In the narrative chapter, Brooks is cited as describing a story as having characteristics that involve moving from a “state of equilibrium or stasis through a disturbance of this stability, and back to a state of equilibrium at the end.” But what of the stories that do not return this equilibrium? Are they truly narratives? Or is there something inherent in the story itself that says a failure to return back to equilibrium is making a final comment nonetheless through it’s lack of conventional ending?
I was also concerned with the idea about character as a “complex but unified whole.” While I agree that these traits are what make characters relatable and “real,” this also raised a question about flat characters. As said in the chapter, flat characters do not have this complexity to them and therefore are more of stereotypical ideas than actual people. While they most certainly have their purpose, I wonder what a narrative would be like without flat characters. If every character was as complete and complex as a protagonist, would it make the story itself more real or more difficult to comprehend? Would the excess of human realism offer too much for the reader to handle?
7 responses so far ↓
mercurylanes // 21 September 2008 at 10.58 am
In response to your first question-
I’ve read references to “stasis” or “equilibrium” in narratives before, but I’ve never been too clear on what those terms actually mean in the context of a narrative. I suppose you could say a narrative leaves its equilibrium by virtue of the fact that “stuff happens,” and returns to equilibrium when “stuff ceases to happen”–so, for instance, you’ve got your rising action, your climax, your denouement–here I’m picturing one of those triangular plot diagrams they use in middle school English class. I’m not sure if this is exactly what E.M. Forester is getting at, but it’s the first thing that comes to mind.
Though, on the other hand, you could say that no matter what kind of plot development or conclusion (or lack thereof) a story contains, there’s always “stuff” happening. That is, as long as there are words on a page, some kind of story is being told. So does plot, specifically, constitute narrative, or simply the fact that a story exists and is read? Does “equilibrium” have anything to do with the content of the story, or is it purely a product of the reader’s expectation? Your line of questioning seems to be based on assuming the former, but I think B&R are arguing for the latter.
sparkling_bears47 // 21 September 2008 at 3.49 pm
that line from the chapter on narrative really popped out for me as well. I myself am a fan of ambiguous, unresolved endings to stories. I think it’s much more dramatic in many cases to leave it unsolved. I would argue that they are narratives. the lack of an ending is in itself an ending.
but what I think is most interesting is that readers of such stories find it almost impossible to leave the ending ambiguous. as an example, the movie children of men. I won’t ruin the ending for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet, but it’s an amazing film with a very ambiguous ending. you don’t know what the final image really means. but after having seen the film, my friends and I could not stop debating what the ending meant. the same is true of the so often cited ending to the sopranos.
what this really seems to say is that there can be complete narratives without reaching a final state of equilibrium, but we as readers and human beings need to find some way to resolve the story.
sprinkles // 21 September 2008 at 8.35 pm
In response to zzzzz’s second question, I believe that if all characters in a narrative were “real,” then a story would lose meaning and become “flat.” Just as not everyone that one meets personally becomes a strong character, not everyone that one meets through reading becomes a strong character. In this respect, I believe literature mirrors ‘real life.’ Many people have good friends that they know very well, people that they know a little and pepole that they barely know, but see around. This is often developed in literature. Protaganists become quite familiar, other main characters are fairly developed, and then there are flat characters. Flat characters allow for there to be a focal point to a story. I find that relating to a handful of characters is refreshing, but too many is overwhelming and unrealistic. Therefore, flat characters provide a specific purpose; to fill space and to create a more realistic perspective.
bbug8 // 21 September 2008 at 8.40 pm
With regard to the question of flat characters and how their existence affects a narrative, I would have to argue that they are completely necessary, and in their “flatness”, they provide a stable base against which to view the complexity of more round characters, such as the protagonist. I was reminded of the idea presented in “Metaphor, Paradox, and Stereotype” that addressed the necessity of unmetaphorical language to further enhance the effect of metaphor as it stands out in harsh contrast to other language. The same is true of characters. If every single character were developed to the extent that they could be called complex, not only would the reader be completely overwhelmed, but he would also be left without the ability to compare and contrast flat versus round characters and analyze what is suggested in the narrative through the author’s decision to make certain characters more complex than others.
campusm79 // 22 September 2008 at 12.38 am
In response to the question pertaining to Narrative, I think I lack a clear understanding of what is meant by equilibrium. According to Brooks, equilibrium occurs “when the criminal is discovered, when the lovers get married, or when the tragic hero diesâ€. What is the similarity among these endings that would constitute a return to equilibrium? Would a narrative not be a narrative if, in the text, these things did not happen? Would the text still be considered a narrative if its ending remains unresolved—if readers did not know the statuses of the criminal, the lovers, or the tragic hero? In general, I am unable to see why a text with an unresolved ending would not be considered narrative. As zzzzz suggested, leaving the endings of a story unresolved is making a final statement about whatever topic the text might be addressing. Reading is therefore not always about the “satisfaction of epistemophiliaâ€. I do agree that people sometimes “look to the end to provide answers to questions that the text has raisedâ€. However, I think that sometimes a text just needs to make people think. A narrative with an ending that offers more questions than answers is therefore just as valuable, if not more so, than one that provides answers.
spotofbother // 22 September 2008 at 10.32 am
I don’t think that Bennet and Royle are suggesting that all narratives should follow this conventional form: equilibrium, disturbance, back to equilibrium; they are simply citing Peter Brooks’ idea of form because that is the form that many, many narratives follow. The end is “characteristically the place of revelation and understanding.” That is, even if not much is tied up, the reader finds or at least thinks he finds a few of the answers to the questions the book has brought up. The chapter called “The End” will probably further illuminate what a ‘return to equilibrium’ is, because in this chapter, it is a bit ambiguous.
I identified with the last three sentences of “Character”: “To identify with a person in a novel or play is to identify oneself, to produce and identity for oneself. It is to give oneself a world of fictional people, to start to let one’s identity merge with that of a fiction. It is, finally also to create a character for oneself, to create oneself as a character.” This passage suggests a great deal about the functions performed by the reader in a text and how the text shapes those functions.
sfbull5 // 23 September 2008 at 11.15 am
Like spotofbother, I too identified with the end of “Character”. The characters I like most are those with whom I identify and with whom I usually feel some sense of sympathy, compassion, etc. However, earlier in the essay, Bennett and Royle say that fictional protagonists should be “conflicting or contradictory” and to some degree “unpredictable.” I wonder how unpredictable I really want a character to be if I am going to be identifying with him/her. If I truly identified with a character (to the utmost degree, which I don’t think has really happened for me — if it has for you, feel free to comment), I think I would want to have some idea of what he is going to do or what is going to happen to him, even if only for my own sense of being able to determine my own fate and make my own choices in the world. I feel like a character that is too unpredictable would be frustrating to identify with because that identification would be constantly changing and adapting based on the character’s unpredictable decisions.
You must log in to post a comment.