Kevin's Watch

I'm no expert on Classical Literary Criticism but I do believe that it was Aristotle in his analysis of dramatid structure that said that a work should have a beginning, prior to which no event in the ensuing tale should have any bearing unless it is described in the text; a middle [which speaks for itself I think], and an end after which no question remains unsettled or unanswered.

Clearly things have moved on in the last few thousand years and these rules are by no means hard and fast, nor need to be slavishly adhered to in order to produce a satisfying tale, but nevertheless they remain a good framework for constructing a story. I wondered to what extent the Chrons, taken either individually or indeed as a whole, actually satisfy these criteria; could it be for example that early Donaldson does indeed conform to this classical approach, but in his maturity and with success firmly under his belt, he was less constrained in his approach and less bound to convention - freer if you like to make his audience work for their supper. Any thoughts?

LFB, TIW, TPTP: Beginning, Middle, End.

It's important to provide a setting for your story -- which includes a history and/or a backstory and/or a mythology. This is "world-building", whether it's epic fantasy or dime-store crime novel. The author may presume on common knowledge, or may provide exposition to a lesser or a greater degree. But there is always a setting, and the setting always has a history, and that history always informs events in the story.

All an author can do is decide where to draw the line - on one side is the history of the setting, on the other side is the drama he/she is presenting. This has to be a matter of artistic choice, as there's no rule you could devise which can tell you where to draw that line in every story.

Aristotle, I don't think, considered how much of the stories of his time depended on an a priori shared understanding of current conditions and contemporary events, which were in fact unspoken setting. Which, as a result, quite limited them to 'real world' settings.

Also perhaps, he was writing in respect of dramatic composition for the stage? Were there prose writings at his time that were fictional and meant solely for reading?

peter wrote:Also perhaps, he was writing in respect of dramatic composition for the stage?

Good point. A stage work doesn't tolerate easily any explanation of earlier events, except briefly. Hence, the chorus.