The Two Principals Of Narrative - Formal Music Part II
Thoughts On: Todorov's The Two Principals of Narrative (1971)
A continued analysis of structuralism via Todorov's famous essay on narrative.
In the introductory part of this essay, we explored structuralism and Propp. We leave that now to look at The Two Principals of Narrative specifically to see how Todorov's structuralism is different to Propp's.
Todorov sets the foundation of his theory on narrative with Propp's work. It is implicit in Todorov's writing that he does not find Propp's start and end, his second 0 and second 60, the introduction and return, at all satisfactory. His major contribution to structuralist narrative theory is his proposition of a new start and end that is symbolic and non-specific. To get to that, we have to understand some of his initial implications. Alas, we must preface that The Two Principals of Narrative is not technically, in my opinion, a good essay. It meanders through many ideas, especially in its first half, that are quickly abandoned and never integrated into a cohesive system. So, though there is great depth in some of Todorov's ideas, he has no system or structural whole to speak of. What is then often presented as "Todorov's theory of narrative" is a mere extrapolation from one paragraph of his essay that doesn't even capture the essence of the essay title's meaning. That said, let us explore some of Todorov's initial ideas.
The fundamental assertion that Todorov makes is that narratives move; they are change. Therefore, a state must exist and from it must come action. Todorov then posits that there is a difference between fiction and narrative; fiction can be thought of as mere description, whereas narratives have within them change and action. His first formula is then as follows: condition leads to consequence, leads to implication. Todorov gives this formula when speaking of one specific story and does not explore it, so we cannot know if he thinks that this can be applied generally. However, from his assumption that narratives must move from a 'state' to 'action' comes an idea that the initial state has within itself potential for transformation. Thus, there is not just a state of being, but a condition of being--the difference being that a condition is not necessarily thought of as stable whilst 'state' feels stable and without time. A condition may then be Lara being lonely and in need of love. From the condition comes a consequence, which is to say, the nature of the initial state catalyses an event or actions. So, because Lara is lonely and looking for love (her condition), she eventually attracts romance as a consequence. She may have then dressed up and gone to a party. From the consequence comes possibility: implication. Maybe Lara went to secret party in a mansion where everyone wears masks. The consequence of the romance she finds here has implications. Maybe the man whom she attracts is rich, as implied by the mansion, but maybe he is also hiding something, as implied by the masks. What we see here is a cycle that all narratives can be thought to be made of: there is a condition of sorts that, because of its nature, leads to consequences of action; because of the nature or parameters of that consequential action, there is an implication of more conflict to come that puts the story into a new state or condition that, itself, will breed consequences.
This is a beautifully elegant formulation. Todorov speaks of narrative as a series of conditions that intrinsically lead to action in his introduction. Alas, he wipes this away as to re-articulate it. From this point, he moves to Propp and suggests that you do not need to identify all of his 31 functions to recognise that Russian folktales are themselves narratives. In defence of Propp, he never tried to suggest this. He wanted to find all of the non-divisible elements of the Russian folktale; he did not want to find the non-divisible elements of narrative itself. Alas, this is what Todorov wants to do. In doing so, he develops his famous formula by reducing the key narrative that Propp breaks down, The Swan-geese, into 5, not 31, beats. He then suggests the following:
A continued analysis of structuralism via Todorov's famous essay on narrative.
In the introductory part of this essay, we explored structuralism and Propp. We leave that now to look at The Two Principals of Narrative specifically to see how Todorov's structuralism is different to Propp's.
Todorov sets the foundation of his theory on narrative with Propp's work. It is implicit in Todorov's writing that he does not find Propp's start and end, his second 0 and second 60, the introduction and return, at all satisfactory. His major contribution to structuralist narrative theory is his proposition of a new start and end that is symbolic and non-specific. To get to that, we have to understand some of his initial implications. Alas, we must preface that The Two Principals of Narrative is not technically, in my opinion, a good essay. It meanders through many ideas, especially in its first half, that are quickly abandoned and never integrated into a cohesive system. So, though there is great depth in some of Todorov's ideas, he has no system or structural whole to speak of. What is then often presented as "Todorov's theory of narrative" is a mere extrapolation from one paragraph of his essay that doesn't even capture the essence of the essay title's meaning. That said, let us explore some of Todorov's initial ideas.
The fundamental assertion that Todorov makes is that narratives move; they are change. Therefore, a state must exist and from it must come action. Todorov then posits that there is a difference between fiction and narrative; fiction can be thought of as mere description, whereas narratives have within them change and action. His first formula is then as follows: condition leads to consequence, leads to implication. Todorov gives this formula when speaking of one specific story and does not explore it, so we cannot know if he thinks that this can be applied generally. However, from his assumption that narratives must move from a 'state' to 'action' comes an idea that the initial state has within itself potential for transformation. Thus, there is not just a state of being, but a condition of being--the difference being that a condition is not necessarily thought of as stable whilst 'state' feels stable and without time. A condition may then be Lara being lonely and in need of love. From the condition comes a consequence, which is to say, the nature of the initial state catalyses an event or actions. So, because Lara is lonely and looking for love (her condition), she eventually attracts romance as a consequence. She may have then dressed up and gone to a party. From the consequence comes possibility: implication. Maybe Lara went to secret party in a mansion where everyone wears masks. The consequence of the romance she finds here has implications. Maybe the man whom she attracts is rich, as implied by the mansion, but maybe he is also hiding something, as implied by the masks. What we see here is a cycle that all narratives can be thought to be made of: there is a condition of sorts that, because of its nature, leads to consequences of action; because of the nature or parameters of that consequential action, there is an implication of more conflict to come that puts the story into a new state or condition that, itself, will breed consequences.
This is a beautifully elegant formulation. Todorov speaks of narrative as a series of conditions that intrinsically lead to action in his introduction. Alas, he wipes this away as to re-articulate it. From this point, he moves to Propp and suggests that you do not need to identify all of his 31 functions to recognise that Russian folktales are themselves narratives. In defence of Propp, he never tried to suggest this. He wanted to find all of the non-divisible elements of the Russian folktale; he did not want to find the non-divisible elements of narrative itself. Alas, this is what Todorov wants to do. In doing so, he develops his famous formula by reducing the key narrative that Propp breaks down, The Swan-geese, into 5, not 31, beats. He then suggests the following:
Analysing The Swan-geese in this way [in placing its functions into a hierarchy, representing only what is necessary], we arrive at the following result: this story includes five indispensable elements-1) the situation of equilibrium at the beginning 2) the breakdown of the situation by the kidnapping of the boy 3) the girl's recognition of the loss of equilibrium 4) the successful search for the boy 5) the re-establishment of the initial equilibrium, the return to the father's house.It is exactly these 5 beats that are given as "Todorov's narrative theory". It is not at all accurate to suggest that this is his whole theory - I would argue that he doesn't have a cohesive one, he certainly doesn't write that way. Alas, it is these five beats that seem to naturally emerge from the previous formulation of condition, consequence and implication. Let us list them:
Initial Equilibrium
Breakdown of Equilibrium
Recognition of Lost Equilibrium
Search for New Equilibrium
Establishment of New Equilibrium
This, in my view, is a weak reduction of the condition, consequence, implication formulation because these 5 steps do not inherently suggest that narratives are change. With his initial 'equilibrium', Todorov implies no reason for there to be a 'breakdown', no reason for that to be 'recognised', no reason for a 'search', and no reason why a 'new equilibrium' would be established. We can only infer here that the motivational force for the change between these five states is given by the writer/storyteller. Within condition, consequence, implication, we can only infer that story moves itself. What is more true? Is story self-motivating or is it motivated? In my estimation, there is no absolute. These two modes distinguish two different kinds of storytelling, on one hand, we have the kind of story that likely centralises character or theme, and thus feels self-motivated, but on the other, we have the kind of story that is centred on plot and so feels contrived and motivated by exterior forces: the writer.
With that said, the 5 Steps of Equilibrium better explain narrative as a whole. Condition, consequence and implication form a cycle without an end. So, whilst the formulation better explains the start of a story and the precise incremental movements that make up every scene and act, it explains the truth of the infinite story, not the manner in which a storyteller must manage it. The successes of the Equilibrium formulation lies in its ability to set about a very clear start and end - precise parameters - within which narratives exist. This formula suggests that narrative is a movement between states of equilibrium, that it is not just change, but change with direction.
It is from here that Todorov comes upon his Two Principals of Narrative. Motivating a movement between equilibrium is succession and transformation. Here Todorov highlights the fact that narratives do not just move forward from one place to another, but vary in their direction. Succession is movement; transformation is changing direction. To fully embrace the previous metaphor, the combination of succession and transformation is how narratives do not just move away from the initial equilibrium, how they do not just walk around the world and find their way back to the same place they left. If a narrative was only successive, if it only moved forward, it would not feel like anything changed for the narrative would only manage to rediscover its equilibrium. This is what Todorov speaks of when referencing description not counting as story. If one decides to tell a story about Jeff sitting down, they could create a successive narrative that describes that place in time, could describe everything about Jeff and his room, but wouldn't see a change in his equilibrious state of sitting. Alas, with transformative action, the narrative could change direction and find a new equilibrium to land on, leaving us feeling like there was a change, that what we read or saw was more than description - was, in fact, a story. If Jeff then decided to paint his house, we would come closer to a traditional narrative, but, if he decided to leave his house and become a hero before returning, we would have a true classical narrative.
It is at this point where it must be highlighted that all of this is only very loosely implied by Todorov - one of more crucial weakness of this work. To see how succession and transformation at all link to equilibrium, one must then read between many lines. What Todorov does for most of his essay is explore the implications of his succession, transformation formulation without paying any attention to its significance and how he even came upon the formulation.
What is established in the remainder of The Two Principals of Narrative is a somewhat confusing, slightly redundant proposal of 3 types of narratives. To formulate the first two types, Todorov suggests that there are two types of transformation: negation and modal transformation. Negation is not given a satisfactory definition, but we are told that it is the kind of transformation that sees one state contradicted. Someone may then start a narrative sad, but emerge happy. This is negation. Modal transformation is a more complex term given a more complex description, but it essentially implies active transformation. Someone wants to be have something and they get it. This is modal transformation. What is implied in this part of the essay is that Todorov is describing the different types of initial equilibrium and new equilibrium--the different ways of reaching each respective state--in narratives. What he is distinguishing with negation and modal transformation, however, only confuses this idea. With modal transformation, we are told that a character enforces change, that they determine the new equilibrium. We would assume that the inverse of this would be a character not deciding. Todorov speaks of this and defines this kind of transformation as suppositional. This is found in stories where we are told the end in the introduction. However, he leaves this hanging in the air. What he says with negation is confusing. It bears no conceptual relation to modal transformation and it does not map a movement from initial equilibrium to new equilibrium. Negation only suggest that there will be a new equilibrium, that the start will be different from the end.
Alas, Todorov suggests that when succession and negation come together, there emerges mythological narratives. When succession and modal transformation come together, there emerges gnoseological narratives. What mythological narratives are, we are never told; they are descried as simple, however. Gnoseological narratives on the other hand are, rather incongruously, described as narratives in which characters seek knowledge, as 'narratives of apprenticeship'. It is hard to conclude anything of substance from this.
Finally, Todorov picks up Propp again and identifies one element of narrative that he emphasises: repetition. In many narratives, a character finds themselves in the same situation multiple times; a character may need help, but refuses it from three separate people on three separate occasions. In the end, they learn something and must retrace their steps, for example, taking help from those three people. For some reason, Todorov decides to make this a third type of narrative that he labels ideological. He suggests that the repetition enforces rules, and so defines this type of narrative as building a set of rules by which characters must live.
This final assertion is the straw that breaks the camels back. But, as Todorov's theory falls apart, he abruptly ends. Maybe it is our expectation that Todorov will produce a theory of narrative that makes his essay fail. As it is, it only opens up a conversation - yet, it does so without focus or concise thought.
What must be concluded is then that Todorov fails to confront the major structuralist conundrum in the realm of narrative. He manages to provide some convincing possibilities for the quanta of story with his theory of condition, consequence, implication and equilibrium. These seem satisfactory as elements akin to rhythm and notation in music, but, when they are attempted to be elaborated upon, shown to build the art of narrative, shown to build melodies, verses, chorus, solos and more, they fail. Propp's functions are not satisfactory equivalents to notes or rhythm as they are so specific to the Russian folktale and do not engage the concept of narrative too well. However, the functions operate well in their own realm.
We can ultimately conclude that the structuralist assertions of both Propp and Todorov do not reveal narrative to be as strictly formalised as music. The question I then leave concerns the point of seeking this depth of formal coherence in narrative. Can it be done? Can narrative be structurally equated to music? Furthermore, why should this be attempted?
Before you go, I urge you read Todorov's essay for yourself. Furthermore, I will again recommend Propp's Morphology of the Folktale and this website.
Previous post:
The Two Principals Of Narrative - Formal Music Part I
Next post:
End Of The Week Shorts #72
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
Before you go, I urge you read Todorov's essay for yourself. Furthermore, I will again recommend Propp's Morphology of the Folktale and this website.
Previous post:
The Two Principals Of Narrative - Formal Music Part I
Next post:
End Of The Week Shorts #72
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
