Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Dějiny teorie vyprávění: psaní a narativní strategie

Alice Jedličková
Česká literatura
Vol. 55, No. 3 (ČERVEN 2007), pp. 365-388
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42687273
Page Count: 24
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Dějiny teorie vyprávění: psaní a narativní strategie
Preview not available

Abstract

The essay summarizes the current state of research and arguments for writing a history of narrative theory in the international context as well as the possibilities of evaluating the particular contribution of Czech literary theory to the narrative studies, considering the fact that poetics of narrative is typical of the Czech tradition rather than theorizing its structure. The author surveys the particular ways of coping with this objective which have been employed so far (such as anthologies of canonic texts, attempts at typologizing narrative studies etc.). In analyzing the significant recent attempts at plotting the development of narrative theory the author arrives at the conclusion that the diachronic view of the disciplinì has been influenced both by the tension between the universalist study of narrative based on a structuralist approach and the current tendency to write “historicizing” narratologies, as well as by the competition between “textual” and “contextual” narratology. The discrepancy between the “institutional history” of narrative theory and the “history of ideas”, proving the salient differences in the creation and acceptance of concrete concepts of narrative in particular research cultures, i.e. the fact that some systems were apprehended and applied with a delay of several decades, does not seem to be an argument for questioning the idea of writing a history of narrative theory in general. The author of the essay shares a methodological point of departure with David Herman, considering the “genealogie” concept of writing the history of narrative theory an appropriate one, and observing - apart from other programmatic strains of development - also the methodological relationships not demonstrated in the institutional history.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[365]
    [365]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
366
    366
  • Thumbnail: Page 
367
    367
  • Thumbnail: Page 
368
    368
  • Thumbnail: Page 
369
    369
  • Thumbnail: Page 
370
    370
  • Thumbnail: Page 
371
    371
  • Thumbnail: Page 
372
    372
  • Thumbnail: Page 
373
    373
  • Thumbnail: Page 
374
    374
  • Thumbnail: Page 
375
    375
  • Thumbnail: Page 
376
    376
  • Thumbnail: Page 
377
    377
  • Thumbnail: Page 
378
    378
  • Thumbnail: Page 
379
    379
  • Thumbnail: Page 
380
    380
  • Thumbnail: Page 
381
    381
  • Thumbnail: Page 
382
    382
  • Thumbnail: Page 
383
    383
  • Thumbnail: Page 
384
    384
  • Thumbnail: Page 
385
    385
  • Thumbnail: Page 
386
    386
  • Thumbnail: Page 
387
    387
  • Thumbnail: Page 
388
    388