Should narratology be split into classical and postclassical?

Abstract

David Herman splits narratology into “classical narratology” and “postclassical narratology.” However, the paradox he repeats is that the “postclassical” does not necessarily mean “poststructuralist,” and “the prefix ‘post’ does not quite signify a clean break with structuralism” but an enriched theory, which “draws on the concepts and methods to which classical narratologists did not have access.” Unlike postmodernism that is of both dependence on and independence from the modernism, Herman’s “postclassical narratology” is of continuities of “classical narratology.” Thus, his split of narratology into “classical” and “postclassical” arouses confusion about the value and developing orientation of narratology. The author of the present essay will employ the basic ideas of structuralism to analyze Herman’s reproaches of the so-called classical narratology and therefore to argue about the invalidity of Herman’s split.