*grins* It's exciting to have so many smart people thinking about this stuff!
They persist in part because they do, in fact, offer an opening for re-telling, and making sense of something within the teller's or reader's own frame of reference. And at any given moment, such narratives have multiple possible re-tellings that can suspend disbelief or draw attention to their own artifice.
Interesting. What do you think provides this opening for re-telling? Is it a formal property?
I think the contrast you draw between the multiple viewpoints vs. the sequential installment is fascinating. My own feeling is that it is fractures in a narrative -- gaps and/or errors which invite participation from the reader/auditor. Both strategies you suggest provide these in their different ways. Think of driving a pick into ice and watching cracks form around the fissure (multiple viewpoints) vs. the gaps between, say rungs on a ladder.
Seemed pretty elegant to me!
Glad you enjoyed the multiple Cornell experience. :-D
no subject
They persist in part because they do, in fact, offer an opening for re-telling, and making sense of something within the teller's or reader's own frame of reference. And at any given moment, such narratives have multiple possible re-tellings that can suspend disbelief or draw attention to their own artifice.
Interesting. What do you think provides this opening for re-telling? Is it a formal property?
I think the contrast you draw between the multiple viewpoints vs. the sequential installment is fascinating. My own feeling is that it is fractures in a narrative -- gaps and/or errors which invite participation from the reader/auditor. Both strategies you suggest provide these in their different ways. Think of driving a pick into ice and watching cracks form around the fissure (multiple viewpoints) vs. the gaps between, say rungs on a ladder.
Seemed pretty elegant to me!
Glad you enjoyed the multiple Cornell experience. :-D