2. Todorov
Todorov was a Russian structuralist who thought that all narratives followed the same path. There are 3 and 5 step versions of this idea.
These steps go as such. I have put in the 5 step version but the ones in bold can be taken out so it is the 3 step version.
Step 1: Equilibrium. This is when everything is fine. It is just a normal day wherever the story is set. Nothing is out of ordinary and nothing
is different to any other day.
Step 2: A disruption occurs that interrupts the normal life of the characters in the story.
Step 3 – Disequilibrium. This is when the characters recognize there is a problem ad it needs to be resolved.
Step 4- the characters in the story attempt to solve the problem
Step 5: New equilibrium. The characters in the story’s problem is resolved and harmony resumes.
An example of this is Toy Story.
Step 1- it is Andy’s birthday and the toys are ready for a good day
Step 2- Andy opens his presents and receives a new toy
Step 3 – the new toy is missing and the other toys are worried
Step 4- the toys try there hardest to find the new
Step-5 the new toy is found and everybody is happy again.
3. Todorov continued….
In my story, I used the 5-step version over 9 pages. My story is about a fox whose lunch runs away. My 5
steps are as such.
• Step 1- Freddy has woken up and is making his lunch
• Step 2- Freddy’s gingerbread man comes to life
• Step 3- Freddy’s gingerbread man runs away
• Step 4- Freddy chases the gingerbread man
• Step 5- Freddy eventually catches the gingerbread man and eats him. He is now happy again.
I also think that Todorov’s theory is correct and that this is very much the basis for most stories. Every
story has the 3 step version and I think the 5 step version is a good way to expand on the 3-step as
some stories have a lot inbetween recognizing there is a problem and tackling it. I also think step 4
is the most necessary step because the whole basis of a story is how they tackle the problem.
Because most stories tie down to tackling a problem. So I would always use the 5 step version
above the 3 because leaving out how they tackle a problem is basically a story without a structured
plot.
4. Vladimir Propp
Vladimir Propp was a Russian and soviet formalist scholar.
He analyzed 100 folk tales and came to the conclusion that out of all of the tales there are only 31 plot elements. He named them
functions.
He also came to the conclusion that despite the large amount of characters in all of the tales that it is all narrowed down to 8.
These 8 are:
The Villain – The Joker in Batman
The Helper – Dory in Finding Nemo
The Princess or prize – The treasure in The Goonies
Her Father – Captain Stacey in Spiderman
The Donor – Crush in Finding Nemo
The Hero - Superman in Superman
The False Hero – Lotso in Toy Story 3
The Dispatcher - Lord Farquaad in Shrek
I have included some examples of the characters.
5. Vladimir Propp continued…
I am undecided as to whether I agree with this statement as I have lots of evidence to
support both sides.
Firstly, I could believe this theory as I cannot think of a story that includes a character
that doesn’t apply to one of these basis’s. Therefore I think the theory is correct but
then again, I think that all of the characters in the whole fictitious universe cannot be
narrowed down to just 8 formats. The whole point of characters are that they are
deep, interesting and strange individuals and narrowing them down to 8 kinds of
people just puts a whole negative aspect on the point of fiction and waters down the
fun by a lot.
By no means am I saying that Propp is daft, negative and a kill-joy. I am saying that It
is an interesting theory but I don’t see how it can be correct as the only information I
have supporting it is that I cannot beat it. But then I think that narrowing thousands
of people into 8 groups is just impossible. There are similarities but nothing can fill
the same gap.
In my children’s book i only have 2 characters and these do not apply to Propp’s
theory.
I have a fox who has cooked his lunch but his lunch runs away, and a gingerbread man
who runs away from the fox. Although the gingerbread man shouldn’t have run away,
he isn’t exactly a villain. And the fox isn’t a hero either cause all he wants is his lunch.
6. Claude Levi Strauss
Claude Levi Strauss, a French theorist, came up with the idea of binary opposition.
Binary opposition is where there can only be a story when two opposing sides come together. This conflict is what drives the story.
By this, he means that anything against anything drives a story
Dogs vs Cats
Boys vs Girls
Humans vs Aliens
Etc.
I think that he is right as my story is that exact thing. It is fox vs. gingerbread man and that is all it is. Foxes and gingerbread men aren’t enemies at
all in real life, but seen as this book is for children, I had to come up with something that wasn’t believeable, but something that was fun. I did not
come up with the fox vs gingerbread idea, I borrowed it from a book called “The Gingerbread Man” but I decided to tell the story from the foxes side
of things whilst switching round some roles. The gingerbread man runs away and the fox has to catch him.
But then again, there are stories where binary opposition applies but it isn’t necessarily as simple as Cat vs. Dog. For example, The Hangover is about
group of men against Las Vegas as they try to find out what happened on a drunken night out. Another example of deeper binary opposition is
Breaking Bad. It is Walter White vs. Walter White. In the programme, Walter White cooks crystal meth but he always ends up in bad situations
because of it. But because the money is good and he enjoys the thrill, he continues to do it despite it being illegal. But as it hurts everybody he loves,
he needs to try and stop doing it.
So in conclusion I would say that Claude Levi Strauss’s theory is correct and there really are no flaws there at all in what he thinks of binary
opposition.
