Universals of Narrative and Their Cognitivist Fortunes (II)

We now return to the three narrative universals from another viewpoint, that of false cognitivist pretenders to the title. The chief pretenders, as in Brewer et al., appear at times under the guise and the very name of the genuine article, yet essentially align with their naked disciplinary equivalents. You may therefore want to refresh your memory of the original definitions cited in section 1 of the first part of this article (Sternberg 2003: 326–28). All the issues to be reviewed next intersect in the following (mis)translation of the generic universals into hard and fast rules, with thumbnail examples to suit:

Surprise

A surprise event structure must contain critical expository or event information early in the event sequence. In a surprise discourse organization, the critical information from the beginning of the event structure is omitted from the discourse, without letting the reader know that it has been omitted, and then is inserted later in the discourse. We assume that the reader will be surprised when the reader reaches the point where the omitted information is revealed, and that the surprise is resolved when the reader reinterprets the underlying event sequence in light of this new information. An example of a minimal surprise discourse structure is: "Charles got up from the chair. He walked slowly toward the window. The window broke and Charles fell dead. The sound of a shot echoed in the distance." In the underlying event sequence, a sniper has come within range of Charles' window, but this critical event information has been omitted from the discourse structure to produce surprise . . .

Suspense

A suspense discourse organization must contain an initiating event or situation. An initiating event is an event which could lead to significant consequences (either good or bad) for one of the characters in the narrative. The event structure must also contain the outcome of the initiating event. In a suspense discourse organization the initiating event occurs early in the discourse. The initiating event causes the reader to become concerned about the consequences for the relevant character and this produces suspense. Typically, additional discourse material is placed between the initiating event and the outcome event, to encourage the build up of the suspense. The suspense is resolved when the outcome is presented in the discourse. Thus, in a suspense discourse structure, the order of events in the discourse can map the order of events in the event structure. An example of a minimal suspense discourse organization from the event sequence used above is: "The sniper was waiting outside the house. Charles got up from the chair. He walked slowly toward the window. There was the sound of a shot and the window broke. Charles fell dead." Notice that it is the reader's affect that is crucial. In this case the reader is placed in suspense, while the character doesn't know that he is in danger.

Curiosity

A curiosity event structure must contain a significant event early in the sequence. In a curiosity discourse organization, the significant event is omitted from the discourse, but (unlike surprise) the reader is given enough information to know that the event is missing. This discourse organization leads the reader to become curious about the withheld information. The curiosity is resolved by providing enough information in the later parts of the discourse for the reader to reconstruct the omitted significant event. This is, of course, the discourse organization of the classic mystery story. An example of a minimal curiosity discourse for the event sequence used above is "Charles fell dead. The police came and found the broken glass, etc." (Brewer and Lichtenstein 1982: 480–81; iterated in their 1981: 365–67; Brewer 1983: 595, 1985: 169–70, 1995a: 92, 1996: 110–13, 1998: 157–60; Brewer and Ohtsuka 1988: 396–97; echoed as a whole in, e.g., Millis 1995: 239ff., Hoeken and van Vliet 2000: esp. 278–80)

The problems with this transfer range from...