You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson teaches narrative theory (also called narratology): the systematic study of how stories are told, as distinct from what they tell. Where most critical lenses ask what a text means, narrative theory asks by what techniques the telling produces meaning — and gives you a precise vocabulary for analysing those techniques: the ordering of time, the regulation of perspective (focalisation), the position of the narrator, the plurality of voices, and the reliability of the account. The approach is, at root, structuralist: it descends from the project of describing the underlying "grammar" of narrative, and its founding figures — Genette, Propp, Todorov, Bakhtin, Booth — gave criticism the terms it now uses as standard. By the end you should be able to replace a vague observation ("the writer uses first person") with a precise, productive one (an autodiegetic narrator employing analepsis, focalised through a younger self whose understanding the reader is led to outrun).
As a lens, narrative theory is unusual in that it serves AO2 as directly as AO5: its vocabulary is the analysis of method, so it sharpens your account of how meanings are shaped while also constituting one of the "different interpretations" AO5 rewards (a narratological reading is genuinely distinct from a feminist or Marxist one). It depends, as always, on AO1 textual evidence, supports AO4 connections wherever two texts handle time or voice differently, and can illuminate AO3 where a narrative technique is historically situated (the rise of free indirect style, say). The recurring discipline of the lesson — and its single most important warning — is that the terminology must always serve interpretation: naming a device is the beginning of analysis, never the end. The terms are precision tools, not a display case.
Genette, a French literary theorist, developed the most influential vocabulary for analysing narrative structure in his study Discours du récit, published in Figures III (1972) and translated as Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (1980). Working largely from Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu, he organised the analysis of narrative around the distinction between story (the events in their chronological order — what Genette calls the histoire) and discourse (the narrated text, in which those events are arranged, paced, and focalised — the récit). The gap between the two is where narrative technique lives. His three key areas are time, mood (focalisation), and voice.
| Term | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Analepsis (flashback) | The narrative moves backwards in time — narrating events that occurred before the current moment | Spies: old Stephen's memories of his 1943 childhood |
| Prolepsis (flash-forward) | The narrative moves forward in time — anticipating events that have not yet occurred | The Handmaid's Tale: the Historical Notes leap forward to 2195 |
| In medias res | The narrative begins in the middle of the action | Othello: the play opens with Iago's conspiracy already in progress |
| Non-linear narration | The narrative does not follow chronological order | The God of Small Things: moves between 1969 and 1993 without following a linear path |
Why It Matters: The order in which a story is told shapes our understanding of causation, suspense, and meaning. When Top Girls places its chronologically earliest scene at the end of the play, it forces the audience to reflect on causes rather than simply follow consequences: we have already seen the damaged Angie and the estranged sisters before we witness the year-earlier conversation that explains them, so the final scene lands as diagnosis rather than exposition. The reordering converts the play from a story we watch unfold into an argument we are made to reconstruct.
The same principle operates, even more radically, in The God of Small Things, whose narration circles obsessively around two catastrophes — the drowning of Sophie Mol and the killing of Velutha — that the reader half-knows from the opening pages but understands fully only at the close. Roy's refusal of chronological order is not difficulty for its own sake: by giving us the consequences before the causes, and returning to the central wound again and again (repetitive narration, in Genette's term), she makes the novel formally enact trauma, which is precisely a past that will not stay past. Here, order, frequency, and meaning are inseparable: the broken timeline is the book's argument about how a single afternoon's violence reorganises a whole family's history around itself.
| Term | Definition | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Scene | Narrative time roughly equals story time (typically dialogue) | Creates immediacy; foregrounds character interaction |
| Summary | Narrative time is shorter than story time — events are compressed | Allows large spans of time to be covered efficiently |
| Pause | Story time stops while the narrator describes, reflects, or digresses | Creates emphasis; allows thematic reflection |
| Ellipsis | Events are skipped entirely — a gap in the narrative | What is NOT narrated can be as significant as what is |
Application: In Waterland, Tom Crick's narrative is characterised by extraordinary pauses — long digressions about the history of the Fens, the life cycle of eels, the draining of the marshes. These pauses are not "interruptions" but are the substance of the novel's argument: that everything is connected, that the present cannot be understood without the past.
| Term | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Singulative | An event that happened once is narrated once | Most conventional narration |
| Repetitive | An event that happened once is narrated multiple times | The God of Small Things: the central tragedy is approached repeatedly from different angles |
| Iterative | Events that happened many times are narrated once | "Every morning, she would..." — conveying routine, habit, repetition |
Application: Roy's use of repetitive narration in The God of Small Things is one of the novel's most distinctive features. The central events — Sophie Mol's drowning, Velutha's beating — are narrated multiple times, each return revealing new details and perspectives the earlier passes withheld. This repetition creates a sense of obsession, trauma, and the impossibility of ever fully grasping what happened, so that frequency itself becomes a figure for grief that cannot complete its mourning.
Genette distinguished between who speaks (the narrator) and who sees (the focaliser). This distinction is crucial:
| Type | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Zero focalisation | The narrator knows more than any character — omniscient narration | The narrator of Middlemarch sees into all characters' minds |
| Internal focalisation | The narrative is filtered through a character's consciousness — we see what they see, know what they know | Spies: focalised through young Stefan — we see the adult world through a child's confused perception |
| External focalisation | The narrator describes only what can be observed from outside — no access to characters' thoughts | Hemingway's "Hills Like White Elephants" — the reader must infer the characters' feelings from dialogue and behaviour |
| Variable focalisation | The narrative shifts between different characters' perspectives | Revolutionary Road: alternates between Frank's and April's perspectives |
Why It Matters: Focalisation determines what we know and how we feel about characters. When Spies is focalised through young Stefan, we experience the adult world as mysterious, exciting, and dangerous — but we also miss the realities that an adult focaliser would recognise (Mrs Hayward's secret errands, the identity of the man in the Barns). Control of focalisation is control of sympathy: to be shut inside a character's perception is, usually, to be enlisted on their side, which is why a shift of focaliser can redistribute a reader's allegiances mid-novel.
The single most important technique that grows out of focalisation is free indirect discourse (also called free indirect style): a method, central to the novel since Austen and Flaubert, in which a third-person narrator's language is coloured by a character's idiom and viewpoint without the markers of direct quotation ("she thought," quotation marks) or the distancing of fully reported speech. The narrator's voice and the character's consciousness blend, so that we seem to overhear a mind from inside while remaining in the third person. The effect is a controlled slippage between who speaks and who sees.
Its analytic value is considerable. Free indirect discourse can generate intimacy (we are admitted to a character's unspoken thought) and irony simultaneously (the narrator's framing can let us judge the very thought we are sharing). In a variably focalised novel like Revolutionary Road, free indirect style lets Yates render Frank Wheeler's self-flattering interior monologue in a register that quietly exposes its self-deception — we inhabit Frank's vanity and see through it in the same sentence. To name free indirect discourse, and then to show it doing this double work of intimacy and judgement, is one of the most reliably high-scoring observations in narrative analysis, because it is precisely the kind of method (AO2) that carries meaning (AO5) the reader could otherwise miss.
| Term | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Homodiegetic narrator | The narrator is a character within the story | Offred in The Handmaid's Tale; Nick in The Great Gatsby |
| Heterodiegetic narrator | The narrator is not a character within the story | The narrator of Middlemarch; the narrative voice in The God of Small Things |
| Autodiegetic narrator | The narrator is the protagonist of the story | Offred; Celie in The Color Purple; Jeanette in Oranges |
Where Genette anatomises the telling, the earlier structuralist narratologists anatomised the plot — the underlying patterns common to whole classes of story. Two figures matter for A-Level.
Vladimir Propp, in Morphology of the Folktale (1928), analysed a corpus of Russian folktales and argued that beneath their surface variety they shared a fixed repertoire of thirty-one functions — stable units of narrative action (a prohibition is issued, the prohibition is violated, the hero leaves home, is tested, receives a magical agent, the lack is liquidated) that always occur in the same sequence, no matter which character performs them. The characters themselves resolve into a small set of roles, or spheres of action (villain, donor, helper, sought-for person, dispatcher, hero, false hero). Propp's claim was radical: the function is the constant; the who and the how are variables. Although derived from folktales, his model exposes the deep machinery of any strongly plotted narrative.
Tzvetan Todorov, who gave narratology its name, proposed an even more economical model in his work on the poetics of prose: narrative is fundamentally a movement from an initial equilibrium, through a disruption (or disequilibrium), to the restoration of equilibrium — or the establishment of a new equilibrium that differs from the first. Most plots, he argued, are variations on this passage from order, through disorder, to a transformed order.
Application: These models earn their keep in two ways. First, they let you locate a text within a genre's grammar: Othello follows the deep pattern of revenge-and-jealousy tragedy, its equilibrium (the newly married, honoured general) disrupted by Iago's "function" as villain and never restored — the play ends not in a new equilibrium but in a stage strewn with bodies, the tragic refusal of Todorov's reassuring return. Second — and more powerfully — they let you read deviation as meaning. When Churchill ends Top Girls with its chronologically earliest scene, she denies the audience the restored equilibrium the structure leads them to expect, leaving the disruption (Marlene's abandonment of Angie, the class wound) hanging unresolved; the broken pattern is the politics. To notice the grammar a text obeys, and the points at which it pointedly breaks that grammar, is narratology at its most useful.
Bakhtin, a Russian literary theorist whose major essays (including "Discourse in the Novel," written in the 1930s) were collected in English as The Dialogic Imagination (1981), developed two concepts that are particularly useful for A-Level. Where Genette gives you tools for analysing the architecture of narrative, Bakhtin gives you tools for analysing its voices — and an argument about why the novel, of all forms, is uniquely able to hold many voices at once.
Definition: Bakhtin argued that language is inherently dialogic — every utterance is a response to previous utterances and anticipates future responses. A novel is not a single voice but a dialogue between multiple voices, perspectives, and worldviews. He contrasted the monologic text (which subordinates everything to a single controlling viewpoint) with the polyphonic text (which, as in his account of Dostoevsky, allows characters' voices a genuine independence the author does not overrule).
Application: Top Girls is perhaps the most obviously dialogic text on the A-Level syllabus. The opening dinner-party scene literally stages a conversation between women from different centuries, cultures, and classes — the medieval Pope Joan, the Victorian traveller Isabella Bird, the Brueghel painting's Dull Gret, the patient Griselda of legend — none of whom can fully hear or understand the others. Churchill's notation of overlapping speech, where one woman's line begins before another's has finished, makes the dialogism physical: the stage fills with voices that compete rather than cohere, and no single voice is allowed to become the authoritative one. The scene is genuinely polyphonic in Bakhtin's sense — the play refuses to subordinate these women's incompatible worldviews to a single controlling viewpoint, which is itself the feminist point: there is no one "women's experience," only a clamour of women's experiences that history has never let speak together.
Definition: The presence of multiple languages, registers, and speech styles within a single text. Bakhtin argued that the novel is the supreme literary form because it can incorporate and juxtapose different "languages" — the language of different classes, professions, generations, and ideologies.
Application: Mr Loverman is rich in heteroglossia. Barry's narrative voice incorporates Caribbean patois, Standard English, literary allusion (he loves Shakespeare), street slang, and the language of an older generation. This linguistic multiplicity reflects his hybrid identity and the cultural richness of the Caribbean-British community.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.