Abstract
David Herman splits narratology into “classical narratology” and “postclassical narratology.” However, the paradox he repeats is that the “postclassical” does not necessarily mean “poststructuralist,” and “the prefix ‘post’ does not quite signify a clean break with structuralism” but an enriched theory, which “draws on the concepts and methods to which classical narratologists did not have access.” Unlike postmodernism that is of both dependence on and independence from the modernism, Herman’s “postclassical narratology” is of continuities of “classical narratology.” Thus, his split of narratology into “classical” and “postclassical” arouses confusion about the value and developing orientation of narratology. The author of the present essay will employ the basic ideas of structuralism to analyze Herman’s reproaches of the so-called classical narratology and therefore to argue about the invalidity of Herman’s split.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alber, J., Iversen, S., Nielsen, H. S., & Richardson, B. (2013). What really is unnatural narratology? Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, 5, 101–118.
Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Diengott, N. (1988). Narratology and feminism. Style, 22(1), “Narrative theory and criticism,” 42–51.
Fludernik, M., & Alber, J. (Eds.). (2010). Postclassical narratology. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Herman, D. (1997). Scripts, sequences, and stories: Elements of a postclassical narratology. PMLA, 112(5), 1046–1059.
Herman, D. (1999). Narratologies: New perspectives on narrative analysis. “Introduction” (pp. 1–30). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Herman, D. M., Jahn, M., & Ryan, M. L. (Eds.). (2005). Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London and New York: Routledge.
Hrushovsky, B. (1976). Poetics, criticism, science: Remarks on the fields and responsibilities of the study of literature. PTL 1, iii–xxxv.
Lanser, S. S. (1986). Toward a feminist narratology. Style, 20(3) “Narrative Poetics,” 341–363.
Lanser, S. S. (1988). Shifting the paradigm: Feminism and narratology. Style, 22(1) “Narrative theory and criticism,” 52–60.
Leitch, V. B. (1988). American literary criticism from the thirties to the eighties. New York: Columbia University Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism (C. Maschler, Trans.). New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Prince, G. (2003). Dictionary of narratology (revised ed.). Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Shen, D., & Wang L. Y. (2010). Xifang xushixue: Jingdian yu houjingdian [Western narratology: Classical and postclassical]. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Todorov, T. (1969). Grammaire du Décaméron. Paris: Mouton & Co.
Toolan, M. J. (1988). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. (1983). Springfield: Merriam-Webseter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Qiao, G. Should narratology be split into classical and postclassical?. Neohelicon 45, 401–413 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-018-0456-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-018-0456-7