Value constructions in narratives across media: towards a general typology

Reply to Lisbeth Korthals Altes, "(Literary) Narrative Fiction as Negotiation of Values"

Roland Weidle

University of Hamburg

David Gorman in his entry on fiction in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory differentiates between two main approaches in theories of fiction: semantic approaches "that look for something distinctive in the content of fictional discourse" (Gorman 2008: 164) and pragmatic theories that "focus on the production and reception of fiction - that is, on the activity of fiction-making, including the intentions and conventions involved, and the social role that fiction plays" (ib.). He arrives at the conclusion that although most critics have opted either for one or the other, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive and that

the relationship between the two kinds of theories deserves more attention. It is arguable that they are complementary, semantic theories dealing with what is inside (as we might put it) of a piece of fictional discourse, and pragmatic theories with what happens on the exterior. (ib.)

In the following I wish to argue that Lisbeth Altes Korthals' two approaches to the study of ethical dimensions of narrative equally complement each other, especially when it comes to extending her ideas by a transmedial perspective. It is my contention that only by combining Korthals Altes' normative engaged criticism and descriptive analysis is it possible to investigate how values are constructed in narratives in different media. In other words: We need to do both, to look at the negotiation of value positions inside the text (semantic approach) and to consider the ways value positions are constructed from outside the text (pragmatic approach). In doing so this paper understands itself as an exploration and continuation of some of Korthals Altes' arguments, such as her claim to integrate structuralist, contextualist and cognitive approaches or when she suggests to extend her ideas to other genres and media. The primary aim of this paper, however, is to offer a taxonomy of media types that may serve as a basis for further, more in-depth analyses of value construction in transmedial narratives.

A few clarifications are necessary, however, before embarking on such a transmedial extension. Firstly, what are we to understand under "value positions"? I would like to follow Korthals Altes' wider understanding of ethics in this respect as articulated in her contribution to which this paper is a response and in her entry on the "ethical turn" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory where she suggests to analyse

how - through what devices - narrative texts, written and read in specific contexts, thematise, problematise, or consolidate specific moral values and norms; and how their ethical value can lie in the questioning of morality itself. (Korthals Altes 2008: 145; my italics)

Her use of the plural form ("values and norms") and the fact that she perceives the "questioning of morality" as being a part of ethics describe the concept of ethics that underlies this paper. Ethics in this sense is a practice that is embedded in cultural and also medial contexts. It is, as Korthals Altes argues in her paper, a "wide field of reflection and practice" that spans various degrees of reflexivity. It must be stated that whenever I speak of "texts" in the following, I understand the term in its widest meaning, i.e. as cultural sign systems that can tell or mediate a story. Texts in this sense can be, among others, films, graphic novels, plays, and even paintings. Consequently, I also understand "narrating" not strictly in a verbal, linguistic sense[1] but in broader terms, i.e. as a process of mediation and communication that can take place on various channels.[2]

It is important, however, to draw a line between the inclusion of a pragmatic approach, as sketched out above, and the cognitivists' claim that every narrative is more or less constructed in our mind. Instead of locating value construction entirely outside (or inside) the text, I wish to focus on the role that the medium plays in shaping the narrative, its perception and also the construction of value positions. In this sense, the medium itself - its nature, set-up and features - has to be seen as the membrane that connects the inside with the outside of the text, the semantic with the pragmatic approach, and as something that fulfills a crucial function in the construction of our attitude to and judgment of the story material. My focus on the medium as an organizing device thus concurs with Korthals Altes' claim that "the whole aesthetic form contributes to the ethical experience a work of fiction occasions" and her demands to pay more attention to the "telling modes", "formal devices", and different "forms of narrativity" when attempting to define value positions in narratives.

In order to investigate how construction of meaning in stories is influenced by the nature of the medium it is also necessary to have a somewhat clear idea what we mean by "medium" and to take a closer look at how different media affect the way story-material is related, mediated and narrated to us. Referring to the contradictory definitions of medium as either a channel of communication (a "hollow pipe[]"[3]) that is totally separate from the message or as something that is inextricably interwoven with the latter, Marie-Laure Ryan offers a definition that combines both aspects:

To maintain the possibility of studying "narrative across media," we must find a compromise between the "hollow pipe" interpretation and the unconditional rejection of the conduit metaphor [.]. The terms of this compromise are suggested, perhaps unwittingly, by Ong himself, when he writes that information must be fitted to the "shape and size"[4] of the pipeline. This amounts to saying that different media filter different aspects of narrative meaning. [.] the shape imposed on the message by the configuration of the pipeline affects in a crucial way the construction of the receiver's mental image. (Ryan 2004: 17).

Understanding "medium" in this way means to acknowledge the "configuring action of the medium" (ib.) not only regarding the overall reception of the mediated story material, but also more specifically - and more relevant to our perspective - regarding to way we perceive "clues" (Korthals Altes) in the narrative to possess ethical values. In order to ascertain how constituent features of various media take part in the ethical configuration of the story it is therefore necessary to define what distinguishes one medium from another.

In her "typology of media affecting narrativity" Ryan (2004: 21) suggests categorizing media on the basis of five criteria: a) senses being addressed, b) priority of sensory tracks, c) spatio-temporal extension, d) technical support and materiality of signs, and e) cultural role and methods of production/distribution. Focusing on the first and third of these criteria she comes up with a table that groups media according to their spatio-temporal extension and the types of senses they address. To begin with, she differentiates between temporal, spatial and spatio-temporal media. The first type comprises media that extend only in the temporal dimension, such as radio, writing or music. Purely spatial media are static, visual, and therefore do not extend in time (paintings, sculptures, photography, architecture). Lastly, spatio-temporal media such as drama, dance, graphic novel, newspaper, cinema, web sites and hyperfiction stretch over both dimensions. Ryan then distinguishes between one-channel and multi-channel media in order to describe the number and kinds of senses addressed by the medium in question. Media such as radio, printed writing, non-texted music, photography and mimes are one-channel media, whereas songs with lyrics, dance, graphic novels, theatre, cinema and the like operate on more than one sensory channel. Ryan's category of spatial and temporal dimensions offers a helpful tool in describing the differences between media, her second category, however, seems to be somewhat imprecise. Combining what in fact are different things she arrives at the following "sensory dimensions" (Ryan 2004: 18): "linguistic", "acoustic", "visual/kinetic" and "visual/static". Where "acoustic" and "visual" pertain to the senses, "linguistic" and "kinetic" are in fact semiotic categories. Linguistic signs can operate in the visual, acoustic, and even haptic domain[5], and it is implausible why - in Ryan's taxonomy - songs with lyrics, because they employ linguistic and musical signs, should be deemed a medium appealing to two senses, where in fact they are only perceived acoustically.[6]

I therefore suggest to modify Ryan's taxonomy by also including the semiotic component. In this respect Erika Fischer-Lichte's elaboration of Tadeusz Kowzan's (1968) model of theatre semiotics offers itself.[7] Fischer-Lichte (1998: 27-28) differentiates between acoustic and visual signs in the theatre. The former include sound, music, linguistic and paralinguistic signs, the latter comprise kinetic (mimic, gestural and proxemic) signs as well as what she terms "more durative"[8] signs such as make-up, hair, costume, conception of scene[9], decoration, props and lighting.[10] On the basis of their visual character and for the purpose of an operational typology of media I suggest to use the terms "symbolic", "indexical" and "iconic" to describe these "more durative" signs.[11] On the basis of such a rather broad definition of what constitutes a sign[12] and incorporating a semiotics of theatre into Ryan's model I suggest the following typology of media:

Figure 1: A typology of media according to their spatio-temporal dimensions, sensory appeal and employed sign systems (based on Ryan 2004 and Fischer-Lichte 1998)

On the basis of such such a preliminary (and admittedly rough) typology we may now approach the question how the set up of each medium influences and facilitates the narration of value positions. There are basically two ways to pursue this approach: One either focuses on the relation between medium and "story" and investigates which subject matter renders itself more or less suitable for a specific medium or one concentrates on the relation between medium and "narration" and investigates how certain narrative strategies are only available to specific media and how this in turn affects the mediation/construction of value positions.[18] In the following I wish to purse the latter path, defined by Korthals-Altes (in opposition to a normative engaged "ethical criticism") as "ethical analysis" that "takes as its object the actual functioning of works in the social space" and which analyses "how literary communication [.] participates in the social negotiation of values". Preferring a focus on narration over story also quite naturally arises from a transmedial approach, which, as I have argued elsewhere, considers the

limitations and possibilities imposed on the user by the media in question. Such an understanding implies that the different media not only influence the form and content of a message in specific and thus different ways, it also points to the fact that there are elements and structures which the different texts and artefacts have in common, regardless of their medial setup. (Weidle 2007: 9)[19]

What are the narrative agents, techniques and modes that are available to media in their construction of value systems, and how do they differ? Are there media that by way of their dimensional extension, sensory appeal and semiotic setup carry a greater force in 'narrating ethics' than others? Is, for example, a film director more or less restrained in making value statements than a novelist, playwright or a painter? Are polysemiotic media like drama, film and the internet more "indeterminate"[20], 'open-ended' than monosemiotic texts because they allow competing and contradictory statements in simultaneously operating sign systems? Or is the contrary the case because the visual, mimetic quality of a play facilitates a more direct and thus more effective access to the audience than the mediated nature of a verbally narrated text? In order to suggest some answers to these questions it is necessary to define the main narratological devices that are available to each of the media types described above and to analyze the roles these medium-specific devices play in the generation of value positions.

From the narratological systems and theories on offer I would like to draw on the model introduced by Rimmon-Kenan (which is itself an elaboration of Genette's theory) because its structural clarity and differentiation are best suited for a transmedial analysis of value construction. Rimmon-Kenan's main narratological categories are: temporal and subordinary relations between narration and story (ulterior, anterior, simultaneous, intercalated, extradiegetic and intradiegetic narration), voice related aspects such as participation in the story, perceptibility and reliability (heterodiegetic, homodiegetic, overt, covert, reliable and unreliable narration), speech representation (from diegetic summary to free direct discourse), and focalization (internal, external, fixed, variable, multiple, from within and without).[21]

A first step in applying the transmedial model outlined above to the analysis of narrative strategies and how they impinge on value construction is to look at the various narrative techniques available to each medium (figure 2):

Figure 2: Narrative techniques available to media types

This typology and the following comments are to be understood as preliminary and tentative approaches to a complex field of transmedial study that call for further research and adjustment.

Subordinary relations: Instances of extra- and intradiegetic narration are possible in all media except in the spatial-multiple channel-polysemiotic type, represented here by architecture. Ascribing narrative qualities to visual art does not contradict the fact that they are purely spatial media. The sequentiality constitutive of narrative is locked inside static, albeit "pregnant moments" (Hühn 2007: 45) of the painting.[22] The concept of extradiegetic narration in mimetic media like drama, film, and mimes, however is a more disputed issue, especially with regard to the questions whether such a "superordinate narrative system" (Weidle 2009) actually exists and - if it exists - where to locate it.[23] Allowing the existence of a superordinate narrative system in spatio-temporal media also has consequences for the negotiation and construction of values. If, as Schenk-Haupt (2007) has convincingly shown in his analysis of Richard III and Endgame, the symmetrical arrangement of scenes, incidents and figure constellations can be compared to the structuring activity of an extradiegetic narrator, then this organizing function clearly influences how we perceive and judge the presented story material. Schenk-Haupt argues that in Shakespeare's play the

perfect symmetry of recurrences [...] counterbalances the anarchic and apocalyptic connotations of the story which conceptualises Richard as an incarnation of evil and perpetrator of chaos. Richard III not only tells the story of an antichrist-like vice scourging the people (cf. IV, 4, 71ff.), but it embeds this story in a symmetrically composed plot hinting at the perfection of God's overall plan of restoring man's perfection. (Schenk-Haupt 2007: 39)

Likewise, the "amorphous and anarchic process of decay" that is the subject of Beckett's Endgame is counterbalanced by the "plot's symmetrical perfection", turning the disorder and chaos into a "logic of decay" (ib. 40).

Temporal relations: No special case has to be made for the occurence of analeptic, proleptic and simultaneous narration in purely temporal media. The same goes for spatio-temporal media, at least as far as analeptic and proleptic narration are concerned. Simultaneous narration, however, seems to pose problems when applied to mimes. It is hard to conceive how even the most innovative use of proxemic, mimic and gestural signs will successfully 'narrate' a story that takes place at the moment of narration. Or is extradiegetic narration/mediation in spatio-temporal visual media such as theatre and mime by definition always simultaneous? This at least seems to hold true for photography that always captures the "pregnant moments" of the present. This in turn has implications for the assessment and construction of value positions: Simultaneous photographic narration of real life pregnant moments may trigger more intensive responses than the ulterior narration of the same event in a written or spoken text. Conversely, the ability of literary narrations to combine and change between ulterior, anterior, simultaneous and intercalated narration and to use all of these modes in combination with different focalizers and narrative agents can endorse a more differentiated, but also more distanced and reflected value judgment on the side of the reader or listener.

Participation: Likewise, homo- and heterodiegetic narration are undisputed phenomena in purely temporal media, a radio play being the exception as the unclear identity of the extradiegetic agent does not allow for a unequivocal verdict in this matter.[24] Intradiegetic homodiegetic and heterodiegetic narration, however, are clearly possible in all temporal and spatio-temporal media, whereas homo- and heterodiegetic narration in purely spatial media are less likely to occur (drawings, paintings and photography being exceptions on an intradiegetic scale). The question of whether a narrator is part of the story world or stands outside it is obviously very relevant for the analysis of value construction and assessment suggested in this paper. Readers react differently to the accounts of homodiegetic narrators such as Patrick Bateman in Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho and of Moll Flanders in Defoe's eponymous novel than they do to the distanced accounts of heterodiegetic narrators in the fiction of Fielding, Hemingway or Camus. Homodiegetic narration in this respect makes more demands on the reader to distance himself or herself from the value statements implied in the narration.

Perceptibility: Even with regard to the traditional literary genres the parameters that decide whether a narrator or superordinate narrative system is covert or overt have always been a contested issue. When does a narrator cease to be overt and become overt, and vice versa? Although critics agree that perceptibility is not an either/or-phenomenon but rather a gradual quality, even this gradual quality poses many problems when it comes to extradiegetic narration in polysemiotic media. Songs and recited poems, for example, do not only have subjects of enunciation and composition[25], they are also told to us in the literary sense, by a speaker, performer or singer. Overt narration in this case seems to be also determined by paralinguistic, and in the case of of radio plays, by sound signs.[26] Similarly, the impersonal nature of the superordinate narrative system in spatio-temporal media make it more difficult to define its overtness or covertness than in purely temporal media. With regard to the analysis of value construction in narratives the overtness of a narrator or structuring device is consequently of prime importance: Regardless what or whom one thinks accountable for the construction of values in narrative texts (the author, the implied author, the narrator, the reader or all of these), the extent to which a narrator or superordinate narrative system is perceptible in a narration by means of selection and arrangement, be it in a novel, a radio play, a play or a film, clearly influences our reception and construction of ethical positions. However, overt narration does not necessarily imply that the reader more readily accepts or adopts a specific ethical stance. Overt narration may just as easily invite contrary positions like doubt or disagreement. In this respect the question of perceptibility becomes a pertinent touchstone in the transmedial analysis of value construction.[27]

Reliability: Even more so than perceptibility does the aspect of reliablity influence the construction of values and its analysis. Unreliable narration in this sense constitutes the most important adjustment screw in manipulating the perception of ethical positions in narratives. Once the reader knows the narrator to be unreliable the more likely he is to adopt a different, more reflective stance towards the related story. What goes for the question of perception in temporal and spatio-temporal media, also holds true for reliability: Once we accept the notion of superordinate narrative systems then these can be reliable or unreliable, as Vigors (2008) has persuasively shown in her discussion of Stoppard's plays. Therefore, unreliable extradiegetic narration in spatio-temporal media is not only conceivable but also a decisive narratological tool in influencing the spectators' construction of values.[28]

Speech representation: Temporal and spatio-temporal media by way of their strong reliance on linguistic signs are capable of representing speech in various forms, ranging from indirect speech to free direct discourse. All these media are therefore able to accomodate conflicting voices, thoughts and aspects of interiority that can assist in shaping the construction, affirmation and questioning of value positions. In this respect purely spatial media are clearly at a disadvantage as they lack the precision of language in representing inwardness and opinions. The question, however, remains whether language is in fact better suited in the construction of value positions than other sign systems. An additional parameter one may in this regard add to the operational typology above is the distinction between diegetic and mimetic media that Ryan introduces into her model of narrative modes.[29] Purely linguistically encoded information that reaches the recipient only on one channel lacks the momentum a more immediate, multi-channel and polysemiotic transmission possesses in amplifying or even activating textual clues. The question arises then, whether a mimetic, unmediated presentation of an action (for example of a murder, rape or physical abuse) is inherently more prone to elicit value statements than its verbal representation? Famous examples of violence and cruelty presented on stage, such as the stoning (Edward Bond's Saved) or eating of a baby (Sarah Kane's Blasted), not to mention the numerous violent scenes in Shakespeare's plays (Titus Andronicus, King Lear), could be cited in support of this argument. At this point one would also have to introduce yet another (sub-)category to the taxonomy of different media outlined above: the ontological status of representation. Although both film and drama share the same features (spatio-temporal, multi-channel, polysemiotic) film lacks the immediacy and the uniqueness of the theatrical performance, where both actors and audience inhabit the same temporal-spatial coordinates.

Focalization: Where the existence of different forms of perspective in literary texts and the visual arts (paintings, drawings, photographies) is widely accepted and does not require further explanation, the case is more problematic in spatio-temporal media. Although various forms of focalization have been shown to exist in film (cf. Bordwell 1985; Branigan 1992; Deleyto 1996), focalization in drama and other mimetic media has so far drawn little attention and is a contested issue.[30] As in film and other visual media focalization in plays and mimes is not verbally mediated and actually happens before our eyes. In the theatre, however, and unlike film, acts of focalization are not filtered and steered in the same way as camera-work and editing guide our perception when we see a film on screen (or on TV). The non-verbal character and unfiltered nature of focalization in drama has repercussions for the construction of value positions: By being less restricted and guided in its perception, is the audience thus more autonomous in making ethical judgments on the presented actions and characters? Does the fact, that the focalizing of events is not dependent on language and not subordinate to the superordinate narrative system, lead to a more dialectic, distanced and critical stance towards the happenings on stage? Is drama thus, at least potentially, more discursive (and less didactic) than narrative literature?

These are only a few of possible starting points for a transmedial analysis of value construction in narratives. I hope, however, to have shown that in order to engage in an "ethical analysis" (Korthals Altes) of narratives - and aside from the inclusion of pragmatic, historical, cultural and subjective contexts - one also has to consider the characteristic features of each medium and to what extent these features in turn condition specific narrative strategies and modes. More work needs to be done on the taxonomy of media suggested and outlined above. There is a need for further differentiation and extension. For example and as already suggested above, additional criteria, such as ontological status and the diegetic or mimetic quality of the medium, could be added. Also, some of the parameters introduced require further checking, preferably in the form of detailed work studies. The result of such approaches could then be related to empirical research in the field of reception studies. Historical approaches to ethical analysis could also benefit greatly from a transmedial approach, for example in the field of theatre and performance studies. It would be interesting to see how performances of a play changed throughout the centuries and how different narrative strategies were accentuated by various production ensembles. Lastly, a differentiated typology of media could also be of great service in intermedial analyses of works and their adaptations in other media and in answering the question how different forms of mediation of the same story can trigger different and discrepant value positions.

References

Balme, Christopher. Einführung in die Theaterwissenschaft. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2001.

Bordwell, David. Narration in the Fiction Film. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Branigan, Edward. Narrative Comprehension and Film. London: Routledge, 1992.

Chatman, Seymour. Coming To Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.

Deleyto, Celestino. "Focalisation in Film Narrative." Narratology. Eds. Susana Onega, Garcia Landa and José Angel. London: Longman, 1996. 217-233.

Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. 1980. London: Routledge, 2002.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Semiotik des Theaters: Eine Einführung. Bd. 1. Das System der theatralischen Zeichen. 1983. Tübingen: Narr, 1998.

Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Transl. Jane E. Lewin. Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1983.

Gorman, David. "Fiction, Theories of." The Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Eds. David Herman, Manfred Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan. London: Routledge, 2008. 163-167.

Hatchuel, Sarah. Shakespeare, From Stage to Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Hühn, Peter. "Double Transgenerity: Narrating Pictures in Poems." Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 18.2 (2007): 43-61.

---. "Transgeneric Narratology: Application to Lyric Poetry." The Dynamics of Narrative Form: Studies in Anglo-American Narratology. Ed. John Pier. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. 139-58.

Jahn, Manfred. "Narrative Voice and Agency in Drama." New Literary History 32.3 (2001): 659-80.

Korthals Altes, Lisbeth. "Ethical Turn." The Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Eds. David Herman, Manfred Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan. London: Routledge, 2008. 142-146.

Kowzan, Tadeusz. "The Sign in the Theatre." Diogenes 61 (1968): 52-80.

Neitzel, Britta. "Levels of Play and Narration." Narratology Beyond Criticism. Ed. Jan-Christoph Meister. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. 45-64.

Nünning, Ansgar, and Roy Sommer. "Drama und Narratologie: Die Entwicklung erzähltheoretischer Modelle und Kategorien für die Dramenanalyse." Erzähltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinär. Eds. Vera Nünning and Ansgar Nünning. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2002. 105-28.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen, 1982.

Plato. The Republic. Ed. and transl. G. R. F. Ferrari and Tom Griffith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Rajewski, Irina O. Intermedialität. Tübingen: Francke, 2002.

Richardson, Brian. "Point of View in Drama: Diegetic Monologue, Unreliable Narrators, and the Author's Voice on Stage." Comparative Drama 22.3 (1988): 193-214.

---. "Voice and Narration in Postmodern Drama." New Literary History 32.3 (2001): 681-594.

Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London/New York: Routledge, 1999.

Ryan, Marie-Laure, Ed. Narrative Across Media:  The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2004.

Ryan, Marie-Laure. "On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology." Narratology Beyond Criticism. Ed. Jan-Christoph Meister. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. 1-23.

Schenk-Haupt, Stefan. "Narrativity in Dramatic Writing: Towards a General Theory of Genres." Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 18.2 (2007): 25-42.

Sprang, Felix. "The Queen's Two Bodies: Royal Portraits and the Narration of Kingship." Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 18.2 (2007): 63-81.

Vigors, Anya. "Unreliable Narration in Selected Plays by Tom Stoppard." Master Thesis. University of Hamburg: English Department, 2008.

Weidle, Roland. "Organization, Presentation, and Participation: Transgeneric and Transmedial Approaches to Superordinate Narration." Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 18.2 (2007): 7-24.

---. "Organizing the Perspectives: Focalization and the Superordinate Narrative System in Drama and Theater." Point of View, Perspective, Focalization: Modelling Mediation in Narrative. Eds. Peter Hühn, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert. New York/Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. 221-42.

Wolf, Werner. "Intermedialität: Ein weites Feld und eine Herausforderung für die Literaturwissenschaft." Literaturwissenschaft: intermedial  - interdisziplinär. Eds. Herbert Foltinek and Christoph Leitgeb. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002. 163-92.