• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

MATTHEW CLARK and JAMES PHELAN DEBATING RHETORICAL NARRATOLOGY THEORY AND INTERPRETATION OF NARRATIVE James Phelan, Peter J. Rabinowitz, and Katra Byram, Series Editors DEBATING RHETORICAL NARRATOLOGY ON THE SYNTHETIC, MIMETIC, AND THEMATIC ASPECTS OF NARRATIVE Matthew Clark AND James Phelan THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS COLUMBUS Copyright © 2020 by The Ohio State University. This edition licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License. This book is freely available in an open access edition thanks to TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem)—a collaboration of the Association of American Universities, the Association of University Presses, and the Association of Research Libraries—and the generous support of The Ohio State University Libraries. Learn more at the TOME website, which can be found at the following web address: https://openmonographs.org. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Clark, Matthew, 1948– author. | Phelan, James, 1951– author. Title: Debating rhetorical narratology : on the synthetic, mimetic, and thematic aspects of narrative / Matthew Clark and James Phelan. Description: Columbus : The Ohio State University Press, 2020. | Series: Theory and interpretation of narrative | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Two narratologists engage in a lively debate about three core concepts in rhetorical narratology, the mimetic, thematic, and synthetic. Grounded in narratives ranging from the Iliad to Beloved, the debate shows the power of both narrative theory and narrative itself”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019039136 | ISBN 9780814214282 (cloth) | ISBN 9780814277768 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Discourse analysis, Narrative. | Narration (Rhetoric) Classification: LCC P302.7 .C57 2020 | DDC 809/.923—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019039136 Cover design by Martyn Schmoll Text design by Juliet Williams Type set in Adobe Minion Pro Matthew Clark dedicates this work to his partner, Reva Marin, and to the memory of Truffles, a noble dog who filled our lives with love. James Phelan dedicates this work to the loving memory of his parents, James Joseph Phelan (1923–1974) and Margaret O’Connell Phelan (1926–2018). CONTENTS Preface An Origin Story and a Description of Our Debate MATTHEW CLARK AND JAMES PHELAN ix INTRODUCTION MATTHEW CLARK 1 CHAPTER 1 The Synthetic Aspect MATTHEW CLARK 19 CHAPTER 2 The Mimetic Aspect MATTHEW CLARK 53 CHAPTER 3 The Thematic Aspect MATTHEW CLARK 95 CHAPTER 4 Narrative as Rhetoric and the MTS Model JAMES PHELAN 135 CHAPTER 5 The Mimetic, the Synthetic, and the Criterion of Correspondence; Or Audiences, the Mimetic Illusion, and Ghosts JAMES PHELAN 151 viii • CONTENTS CHAPTER 6 The Thematic and the Relation between Comprehensiveness and Correspondence JAMES PHELAN 171 CHAPTER 7 MTS, Fictionality, and Nonfiction: Tobias Wolff’s “Old China” JAMES PHELAN 187 CHAPTER 8 “Yes, but . .” MATTHEW CLARK 197 Bibliography 215 Index 225 PREFACE An Origin Story and a Description of Our Debate THIS BOOK originated in Matthew Clark’s engagement with James Phelan’s work in rhetorical narratology, especially Phelan’s ideas about three compo- nents of narrative—and of readerly interest in it: the mimetic, the thematic, and the synthetic (since we contest each other’s definitions of these terms, we won’t offer definitions here). Matthew found that Jim’s ideas were useful but not entirely satisfactory, and as he worked with them, especially in his teach- ing, he developed his own ideas about the three components. Rather than simply writing a monograph advocating his positions and correcting Jim’s, Matthew informed Jim about his work, and then the two of us concocted the plan to conduct the dialogue found in this book. In addition to departing from the usual format of critical combat in which authors write separate tracts proclaiming the superiority of their views, our dialogue, we hoped, could model a friendlier but still deeply serious kind of exchange. Since Jim had, in a sense, gone first in his various proposals about the three components in various publications since he first introduced them in Reading People, Reading Plots (1989), we agreed that here Matthew should go first, Jim should respond, and Matthew should offer a final (for now) rejoinder. In this way, each of us would have two turns—though Jim’s first turn is outside this book. In adopting this format, we also hoped to achieve some other benefits: learning from each other (“I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you’re right”); developing fuller understandings about what’s at stake in our ongoing dis- ix x • CLARK AND PHELAN agreements (What does it mean to be committed to a rhetorical approach?); and above all generating sharper insights into the workings of narrative—and the ways we work on it. In conducting the dialogue, we decided to hold ourselves accountable to the larger community of narrative theorists by addressing them rather than— or, better, in addition to—each other. Thus, we refer to each other in the third person rather than the second. Our disagreements range from local matters (e.g., how to read particular scenes in Orwell’s 1984) to global ones (Are Mat- thew’s proposals, as he suggests, friendly amendments to Jim’s positions, or are they, as Jim suggests, rooted in a fundamentally different conception of narra- tive?). (At the global level, we preserve the sense of our disagreement by using different abbreviations for our models: for Matthew SMT, and for Jim MTS.) While each of us of course firmly believes that his arguments about the dis- puted matters are the more convincing ones, those beliefs exist alongside our knowledge that our readers will not all side with one of us—and that many (most?) will have their own views about both local and global issues. Indeed, on some issues, we anticipate that at least some readers will respond by say- ing, “A pox on both your houses,” even as we hope that more readers will say, “Yes, but” and “Yes, and.” We welcome this range of responses because they provide opportunities to expand the dialogue and thus further illuminate the workings and effects of both narrative and narrative theory. Whether the execution of our dialogue is sufficiently effective to gener- ate all the positive effects we aspire to is not for us to say. What we can say is that we have learned from each other—and very much enjoyed the pro- cess of learning. We can also express our profound hope that our readers will find both some instruction and some delight in their engagement with our dialogue. We express our gratitude to two acquisitions editors at the OSU Press, Lind- say Martin, who encouraged us early on to engage in this debate, and Ana Jimenez-Moreno, who guided the results through to publication. We also express deep gratitude to Peter Rabinowitz, Katra Byram, and the external readers for their wise comments that have led us to write a better book. In addition, Matthew sends a shout-out to Brian Richardson and to David Rich- ter for encouragement at different stages of the project, and Jim sends one to Nicolas Potkalitsky and to Drew Sweet for their editorial assistance. We both would like to thank Evan Van Tassell for his work on the index. We are also grateful to the many colleagues and students with whom we’ve discussed— and debated—the SMT and MTS models over the years. Preface • xi Finally, in conjunction with The Ohio State University Press, we thank the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada, for the financial support it provided to this work. Matthew Clark and James Phelan INTRODUCTION MATTHEW CLARK I. SYNTHETIC, MIMETIC, THEMATIC The terms “synthetic,” “mimetic,” and “thematic”—each with its own long history, reaching back to ancient Greece—were first joined in a narratologi- cal model by James Phelan in his Reading People, Reading Plots (1989);1 he has continued to develop this model in his later books, Narrative as Rhetoric (1996), Living to Tell about It (2005), Experiencing Fiction (2007), and Some- body Telling Somebody Else (2017), and also in his contributions to the col- lective volume Narrative Theory: Core Concepts and Critical Debates (2012).2 Phelan’s model has established itself in the critical lexicon, and it has been adopted by a number of other scholars.3 This model has much to recommend it: It usefully distinguishes three kinds of responses and interests a reader may have, it relates these responses and interests to elements of the text or the reading experience, and thus it encourages a sharper and more discriminat- ing critical attention. As it stands, however, it is not without difficulties. A few 1. But see Crane 66 for an anticipation of the model. 2. For convenience I will usually use the term “MTS” for Phelan’s model. Though this model is at center of this book, I will also examine the work of other scholars, particularly those who work in unnatural, cognitive, and ideological narratology. The MTS model is only part of the larger theory of rhetorical narratology; see section 4 of this chapter. 3. For use of the model in critical and theoretical discussion, see, for example, Heinze, “Violations”; Shen; Gervais; and Falkner. 1 2 • Matthew CLARK revisions, intended in the spirit of friendly amendments, can make this model of reading and interpretation more powerful; moreover, the proposed revi- sions show that the model can accommodate other critical approaches, includ- ing unnatural narratology, cognitive narratology, and ideological narratology. In Living to Tell about It, Phelan defines the three terms of the model as follows: mimetic/mimesis: Mimetic refers, first, to that component of character directed to its imitation of a possible person. It refers, second, to that component of fictional narrative concerned with imitating the world beyond the fiction, what we typically call “reality.” Mimesis refers to the process by which the mimetic effect is produced, the set of conventions, which change over time, by which imitations are judged to be more or less adequate.

Load more

  248

Copy Link