Plot and the Unruly Body

  • Daniel Punday


In chapters 1 and 2 we have seen that corporeality has a fundamental effect upon the way that we visualize and theorize the concepts of narrative world and character. We have seen not only that narratology is shaped by the particularly modern body that it imagines as the basis of storytelling, but that the body is a site where a host of hermeneutic problems arise. At the end of chapter 2, I suggested that these general hermeneutic problems had particularly narrative solutions in the way that character bodies were used to stage the interaction between different types of corporeality, and that in the process a “general” body overarched the story. This interaction occurs, I suggested, through the basic temporality of the narrative—its description of time and change. I would like to turn to the body’s place within our way of representing time in this chapter.


Individual Body External Time Pleasure Principle Mirror Stage Implied Reader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

3 Plot and the Unruly Body

  1. 1.
    Hayden White, “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality,” The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), p. 7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony Paul Kerby, Narrative and the Self (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peter Brooks, Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 158.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 2.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacques Lacan, “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience,” Écrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1977), p. 4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.M. Bakhtin, “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel,” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austen: University of Texas Press, 1981), p. 84.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, trans. Hélèn Iswolsky (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), p. 318.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Nancy Armstrong, Desire and Domestic Fiction: A Political History of the Novel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 115.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    G.M. Goshgarian, To Kiss the Chastening Rod: Domestic Fiction and Sexual Ideology in the American Renaissance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Rachel Blau DuPlessis, Writing Beyond the Ending: Narrative Strategies of Twentieth-Century Women Writers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    For a recent discussion of narrative and seduction, see Ross Chambers, Story and Situation: Narrative Seduction and the Power of Fiction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), especially his summary of traditional accounts linking the novel and adultery as a means of narrative delay (pp. 10–11).Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    Indeed, a number of critics have suggested that Bakhtin’s work is split between the cosmological patterns that we observe in his Rabelais book, and the phenomenological theories first articulated in this early essays like “Art and Answerability” and best known from his work on dialogic interaction in Dostoevsky. For this argument, see Morson and Emerson’s Mikhail Bakhtin. For Bakhtin’s early work, see M.M. Bakhtin, Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays, ed. Michael Holquist and Vadim Liapunov, trans. Vadim Liapunov (Austen: University of Texas Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  14. For Bakhtin’s work on dialogism, see in particular Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, trans. Caryl Emerson (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 1, trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    This is Derrida’s argument in Speech and Phenomena, which argues that Husserl’s phenomenological attempt to imagine an internal “expression” distinct from the external means of “indicating” that idea to be expressed is simply another product of indication. See Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomena: And Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs, trans. David. B. Allison (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Tamara K. Hareven, “Synchronizing Individual Time, Family Time, and Historical Time,” Chronotypes: The Construction of Time, ed. John Bender and David E. Wellbery (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), p. 167.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    For an especially rich and interesting discussion of narrative and modern temporal regulation, see Stuart Sherman, Telling Time: Clocks, Diaries, and the English Diurnal Form, 1660–1785 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    William Faulkner, The Sound and the Fury (New York: Random House, 1946), pp. 104–05.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    See Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trans. Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    See, e.g., Jane Flax, “Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory,” Feminism/Postmodernism, ed. Linda J. Nicholson (New York: Routledge, 1990): 39–62.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    Michel Foucault, The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality, Volume 2, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1990), p. 5.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), p. 97.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    Frederic Jameson is, of course, the critic most associated with the need for “cognitive mapping” in contemporary space. See Fredric Jameson, “Cognitive Mapping,” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988): 347–57.Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    Jane Tompkins’s “An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism” in her influential collection, Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980) notes these problems as well as the practical advantages of Wolfgang Iser’s method, which is the best example of this type of response criticism: Iser “does not grant the reader autonomy or even partial independence from textual constraints. The reader’s activity is only a fulfillment of what is already implicit in the structure of the work—though exactly how that structure limits his activity is never made clear. Iser’s phenomenology of the reading process, with its movement from anticipation to retrospection, its making and unmaking of gestalts ... provides critics with a new repertoire of interpretive devices and thus brings to light a new set of facts for observation and description” (xv).Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. 118.Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    For a discussion of the importance of practical interpretation within response criticism, see Terry Beers, “Reading Reading Constraints: Conventions, Schemata, and Literary Interpretation,” Diacritics 18.4 (Winter 1988): 82–93.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    Lest we assume that this language of horizon is simply a natural description of the temporality of reading, we should recall the observation made by Matei Calinescu that response criticism always speaks about reading from the perspective of rereading (Rereading [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993]). This is always an imagined temporality and thus an imagined physical limitation. We might go a step further and note Nelson Goodman’s argument that even basic physical facts like perspective in painting are always imagined according to a certain notion of what is an appropriate amount of distortion to signal physical positioning. See Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1976), p. 16. Goodman makes clear than even basic physical facts about the position from which a subject is viewed are structured according to conventions about how bodily position should and should not shape a painter’s image.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose, trans. William Weaver (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1983);Google Scholar
  30. Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    John Barth, “Lost in the Funhouse,” Lost in the Funhouse: Fiction for Print, Tape, Live Voice (New York: Anchor, 1988), p. 77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Daniel Punday 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Punday

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations