Talk:Narratology

message: MC.Pearce Sorry guys but this article has some large factual errors.  For example, the concept of a plot gap is actually a pre-condition for most narratives, eg. 'Who dunnit?'  Apart from the introduction which mentions Todorov, the article bears little relation to academic narratology.  I was going to add bits, but this would be silly without a major over-haul.
:You are welcome to correct any factual mistakes you find in the article and to expand it by adding sections with academic data (actually, that was my idea all along). As for the plot hole, then it is a term used to describe "a gap in the storyline when it goes against its own logic, contradicts itself or simply leaves unanswered questions". Please, note the sequence: while I agree that some questions may and should stay unanswered, I do not see how self-contradiction and illogical plot twists may be key features of a story (except when we are talking about post-modernism or some other specific genre). --Koveras  14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is allowed to continue only if "qualified" people don't edit it.  Please help if you can. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  The article as it is is a reasonable glossary of terms.  It doesn't have anything to do with narratology as I came into contact with it though.
Ninj 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I largely agree with you. Someone has reverted your cut. qp10qp 23:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major over-haul" 

message: ----
'What is narrative' is a minefield. I'd suggest we stay away from it - let's just note that it is    necessarily presupposed in some way by the discipline of narratology, but that it is a very problematic term. Then we can include a link to the 'narrative' page and leave it at that. Attempts to define narrative belong there, not here.
Of course, this makes the question of what narratology actually is rather difficult to deal with - it's the scientific, semi-scientific, or pseudo-scientific study (take your pick) of something that has no universally agreed definition, even among practitioners of the discipline.
But then again, it's no good trying to pretend things are more settled than they are.
Ninj 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of the outline

message: This entry has changed very little in the last few months. Every time I look at it, I become more aware of how bad it is. I'm going to delete everything that doesn't relate to narratology as an academic sub-discipline... and that means most of it. My students will be handing in assignments on narratology in a few weeks time, and I'd like to spare them the embarrassment of being misled by this. A short but accurate entry is much preferable to a long and inaccurate one.
I realise that some people may feel offended by my removing so much. I'm not saying that all the content I'm deleting is bad. I'm just saying that it doesn't belong here, because, whatever it is, it isn't narratology. I'm sure it would be perfectly welcome in a different entry, but I don't know which one.
Ninj 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I largely agree with you. Someone has reverted your cut. qp10qp 23:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting non-narratological content

message: Can someone tell me why this page was redirected. I would like to create a page for narrative theory, because it it part of interpersonal communication. Most of my information comes from Leslie A. Baxter and Narriative theory needs to be different from "narratology". i would like to create a page for narrative theory, but don't want it to be redirected.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.115.218 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably a redirect because no one has written an article on it yet. The correct article title should be Narrative theory (note the capitalisation). Draft an article in your userspace first, add plenty of citations that provide evidence for each "claim" that your article makes, so that other people may go and check the facts for themselves, perhaps ask for some feedback on your draft at Requests for feedback, then paste it into the re-direct page. You can reach the page "proper" by clicking on the link at the top of this article that appears when you try to search for "Narrative theory" (i.e., allow it to redirect you here, then follow the link that tells you that you've been redirected). Happy editing. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative Theory 

message: This section could be better organised to reflect its title.  At least, a list of influential names.  And perhaps a brief para on their particular contributions.  Preferably, all arranged in chronological order, to augment the reader's understanding of the history of the discipline.  Alternatively, in alphabetic name order. yoyo (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theorists of Narratology 

message: On reading the current article, I don't know.  Is narratology:
#a science?
#a discipline?
#a (possibly cross-disciplinary (autocorrect suggested "cross-dressing"!)) field of study, which is neither science nor discipline?
#something else entirely?
yoyo (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discipline, science or field of study?