$7KHRU\RI1DUUDWLYHUHYLHZ

.RHQUDDG.XLSHU

3KLORVRSK\DQG/LWHUDWXUH9ROXPH1XPEHU2FWREHUSS
5HYLHZ

3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
'2,SKO

)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH
KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH

Access provided by Canterbury University (4 Aug 2016 12:20 GMT)

 Reviews343

divides mind from nature" (p. 55) as restatements of mat Western dialectic of
self and odier, dien die book's wide-ranging dieoretical aUusions merely assume
what uiey pretend to prove.
The book's assumptions preach to die converted, and its undeveloped
arguments deserve better. Only one example: Kronick's provocative reading of
Whitman includes a convincing analysis of Whitman's use of chiasmus, but he
mars his case widi a spectacular misreading of the "dumb, beautiful ministers"
of "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry" as Whitman's apostrophe to his readers rather
than to the sights along die coast. Texts do not mean whatever die interpreter
wants diem to mean. Syntax counts.
Kronick's argument for constant reinterpretations can serve to keep history
alive. Reminding us that "the continuity of history depends upon die infinite
process of interpretation that renders die past for die future," he would rescue
history from being "merely a funerary monument" (pp. 102, 227). But when he
argues diat all evidence and selection must be random and arbitrary, he opens
"an abyss ofendiese interpretations" widiout significance (pp. 102, 257). If mat
view wins die day, then historians will continue to have my sympathy.

Central Missouri State UniversityMark Johnson

A Theory of Narrative, by F. K. Stanzel; translated by

Charlotte Goedsche; xvi & 308 pp. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1984, $39.50.

This book is a dioroughly stimulatingjourney around fiction. Stanzel believes

that what is central to fictional narrative is die mediation of die story, that is,
who teUs it and how. "Mediacy is the generic characteristic which distinguishes
narration from odier forms of literary art" (p. 4). That leads him to propose
three categories which enable die mediation of a fiction to be described. They
are person, perspective, and mode. Person is the category which accounts for die nar-
rator: who he or she is, and whedier the narrator inhabits die same world in
which die characters exist and die story happens. The category oí perspective
allows for die description of die extent to which die narrator himself or herself is
involved in die story, and the category of mode "refers to the contrast between
transmission by a teller-character and transmission by a reflector-character . . ."
(p. 144). Each of diese categories in turn has a small number of exponents. The
category mode has two. In the case of person there is the division between first-
344Philosophy and Literature

and third-person narrators. For perspective it is a matter of internal and exter-

nal perspective.
The three major categories and dieir primary distinctions are arranged by
Stanzel in a diagram around a circle which he calls "The Typological Circle."
This is supposed to show metaphorically that they merge one into anodier, there
being no clear demarcation lines between any of diem. "The idea of open
borders and zones of transition is . . . central to my concept of die typological
circle" (p. 228). On die odier hand, "die narrative situations are conceived as
ideal types" (p. 8). This seeming contradiction comes about in part because
Stanzel tries, often very successfully, to deal with requirements which he himself
feels to be contradictory: "It is clear that no systematization of narrative forms
can meet both the requirements of dieory and interpretation equally — die
demands of conceptual order and consistency, on die one hand, and the
suitability of texts and applicability in interpretation, on die odier" (p. 53).
But notwidistanding this, there is a very full and informative discussion of die
interaction of aU the categories since die categories always interact. First-person
narrators may be distant from the action uiey relate or near to and involved in
it. They may teU die story from an internal or external perspective. Thus die
diree major categories provide a rich taxonomy for describing narrative and
narratives.
This taxonomy is one of die great strenguis of Stanzel's work, since he does
both provide a dieory and exemplify it extensively. Throughout die work there
are detailed analyses of die narrative structure of small quoted passages as well
as whole novels. These support Stanzel's dieory and are revealing in diemselves.
They also provide a compendium for all those who are interested in die nature
of narrative fiction. Many of diem seem good candidates for typical or ar-
chetypical status and could be used by anyone constructing a dieory of nar-
rative, since die analysis is both clear and acute.
It is this familiarity and respect for narratives which leads Stanzel to insist that
his major categories have fuzzy edges. This is because he feels mat many fictions
or even sections of fiction do not exacdy fit his categories. But that is not a prob-
lem for die dieory if its edges are left sharp. The theory provides descriptive
categories for sentences, paragraphs, and chapters, as well as whole books. And
if a whole book is not consistendy one diing or anodier, mat is not die fault of
the uieory or the book. The theory is responsible for predicting die possible
kinds of fiction — and it is revealing and makes interesting predictions even widi
sharp edges.
University of CanterburyKoenraad Kuiper
New Zealand