Tone.

Hello everyone and welcome to another #theorythursday. Last week I talked about who the antagonist in the story is, so check that out if you haven’t already. 

Today I am going to be talking about the tone of a work. 

So let’s dive into Theory Thursday. 

What is tone? 

If I am talking about the tone of a particular work, I am referring to what mood I think the author is trying to put across based on certain choices they make. The tone of a work can also refer to how the text makes the reader feel. Many things impact the tone of a work, for example the writer’s word choice is very important because certain words can make us react differently. 

For example, if I were to say that I dislike something, I think that gives off a very different tone compared to if I were to say that something disgusts me. Dislike and disgust are two very different things, disgust is a much stronger emotion so if I were to use stronger word choices then the tone will be much more intense. 

Why is tone important? 

Tone, like all aspects of literary theory, is important because having an understanding of tone will only enhance your reading experience, and if one is discussing a work then it is important to be able to articulate what sort of tone you think the author was trying to establish. The tone of a piece can also be open to interpretation because you may base your opinion on the piece’s tone on how the piece made you feel. If a piece made you sad, or moved you in some way, then you may suggest that the author was presenting a tone that was sad and poignant, and you could suggest that the author’s intention was to move readers. 

This has been Theory Thursday. I hope you all enjoyed it. Happy Friday Eve. 

Kate xo. 

Meet The Antagonist.

Hello everyone and welcome back to #theorythursday. Last week I talked about who the protagonist in the story is so check that out if you haven’t already. Today I am going to be talking about who the antagonist in the story is. 

So let’s dive into Theory Thursday. 

Who is the antagonist? 

In literature, the term “antagonist” traditionally refers to the main opponent of the main character, the person who is the thorn in the protagonist’s side, the person who is working against the protagonist. 

I mentioned last week how the term “protagonist” has become associated with the idea that the protagonist is the “good guy”, and that the term “antagonist” has become associated with the idea that the antagonist is the “bad guy”. Now, this can often be true, and when I am discussing movies, I tend to make this general association simply because it is easier, but while the antagonist of a story is often the “bad guy”, it is not the case every single time. 

I think that sometimes the antagonist is not a bad character, but they are simply the counterpoint to the protagonist. If one was to look at a movie like Legally Blonde as an example, I would argue that Vivian may seem like the “bad guy” at first, but actually she isn’t the bad guy, she isn’t even the antagonist, she is simply the opposite of Elle. This type of scenario can happen often too so it is important to not confuse counterpoints with the “bad guy”. I also think it is important to acknowledge that someone disagreeing with the protagonist doesn’t automatically make them the “bad guy”. 

It depends on the narrative, but some stories end with the protagonist and the antagonist finding a point of understanding, whereas in other narratives, they remain opposed. There is also the idea of the “anti-hero”, but this is a concept that I will discuss in detail on another Theory Thursday. 

Why is it important to understand who the antagonist is? 

It is important to know who the antagonist is because they are a key part of the narrative, they are where the conflict lies, and without an antagonist, the protagonist doesn’t have a challenge. I would argue that the antagonist functions to challenge the protagonist and make their arc meaningful. In the antagonist’s point of view, the protagonist is their challenge, and it is important to always remember who is telling the story, because a story told from the antagonist’s point of view could paint an entirely different picture. 

This has been Theory Thursday. Happy Friday Eve. 

Kate xo. 

Meet The Protagonist.

Hello everyone and welcome back to #theorythursday. Today I am going to be talking about who the protagonist is in the story. This may seem extremely simple and straightforward, but I have chosen to write about the protagonist because I want my website to be a place where literature and literary theory is accessible to everyone, and there may be readers who aren’t overly familiar with terms such as “protagonist” and “antagonist”, etc. 

I use the term “protagonist” a lot, and it is a term that anyone who is talking about literature should become familiar with. 

So let’s dive in. 

Who is the protagonist? 

The term “protagonist” refers to the main character (or main characters) in the text. It is the person (or people) whom the story revolves around. 

The word “protagonist” has arguably become associated with the idea of goodness, so the term “protagonist” is often used to describe the “good guy” and the term “antagonist” is often used to describe the villain of the text – I will talk about this on another Theory Thursday. 

I do think that although I usually describe the “good guy” as the protagonist out of ease, I think it is slightly more complicated than that as not every protagonist is purely good. Characters can be nuanced and complex, and of course there is the idea of the anti-hero etc, but these are topics for another day. 

Why is it important to know who the protagonist is? 

I think it is important to know who the protagonist is because they are the main character in a work, and when one is discussing a text, the term “protagonist” is used often so it is important to understand who that term is referring to.

This has been Theory Thursday. I hope you all have a lovely Friday Eve. 

Kate xo. 

Epistolary Form.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Theory Thursday. Last week I talked about tropes so you should check that out if you haven’t already. Today I am talking about epistolary form. 

Let’s dive into #theorythursday. 

I mentioned epistolary form briefly in my #bookofthemonth discussion about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein because the novel is a very good example of a text that is written in epistolary form. I decided that today I would talk about this form in more detail. 

What is epistolary form? 

As I said in my #bookofthemonth discussion, when a text is written in epistolary form, it means that the text is written through a series of letters and documents by one or several characters. 

Texts that are written in epistolary form are often more focused on thoughts and feelings instead of dialogue, and this makes sense because if a character is writing a diary entry for example, they will be writing down the experience through their eyes, and they will be writing down how they felt about it, so it is important to remember that all of the text’s events are filtered by the character’s memory. Two people could write about the same event and yet they could write two extremely different things. 

Another example of a text that is written in epistolary form is The Color Purple, written by Alice Walker. 

Why is understanding epistolary form important? 

I think that if you’ve never encountered this form before it can take a moment to get used to, because you’re not simply reading the story, you’re reading someone’s experience of the story, and it is the letters and diary entries that keep the plot’s events in order. For example if two characters are writing letters to each other, it is in their responses that the plot advances. It is a really interesting way to tell a story, and I think it is important to know that this method of telling a story through letters or diary entries is called epistolary form. 

I also think it’s important to know about epistolary form because having a broad range of knowledge about different forms and how they function, expands our understanding of literature, and I believe that in turn, we expand our enjoyment of literature. 

This has been Theory Thursday, I hope you all enjoyed it. Happy Friday Eve. 

Kate xo. 

Tropes.

Hello everyone. Welcome back to #theorythursday.

Last week I talked about subversive literature, and you should go and check that out if you have not already.

Today I am talking about tropes. Let’s dive right into Theory Thursday.

What is a trope?

It is important to note that the word trope can have many definitions, but in literary terms, a trope is a commonly used plot device or character trait that is used so often that it appears to be conventional.

An example of this is the ‘final girl’ trope that is often recognised in horror movies. This is the idea that there can only be one female character surviving at the end of the movie, and this female character is usually smart, studious, and she is usually a virgin. I’ve talked about this ‘final girl’ trope in greater detail in this week’s #moviemonday discussion as Laurie Strode’s arc in Halloween is an example of the ‘final girl’ trope.

Many fairy tales contain a ‘rags to riches’ trope where the protagonist rises from a situation in which they are struggling and they are rewarded for their kindness and courage along the way. The protagonists in ‘rags to riches’ tropes usually have hearts of gold. They are usually very endearing, and easy characters for us as the audience to root for. If we think about the Disney version of Aladdin, the character Aladdin experiences a rise from rags to riches. He exemplifies these kind, heroic, endearing traits because despite being given the title of ‘street rat’, Aladdin is also called a ‘diamond in the rough’, showing us that he deserves this good fortune.

Certain tropes can become associated with certain genres, for example, the ‘rags to riches’ trope could be argued to be associated with fairy tales, and the ‘final girl’ trope can be heavily associated with the horror genre, and these stories occur so often, that we begin to view the idea of the final girl in horrors as normal, we think that’s just how horror movies work.

Tropes become familiar, and I think that people have certain tropes that they enjoy.

Enemies to lovers is a very popular trope, and this trope explores the idea of two characters who start off hating each other, but over time they begin to have romantic feelings towards each other. This usually happens after the two characters were forced to spend a lot of time together for some reason, and although both characters hate the idea at first, as time passes they grow on each other. I would argue that this trope tends to be popular in young adult fiction.

Why is it important to understand what a trope is?

I think it is important to understand tropes simply because they occur so often in literature. When one is talking about literature, tropes will come up because they are so central to the stories so it is important to understand what they are. Tropes can also cause interesting discussions because some tropes are considered extremely popular, while others could be argued to be outdated. I will discuss this further at some point in the future.

This has been Theory Thursday, I hope you enjoyed it.

Kate xo.

Subversive Literature.

Hello everyone and welcome back to #theorythursday. I cannot believe how quickly the time is passing by. Next week is the last week of October and then we are moving onwards and upwards into a new month. Last week I talked about the difference between horror and terror, and you should check that out if you haven’t already. Today I am talking about subversive literature. 

 If you follow me on Instagram (@katelovesliterature), then you will already know that I wanted to say thank you to everyone who has left me a comment either on Instagram, or here on the website, and to those of you who sent me a kind message, thank you so much. I really appreciate the support and engagement that I have received during the month of October. I have really embraced the Halloween spirit, and I have been talking a lot about horrors, which I know not everyone enjoys. I will be taking a break from horror as we move into November, but I’ve enjoyed challenging myself to watch movies that I usually wouldn’t as horror is definitely not my favourite genre, but I have found that there are aspects of it that I do enjoy. 

With that being said, let’s dive into the second last #theorythursday in October. 

What is subversive literature? 

Subversive literature is literature in which the plot challenges things we consider normal. 

A subversive narrator will take things that the reader should already be familiar with, and challenge our understanding of that thing. Subversive narratives are common in gothic literature, which is why I decided that I would talk about subversive literature in October because it fits into the horror/gothic themes that I have been exploring this month. 

An example of subversive literature can be found in a text such as Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto or in Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey. Both of these novels subvert the idea of home being a safe place. Usually one’s home is their safe place, their sanctuary, their escape from the world, but in these novels, and in many other gothic novels, the home has become the place where danger lurks. Home is the place where the characters must escape from. Sanctuary is found outside of the home rather than in the home, and this development warps the reader’s idea of safety. When we read these novels, we no longer view the home as a safe space, because the idea of being safe at home has been twisted by a subversive narrative. 

I think that Neil Gaiman’s novella Coraline is another example of a subversive piece of literature. The character Coraline feels ignored by her parents who have to work around the clock, and so when she first encounters her “other mother” and “other father” in the parallel universe that she discovers, at first everything seems wonderful, so much so that she starts to prefer her “other mother”, but she soon learns that all is not as it seems and her idea of everything being perfect in the parallel universe is challenged and subverted when she learns that the perfect parallel universe is actually a place of nightmares. 

Why is it important to know about subversive literature? 

As I’ve said above, I felt that it was a good idea to talk about subversive literature alongside the gothic and horror that I have been discussing in October, because subversive narratives are often found in horror movies and gothic novels. I also think that it is important to understand subversive literature, because subversive literature can be extremely powerful. Subversive literature is sometimes radical, or political. Subversive narratives are often employed when an author wants to make a statement, but this isn’t always the case. I think there is something very powerful about a book having the power to take something that we think we understand and challenge it and twist it so much so that we have to re-examine our understanding of that thing. That is powerful. That is thought provoking. That is how conversations start. That is how critical thinking begins, when we are challenged, and so that is why I think that subversive literature is so important, because it has the potential to be incredibly moving and powerful. 

This has been Theory Thursday. I hope you all enjoyed it. Thank you all again for the lovely support I’ve received this past month. It is much appreciated, and I am so excited for the months to come. 

Happy Friday Eve. 

Kate xo. 

Horror vs Terror.

Hello everyone and welcome back to another #theorythursday.

Last week I talked about how to recognise elements of gothic literature, so you should check that out if you have not already.

Today I am going to be talking about the difference between horror and terror, because despite sounding similar, they are not the same.

Let’s dive into Theory Thursday.

I spent some time studying gothic literature because it is a genre that I find really interesting, and the knowledge that I am sharing today comes from Ann Radcliffe, a very prolific gothic author, in fact she has been referred to as the pioneer of gothic fiction.

Ann Radcliffe outlined what she believed to be the difference between horror and terror, and it is from my studies of her and gothic literature that I am working off of.

What is horror?

Radcliffe describes horror as being a fear of something concrete. Horror is an immediate reaction that happens in the moment. So, we may feel horror when we see a monster or a jump scare. It is shocking, but it can be fleeting.

What is terror?

Radcliffe describes terror as a much more complex feeling. Terror is a feeling of anxiety and dread, that builds and builds before something happens. We may feel feel terror in the moments before something scary happens. We may feel terror when we hear ominous sounds, or creepy noises, or if we see flashes of dark shadows in the distance. We feel that something is wrong, but we do not know what, and we are scared to find out. That is terror.

Why is it important to know the difference between horror and terror?

I thought that breaking down the difference between horror and terror would be an interesting Theory Thursday topic, seeing as it is #spookyseason. I have been discussing a lot of horror movies this month, and this month’s #bookofthemonth is a gothic novel. I felt that since I am using terms such as ‘gothic’, and ‘horror’, and ‘terror’, etc., that it would be a good idea to break down what those terms mean.

I also think that knowing why horror and terror are different is a really interesting concept to think about, and I feel that after studying Radcliffe, I have a deeper appreciation for gothic literature.

I also think that it makes sense to understand that horror and terror are different because when you think about it, the feeling of shock when something jumps out at you is very different to the feeling of foreboding you feel when you hear an odd noise, or you feel like something is lurking in the shadows. I think that after a jump scare, we recover quicker, but if we feel that something is wrong, but we don’t know what, that feeling of dread is a lot harder to shake off. I think it is important to be able to recognise the difference between those feelings, especially when one is analysing horror movies and/or gothic novels.

This has been Theory Thursday. I hope you enjoyed it. Happy Friday Eve everyone.

Kate xo.

Discussing Gothic Novels.

Defining The Gothic Novel. 

Hello everyone and welcome back to Theory Thursday. Last week I discussed the first-person perspective, you should go and check that out if you haven’t already.

 Today’s #theorythursday is all about the gothic novel. So let’s dive in.

What makes a novel a gothic novel? 

The gothic novel is a genre of literature that most often presents themes of death, decay, mystery, and romance. 

There are elements found in gothic novels that are almost considered signatures of the genre. These elements are things such as the setting being very gloomy. In gothic novels it is very common that the weather is terrible. Gothic novels are often set in big, intimidating, hulking places such as sprawling manors in the middle of nowhere, abbeys, castles, etc. These places are often implied to be haunted or associated with some kind of conspiracy or mystery. Gothic novels often present a plot that involves uncovering the truth or solving a long-time mystery. 

Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto (published in 1764) is often named the first gothic novel. The novel is set in a castle, mysterious deaths occur, the main protagonist must figure out a prophecy, and unveil the truth as within the castle there has been a lot of lies, mistrust, and mistaken identifies, so you can see from this novel, certain elements stand out – the castle, the deaths, the search for the truth – these are the elements that I have pointed out above as being considered to be gothic elements. 

While gothic novels can contain elements of horror, I would argue that gothic novels and horror novels are different. In my opinion, the intent behind a gothic novel is very different to the intent behind a horror novel. 

A prominent idea that can be found in gothic novels is this idea of playing with the reader’s perception of safety. One might assume that one’s home is a safe place. Many narratives present the idea that home is where the character will find sanctuary, and all will be well once the character returns home, however in gothic novels, this idea is often inverted and home becomes a dangerous place. Home becomes somewhere to escape from. Home becomes the place where mystery, and danger, and death lurks. 

If I were to give my opinion on the difference between horror and a gothic novel, I would say that the difference becomes clear when you read something like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or The Castle of Otranto and then compare it to a novel written by Stephen King. 

The difference I believe becomes clear when you think about what sort of feelings these different texts evoke. Something like The Castle of Otranto in my opinion, will evoke feelings of dread, some passages may make the reader tense, or curious. The novel may make you very intrigued. You want to solve the mystery, you want to find the truth whereas I believe that King’s novels evoke feelings of fear. They are often scary, and disturbing, and the stuff of nightmares, and for many people that is what makes them appealing. There is a thrill that comes from being scared which is why people go to see horror movies, but being scared and feeling tense are two very different feelings, and the intent to intrigue someone, or unsettle someone, or make someone curious, is very different to the intent to scare someone – so I think this is one of the key differences between a gothic novel and a horror novel. 

I think that the gothic novel is one of the more complicated areas of literature to explain because the gothic does overlap so much with horror, and elements of horror can be found in gothic novels however they are not one and the same. 

There will usually be elements of horror found in a gothic text, however there are some horrors that are in no way gothic. They are simply horror, and I will speak about some of these texts later on in the month of October. 

This week’s #moviemonday was about a gothic horror, however I have a movie lined up for later on in the month as we get closer to Halloween that is not gothic at all in my opinion. So while this may be a slightly more confusing topic, I think that with practice, and with more reading, and more movie watching, it does become easier to identify what is a gothic text and what isn’t. 

Why is it important to understand what a gothic novel is? 

I felt it was important to explain what a gothic novel is because this month’s #bookofthemonth is a gothic novel, and I mentioned on Monday that I think Ichabod Crane is a very gothic character, and without context, that’s just a descriptive word. If I didn’t explain, I’d just be calling things gothic and readers may not have any idea what that means or some people may hear the word gothic and automatically assume horror, and as I said, while they are similar, they are not the exact same thing. 

I think that the gothic novel is a very interesting genre of literature. I feel that people who maybe don’t enjoy horror because maybe they’re squeamish or maybe they don’t enjoy being afraid, may enjoy a gothic because a gothic doesn’t necessarily scare you. It can, but it can also intrigue you. A gothic novel may appeal to people who enjoy mysteries, who enjoy eerie stories rather than bloody ones. I would argue that a gothic novel can present more layered and nuanced themes than a horror can, however that is just my opinion. People may disagree with that, and that is fine. 

I think it could be said that a gothic novel may have more impact because it may prompt questions and thoughts whereas a horror may simply scare you in the moment and give you an adrenaline rush etc, but you may not think about it again later. 

I think it is important to be aware of the gothic novel, just like I think it is important to be aware of all genres because a broader range of knowledge about genres can widen our reading, and this can broaden and enhance our enjoyment of literature. 

This has been Theory Thursday. I hope you enjoyed it. If there are any questions or comments, feel free to drop them below. 

Happy Friday Eve!

Kate xo. 

Narrative: Chapter 2.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Theory Thursday. Last week I began to discuss the different types of narration that we can come across in literature. I focused on the third-person perspective last week, you should go and check that out if you haven’t already. Today I am concentrating on the first-person narrative so let’s dive into #theorythursday. 

How do I recognise the first-person narrator in a story? 

It is very easy to recognise when a story is being told in the first-person, because the narrator is either the protagonist telling their own story, or another character who is telling the protagonist’s story from their point of view. 

I mentioned on my Instagram (@katelovesliterature), that today is a double post day because my #bookofthemonth discussion all about F.Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby will also be published today seeing as it is the last day of September. It just so happens that The Great Gatsby is a brilliant example of a story that is told from the first-person perspective. The character Nick Carraway is the narrator of Fitzgerald’s novel and he tells us the story of Jay Gatsby, the novel’s protagonist, and since the story is told from Nick’s point of view, we are seeing Jay through his eyes. The novel is an example of a first-person perspective in which another character telling the protagonist’s story – Nick tells Jay’s story. If Jay was telling his own story, he would also be a first-person narrator. 

When a narrator is speaking in the first-person, they will use words such as “I”, and “we”, as they are telling readers about events that they experienced themselves, or witnessed themselves. 

I mentioned last week that I tend to prefer stories are told in the third-person, and this is because I feel that the third-person perspective gives readers a broader story because the narrator is outside of the events looking in, and so the narrator is therefore more objective but a first-person narrator is speaking from their own experience, so their feelings will come into play, which means that the story we are told may be biased – this is where the concept of an “unreliable narrator” comes into play, and we must always be open to questioning how the story may be different if it was told by someone else. 

If we think about The Great Gatsby for a moment, it is a good example of a novel that could be argued to have an unreliable narrator. I’ve already said that readers experience Jay Gatsby through the eyes of Nick Carraway and while at times he despises Gatsby, there are also times that he admires him. Nick has sympathy for Gatsby and so readers most likely will too, however Nick does not have sympathy for Daisy or Tom, and he judges them harshly for their actions despite claiming he’s not judgemental, and despite overlooking Gatsby’s similar behaviour which is hypocritical – but it’s easier to overlook behaviour from someone you sympathise with than someone you do not. 

I would also argue that it is crucial that The Great Gatsby is told from Nick’s perspective. I don’t think this novel would work if it wasn’t. Nick is the mediator between the readers and Gatsby, and because Nick sees Gatsby as a layered and complex man, who he can both admire and despise, readers do too. I feel that it could be argued that Gatsby would not be as dynamic or sympathetic of a character if he was the narrator because if he was the one talking of his misdeeds and then of his better qualities, he could risk coming across to readers as an obnoxious man who is boastful and simply trying to justify his actions, but having Nick speak of Gatsby’s admirable qualities allows Gatsby to become layered, to become dynamic, and somewhat redeemable, having Nick tell his story means that he gets to be a mysterious entity rather than an absurdly rich man talking about himself. Nick telling Gatsby’s story of doomed romance makes him a tragically romantic character, but if Gatsby was speaking, would he simply be a rich man who is pining and whining? Maybe. 

Why is it important to know about the first-person narrator? 

Well, as always I think it’s important to understand how different types of narration can impact a story. Narration is a key aspect of fiction, and types of narration are key aspects of literary theory and understanding literary theory can only deepen one’s understanding and enjoyment of a text. I say this every week, and I will continue to do so because it is true.

If we think about the above example I gave, The Great Gatsby is a text that highlights how much of an impact the type of narration used can have because as I stated above, I think it can be argued that having Nick Carraway narrate that text is crucial to the text working, I don’t think it would be as dynamic, layered, and impactful of a text if it was wasn’t told from Nick’s first-person perspective, so even though I do generally prefer stories that are told in the third-person, I can recognise texts in which a first-person perspective would be the better choice, and in my opinion, The Great Gatsby is one of those texts – if you want to hear what else I have to say about this novel then check of September’s Book Of The Month discussion. 

I hadn’t planned it in advance that this week’s Theory Thursday would align so perfectly with September’s Book Of The Month selection. It was a coincidence that both posts would be published today as this Thursday just happened to be the last day of September, and I like to post my #bookofthemonth discussions on the last day of every month. I also hadn’t planned for this week’s aspect of literary theory to be such a huge factor of the text I am discussing. It was another coincidence that last week I decided I would begin to explain the different types of narration and first-person narration just happened to be prominent in my Book Of The Month selected novel. 

This has been Theory Thursday. This has been a breakdown of the first-person perspective. As always if anyone has any comments or questions, I’d love it if you’d drop them below. 

Here’s to Friday Eve. 

Kate xo. 

Narrative.

Hello everyone and welcome back to another Theory Thursday. Last week I broke down why a story’s setting is important. You should check that out if you haven’t already. I explained why a story’s setting is so fundamental. I believe that narration is another fundamental aspect of storytelling as how a story is told majorly impacts how readers respond to it. 

There are different types of narration and I am going to dedicate different Theory Thursdays to breaking down each of the different types of narrative, similar to how I’ve been breaking down poetic devices over a number of weeks. 

Today’s Theory Thursday is all about the third-person narrative, so let’s dive into #theorythursday. 

What is a third-person narrative? 

When a story is being narrated in the third-person, it is being told by a narrator who is outside of the story and not part of it. A third-person narrative tells the story from the perspective of someone who watched the events take place, and that person is now relaying that information to the reader. 

A third-person narrative will read a little something like this, “Kate sat down at her desk and prepped herself for a day of study. She plugged her laptop into charge and scribbled down notes in her pink notebook. The coffee cup on her desk was refilled many times throughout the day, and after a few long hours, she finally felt confident about her exam.” 

Please do not judge my creative abilities based on that example. The above paragraph is not a reflection of how I would go about writing a book – if I ever chose to do so. The above paragraph is simply a very straightforward example of how a third-person narrative works. 

The third-person narrator will use pronouns such as “he, her, his, theirs, etc.” This is because the third-person narrator is telling a story about others rather than about themselves – that would be first-person narration, which I will discuss on another Theory Thursday. 

Why is it important to understand the third-person narrator? 

You can guess what I’m going to say, like any aspect of literary theory, I believe that learning about narration will only enhance one’s enjoyment of a text. Understanding how a story is told will enable you to fully understand the story, and I believe that how a story is narrated can impact how much we enjoy the story. 

For example, I prefer stories that are told in the third-person. The third-person perspective is the most common perspective in fiction, which is why I chose to start with it as opposed to the first or second person. 

I prefer stories that are told in the third-person because I feel that readers get a broader scope of the stories. When a story is told in the first-person, we are only getting one perspective and while this isn’t a bad thing, I prefer it when a third-person narrator is telling me about events that they witnessed because I feel as though I see the story in a much broader, more nuanced way, and I see all sides of the story rather than just one. 

For example, if a character is in an argument, I think that a third-person narrator is more effective because we see the argument from the perspective of an uninvolved spectator – meaning we see both sides, rather than just getting one side of the story, which will always be biased. In saying that though, there are some wonderful advantages to a first-person narrative but I will discuss that in more detail when I am breaking down first-person narration. 

Narration, like setting, is a fundamental aspect of fiction because it cannot be overlooked. I don’t think you can discuss a story without thinking about how the story is told and by whom it is told. A really interesting question to think about when reading any text, or watching any movie is how would this story change if it was told by someone else? I think that many movies are tackling that question especially considering the fact that in the last few years we’ve seen retellings of classic stories from the villain’s point of view. Entire movies are being made about the villain’s side of the story, and audiences are being asked to decide if the villain is really a villain after all. An example of this would be the movie Maleficent and more recently, Cruella

That is why I think it is important to understand the different types of narration, because how a story is narrated greatly impacts the story and how audiences respond to it. 

This has been a breakdown of the third-person narrative. This has been Theory Thursday. If you have any questions please do let me know. Happy Friday Eve everyone. 

Kate xo.