Abstrakt
In their "Introduction" to the recent A Poetics of Unnatural Narrative, Jan Alber et al. self-assuredly open the publication by claiming that "[i]n recent years, unnatural narratology has developed into the most exciting new paradigm in narrative theory and the most important new approach since the advent of cognitive narratology." However, unnatural narratology is plagued by serious problems to grant such an optimistic view of its status. Firstly, there is no single definition of unnatural narratology, as different proponents of this approach advance different categorizations of "the unnatural".
While this multiplicity is a sign of academic/theoretical dissent it suggests that the "theory" is in search of its object. Secondly, this "exciting new paradigm" lacks the conceptual gravity to call itself a "paradigm." While the authors claim that the opposite is true, their "theory" does not in and of itself represent any conceptual or methodological departure from or subversion of narratology.
Thirdly, and following from the previous, narratology is able to account for the instances of the unnatural studied by these authors. Fourthly, unnatural narratology lacks in the dimension of reception - it disregards the role of the reader and his/her perception of the dimension of "the unnatural".
The last shortcoming points to the problem of who is to arbiter what constitutes "the unnatural" and, conversely, "the natural". While it is important to focus on the unnatural and it might be true that there has been a bias toward the "mimetic" in narratology, production of new labels does not constitute a paradigm shift.
Based on these problems, I show that: 1) while the effort of these narratologists is commendable, it does not lay ground for a theory or a new paradigm; 2) some of the unnatural elements of narrative are accountable or have been actually accounted for by "natural" narratology. Lastly, I point to the problematic tenability of the concept of "the unnatural."