doesn’t really happen. A slightly different logic can be applied to case two.
Here, the transformed mind is unnatural in the sense that it is impossible in a real-
world scenario but the mind may be conventionalized with the help of my knowl-
edge of the genre in which it appears: in certain action hero comic books fragile
but brilliant scientists are known to transform into raging beasts. In the third case,
however, I am unable to naturalize or conventionalize the consciousness resulting
from the physically impossible metamorphosis. This monstrous irregularity cannot
be eliminated in the name of sense-making with the aid of text-external cues such as
knowledge of how actual minds typically work (“this happens all the time to Central
European salespeople”), knowledge of genre or literary conventions (“this type of
text is easily resolved with recourse to an allegorical reading”), or text-internal cues.
(“Unnatural Minds” 96–97)
that tell the story of a banknote, a vehicle, or an atom. Romantic fiction and
drama are also great sources of unnatural narratives, especially in works that
develop and extend Shandean techniques. E. T. A. Hoffmann, Ludwig Tieck,
and Goethe all generously employed antimimetic strategies. Nineteenth-
century British and American fiction provides numerous examples of the
unnatural, from Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey to the illusion-breaking
asides in Thackeray, Trollope, and others; we similarly find late nineteenth-
and early twentieth-century Brazilian and Spanish specimens in the fiction
of Machado de Assis and Miguel de Unamuno.
Jan Alber has meticulously traced a wide range of unnatural strategies
in the history of English literature from about 1200 to the present. The
works he discusses include the Anglo-Saxon poem “The Dream of the Rood,”
medieval fairy tales, eighteenth-century “it” narratives, early Gothic nov-
els, and nineteenth-century paranormal fiction (“Diachronic,” Unnatural
Narrative). Maria Mäkelä identifies unnatural elements in eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century realist fiction (“Realism”). In addition to works of lit-
erature, unnatural techniques have been employed in a large number of
folktales and folk dramas as well as in works of popular culture. The latter
include Edward Lear’s nonsense verse, Lewis Carroll’s Alice books, Gilbert
and Sullivan musicals, Looney Tunes cartoons, Bob Hope-Bing Crosby
“Road” movies, Monty Python films, MTV productions, many comics, some
graphic novels, and numerous television commercials. Karin Kukkonin and
Sonja Klimek have assembled an important anthology that investigates met-
alepsis in popular culture. Unnatural narratives are everywhere.
Concerning ideological issues, many perceive a strong relationship
between radical politics and radical narrative forms. Ever since Aristophanes,
numerous authors who opposed what they felt were retrograde state policies
employed parody, satire, and unnatural narrative scenes to underscore their
positions. In the years following World War I, again in the 1960s and 1970s,
and continuing on to the present day, many creative writers who struggled
against oppressive political institutions, social regulations, and official dis-
course tried to invent original, alternative literary forms within which to
create their own independent literary realms. The Black Arts Movement,
écriture féminine, and the extensive tradition of revolutionary playwrights
employing the Brechtian Verfremdungseffekt are only the most visible man-
ifestations of the desire to express a radical political vision through the use
of unnatural narrative techniques. To be sure, there is no inherent political
398 Style
The Martian was written by a scientist and posted online so other scientists
could contest or confirm the physical accuracy of its scenarios. Whenever
there was a mistake, the author checked the math and then rewrote the pas-
sage in question to make it conform to the laws of physics, chemistry, and
biology.8 This is an extreme case of a general principle governing most sci-
ence fiction since the time of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells: that it be (or at
least seem to be) possible. Naturally, there are writers who violate this prin-
ciple (Philip K. Dick, Ursula Le Guin, Italo Calvino) and produce instead
impossible, antimimetic, postmodern science fiction.
Another frequent misunderstanding concerns the possible changing or
relative nature of the unnatural. After all, many claim, what people in the
industrialized West in the twenty-first century claim to be impossible has
been believed to be possible, even actual. Who is to judge, the argument usu-
ally continues, what is really possible or impossible? When I call an action
or event unnatural, I generally mean it is impossible according to the laws
of physics or the axioms of logic. The fundamental laws of physics have
not changed over the past several thousand years, and they are the same in
London, Tibet, Borneo, and Antarctica. That’s why they are laws of physics.
The axioms of logic are similarly universal: the law of the excluded middle
does not—and cannot—change over time or across cultures.9
Some critics try to minimize or denigrate unnatural narratives by limiting
them to merely one restricted type, like postmodernism or metafiction. Our
recent work on the history of unnatural narratives should readily dispel such
mistakes. Others take the opposite tack, arguing, for example, that unnatural
narratives are widespread in mimetic fiction, like the Victorian novel. Robyn
Warhol notes unnatural passages in Charlotte Brontë, George Eliot, Jane
Austin, Charles Dickens, and William Makepeace Thackeray and concludes
that “realist novels have been indulging in antimimetic practices for as long
as realist novels have been written” (Herman et al., Narrative Theory 213–14).
Our response is: Exactly. Unnatural or antimimetic elements can be found
in a wide range of ostensibly realist fictions, though they are often ignored
because they can be quickly subsumed within the works’ general mimetic
frame. In addition to explicitly antimimetic narratives like Diderot’s Jacques
le fatalist and Beckett’s The Unnamable, we can discover a playful unnatu-
ral trajectory within realist works running at least from Cervantes through
Fielding and on through Austen, Thackeray, and Trollope. The unnatural is
ubiquitous; it needs to be recognized as such and analyzed more widely.
400 Style
The most significant contributions that unnatural narrative theory has made
so far to narrative theory appear in three main areas. The most prominent is
the study of narration.
Narration: An overview of the unnatural position on narration appears
in an essay by Alber, Nielsen, and Richardson, “Unnatural Voices.” In my
book Unnatural Voices, I provide a detailed account of several unnatural
strategies of narration, including unnatural narration in second-person,
first-person-plural, multi-person, contradictory, and dramatic works.
Henrik Skov Nielsen (“Impersonal”) and Rüdiger Heinze (“Violations”)
offer important analyses of unnatural kinds of first-person narration, in
particular, the distinct identities of the character “I” and the narrating “I”
in some first-person fiction. Heinze’s piece is in dialogue with Nielsen’s;
Nielsen refines and extends his position on narration in later articles
such as “Naturalizing and Unnaturalizing Reading Strategies,” which in
turn responds to other theorists. James Phelan explores several types
of unnatural character narration, including what he terms redundant
telling, implausibly knowledgeable narration, and crossover narration
(Living 1–30; “Implausibilities”). Alice Bell and Astrid Ensslin critically
examine second-person narration, n atural and unnatural, in interactive
fiction, and Paul Wake explores it in popular game books. Before the term
was invented, Ellen Peel and Susan S. Lanser analyzed “unnatural” feminist
strategies of narration in, respectively, multi-person narration (I and she)
and “they” narration in Monique Wittig’s Les Guérillères (Lanser 267–77).
Marina Grishakova has explored the subject of virtual narrative voice and
explores various impossible acts of narration, such as stories offered by
dead speakers, overtly fictive speakers such as Beckett’s Unnamable, and
the “metaleptic virtual voice” found in Nabokov’s Transparent Things. Lars
Bernaerts et al. discuss the compelling subject of animals as narrators.
402 Style
CONCLUSION
To end this article, I will offer an invitation and a parable. The goal of any
narrative theory should be a theory of all culturally important or resonant
narratives, not a single subset, such as the Anglophone novel from 1700 to
1920 or any comparably limited grouping. It would be bad enough if unnat-
ural narratives only existed in a few countries over a couple of decades;
their occlusion would then be understandable, though still unfortunate and
unnecessary. But new forms of unnatural figures, techniques, and worlds
keep appearing—and succeeding in arresting critical attention and garner-
ing international awards. They appear prominently in traditional narrative
forms like the novel as well as in newer forms like film and graphic fiction
and contemporary digital media. As narrative theorists, it is essential that
we are able to theorize these narratives, and this is what unnatural narrative
theory promises to perform. We cannot expect fifty- or sixty-year-old models
to be able to effectively handle a new world of narrative literature without
some significant reconceptualization.
404 Style
NOTES
1. Nonmimetic genres can be transformed and antimimetic works produced if an
anti-illusionistic element is present, as in Angela Carter’s postmodern fairy tales.
2. Important exceptions to this statement include Herman and Vervaeck’s Handbook of
Narrative Analysis and much of Porter Abbott’s The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative.
3. We follow James Phelan’s account of the mimetic component of narrative, responses
to which “involve an audience’s interest in the characters as possible people and the nar-
rative world as like our own” (Living 20).
Forum 405
Unnatural Fallacy? The Logic of Unnatural Narrative Theory
Roy Sommer
University of Wuppertal