Oi. Delving deeper here into this Big Can O'Worms, with my computer on the verge of dying....
The opening for re-telling can be a formal one, and serial fiction is a good example simply because its form allows outcomes to remain suspended, at least for a time. The more complex its installments, also, the more chance that "continuity" issues will arise -- the gaps and errors you allude to. But even very simple narrative devices like point of view or the use of an apparently omniscient narrator allow such openings; it's generally possible to imagine a story being retold simply by shifting the narrating voice.
But when I think of elements independent of specific content that seem to enable re-telling -- especially re-tellings over time that re-imagine the story in a more contemporary setting -- I think of even more basic things: the degree to which choice or conflict drives a story, and the extent to which motivations or conditions remain opaque in any given version. (Different versions of Greek myths, the King Arthur stories, most of Shakespeare...) Given a character or a premise of sufficient heft, even with some limiting conditions, the possibilities are still infinite.
I'm reminded, in this connection, of Rach's recent and excellent post about parallels between acting and fanwriting: in both cases, one takes on the task of giving voice and embodiment to character and story that already exists in some form. Writing's always reading, always interpretation.
I like your analogies of the ice and the ladder -- although I'd add that one element of the latter (sic) is that the rungs often break after you've stepped on them, and there may be nowhere to go but up!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-15 08:14 pm (UTC)The opening for re-telling can be a formal one, and serial fiction is a good example simply because its form allows outcomes to remain suspended, at least for a time. The more complex its installments, also, the more chance that "continuity" issues will arise -- the gaps and errors you allude to. But even very simple narrative devices like point of view or the use of an apparently omniscient narrator allow such openings; it's generally possible to imagine a story being retold simply by shifting the narrating voice.
But when I think of elements independent of specific content that seem to enable re-telling -- especially re-tellings over time that re-imagine the story in a more contemporary setting -- I think of even more basic things: the degree to which choice or conflict drives a story, and the extent to which motivations or conditions remain opaque in any given version. (Different versions of Greek myths, the King Arthur stories, most of Shakespeare...) Given a character or a premise of sufficient heft, even with some limiting conditions, the possibilities are still infinite.
I'm reminded, in this connection, of Rach's recent and excellent post about parallels between acting and fanwriting: in both cases, one takes on the task of giving voice and embodiment to character and story that already exists in some form. Writing's always reading, always interpretation.
I like your analogies of the ice and the ladder -- although I'd add that one element of the latter (sic) is that the rungs often break after you've stepped on them, and there may be nowhere to go but up!