Sabine Schlickers and Vera Toro Introduction Manymodernfilms produce disturbing effects and disorient the spectator.They transgress or abrogatestandard narrativesituations and configurations, question premises of causality and coherence, or obscure the distinctionbetween (fiction- al) reality and fiction.Inorder to describe ludic devices of this kind systemati- callyweneed new narratological concepts. In this volume we present such a concept, ‘perturbatory narration’:aconcept designed to describecomplex narra- tive strategiesthatdisrupt immersion in the acquired process of aesthetic recep- tion. Perturbatory narration is aheuristic concept,and as such subject to Mieke Bal’scaveat: “Concepts are sites of debate, awareness of difference, and tentative exchange. Agreeingdoesn’tmean agreeing on content,but agreeing on the basic rules of the game: if youuse aconcept at all, youuse it in aparticular wayso that youcan meaningfullydisagree on content” (Bal 2002,25). In this sense, the concept proposed in these pages is applicable to aspecific type of irritating narrativefor which narratology has not yetfound an appropriate classification, enablingtypification and systematization of moments of narrative perturbation. As such it takes up and further pursues the concept of paradoxicalnarration in literary textsdeveloped in the Hamburgresearch group on narratology (1998– 2002)byKlaus Meyer-Minnemann and Sabine Schlickers, and later extended by Schlickers in its analytic and typological dimensions to the field of film. Textual work with this largertransmedial corpus repeatedlyencountered the combina- tion of perturbatory narrativedevices mentioned above ‒ acluster whose com- plex interactions had not yetentered the ambit of research. Schlickers (2015a) initiallyinvestigated the occurrence of these phenomena in the Argentine film El Aura (2005), which combines features of unreliable and fantastic narrative: “The disruptive impact [of this film] derives from ajuxtaposition of unreliability with the ambiguity typical of fantastic narration” (Schlickers 2015a, 13): In the end, these two ‒ at first glance mutuallyexclusive ‒ readingsofthe film are both possible, both intended, and both equallyconvincing.The coexistence in manyliteraryand filmic narrations of what seemed incompatible narrative strat- egies gave rise to anarratological dilemma.Itwas with the intention of subsum- ing and integrating this complex interplayofdeception, paradoxand/or empuz- zlement into the critical consideration of literatureand film that we developed the model of combined narrative devices and the framing concept of perturbato- ry narration. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110566574-001 2 Sabine Schlickers and Vera Toro Here, the concept is applied exclusively to film, although it is equallyvalid for literary texts.¹ The effect to which it refers is by no meansdysphoric: on the contrary,the disturbance or disorientation in question is receivedbyreaders/ viewers positively.². Manyareas of the phenomenawedescribe as perturbatory narration have alreadybeen studied and accorded adjectivessuch as ‘disorient- ing’, ‘complex’, ‘ludic’, ‘deviant’, ‘extraordinary’, ‘unconventional’, ‘unnatural’, ‘unreliable’ etc.³ Frequentlyused are also the notions ‘puzzle films’ (Buckland 2009), ‘mind-game movies’ (Elsaesser 2009), ‘mindfuck movies’ (Eig 2008), ‘mind-benders’ (Johnson 2006), etc. However,oncloser examination these cate- gories are all in some wayproblematic, for they are either subjective (e.g. ‘com- plex’), or psychological (e.g. ‘disorienting’, ‘perturbing’), or they define them- selvesnegatively (‘un’-terms such as ‘unconventional’, ‘unreliable’ or ‘unnatural’). The clear generic agreementthat one is dealingwith “afilm de- signed specificallytodisorient you, to messwith your head” (Johnson 2006, 129), and manyother such useful insights, do not conceal the lack of narratolog- ical modeling and systematization in such labels.Itisfor this reason that we have introducedanew technicalterm⁴ which allows systematization of individ- ual devices and perturbatory strategies in theirludic interplay. Sabine Schlickers and Vera Toro have recentlybeen engaged – within the framework of an exploratory project at the University of Bremen(4/2015–4/2017) – on astudyofperturbatory narration in literatureand film (La narración perturbadora: un nuevo concepto narratológico transmedial,Madrid: Iberoamericana, forthcoming) which (re)models the individual strategies of deception, paradoxand empuzzlement and illustrates their functioning and interplayinse- lected hispanophone narratives. Simultaneouslywith this volumeSchlickers has published an article on perturbatory narration in literature and film which will appear soon in aSpecial Focus edited by Brian Richardson in Frontiers of NarrativeStudies (ed. Shang Biwu). Wolfgang Iser (1984 [1976], 208–214) alreadyremarkedonthe productivity of moments of conflict,discrepancy,disruption, frustration, ambiguity and figural fragmentation for the reader of fiction. However,hedid not explicitlyconnect these receptive processes to narrative strat- egies,but sawthem as inevitable aspects of aesthetic impact,aboveall in the complexity evoked by their sheer frequency(213). Cf. e.g. Eckeletal. (2012), Mittell (2006), Kindt(2005), Alber and Heinze (2011), Alber (2016), Leiendecker (2015). ReferringtoNiklas Luhmann, Carsten Gansel citesdisturbance as aconcept of systems theory; beforehim Maturana had introducedthe term to constructivism. Perturbatory narration, howev- er,isnot per se compatible with this usage.Systemstheory sees the disturbance (and ensuing change)ascoming from outside (Gansel 2013,9); narratologysees it as inherent to the system – as aconstituent of the text that in principle subscribes to the doxa (cf. below) but suspends it by employingthe narrative techniques presented here. Introduction 3 1Narrativity andcontent As anarrative principle, perturbatory narration is seen as text-related and hence as referringtoacombination of narrative strategies whose dislocating impact can be reinforced by dislocating content:⁵ presentations of physicality and vio- lence exciting fear and revulsion, as wellasdystopias, horror films, death and accident fantasies and/or scenarios are certainlyperturbing,but they onlyfall within the ambit of perturbatory narration if they reveal its formal procedures. In its present application perturbatory narration is restricted to fictional nar- ratives: our modeling is basedonthe double speech act situation that marks such texts as more complex than factualones. But our broad concept of fiction extends to ‘hybrid genres’ like mockumentary or docufiction, even though these mayemploy some of the authentication strategies of factualdiscourse.⁶ Follow- ing Schmid (2005,13and 18–19) and Kuhn (2011, 55–57), we see the narrativity on which perturbatory narration is premised as involving in the broadest sense a story (histoire)incorporating achangeinatleast one state (or situation) within a givenspace of time. This requires the explicit representation of the initial and final states,but not necessarilyofthe process and conditions of change. In the narrower sense, narrative texts are communicated via anarrator or via anoth- er narrationalinstance: in film the role of the extradiegetic narrator is playedby the invariablyheterodiegetic “camera” (Schlickers 1997)⁷,which, following Kuhn (2011), can be split into avisual and averbal narrational instance. This clarifies the distinction between our concept and unnatural narratology:the latter is based on cognitive premises (e.g. frame-theory and possible-worlds theory)and the question “whether the represented scenario or event could exist in the real world or not” (Alber 2013). ‘Unnatural’ is understood, then, as ‘impossible’,and ‘natural’ as ‘possible’.But from other points of view ‘unnatural’ maymean ‘anti-‘ or ‘non-mimetic’ (Richardson 2011). ‘Unnatural’ mayalreadybeconventionalized in the form of “physical, logical, or epistemic impossibilities”, in which case it maybetakentocover alienation effects understood as formalistic defamiliari- zation (Alber 2013). Definingthe boundary between the natural and unnatural – or the conven- tionalized and the not-yet-conventionalized – is in anycase problematic, not to sayarbitrary,for “the onlyway to respond to narrativesofall sorts (including unnatural ones) is through cogni- tive frames and scripts” (Alber 2013). It may, then, be difficulttosay whether or notthe ‘possi- bility’ or ‘impossibility’ of narrative elementsisinthe concrete instancerelevant.The perception of anarrative as factual or fictional, on the other hand, maybetakentopossess greater rele- vance than the referential scopeofits elements vis-à-vis the real world. Schlickers (2015b); for anarratological perspective on authenticity cf. also the excellent article by Weixler (2012). Cf. Schlickers (1997, 75 – 83)for the contentious discussion of this issue within film narratol- ogy. The latest critique comesfromThon (2016,145), for whom Schlickers “[leaves] open whyone 4 Sabine Schlickers and Vera Toro As “every narrational form [entails] a(re)construction of causal relations be- tween events occurringintime – i.e. events following not onlyoneach other but from each other” (Abel, Blödornand Scheffel 2009,1)–textsthat bypass such relations have aparticularlydisruptive impact.The close contextual relation be- tween narrativity and cognition in the creative-receptive process is addressed by David Lynch when, speaking of his film Inland Empire (2006), he says thathe intends his