Thanks for this. Reading Strawson, I see that, to him, seeing your life as a story is all about self-authorship. He is not even considering, let alone arguing against, the notion that our lives might actually be a story for real. He is conducting his analysis entirely within the postmodern position that individual experience is all there is, and debating the relative merits of writing the story of your life vs. accepting it for the chaos it is.
But as Christians, of course, we do believe that our lives are part of a story, and story in which every part matters, even if we cannot yet see how all the threads of the plot will resolve. Which leads me to the thought that telling a story may be an inherently religious activity.
Aristotle seems to disagree with this idea, in his discussion of plot as an essential element of story:
"Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the unity of the hero. For infinitely various are the incidents in one man's life which cannot be reduced to unity; and so, too, there are many actions of one man out of which we cannot make one action. Hence the error, as it appears, of all poets who have composed a Heracleid, a Theseid, or other poems of the kind. They imagine that as Heracles was one man, the story of Heracles must also be a unity."
Aristotle's got a good criticism in that the story of someone's life is so varied that you can't reduce all the subplots to "one action". Earlier in my "Extravagant Details of Biography", I was praising some biographies that don't even try to tell the whole of someone's life but focus on one or two parts - which is exactly what Aristotle's recommending there.
But, modern stories can be longer and less tightly tied. The Iliad and Odyssey are short, as books go today. Aristotle might or might not consider "Lord of the Rings" to be "one action," but "Silmarillion"? Any of the Star Trek serieses? Even "Harry Potter"? I doubt it. By these standards, a life can be a story.
I wouldn't say that the Star Trek series I've seen are one action, but then I don't think they were one story, either. In the original series, each episode was one story, but neither a season nor the entire show was one story. The later series had more continuity between episodes, but I'd still say that episodes were self-contained stories.
Now, Harry Potter, on the other hand, does seem to be one story, but it's also one action: the struggle of Harry against Voldemort. After all, the series ends with the final confrontation between them (plus a short dénouement). Harry's whole life is before him. Of course, given its length, it can have branches and subplots that could hardly have fit into one of the Greek tragedies Aristotle was writing about, but there is still one master plot. If Rowling had inserted chapters about, say, Vernon Dursley's involvement in office politics, they might well have had readers saying "What" or dropping the series—unless that action was somehow tied back into the wizarding matter.
As for the Silmarillion: Are we talking about the book by that title? I wouldn't say it has unity of action, but I also wouldn't call it a story. On the other hand, the long narrative of the Quenta Silmarillion does seem to be a story, but it's also a unified action: The pride, rebellion and avarice of Melkor, from his involvement in the creation of Middle-Earth to his final defeat and expulsion. That's what makes it possible to weld all the different narratives, the various stories of elves and men, into a single entity, even if the welding is at times a little awkward.
The length of a story as such doesn't prevent its being unified in action, though it gives more space for the action to be complexified. And if it's not unified in action, I don't think it will feel like a story when it's heard, read, or viewed.
That's an interesting point. You're right, from one point of view the entire "Silmarillion" (Ainulindalë + Quenta) is a unified story talking about the rebellion of Melkor and its consequences; within that, most of the Quenta is again a unified story about the discontent and rebellion of the Noldor and its consequences. Within that, we get a host of individual stories, like the love of Beren and Luthien, the folly of Turin, the voyage of Earendil, et cetera; just like smaller stories are embedded in real history. Similarly, Harry Potter can be the "one story" of Harry's struggle against Voldemort, or smaller stories in each year (e.g. uncovering the mysterious petrifications.)
So I suppose it's "one story" or not based on your perspective. Similarly, I would argue against Aristotle, a "Heracleid" could perhaps be one story if you told it from the proper angle and welded all the incidents together with one theme (perhaps Hercules' struggle to escape Hera's wrath?). Or perhaps you'd need to go out broader and tell "one story" of all Greek mythology; I remember one kids' book that tried to do that. The welding would be awkward at times, but I think it could be done at least as well as the "Silmarillion" if you showcase the right action.
Thanks for this. Reading Strawson, I see that, to him, seeing your life as a story is all about self-authorship. He is not even considering, let alone arguing against, the notion that our lives might actually be a story for real. He is conducting his analysis entirely within the postmodern position that individual experience is all there is, and debating the relative merits of writing the story of your life vs. accepting it for the chaos it is.
But as Christians, of course, we do believe that our lives are part of a story, and story in which every part matters, even if we cannot yet see how all the threads of the plot will resolve. Which leads me to the thought that telling a story may be an inherently religious activity.
Aristotle seems to disagree with this idea, in his discussion of plot as an essential element of story:
"Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the unity of the hero. For infinitely various are the incidents in one man's life which cannot be reduced to unity; and so, too, there are many actions of one man out of which we cannot make one action. Hence the error, as it appears, of all poets who have composed a Heracleid, a Theseid, or other poems of the kind. They imagine that as Heracles was one man, the story of Heracles must also be a unity."
Aristotle's got a good criticism in that the story of someone's life is so varied that you can't reduce all the subplots to "one action". Earlier in my "Extravagant Details of Biography", I was praising some biographies that don't even try to tell the whole of someone's life but focus on one or two parts - which is exactly what Aristotle's recommending there.
But, modern stories can be longer and less tightly tied. The Iliad and Odyssey are short, as books go today. Aristotle might or might not consider "Lord of the Rings" to be "one action," but "Silmarillion"? Any of the Star Trek serieses? Even "Harry Potter"? I doubt it. By these standards, a life can be a story.
I don't think I agree with that.
I wouldn't say that the Star Trek series I've seen are one action, but then I don't think they were one story, either. In the original series, each episode was one story, but neither a season nor the entire show was one story. The later series had more continuity between episodes, but I'd still say that episodes were self-contained stories.
Now, Harry Potter, on the other hand, does seem to be one story, but it's also one action: the struggle of Harry against Voldemort. After all, the series ends with the final confrontation between them (plus a short dénouement). Harry's whole life is before him. Of course, given its length, it can have branches and subplots that could hardly have fit into one of the Greek tragedies Aristotle was writing about, but there is still one master plot. If Rowling had inserted chapters about, say, Vernon Dursley's involvement in office politics, they might well have had readers saying "What" or dropping the series—unless that action was somehow tied back into the wizarding matter.
As for the Silmarillion: Are we talking about the book by that title? I wouldn't say it has unity of action, but I also wouldn't call it a story. On the other hand, the long narrative of the Quenta Silmarillion does seem to be a story, but it's also a unified action: The pride, rebellion and avarice of Melkor, from his involvement in the creation of Middle-Earth to his final defeat and expulsion. That's what makes it possible to weld all the different narratives, the various stories of elves and men, into a single entity, even if the welding is at times a little awkward.
The length of a story as such doesn't prevent its being unified in action, though it gives more space for the action to be complexified. And if it's not unified in action, I don't think it will feel like a story when it's heard, read, or viewed.
That's an interesting point. You're right, from one point of view the entire "Silmarillion" (Ainulindalë + Quenta) is a unified story talking about the rebellion of Melkor and its consequences; within that, most of the Quenta is again a unified story about the discontent and rebellion of the Noldor and its consequences. Within that, we get a host of individual stories, like the love of Beren and Luthien, the folly of Turin, the voyage of Earendil, et cetera; just like smaller stories are embedded in real history. Similarly, Harry Potter can be the "one story" of Harry's struggle against Voldemort, or smaller stories in each year (e.g. uncovering the mysterious petrifications.)
So I suppose it's "one story" or not based on your perspective. Similarly, I would argue against Aristotle, a "Heracleid" could perhaps be one story if you told it from the proper angle and welded all the incidents together with one theme (perhaps Hercules' struggle to escape Hera's wrath?). Or perhaps you'd need to go out broader and tell "one story" of all Greek mythology; I remember one kids' book that tried to do that. The welding would be awkward at times, but I think it could be done at least as well as the "Silmarillion" if you showcase the right action.