The Functions Of Dramatis Personae - Concept-Object Reduction
Thoughts On: Vladimir Propp's Narrative Theory
A question of the structuralist philosophy through Morphology of the Folktale.
The Functions of Dramatis Personae is the central chapter in Vladimir Propp's hugely influential book, Morphology of the Folktale. This is an important book because it is the work that makes Propp one of the most fundamental structuralists. To understand this work and its place in literary criticism, it is then key to understand the structuralist philosophy.
What is a word? Most fundamentally, it is simultaneously two things: one face of a word is real, the other is unreal; one conceptual, one objective. Ferdinand de Saussure, another key structuralist who dealt with signs and language, defined this phenomena with his theory of the signified and the signifier. A word is then an object in a network of signifiers, which is to say that it is a symbol or sign that, objectively, only is. However, when confronted by the human mind, what is objectively just a thing becomes something with an implicating function. As a result, when we see a thing - a word for example - we see through it and into a network of concepts. A word then is a signifier of its own meaning; meaning is signified by a word. Let us reduce this to the most basic formula: a signifier is an object and the signified is a concept; I write 'cow' and am merely contriving pixels on a screen (the object; the signifier), but I am simultaneously signifiying your idea of what a cow is; its image, smell, size, shape, location, maybe even that one friend who is really annoying (the concept; the signified).
We can map this idea of the object and concept onto, not just specific words, but networks of words: sentences, paragraphs, essays, stories and books. In doing this, one can take a body of words (images, symbols or anything that represents ideas) and analyse them in regards to what is signified or how they signify; in regards to the concepts they produce or how they are objectively put on a page. This is structuralism. Structuralism is involved in this process of turning literature into concepts and/or objects that can then be put into a system and processed.
It was Propp who found much success in applying the structuralist philosophy of concept-object reduction to narrative structures. He was a Russian interested in a deceptively simple question of how to define Russian folktales. He observed that those before him had defined and categorised Russian folktales in regards to what they were about, for example, animals, dragons, fights, certain characters, etc. and had reduced them to components that were not fundamental enough. He then wanted to find all of the irreducible functions (objects/concepts) of folktale narratives as to formulate a system (a list) that represented the general structure of all folktales. This general structure is the 'morphology', which simply means the nature or character of a form or shape. And it was most important to Propp that every element that he found could not be reduced or seen as identical to another element; every single one had to be fundamental and individual.
Having established his goal, Propp sought to look through the plot of numerous folktales narrative and find motifs, which he describes as 'the simplest narrative unit'. He would not call his units motifs, instead, functions. What Propp then follows is a logic that we have discussed in a theory of 'what cinema is for'. In my estimation, drama is the most fundamental aspect of narrative. My rationalisation for this is that narratives are mimetic (imitative of the unknown and known of life). To represent or manifest imitation, one requires action, and drama is action put into a system and embodied by character. Thus, drama encapsulates the core of imitation and brings all other elements of imitation (the creation of a place, language, people and more) to life. For Propp, the idea of 'function' is similar to a conceptualisation of drama I have outlined. Function implies a reason for something occurring. Furthermore, it implies action. Function is then action with reason; it is drama with a purpose. And this is exactly what Propp sought to find. He hypothesises that there are a limited set of actions, with a limited set of reasons attached to them. More generally, however, all actions have the same purpose for Propp, and that purpose seems to be the construction of a whole folktale. Thus all functions are cogs that help a system spin.
It is at this point important, I believe, to state the ways in which Propp's work is deeply lacking and wholly incomplete. We have discussed before that many literary analysts seek to question what something is whilst neglecting a question of what something is for. Propp is highly guilty of this as he provides a universal structure or overarching conceptual structure of the folktale without ever attempting to confront a far more difficult question of why the folktale is structured in such a way.
This separates Popp from the biologists and linguists that he seemingly seeks to imitate. A biologist dissects an organism as to map out every structure and substructure. They do this to in turn figure out what they are for so that, when they need fixing or altering, this is a possibility. A doctor then must know what a kidney is, what it is made of and how it fits into a larger system as to figure out how to combat a kidney disease. A linguist, on the other hand, takes structures that (often, not always) already have function and attempts to realise how that function, or meaning, is formulated. As a result, they will already know what 'door' means, but would be interested in its nature and place as a noun with a certain origin, pronunciation and so fourth. Propp makes a mistake of acting as if he is a linguist dealing with words such as 'door' when, in reality, he must act as a biologist of sorts. After all, what folktales mean is not inherently known, nor is it objective like the meaning of 'door'. 'Door' means door, a barrier that separates and joins two spaces with an open and shut function. 'Door' becomes more complicated when used in a larger sentence; for example, 'doorway to my heart' manipulates the objective meaning of the word. And a door can be ever more complicated when framed in a larger narrative; what, then, does the door with the number 237 on it mean in The Shining?
It is clear at this point that when a linguist loses specificity and singularity, they have to start becoming a biologist, which is to say that they can't assume that they already know the meaning of something that is functioning, but must instead discover its purpose alongside its being: the reason and function. In The Shining, for instance, 'door' becomes something like a kidney; we cannot then assume that because we can define a door as 'a barrier that separates and joins two spaces with an open and shut function' that we understand what the doorway to room 327 is.
There is, in relation to our assertion here, a fascinating rhetorical interrogative that Propp proposes in delineating the history of the problem he means to confront. He asks: "Is it possible to speak about the life of language without knowing anything about the parts of speech?". If this was not posed as a rhetorical question and he actually engaged it, I believe Propp's theory would be so much stronger. To expand on why, I shall reference one of my favourite sequences of the Tao Te Ching:
So much could be said about these lines, but, as are, they contain much that goes beyond what is necessary to discuss. I'd like to then zoom in on the question: Can you love people and govern the country without knowledge? This, in my estimation, is very similar to Propp's question: Is it possible to speak about the life of language without knowing anything about the parts of speech? This could in fact be a highly Taoist line if it were phrased as such: Can you speak about the life of language without knowing anything about the parts of speech? And it would appear Taoist as it bears the philosophy of embracing the darkness and unknowing of the passive, chaotic and feminine Yin. Alas, Propp proposes a rhetorical question. In such, he suggests that it is impossible to do without knowing, to speak of the life of language without first formulating and analysing language itself. He then presents an entirely antithetical philosophy to the Taoists. Lao-Tzu (author of the Tao Te Ching) suggest that virtuous action (Te) is performed without intent and without knowledge. Propp on the other hand suggest that the only action that can be performed requires judgement and discrimination beforehand. If life is a forest, do we chose to walk in blind or do we try to construct a map? Lao-Tzu believes we must walk in blind because the map is already within us and can be accessed with proper action. Propp seemingly places his trust in our ability to draw and rationalise.
We may then ask now, who is right? And we must ask this as to determine how to confront Propp's fundamental logic underlying his book. Do we have to make a map as to walk correctly and understand the world? In my opinion, a map would be required. But, I am not convinced, as Propp is, that the map must be drawn before anyone can walk correctly. There seems to be a relationship between the walking and cartography that defies human logic and planning; we cannot know everything, but, in telling ourselves we do, we only welcome pointless meandering and suffering, therefore, do not follow a map of territory not yet explored. Embracing this logic, Lao-Tzu provides a positive start to a journey by asking if we would be willing start blind. However, after starting blind, one would hope that they could open their eyes; to love people and govern a country without initial knowledge, yet gain it in the process - which is not to say that one should have no knowledge and not accumulate competence before taking up a large task, but should recognise that what knowledge they possess now is likely reducible to a zero if the task they have before them is truly substantial (for example, governing a country or loving someone). This is what Lao-Tzu asserts with: "Give birth and cultivate. Give birth and do not possess. Act without dependence. Excel but do not rule".
In regards to narrative, I believe that this assertion translates to us having to speak of the life of speech before knowing anything about its parts, to give birth first and then cultivate. Therefore, we must accept that the start of the journey towards answering what a narrative is for (a question that is embedded into "what is narrative") must begin without knowing and yet be propelled by an investigation of its life. This is to say, we must walk before we map; we must speak of what narrative is for before better specifying what it is, and thus we must induce a cycle that clarifies and strengthens our developing answer to the questions, what is narrative and what is it for? Again: give birth and cultivate.
Because Propp never engages the question of purpose, I believe he fails as a narrative biologist before he even starts his work. He seeks to find the organs of the folktale and assumes that, having done so, his work is done. If we were to cut Propp some slack, however, we could accept that he believes that his work is just the start of a larger battle. He wants to provide us the names and characteristics of certain organs and thinks that from here that it should be the work of others to compare what he finds in Russian folktales to what others find in other narratives as to then answer a "what for?" or "why?" question.
Alas, keeping in mind that Propp's work represents the start of something far more larger than himself, let us return his conceptualisation of the functions. As said, he deals with functions as spinning cogs that just make a system work (what it works for we are never told). His spinning cogs are nonetheless characters, thus, he derives the fundamental motifs of folktale narratives from their 'dramatis personae'.
Dramatis personae is an interesting term as, though it only means main characters, the direct Latin translation is 'masks of the drama'. The Latin 'drama' is derivative of the Greek 'dramatos', however, and so though the Latin 'drama' defined theatrical plays, the Greek 'dramatos' defined 'play, action or deed'. The more accurate translation of dramatis personae may then be 'masks of the action'. And in reference to the theatrical masks that Greek theatre is known for, this term is an embodiment of the idea that characters are the face of action - which is, itself, is the manifestation and representation of imitation, leaving characters mimetic masks. 'Dramatis personae' is also a more universalising term than 'character'. Character implies individuality, whereas a mask or persona is generalising (why else does a mask cover a face?), leaving one to imagine a caricature or archetype. And so Propp, more so as an aside or assisting function, identifies caricatures, character types or archetypes alongside his narrative functions. Furthermore, he specifies that the limited set of archetypes are embedded into, and catalysing of, the narrative functions. Before we then look at Propp's structure of the universal folktale, let us first look at his universal masks, his archetypes:
Because I have provided so much commentary already, I will not further comment on these archetypes, nor on the functions I will soon list. I do, however, encourage you to research and ponder upon them. Let us then look through Propp's 31 narrative functions:
This is the key result of Propp's morphology, and it is this unique work derived from the study of hundreds of Russian folktales that made Propp such an important structuralist. His lists provide a range of functions and archetypes that are present in all Russian folktales and even have their place in books and movies. It is important to note, however, that not every character and every function is in every folktale; it is merely the case that a folktale or story without some or most of the functions or archetypes is incredibly rare. What we then see represented here is an example of how narratives can be reduced to concepts and objects. One could argue that Propp deals only with objects - that meaning, he reduces narratives to masks and functions. If this is unfair to suggest, however, it seems clear that the concepts underlying the 31 functions and 8 archetypes are certainly lacking depth. Alas, with Propp provided as an example of the structuralist philosophy applied to narrative, I'd like to leave things with you and on a question of what you think about the philosophy or approach of structuralism and its results.
Before bringing things to a complete close, it must be noted that there is more to Propp's book, Morphology of the Folktale, than what has been mentioned here; we have only touched on the key chapter. I would then recommend reading the book (it is quite short at only 100 or so pages). You may also find this website useful as this lists the characters and functions and more.
Previous post:
The Stanford Prison Experiment - The Rain & The Rainbow
Next post:
Skyscraper/Die Hard - Quality Via Structure
A question of the structuralist philosophy through Morphology of the Folktale.
The Functions of Dramatis Personae is the central chapter in Vladimir Propp's hugely influential book, Morphology of the Folktale. This is an important book because it is the work that makes Propp one of the most fundamental structuralists. To understand this work and its place in literary criticism, it is then key to understand the structuralist philosophy.
What is a word? Most fundamentally, it is simultaneously two things: one face of a word is real, the other is unreal; one conceptual, one objective. Ferdinand de Saussure, another key structuralist who dealt with signs and language, defined this phenomena with his theory of the signified and the signifier. A word is then an object in a network of signifiers, which is to say that it is a symbol or sign that, objectively, only is. However, when confronted by the human mind, what is objectively just a thing becomes something with an implicating function. As a result, when we see a thing - a word for example - we see through it and into a network of concepts. A word then is a signifier of its own meaning; meaning is signified by a word. Let us reduce this to the most basic formula: a signifier is an object and the signified is a concept; I write 'cow' and am merely contriving pixels on a screen (the object; the signifier), but I am simultaneously signifiying your idea of what a cow is; its image, smell, size, shape, location, maybe even that one friend who is really annoying (the concept; the signified).
We can map this idea of the object and concept onto, not just specific words, but networks of words: sentences, paragraphs, essays, stories and books. In doing this, one can take a body of words (images, symbols or anything that represents ideas) and analyse them in regards to what is signified or how they signify; in regards to the concepts they produce or how they are objectively put on a page. This is structuralism. Structuralism is involved in this process of turning literature into concepts and/or objects that can then be put into a system and processed.
It was Propp who found much success in applying the structuralist philosophy of concept-object reduction to narrative structures. He was a Russian interested in a deceptively simple question of how to define Russian folktales. He observed that those before him had defined and categorised Russian folktales in regards to what they were about, for example, animals, dragons, fights, certain characters, etc. and had reduced them to components that were not fundamental enough. He then wanted to find all of the irreducible functions (objects/concepts) of folktale narratives as to formulate a system (a list) that represented the general structure of all folktales. This general structure is the 'morphology', which simply means the nature or character of a form or shape. And it was most important to Propp that every element that he found could not be reduced or seen as identical to another element; every single one had to be fundamental and individual.
Having established his goal, Propp sought to look through the plot of numerous folktales narrative and find motifs, which he describes as 'the simplest narrative unit'. He would not call his units motifs, instead, functions. What Propp then follows is a logic that we have discussed in a theory of 'what cinema is for'. In my estimation, drama is the most fundamental aspect of narrative. My rationalisation for this is that narratives are mimetic (imitative of the unknown and known of life). To represent or manifest imitation, one requires action, and drama is action put into a system and embodied by character. Thus, drama encapsulates the core of imitation and brings all other elements of imitation (the creation of a place, language, people and more) to life. For Propp, the idea of 'function' is similar to a conceptualisation of drama I have outlined. Function implies a reason for something occurring. Furthermore, it implies action. Function is then action with reason; it is drama with a purpose. And this is exactly what Propp sought to find. He hypothesises that there are a limited set of actions, with a limited set of reasons attached to them. More generally, however, all actions have the same purpose for Propp, and that purpose seems to be the construction of a whole folktale. Thus all functions are cogs that help a system spin.
It is at this point important, I believe, to state the ways in which Propp's work is deeply lacking and wholly incomplete. We have discussed before that many literary analysts seek to question what something is whilst neglecting a question of what something is for. Propp is highly guilty of this as he provides a universal structure or overarching conceptual structure of the folktale without ever attempting to confront a far more difficult question of why the folktale is structured in such a way.
This separates Popp from the biologists and linguists that he seemingly seeks to imitate. A biologist dissects an organism as to map out every structure and substructure. They do this to in turn figure out what they are for so that, when they need fixing or altering, this is a possibility. A doctor then must know what a kidney is, what it is made of and how it fits into a larger system as to figure out how to combat a kidney disease. A linguist, on the other hand, takes structures that (often, not always) already have function and attempts to realise how that function, or meaning, is formulated. As a result, they will already know what 'door' means, but would be interested in its nature and place as a noun with a certain origin, pronunciation and so fourth. Propp makes a mistake of acting as if he is a linguist dealing with words such as 'door' when, in reality, he must act as a biologist of sorts. After all, what folktales mean is not inherently known, nor is it objective like the meaning of 'door'. 'Door' means door, a barrier that separates and joins two spaces with an open and shut function. 'Door' becomes more complicated when used in a larger sentence; for example, 'doorway to my heart' manipulates the objective meaning of the word. And a door can be ever more complicated when framed in a larger narrative; what, then, does the door with the number 237 on it mean in The Shining?
It is clear at this point that when a linguist loses specificity and singularity, they have to start becoming a biologist, which is to say that they can't assume that they already know the meaning of something that is functioning, but must instead discover its purpose alongside its being: the reason and function. In The Shining, for instance, 'door' becomes something like a kidney; we cannot then assume that because we can define a door as 'a barrier that separates and joins two spaces with an open and shut function' that we understand what the doorway to room 327 is.
There is, in relation to our assertion here, a fascinating rhetorical interrogative that Propp proposes in delineating the history of the problem he means to confront. He asks: "Is it possible to speak about the life of language without knowing anything about the parts of speech?". If this was not posed as a rhetorical question and he actually engaged it, I believe Propp's theory would be so much stronger. To expand on why, I shall reference one of my favourite sequences of the Tao Te Ching:
Can you balance your life force
And embrace the One
Without separation?
Can you control your breath
Gently
Like a baby?
Can you clarify
Your dark vision
Without blemish?
Can you love people
And govern the country
Without knowledge?
Can you open and close
The gate of heaven
Without clinging to earth?
Can you brighten
The four directions
Without action?
Give birth and cultivate.
Give birth and do not possess.
Act without dependence.
Excel but do not rule.
This is called dark Te.
So much could be said about these lines, but, as are, they contain much that goes beyond what is necessary to discuss. I'd like to then zoom in on the question: Can you love people and govern the country without knowledge? This, in my estimation, is very similar to Propp's question: Is it possible to speak about the life of language without knowing anything about the parts of speech? This could in fact be a highly Taoist line if it were phrased as such: Can you speak about the life of language without knowing anything about the parts of speech? And it would appear Taoist as it bears the philosophy of embracing the darkness and unknowing of the passive, chaotic and feminine Yin. Alas, Propp proposes a rhetorical question. In such, he suggests that it is impossible to do without knowing, to speak of the life of language without first formulating and analysing language itself. He then presents an entirely antithetical philosophy to the Taoists. Lao-Tzu (author of the Tao Te Ching) suggest that virtuous action (Te) is performed without intent and without knowledge. Propp on the other hand suggest that the only action that can be performed requires judgement and discrimination beforehand. If life is a forest, do we chose to walk in blind or do we try to construct a map? Lao-Tzu believes we must walk in blind because the map is already within us and can be accessed with proper action. Propp seemingly places his trust in our ability to draw and rationalise.
We may then ask now, who is right? And we must ask this as to determine how to confront Propp's fundamental logic underlying his book. Do we have to make a map as to walk correctly and understand the world? In my opinion, a map would be required. But, I am not convinced, as Propp is, that the map must be drawn before anyone can walk correctly. There seems to be a relationship between the walking and cartography that defies human logic and planning; we cannot know everything, but, in telling ourselves we do, we only welcome pointless meandering and suffering, therefore, do not follow a map of territory not yet explored. Embracing this logic, Lao-Tzu provides a positive start to a journey by asking if we would be willing start blind. However, after starting blind, one would hope that they could open their eyes; to love people and govern a country without initial knowledge, yet gain it in the process - which is not to say that one should have no knowledge and not accumulate competence before taking up a large task, but should recognise that what knowledge they possess now is likely reducible to a zero if the task they have before them is truly substantial (for example, governing a country or loving someone). This is what Lao-Tzu asserts with: "Give birth and cultivate. Give birth and do not possess. Act without dependence. Excel but do not rule".
In regards to narrative, I believe that this assertion translates to us having to speak of the life of speech before knowing anything about its parts, to give birth first and then cultivate. Therefore, we must accept that the start of the journey towards answering what a narrative is for (a question that is embedded into "what is narrative") must begin without knowing and yet be propelled by an investigation of its life. This is to say, we must walk before we map; we must speak of what narrative is for before better specifying what it is, and thus we must induce a cycle that clarifies and strengthens our developing answer to the questions, what is narrative and what is it for? Again: give birth and cultivate.
Because Propp never engages the question of purpose, I believe he fails as a narrative biologist before he even starts his work. He seeks to find the organs of the folktale and assumes that, having done so, his work is done. If we were to cut Propp some slack, however, we could accept that he believes that his work is just the start of a larger battle. He wants to provide us the names and characteristics of certain organs and thinks that from here that it should be the work of others to compare what he finds in Russian folktales to what others find in other narratives as to then answer a "what for?" or "why?" question.
Alas, keeping in mind that Propp's work represents the start of something far more larger than himself, let us return his conceptualisation of the functions. As said, he deals with functions as spinning cogs that just make a system work (what it works for we are never told). His spinning cogs are nonetheless characters, thus, he derives the fundamental motifs of folktale narratives from their 'dramatis personae'.
Dramatis personae is an interesting term as, though it only means main characters, the direct Latin translation is 'masks of the drama'. The Latin 'drama' is derivative of the Greek 'dramatos', however, and so though the Latin 'drama' defined theatrical plays, the Greek 'dramatos' defined 'play, action or deed'. The more accurate translation of dramatis personae may then be 'masks of the action'. And in reference to the theatrical masks that Greek theatre is known for, this term is an embodiment of the idea that characters are the face of action - which is, itself, is the manifestation and representation of imitation, leaving characters mimetic masks. 'Dramatis personae' is also a more universalising term than 'character'. Character implies individuality, whereas a mask or persona is generalising (why else does a mask cover a face?), leaving one to imagine a caricature or archetype. And so Propp, more so as an aside or assisting function, identifies caricatures, character types or archetypes alongside his narrative functions. Furthermore, he specifies that the limited set of archetypes are embedded into, and catalysing of, the narrative functions. Before we then look at Propp's structure of the universal folktale, let us first look at his universal masks, his archetypes:
Hero
Helper
Villain
False Hero
Donor
Dispatcher
Princess
Princess' Father
Because I have provided so much commentary already, I will not further comment on these archetypes, nor on the functions I will soon list. I do, however, encourage you to research and ponder upon them. Let us then look through Propp's 31 narrative functions:
1. Absentation: Someone goes missing
2. Interdiction: Hero is warned
3. Violation of interdiction
4. Reconnaissance: Villain seeks something
5. Delivery: The villain gains information
6. Trickery: Villain attempts to deceive victim
7. Complicity: Unwitting helping of the enemy
8. Villainy and lack: The need is identified
9. Mediation: Hero discovers the lack
10. Counteraction: Hero chooses positive action
11. Departure: Hero leave on mission
12. Testing: Hero is challenged to prove heroic qualities
13. Reaction: Hero responds to test
14. Acquisition: Hero gains magical item
15. Guidance: Hero reaches destination
16. Struggle: Hero and villain do battle
17. Branding: Hero is branded
18. Victory: Villain is defeated
19. Resolution: Initial misfortune or lack is resolved
20. Return: Hero sets out for home
21. Pursuit: Hero is chased
22. Rescue: pursuit ends
23. Arrival: Hero arrives unrecognized
24. Claim: False hero makes unfounded claims
25. Task: Difficult task proposed to the hero
26. Solution: Task is resolved
27. Recognition: Hero is recognised
28. Exposure: False hero is exposed
29. Transfiguration: Hero is given a new appearance
30. Punishment: Villain is punished
31. Wedding: Hero marries and ascends the throne
This is the key result of Propp's morphology, and it is this unique work derived from the study of hundreds of Russian folktales that made Propp such an important structuralist. His lists provide a range of functions and archetypes that are present in all Russian folktales and even have their place in books and movies. It is important to note, however, that not every character and every function is in every folktale; it is merely the case that a folktale or story without some or most of the functions or archetypes is incredibly rare. What we then see represented here is an example of how narratives can be reduced to concepts and objects. One could argue that Propp deals only with objects - that meaning, he reduces narratives to masks and functions. If this is unfair to suggest, however, it seems clear that the concepts underlying the 31 functions and 8 archetypes are certainly lacking depth. Alas, with Propp provided as an example of the structuralist philosophy applied to narrative, I'd like to leave things with you and on a question of what you think about the philosophy or approach of structuralism and its results.
Before bringing things to a complete close, it must be noted that there is more to Propp's book, Morphology of the Folktale, than what has been mentioned here; we have only touched on the key chapter. I would then recommend reading the book (it is quite short at only 100 or so pages). You may also find this website useful as this lists the characters and functions and more.
Previous post:
The Stanford Prison Experiment - The Rain & The Rainbow
Next post:
Skyscraper/Die Hard - Quality Via Structure
More from me:
