If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? And if somebody is there? Well, then there's a story to tell. Which leads to several other questions: What story does the narrator tell? Does the narrator talk about the number of birds that flew off the tree as was falling? Does the narrator talk about the specific rate at which the tree fell? No. If a tree fell in a forest and somebody happened to be strolling by, they'd probably describe the event as such: "Today when I went for a walk, I saw this massive tree topple over." [1] That precise description conveys what the witness saw without bogging the listeners down in the minutiae that doesn't add anything to the narrative. According to Gerald Prince, this lack of unnecessary details, "not sufficiently unusual or problematic," is known as the nonnarratable.
But what if, instead of precisely telling their friends about what they say during their morning stroll, the narrator decided to write a journal entry about the event? Not only would they include details of the tree falling, but they would also include more "fluffy" elements in their writing. They could talk about how things would be different if they didn't walk by and see the tree falling. They could talk about what if they had been walking a little faster and been directly in the tree's trajectory. Both of these topics are interesting and would surely make for a good narrative. Prince refers to this as the "disnarrated," or what he describes as "what did not or does not take place." [2]
[1] Prince, Gerald. The Disnarrated. Vol. 22. 1988. 1. Print.
[2] Prince, Gerald. The Disnarrated. Vol. 22. 1988. 3. Print.
A somewhat simple, but very effective post. Using the "falling tree" example to lay forth situations where nonnarratable and disnarrated can be seen made for an easy comparison between the two;hence,one could clearly understand what was being said.
ReplyDelete