The Dis/Appeal of Narratives

A narrative is a personal account of an event that can be very influential. The impact that a narrative has depends on the presence of its appeal and the absence of its disappeal.

In any narrative, certain representations are excluded. These are also known as the unnarratable, events that narratologist Gerald Prince defines as "cannot be narrated or is not worth narrating either because it transgresses a law or because it defies the powers of a particular narrator or because it falls below the so-called threshold of narratability" [1].

The disappeal of a narrative comes directly from the presence of the unnarratable, especially if it is used in the wrong context. For example, redundancies, minute details, and descriptions of common procedures will undermine the appeal of a narrative. Disappeal comes from transgressions of these social laws, which creates disapproval among the narratees.

Likewise, the disnarrated is content that is not essential or relative to the narrative at all. These fillers also mitigate the appeal of narratives unless they are used as rhetorical or hypothetical devices that help clarify the narrative. As Gerald Prince puts it, the "narrative, which is etymologically linked to knowledge, lives in certainty and dies from ignorance and indecision" [2].

Finally, the appeal of a narrative comes from its continuity, content, and the amount of interest that it inspires in its narratees. Opposite to the unnarratable, the narrativity is what gives appeal to the narrative and makes it tellable. According to narratologists Luc Herman and Bart Vervaeck, "a good, tellable story enables the reader to [assess the views and experiences of the characters]" [3]. Of course this implies that the effectiveness/appeal of a narrative ultimately depends on the opinions of its narratees.



[1] Prince, G. (1988). Style. The Disnarrated. Vol. 22, No. 1. pp 1.

[2] Prince, G. (1988). Style. The Disnarrated. Vol. 22, No. 1. pp 4.

[3] Herman, L., Vervaeck, B. (2009). Narrative. Narrative Interest as Cultural Negotiation. Vol. 17, No. 1. pp 116.