Abstract
In this article, “Narrative Closure,” a theory of the nature of narrative closure is developed. Narrative closure is identified as the phenomenological feeling of finality that is generated when all the questions saliently posed by the narrative are answered. The article also includes a discussion of the intelligibility of attributing questions to narratives as well as a discussion of the mechanisms that achieve this. The article concludes by addressing certain recent criticisms of the view of narrative expounded by this article.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Moreover, I will be preoccupied with the structure of narrative closure as opposed to speculation about its significance for human life as that topic is examined by Kermode (1966).
See Hernstein-Smith (1968).
Since closure is not an effect aimed at by all stories nor every kind of narrative, it should not be supposed automatically that the lack of closure is a bad thing nor that narrative closure is always desirable. Some narratives eschew closure in order to prompt interpretations from audiences. For example, many art films of the sixties withheld closure for the purpose of advancing the theme of the existential meaninglessness of contemporary life.
See Aristotle (1996, p. 13).
Ibid.
See Hume (1993, p. 130).
Sometimes in discussions of suspense, theorists talk about delaying the occurrence of an event as a way of heightening the audience’s emotional state. Sergei Eisenstein, for example, thinks that the scene in Potemkin where the battle cruiser meets the Russia fleet is suspenseful due to his temporal distension of the situation. But this doesn’t make much sense when we are talking about a 50 min film, since the event he is alluding to seems to take many hours in the storyworld. But perhaps Eisenstein was getting at what Hume suggests more clearly here: that anticipation can be engendered by delaying telling or, in the case of film, showing the audience the outcome of the event of which the audience is curious.
On the role of curiosity in following a narrative, see: Feagin (1996).
See Edgar Allen Poe (xxxx, p. 66).
See Forster (1927, p. 130). As recently as May, 2006, Philip Roth said in an interview with Robert Siegal that “The novel raises certain questions and you know that you’re finished when you have answered them.” The interview was conducted on All Things Considered, a program of National Public Radio, which aired in Philadelphia, Pa. on May 2, 2006.
See Barthes (1974).
To see the functions listed in this paragraph and the preceding one enumerated, consult Carroll (1996, p. 98).
Where the answer to such a question extends over a large part of the story, comprising many scenes, I am inclined to call it a macro-question, but not a presiding macro-question. This vocabulary is admittedly imprecise, and I can imagine disagreement about whether something is a presiding macro-question or merely a macro-question. However, I don’t think anything interesting hangs on the imprecision here, since for closure to obtain all the presiding macro-questions and all the connected, even if not presiding, macro-questions will have to be answered.
Of course, sometimes a narrative may intentionally skirt closure in order to make a point. Perhaps Last Year at Marienbad refuses closure in order to reveal to us a modernist lesson about the degree to which our customary practice of processing stories is driven by questions. Thus, the absence of closure is not always a bad-making feature. Last Year at Marienbad is not less for lacking closure. However, the carelessness regarding the plight of Frankie in Squid and Whale is a blemish in that particular movie.
Louis Mink, discussing W.B. Gallie, says that a story gives the sense of a “promised although unpredictable outcome.” I think it is more accurate to say a “promised although generally unpredictable outcome,” since sometimes the outcome may be a foregone conclusion. Earlier scenes in a story may fully determine their consequences. However, this, I conjecture, is fairly rare. Moreover, it is because the outcomes are generally unpredictable that we have eager questions about what will happen. See Mink (1987, p. 46).
Throughout this section, I have been deeply influenced by Wiśniewski (1995).
See Hiz (1962).
Adapted, with modification, from Wiśniewski (1995).
See Aristotle (1996, p. 13).
At least one qualification is required here. In addition to the establishing information, some narratives also lead off with a question. For example, the opening of Citizen Kane prompts us to ask for the meaning of “Rosebud,” while the beginning of Mildred Pierce leads us to question “who killed the Zachary Scott character?”
See Carroll (2001, pp. 118–133).
See Carroll (2001, pp. 119–128).
That is, it may only be a merely be some kind of contribution to the elucidation of the causal history of the later event. This notion comes from Lewis (1986).
I owe this point to Susan Feagin.
See Velleman (2003).
I have benefited in the rewriting of this paper from comments from audiences at Oberlin College and the University of Capetown—and especially from Susan Feagin, Margaret Moore, and Elisa Galgut. Of course, only I am responsible for the mistakes in this paper.
References
Aristotle. (1996). Poetics (M. Heath, Trans.). London: Penguin.
Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z (R. Howard, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
Carroll, N. (1996). Toward a theory of film suspense. In Theorizing the moving image. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, N. (2001). On the narrative connection. In Beyond aesthetics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collingwood R. G. (1940). An essay in metaphysics. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Edgar Allen Poe. (xxxx). Mystery. In New Short StoryTheories.
Feagin, S. (1996). Reading with feeling: The aesthetics of appreciation (pp. 52–53). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Forster, E.M. (1927). Aspects of the novel. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Hernstein-Smith, B. (1968). Poetic closure: A study of how poems end. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hiz, H. (1962). Questions and answers. The Journal of Philosophy, 59(10), 253–265.
Hume, D. (1993). Of tragedy. In S. Copley & A. Edgar (Eds.), Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kermode, F. (1966). The Sense of an ending: Studies in the theory of fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. (1986). Causal explanation. In Philosophical Papers (Vol. II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lohafer S. (1994). A cognitive approach to storyness. In C. May (Ed.), The new short story theories. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Mackie J. L. (1976) Causes and conditions. In M. Brand (Ed.), The nature of causation. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Mackie, J. L. (1980). The cement of the universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mink, L. (1987). History and fiction as modes of comprehension. In B. Fay, E. Golob, & R. Vann (Eds.), Historical understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Somerville, J. (2002). The epistemological significance of the interrogative. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publisher Ltd.
Velleman, J. D. (2003). Narrative explanation. The Philosophical Review, 112(1), 1–25.
Welty, E. (1949). The reading and writing of short stories. In The Atlantic Monthly, (pp. 54–58).
Wiśniewski, A. (1995). The posing of questions: logical foundations of erotetic inferences. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carroll, N. Narrative closure. Philos Stud 135, 1–15 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9097-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9097-9