Les fonctions de la focalisation et du point de vue dans la dynamique de l’intrigue

Narratology has long been reluctant to link descriptive analysis of narrative structures with the interpretation of their discursive functions. Yet, starting from a dynamic conception of plot – which emphasizes its function to arouse the reader's interest and direct his or her attention towards a possible outcome –, we will show that it is relatively easy to associate different forms of focalization with effects such as suspense and curiosity. Nevertheless, such an interpretation leads to a clear distinction between the textual construction of the point of view, and focalization as defined by Genette. In addition, in order to avoid confusing point of view and focalization, we propose to adopt a new terminology for the latter. If the point of view can only be internal (i.e. anchored in the subjectivity of a character) or external, focalization, on the contrary, may be marked by a restriction, an equality, or an excess when compared with the knowledge of a focal character. The possibility of unfocalized narratives will also be considered, a case that should not be confused with a simple excess of knowledge in a narrative focalized on the fate of a character

The Garden of Forking Paths: Virtualities and Challenges for Contemporary Narratology

From the period that David Herman refers to as classical narratology to the present day, we can observe major shifts in the way plot and narrative sequence are dealt with, giving new insights into the dynamics and indeterminacy of narrative structures. This shift has transformed what used to be considered a symmetrical construction (focusing on the unity of the story shaped by the teller) into a kind of labyrinth in which virtual events become as important as events that have been actually told. Thus, despite a proliferation of epistemologies (functionalism, cognitive science, etc.), postclassical narratologies converge by stating that in order to understand the forms and functions of plots, we must take into account the “dialectical interplay between narrative and consciousness” (Herman 2007). On this basis, it is no longer possible to avoid “the analysis of how readers’ decisions contribute to the construction of the narrative world” (Kafalenos 2001). Commenting on a short story of Borges, “The Garden of Forking Path,” I shall distinguish between different ways of dealing with the virtualities of the story. The potential tensions between these three perspectives can be seen as challenges that contemporary narratology must face when going beyond the mere description of the internal logic of the fabula

Le rôle des personnages dans les rouages de l'intrigue

Cet article propose une synthèse d'un ouvrage qui pose les fondements d'une approche narratologique d'orientation stylistique et rhétorique visant à décrire avec le plus de précision possible le mécanisme des récits littéraires immersifs et intrigants. Partant du constat de l'existence d'une forte polysémie autour de la notion d'intrigue, je proposerai de baser la discussion sur une définition fonctionnelle apte à souligner le rapport étroit entre la dynamique du récit et la mise en intrigue, qui noue, entretien et dénoue une tension dans l'expérience esthétique. J’évoquerai également la manière dont la caractérisation des personnages et la mutabilité de leurs rôles peuvent déterminer de manière essentielle le profil de la tension narrative

Pour une narratologie transmédiale

La narratologie est née de la prise de conscience que l’horizon des travaux portant sur la narrativité débordait du cadre de la théorie littéraire. Pourtant, elle a été longtemps réticente à s’émanciper de son périmètre d’origine. Il en a découlé qu’un certain nombre de concepts, notamment les approches qui relèvent de la narratologie modale, se sont figés dans des définitions qui les rendent difficilement transférables à des formes non verbales. À une époque où les récits se déclinent sur une vaste gamme de supports médiatiques parfois coordonnés, il est devenu urgent de développer une théorie capable d’embrasser une telle diversité, sans réduire a priori les différences signifiantes entre les médias. Dans cet article, par le biais d’une approche comparée des médias, je défends une narratologie décentralisée, de manière à refonder ses concepts et à les rendre suffisamment souples pour s’adapter à n’importe quel média, tout en réfléchissant à la manière spécifique dont chacun d’entre eux s’incarne médiatiquement et détermine un champ des possibles pour le récit

Narrative forms of action and the dangers of ‘derivations’ in narratology

This article attempts to define the form that action takes when it is the focus of narrative plot, in a manner that avoids certain detours in the interpretation of narrative phenomenon and its anthropological function. Two such detours are evoked at the outset. First, structuralist narratology has had a tendency to analyze the “actional” structures of the narrative fabula autonomously. This has led narratalogists to lose sight of the function that actions have in conversational, or oral narrative, and to generalize a theory of action from this partial view. Second, cognitive theorists, despite having decompartimentalized narrative structures, have generally based their work on a schematic model of intentional action that is too general and too simplistic to properly determine the function that narrated actions fulfill. The author highlights the ways that certain forms of narrated action produce suspense or curiosity when used in conversational narrative. Drawing attention to the fundamental role of polemical actions in the dynamics of narration allows oppose two complementary conceptions of action: whereas “narrative” approaches highlight the uniqueness, the under-determinedness, or the surprising character of the narrated event, other forms of analysis seek to draw attention to the rules behind the apparent novelty of the event

Facing Horror at the Bataclan: Informative, Immersive, and Immersed Narrative

This article is a follow-up to the debate opened in the 30th issue of Questions de communication (2016) on the role allotted to narrative theory in an era that has seen an unprecedented level of interest in narratives embodied in increasingly diverse forms. Rather than entering into a dialogue with each respondent, I will take a concrete example of what I consider to be the specific characteristics of an approach that does not consider narrative theory to be a mere tool and to highlight the benefits that we can hope to gain from theorizing narrative forms. My argument is that there are two opposing prototypes of narrativity, forming two extreme poles between which narrative representations are divided, depending on whether their primary intention is to explain an event or, on the contrary, to immerse the reader (or recipient) in the narrated experience. These two narrative prototypes will be illustrated by two very different reports on the same dramatic event. I will also briefly touch upon a third prototype: narrative immersed in a topical event. Here, the distinction between discourse time and diegetic time is irrelevant. In conclusion, I will return to the prospects for the third generation of narratologists. This English translation has not been published in printed form

Imaginaires du labyrinthe

Entretien avec Bertrand Gervais par Raphaël Baroni, à propos de l'essai La Ligne brisée : labyrinthe, oubli & violence – Logiques de l’imaginaire, tome II (Montréal, Le Quartanier, coll. « Erres Essais »)

Introduction: Time and Narrative, the Missing Link between the “Narrative Turn” and Postclassical Narratology?

The three volumes of Time and Narrative (1983–85) were published—and soon translated to English (1984–88)—in a pivotal moment for narrative studies and for narratology. In the middle of the eighties, the interest in narratives began to spread beyond the traditional fields of literary studies and linguistics and to influence almost all humanities disciplines. However, this remarkable expansion of narrative studies is disconnected from the evolution of narratology, which at the same time entered a period of crisis before its revival under the label of postclassical narratology. Indeed, there is a tension between, on the one side, the proliferation of narrative studies throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and on the other side, the loss of interest in the theorization of narrative forms after its peak in the decades before. At that turning point, most attention was focused on how we use narratives or how they shape reality, and no longer on how narratives are shaped. Yet this introduction intends to show that, unlike many other works that have contributed to what will later be called the narrative shift, Ricœur's legacy may appear in retrospect to be the missing link between classical and postclassical narratology, and between contemporary narratology and the wider field of narrative studies