This post is a continuation from Syllogism Is Practical For Narrative which discusses how practical syllogism would go about generating narrative for a semi-autonomous agent based on an the desires of actors.

Polemical Model

The polemical model is largely based on Vladimir Propp’s 31 functions and what Greimas felt that Propp missed out on regarding actors and their functions. The polemical model of narrative postulates a unit of structure in between the simple narrative statement in the form of an event and the plot as a whole as it refers to a sequence of happenings within the story. This model is very similar to narrative enonce which deals with a sequence of happenings throughout a narrative. The polemical model, unlike the actantial model which we have used to describe actors, their roles, and an actor driven narrative is a bit different. While the actantial model has actors grouped with spheres of actions that are attributed to the actor, the polemical model is comprised of a sequential and syntagmatic unit that is made of functions (mostly Proppian functions). When discussing the polemical model it is advised by Theresa B. that we must refer to Propp’s 31 functions, as I stated above, however, also to Greimas’ perspective. his linguistic imagination, and how he sees it fit for the polemical model. For these reasons, I personally find it very hard to consider the polemical model a substitute for narrative enonce, practical syllogism, or actantial roles as the polemical model is simply a Greimassian perspective and opinions that have yet to be fully thought out.

After analyzing Propp’s 31 functions, it is Greimas’ belief that there are (at least) five functions which are recurring throughout the narrative. The combination of these five units within the narrative are what comprise what Greimas came to call, the Test or other times called performantial syntagm, or also narrative schema. The Test serves as a way for actants and the functions which they imply to interact / ‘communicate’ with each other in an abstract manner. The schema for a Test would look like:

Test = A(Sender, Receiver) + F (Subject, Anti-Subject) + C (Object, Subject)

= Contract + Struggle + Consequence

Greimas believes that the study of the Proppian fairy tale schema not only generates the Test, but, generates three different forms of Test which are the qualifying test, main test, and the glorifying test. Each of these tests, are derived from the Test schema which was discussed earlier. The qualifying test does exactly what it sounds like, it determines whether or not the hero has the ability / skill to embark on the main quest. Once this test has been passed, then it is when the hero may partake in the main quest. At first, the hero / subject actor must engage themselves in a contract in which they are the receiver and another actor is the sender of the contract. The contract is the initiation of a quest which embarks the actor on a quest (the narrative the audience would experience). Through the acceptance of this quest, the actor must then face their anti-subject (their equal from a different dimension) whom attempts to prevent the subject / actor / hero from completing the quest which they accepted. Upon the completion of the main quest, it is when the glorifying test becomes available to the hero. The glorifying test has the least probability to be rejected by the hero, as the hero will always strive for self recognition of their actions.

Aside: It is only within a traditional fairy tale that it seems the three tests, qualifying, main, and glorification will always be included. Other forms of narratives which are not fairy tales can have these qualifying tests however they are not always required. It also seems that the qualifying test could be part of a drama manager to see if a particular situation qualifies to generate a conflict or particular event.

An interesting note which can be made from an actor development mindset is that the anti-subject / villain is the subject’s / hero’s counterpart. Thus, it is very possible that subjects and anti-subjects are very similar within their actor development / actor database. It is not to be thought that subjects would have the same moral compass as anti-subjects, however, their determination and personalities could be very similar as they are both committed and have accepted a contract. While they are different contracts, often they will exercise (within fairy tales) the same feelings toward accomplishing their contract, furthermore, the subject and anti-subject are each other’s subject and anti-subject respectively depending on the perspective which you view both actors from. Therefore, the subject and anti-subject are set against each other and only one may succeed their object of desire. Due to each subject being set against each other, they must partake in different actions in an attempt to meet their objective which produces two different and overlapping narratives. Taking this into account, actors must have the ability to hold their own / generate their own narrative independently.

Aside: By having overlapping narratives due to subjects having different actions of desires, it seems that then it would be necessary for actors to drive narratives as they can cause narratives to be generated based on their objects of desire. On a more deeper level, it seems that it is objects of desire within actors that drive narrative. Thus, objects of desire are vital within the development of the backstory so that the narrative is interesting. Perhaps, actor driven narrative could also be considered object driven narrative.

Much like the test schema can manifest three different ‘types’ of tests (qualifying test, main test, glorifying test) it can manifest three different types of narrative enonce which make up the following schema for the ‘test’.

Narrative Enonce 1 = F : confrontation ( subject 1 <–> subject 2 )

Narrative Enonce 2 = F : domination ( subject 1 <–> subject 2 )

Narrative Enonce 3 = F : attribution ( subject 1 <– Object Value )

Narrative Enonce 3 can also be written as:

( subject 2 —> Object Value —> subject 1 )

The alternative form of Narrative Enonce 3 ( as shown above ) represents that narrative enonce as a transfer where subject 1 is the hero, subject 2 is the anti-hero, and O is the object value or object of desire. By forming a narrative enonce schema of the test, it is possible to apply our learnings from narrative enonce, such as the questioner mechanism, which allow us to tie in the test to narrative enonce in what would seem to be a very feasible fashion.

The test, is not just a schema for a traditional fairy tale, it is a central point at which a ‘transformation’ or cumulating point in the narrative occurs. During this transformation or point, it is when a a decision must be made which ultimately leads to the ‘transformation’ or cumulating point as previously mentioned. Furthermore, the Test is also claimed to be considered the most ‘episodic’ unit of ‘syntax’. This is considered to be so because the test is composed of various different ‘episodes’ which subjects must go through in an attempt to achieve their objet of desire. Greimas, considers the Test to be a minimal narrative because it is the core of a narrative which accounts for the definition of narrative as it changes through time. (The acceptance / contract, then the main quest, and finally the glorifying quest / resolution). Also, Greimas belives the Test to fix the limits of a narrative allowing for the narrative to not ‘run off course’ by defining the conclusion, or objects of desire of the narrative before and the beginning of the after.

Aside: Greimas’ reasons as to why the Test must be considered to be the minimal narrative are not concrete and seem to be very general so that they may apply to any narrative. There should be a better reason for why the Test can be considered the most minimal narrative. I do believe Greimas is getting to something by saying that the Test is the core of a narrative and it’s irreducible however, we must not only account for ‘fairy tale’ narrative.

Sender – Receiver Communication