What do you think?
Rate this book
Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method
Gerard Genette builds a systematic theory of narrative upon an anlaysis of the writings of Marcel Proust, particularly 'Remembrance of Things Past.'Adopting what is essentially a structuralist approach, the author identifies and names the basic constituents and techniques of narrative and illustrates them by referring to literary works in many languages.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
About the author
Gérard Genette
57 books50 followersGenette was largely responsible for the reintroduction of a rhetorical vocabulary into literary criticism, for example such terms as trope and metonymy. Additionally his work on narrative, best known in English through the selection Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, has been of importance.[2] His major work is the multi-part Figures series, of which Narrative Discourse is a section. His trilogy on textual transcendence, which has also been quite influential, is composed of Introduction à l'architexte (1979), Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (1982), and Paratexts. Thresholds of interpretation (1997).[3]
His international influence is not as great as that of some others identified with structuralism, such as Roland Barthes and Claude Lévi-Strauss; his work is more often included in selections or discussed in secondary works than studied in its own right. Terms and techniques originating in his vocabulary and systems have, however, become widespread, such as the term paratext for prefaces, introductions, illustrations or other material accompanying the text, or hypotext for the sources of the text.
His international influence is not as great as that of some others identified with structuralism, such as Roland Barthes and Claude Lévi-Strauss; his work is more often included in selections or discussed in secondary works than studied in its own right. Terms and techniques originating in his vocabulary and systems have, however, become widespread, such as the term paratext for prefaces, introductions, illustrations or other material accompanying the text, or hypotext for the sources of the text.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
June 10, 2019
Reading Genette is always a pleasure! In this book, he takes ahead his ideas and theories within the purview of structuralism. The focus on Narrative and discourse brings the readers of this book to various new dimensions of narratology. More enlightening and more descriptive - always helpful for those who want to widen their intellect in this particular direction.
October 3, 2019
Must-read book when studying narratology.
October 21, 2012
I haven't rated any theory as five stars in a while. Not since my initial infatuation with it. (Now we're like an old married couple.) Some of those stars there are for this being a book you need to know if you want to do narrative theory, and the rest of those stars are just because I love Genette's style, that is, his style both on the page and in his head.
Two main style things:
Turns of phrase -- he keeps it interesting and even informal in places. Funniest bit: "capital erotic habits." Capital! Just capital, I say! (I know this is a translation, but the thought is there even in the French.)
Evidence of painful, painstaking thinking -- Holy shit, footnotes! He ANGUISHES over choosing terms, for instance. To paraphrase: "Here's the etymologies on all these parts of the term, and here's why it doesn't quite work, and OH I regret that I even need to coin a term at all, but I do!"
I'd like to do this better justice, but the book is on my desk at the office, because it's in use for paper-writing.
A note: While Genette is the author of the most famous (in America) two books on narrative theory, that's hardly what he's interested in. He's done so much other work on everything but.
Two main style things:
Turns of phrase -- he keeps it interesting and even informal in places. Funniest bit: "capital erotic habits." Capital! Just capital, I say! (I know this is a translation, but the thought is there even in the French.)
Evidence of painful, painstaking thinking -- Holy shit, footnotes! He ANGUISHES over choosing terms, for instance. To paraphrase: "Here's the etymologies on all these parts of the term, and here's why it doesn't quite work, and OH I regret that I even need to coin a term at all, but I do!"
I'd like to do this better justice, but the book is on my desk at the office, because it's in use for paper-writing.
A note: While Genette is the author of the most famous (in America) two books on narrative theory, that's hardly what he's interested in. He's done so much other work on everything but.
October 21, 2015
Іще одна класика, яку знаєш через осмос, але не конче добираєшся прочитати.
Значна частина мови, якою ми говоримо про літературу (якщо симпатизуємо наратології) - це мова, яку винайшов Женетт. Звісно, в густині термінології є якийсь елемент сорому гуманітарних наук перед природничими (ми, мовляв, також маємо строгі визначення і строгий метод!) - але, on the plus side, hair-splitting терміни звертають увагу на текстові розрізнення/проблеми, які незле враховувати при аналізі, але дослідники, що не мають для цього окремих термінів, можуть і оминути увагою. (Ну, скажімо, може видатися недоцільним говорити про "інтрадієгетичного гетеродієгетичного оповідача", якщо можна сказати щось на кшталт "оповідь від першої особи, оповідач не є частиною сюжету" - але це звертає увагу читача на те, що оповідач у оповіді від першої особи, який участь у сюжеті бере й не бере - це різні текстові звірі й наративні стратегії.)
Крім того, "Наративний дискурс" - блискучий приклад того, як з прозою можна працювати не менш тонко, аніж з поезією (зазвичай прозу аналізують тематично, приділяючи тому, як вона зроблена, значно менше уваги, і я вічно шукаю зразків добрих аналізів прози - ну і от Женетт, безперечно, це пропонує).
Значна частина мови, якою ми говоримо про літературу (якщо симпатизуємо наратології) - це мова, яку винайшов Женетт. Звісно, в густині термінології є якийсь елемент сорому гуманітарних наук перед природничими (ми, мовляв, також маємо строгі визначення і строгий метод!) - але, on the plus side, hair-splitting терміни звертають увагу на текстові розрізнення/проблеми, які незле враховувати при аналізі, але дослідники, що не мають для цього окремих термінів, можуть і оминути увагою. (Ну, скажімо, може видатися недоцільним говорити про "інтрадієгетичного гетеродієгетичного оповідача", якщо можна сказати щось на кшталт "оповідь від першої особи, оповідач не є частиною сюжету" - але це звертає увагу читача на те, що оповідач у оповіді від першої особи, який участь у сюжеті бере й не бере - це різні текстові звірі й наративні стратегії.)
Крім того, "Наративний дискурс" - блискучий приклад того, як з прозою можна працювати не менш тонко, аніж з поезією (зазвичай прозу аналізують тематично, приділяючи тому, як вона зроблена, значно менше уваги, і я вічно шукаю зразків добрих аналізів прози - ну і от Женетт, безперечно, це пропонує).
March 22, 2012
Ok, again, four stars and "I Liked it!" seem like weird categories for academic texts, but.
This guy is brilliant.
Honestly, he coined most of the terms--ok, not MOST, but a whole bunch--associated with structuralist narratology and manages to explain them in a way that a peon like myself can understand. Ok, so this is translated from French, but still. He does use Marcel Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past" as his case study text, so once he defines a term, he shows how it works mainly using that novel. I skimmed those sections since a) I have not read it, and b) I will never, ever teach it.
Again, a lot of the language I wish I had when I taught high school comes from this guy. Must be nice. When do I get to coin terms? :)
This guy is brilliant.
Honestly, he coined most of the terms--ok, not MOST, but a whole bunch--associated with structuralist narratology and manages to explain them in a way that a peon like myself can understand. Ok, so this is translated from French, but still. He does use Marcel Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past" as his case study text, so once he defines a term, he shows how it works mainly using that novel. I skimmed those sections since a) I have not read it, and b) I will never, ever teach it.
Again, a lot of the language I wish I had when I taught high school comes from this guy. Must be nice. When do I get to coin terms? :)
September 16, 2015
I cannot comment on the book's merit in the field of literary theory, although it seems considerable, to say the least.
But for the average reader it seems to me that it offers a range of valuable insights about subtle characteristics of the narrative that, if you pay proper attention to them, can certainly enrich the reading experience.
It could also undoubtedly be of great help to translators with the analytical tools it proposes.
But for the average reader it seems to me that it offers a range of valuable insights about subtle characteristics of the narrative that, if you pay proper attention to them, can certainly enrich the reading experience.
It could also undoubtedly be of great help to translators with the analytical tools it proposes.
April 18, 2008
For people who loves to inspect any fictions' narrative structure, you may not miss this valuable volume. This book explores how we can understand narrators' attitude as well as their "focalization" by his methods. One of the most important biblical works for linguistic, stylistics, rhetoric students to place it on their shelves.
February 28, 2016
Edebi metinleri yapısal olarak değerlendirme açısından değerli bir çalışma; Proust üzerinden ve hatta Proust'un gelmiş geçmiş en zor metinlerinden biri olan Kayıp Zamanın İzinde üzerinde çalışması ve fikirlerini bu esere uygulaması açısından hakkı olan değeri görmesi gereken eser. Edebi eserlerin sadece tematik olarak değerlendirilmeyeceğine güzel bir kanıt.
Anlatı ve anlatının yapı taşları.
Anlatı ve anlatının yapı taşları.
February 25, 2009
Strict structuralism and very dry. Not recommended for beginners.
December 2, 2011
The methodology is useful, but the terminology made my brain feel like it'd been put through a blender and pureed.
March 15, 2022
This book sets out to expose the basic structures of narrative - the various possible usages of tenses and time, the role of the narrator and focalization - but really, as Genette suggests in the introduction, the book is half-way torn between this, and being a study of Proust, which is more or less what this book fundamentally is. In that regard, it seems to me adequate; his devotion to narratological concerns prevents him from going in depth, so much of this remains brief exegeses of Proust's games with narrative time and the narrator's eye. Meanwhile, Genette has a pretty good exposition of narratorial perspective, and his exposition of the function of time in the novel is well done, staying concrete and rigorous. While the book is sprinkled with continentalisms here&there, most of it remains pretty hard-nosed and avoids the indulgent existential philosophy that narratorial voice and the concept of time seem to invite, especially with Proust. This being his intent, it's fair to say he succeeded, although it's easy to find writers (mostly authors of novels; very typical that it took until 1980 for the academics to spell these basic terms out) decades earlier reflecting on time and perspective in greater depth & with more interesting and gratifying conclusions about their use - for example, Henry James' constant reference to the necessarily 'conscious' nature of narrators unites all these loose concepts together into a more compelling package, which may be arguably false and which yet was the explicit belief of many novelists that follow. I recommend this book any-how, since sensitivity to the basic elements of narration is extremely edifying for the reading of pretty much any novel.
May 26, 2021
Ocena mysle ze taka a nie inna tez z tego prostego powodu zem jest prosty czlowiek, a tu nie dosc, ze koncepty miejscami trudne, to i angielski C2. Niektore przemyslenia byly ciekawe - jak te dotyczace trybu czy częstotliwości, ale ta ksiazka to skuteczna sieka dla głowy, zwlaszcza dla tych raczkujacych w temacie. Juz pomine fakt, ze ze strukturalizmem to sie chyba srednio lubimy. Koszmarek, ale jak sie obronie to nie zmienie na jedynke 😩
December 29, 2021
Even though it is one of my required reads at uni, surprisingly, I enjoyed it!
But I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more had I read Proust's In Search of Lost Time
Nevertheless, it offers the 'narratological' tools to better scrutinize the literary text! You would totally look at any text from a deep perspective after reading Narrative Discourse.
But I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more had I read Proust's In Search of Lost Time
Nevertheless, it offers the 'narratological' tools to better scrutinize the literary text! You would totally look at any text from a deep perspective after reading Narrative Discourse.
June 10, 2022
This text is a very great resource for the discussion of narrative theory. The author discusses several aspects of narrative, including such concepts as "mood" and "voice". It is a bit esoteric at times as befits an academic-focused work. The author specifically focuses on Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time and references several other French texts.
July 10, 2024
could do without the psuedo-mathematical formulations but that’s structuralism for you. still, genette has worthwhile insights on narrative temporality, voice, focalization, pov, etc. (even if his conceptual distinctions are overwrought), and his overall study will force you to complicate your understandings of narrativity. worth reading or even skimming through
November 19, 2018
Excelente produção teórica e segue sendo incrivelmente na área da narratologia. Só não ganha 5 estrelas pois (é provável que seja problema relativo a edição que tive acesso) o texto era realmente cansativo devido ao nível de complexidade da terminologia.
May 19, 2020
Fascinating. What are the building blocks of narrative? How do we categorize narrators, time shifts, the differences between events and narration? If I'd read Proust it might make even more sense but it's a minor part of the book.
June 26, 2022
I have been looking forward to this book for a very long time. The theory presented is fascinating, but it does rely a ton on how it works in Proust's In Search of Lost Time - which is on the list for later this summer. Anyhoo, lots of fasinating things to think about.
August 20, 2019
A must read for any scholar of literature or rhetoric.
Read
April 5, 2020Tämän piti alun perin olla antoisa tenttikirja, mutta sitten tuli korona ja vesitti tämän kevään suunnitelmat. No, jäihän tästä jotain käteenkin. Nyt viimeistään kiinnostuin Proustista...
September 1, 2020
3.5....I would have liked it more had I ever read Proust
October 5, 2020
Incredibly important. Perhaps not a great handbook for contemporary practice, but a wonderful example of what reading can be.
November 23, 2020
definitely NOT recommended if you're not familiar with Proust's In Search of Lost Time.
November 8, 2009
I was pleasantly surprised by this one. A friend recommended it, and, despite my scepticism, I picked it up. He said it had been very useful for his work on Robert Musil, and I can see why.
I think there are two ways of reading this. I'm not sure it's so helpful to read it as Genette seems to have intended: a description of the conditions which make narrative possible. This structuralist project has always seemed a little dubious to me, although I'm very fond of philosophical explanations of the conditions for pretty much everything. On the other hand, if you read it as an analysis of one of the more complex narratives we have (the examples are mainly from Proust), it's very good. The terminology is absolutely horrific (prolepsis, analepsis, prolipsis, anachrony...), but the concepts are actually quite clear. I can imagine using them in a classroom to help students understand the way an author tells her story. Can't ask for more than that.
As good as the tools are, the book itself gets a little grating towards the end. Genette launches into a defense of Proust against what he perceives as a bias towards Henry James-esque narrative techniques (that is, a bias against the first person, against autobiographical forms, and so on.) That's all well and good, since Proust is a great author and it's silly to claim that he's not because he writes in the first person. On the other hand, Proust wasn't perfect. He made mistakes. Genette does a great job analysing those mistakes... and then claims that they are evidence of Proust 'transgressing' or 'subverting' narrative conventions. The problem is, he's just 'transgressing' or 'subverting' the conventions that Genette has described. The argument becomes circular: the data supporting the conventions are found in the book which is also meant to be undermining those conventions. And I sure didn't get the feeling that Proust was trying to do that.
So, it's a good tool-box. But be ready for some general French-literary-theoriness towards the end.
I think there are two ways of reading this. I'm not sure it's so helpful to read it as Genette seems to have intended: a description of the conditions which make narrative possible. This structuralist project has always seemed a little dubious to me, although I'm very fond of philosophical explanations of the conditions for pretty much everything. On the other hand, if you read it as an analysis of one of the more complex narratives we have (the examples are mainly from Proust), it's very good. The terminology is absolutely horrific (prolepsis, analepsis, prolipsis, anachrony...), but the concepts are actually quite clear. I can imagine using them in a classroom to help students understand the way an author tells her story. Can't ask for more than that.
As good as the tools are, the book itself gets a little grating towards the end. Genette launches into a defense of Proust against what he perceives as a bias towards Henry James-esque narrative techniques (that is, a bias against the first person, against autobiographical forms, and so on.) That's all well and good, since Proust is a great author and it's silly to claim that he's not because he writes in the first person. On the other hand, Proust wasn't perfect. He made mistakes. Genette does a great job analysing those mistakes... and then claims that they are evidence of Proust 'transgressing' or 'subverting' narrative conventions. The problem is, he's just 'transgressing' or 'subverting' the conventions that Genette has described. The argument becomes circular: the data supporting the conventions are found in the book which is also meant to be undermining those conventions. And I sure didn't get the feeling that Proust was trying to do that.
So, it's a good tool-box. But be ready for some general French-literary-theoriness towards the end.
February 1, 2021
Ayrıntı yayınlarından yeni baskısı çıktı bu yıl. Ben onu okudum. Edebiyat kuramının ABC'sidir. Bu konuya ilgili olanların mutlaka okuması gerekir. Ayrıca Gerard Genet'in daha fazla kitabının Türkçeye çevrilmesini diliyorum.
July 23, 2013
I had read large parts of this book in college, and so I was aware of what a monumental achievement in narratology it was, but I had no idea that it was also a fine, sensitive study of Proust. Reading the full book again, it is clear that parts have not aged well (the analogy between narrative and grammar seems particularly weak), but it still remains an essential guide to diagramming, identifying and understanding the workings of narrative.
"the scorner of the avant-garde is almost always a revolutionary despite himself (I would certainly say that that is the best way to be one if I didn't have the faint suspicion that it is the only way)"
"the scorner of the avant-garde is almost always a revolutionary despite himself (I would certainly say that that is the best way to be one if I didn't have the faint suspicion that it is the only way)"
November 29, 2016
“narrative, and that alone, informs us here both of the events that it recounts and of the activity that supposedly gave birth to it. In other words, our knowledge of the two (the events and the action of writing) must be indirect, unavoidably mediated by the narrative discourse, inasmuch as the events are the very subject of that discourse and the activity of writing leaves in it traces, signs or indices that we can pick up and interpret.”
rly liked this book, uses swann's way as case study so it's very fun :)
rly liked this book, uses swann's way as case study so it's very fun :)
August 29, 2013
Genette uses Proust to illustrate the various aspects of a narrative that impact a reader's experience, such as the narrative voice and mood and the author's manipulation of time. Fairly easy to digest, though it would have been easier had I been familiar with his tutor text. A useful grammar of narrative structure that manages to avoid being deterministic.
November 19, 2011
Very technical, but really interesting. The jargon is off-putting at first, and the book requires really close reading, but the ideas are fascinating. Recommended for literature nerds like myself. Also, it made me really want to read Proust.
February 15, 2016
“The real author of the narrative is not only he who tells it, but also, and at times more, he who hears it. And who is not necessarily the one it is addressed to: there are always people off to the side.” (262)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews