The Word Game (Week 14)

Theory seems to function only as well as it can be employed to perceive something anew about our realities. What happens to theory that seems too awkward or cumbersome to use? Does it fall to the wayside? It seems so. Note: this post is meant to reflect consideration of material new to my thinking. And this post represents a novice musing only.

Specifically, I wonder about what I am calling the word game in narrative theory. This is the seemingly continuous cycle of narrative theorists re-examining the same pieces to the puzzle and re-naming. “It’s not quite like this, so I am going to plant my flag over here and not there. Here, I say ole boy. Here.” (Yes, my ole boy narrative theorist is now Foghorn Leghorn. Talk about embodiment and masterplots.)

I understand some things about the politics of theoretical work. I have a novice’s understanding of the politics of publishing in academia. And I can even take into consideration the need to diversify meanings, especially with a concept as complex as the stories of humanity. Yes, as we do theory work and as we perceive with new eyes, meaning shifts, understandings become clearer and sometimes they do become murkier.

But, how many divergent definitions should one theoretical discourse have for plot? Not the suzjet, but the discourse. The story? No the plot. Forster’s definition of the plot or Genette’s? Is it time or events? Cumbersome.

Although to be fair, Heidegger didn’t found the idea of Dasein and that too has been argued to death by philosophers. Well, maybe not to death. We haven’t solved the puzzle of beingness yet.