Understanding Narratives
Whenever people read a novel or watch a film, they have to work out the role of each character in the unfolding story and see how they relate to each other. This complex process poses no difficulties for a native speaker of the language which the narrative is written in. It is very rare that people come out of a cinema or put down a novel and say, ‘What was that all about?’ Human adults are experts at understanding fictional narrative because we have encountered the code thousands of times since we first heard fairy tales.
According to Aristotle, all dramatic narrative is conflict. Coming up to date, the writer, Christopher Booker, has suggested that there are seven basic plots in narrative fiction in English, but they all involve conflict. In what are called ‘rites of passage’ stories, for example, teenagers are taken through formative episodes, emerging as adults at the end. The conflict here is between the main character and adult life. In other stories, it might be between a person and a single enemy. The French theorist, Levi-Strauss, suggested that all narratives have binary opposition, or two opposite parts, the most obvious ones being good and evil, right and wrong, strength and weakness, and youth and age.
Booker’s seven plots include some very interesting basic ideas, but there is one which appeared centuries ago. It is the plot which he calls ‘Man against Monster’. This was the basis of so many early stories from many different cultures in which the monster was a ‘real’ monster, with one eye, or snakes as hair, like Medusa, for example. This plot seems to have a lasting appeal, changing with each generation, with the monster becoming aliens in H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds, or the government, as in Orwell’s 1984, or abstract things, like big business. Stories with a message for the audience often use this plot today. It is even possible for the monster to be the main character.
The Russian theorist, Tzvetan Todorov, says that all narratives have stages. Firstly, the main character is living in a stable situation, married happily, successful at work or enjoying a perfect childhood. This is often exaggerated beyond normal human experience. Then an event occurs which turns the main character’s life upside down. Next, the character recognises the need for action, acts and, at the end, order is restored. However, the main character has learnt something from the experience and there is a new state of order. Interestingly, Todorov makes no distinction between the narrative conventions in Russian and other languages. Other writers have found significant differences in different languages, which seems more likely to me.
The literary critic, Vladimir Propp, claims that the writer’s control of a narrative is not restricted to conflict, overall structure and plots. According to him, the main characters perform roles, well-defined by convention. Firstly, there is the hero, whose role is to restore order, and a villain, a person who is very bad in some way. Another central character is the victim, threatened by the villain. Other characters who appear frequently in narrative include the dispatcher, who sends the hero on the journey, real or emotional, and the false hero who does not help in restoring order.
It may seem strange that, according to many researchers, the majority of human narratives have recurrent types of opposition, structure and characters. However, according to the widely accepted theory of the British philosopher, Frederick Bartlett, schema, or pictures, of real-world situations are vital in order to make sense of them. We need to know what is likely to happen when we step into a restaurant, an office or a church. We can extend this need for schema to fictional situations, although it seems likely that these differ from culture to culture. Stepping into an unknown situation, including the world of fiction, we need convention to guide us. Unless a narrative follows conventions, it will be hard for an audience to make sense of it.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Asks what the writer makes clear in paragraph one (Global Purpose).
Correct Answer: C
Why this is correct: Option c is correct because the writer says there is one shared 'code' that we know from novels, films and fairy tales alike - the same conventions across all fiction. This is a Global Purpose question about his opening claim. We handle every kind of story because we have met that code so often.
Question Focus: Asks what the writer does in paragraph two (Functional).
Correct Answer: D
Why this is correct: The answer is option d because the whole paragraph gives examples of one central idea - conflict. Aristotle, Booker and Levi-Strauss are all used to show that stories are built on conflict or opposition. So the writer is illustrating a single convention.
Question Focus: Asks what the writer says about the 'Man against Monster' plot (Attribution / Detail).
Correct Answer: B
Why this is correct: Here, option b is right because the writer shows the monster can be many different things - aliens, the government, big business, even the hero. So the plot takes many forms. The list of examples proves how flexible it is.
Question Focus: Asks what paragraph four says about Todorov (Attribution).
Correct Answer: B
Why this is correct: Option b is correct because if Todorov makes no distinction between languages, he treats narrative conventions as universal - the same everywhere. This is an Attribution question about his claim. Note that the writer then disagrees, but the question is about Todorov, not the writer.
Question Focus: Asks what Propp believes (Attribution).
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: The answer is option a because Propp says characters' roles are fixed by convention - hero, villain, victim, dispatcher, false hero. So 'the behaviour of various characters is fixed by convention' matches his view exactly. This is an Attribution question tracking Propp's claim.
Question Focus: Asks the writer's point in the final paragraph (Synthesis).
Correct Answer: A
Why this is correct: Option a is correct because the writer synthesises the article with Bartlett's schema idea: we use our real-world expectations to understand fiction too. That links the real world and stories. So there is a clear relationship between the two.
General Tips:
- The right answer almost never copies the text word for word. It says the same idea in different words, so hunt for matching meaning, not matching vocabulary.
- Match each idea to the right theorist - Aristotle, Booker, Levi-Strauss, Todorov, Propp or Bartlett. A common trap swaps one expert's claim for another's, or ignores what the writer personally thinks.
- For inference questions, ask yourself: does the text actually point to this, or am I just using my own general knowledge? Your answer must be backed by a clue in the passage.
- Watch out for options that use real words from the text but bend them to the wrong meaning, wrong person, or wrong paragraph. Right words do not always mean the right answer.
- For the final question, step back and look at the whole article. The answer usually pulls together ideas from more than one paragraph, so think about the writer's big message.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation