Almost five months ago I read a line in Richard Bauckham's "John for Readers of Mark" (1997) that stopped me cold - that John's audience would not be likely "to know from oral Gospel traditions" that Jesus' ministry in Galilee "followed the imprisonment of John". The day I read that, I blogged about it, here. But I kept re-reading the chapter. Bauckham was talking about reader knowledge and oral tradition, but my mind was thinking in terms of memory theory. He suggested John 3:24 enabled Mark's readers to realize the story was "still in the period between Mark 1:13 and Mark 1:14".
He was so right and so very wrong at the same time. And I hadn't expected that. But that's not why this surprise was such a strange experience for me.
On the one hand, this was personal. I have shared the experience of sitting down at a desk with papers all spread out, figuring out how the chronology could/would align, that is, of course, assuming the content itself to be valid. In fact, for those who accept historicity of the datum in question, Bauckham is absolutely correct that John 3:24 enables us to fit that episode between Mark 1:13 & 1:14. For those of us who can sit down and examine these things with materials and sophistication, these are valid points to observe. In some ways, I'd been waiting a long time to find anyone else writing intelligently about this kind of undertaking.
On the other hand, to speak in such terms sounded almost as if Bauckham thought John's readers were sitting down to access the Gospel texts like we might today. Honestly, it began to seem that RB wasn't nearly as interested in what John's readers did with Mark as he wanted to suggest that it's what we should be doing with the Gospels. So while I trusted that his thesis was sincere, and that he knew ancient readers weren't working on texts quite like modern folks do. What kept bothering me, at the most basic level, was neither of those points. The troublesome idea was that RB was suggesting John's original readers could do this kind of precise feathering in their minds, simply because they had previously read or listened to readings of Mark.
This was no longer a question of the early christians' knowledge, literacy or scholarship. This was now a question of memory. Of course, in 1997, RB wasn't talking about "memory" and if I'd discovered this article some years previously, I wouldn't have been thinking about memory. But to consider in practical terms what readers knew about history, about stories, about the past? That's a memory issue.
On the one hand, it made sense for Bauchkam to frame the issue as a question of familiarity. It's about "the way in which John's narrative would be read/heard by an audience very familiar with Mark." Rather than promoting harmonization, he suggests readers "familiar with Mark" could easily see the two narratives as being "complementary". Again, the historical combination in view here is an idea well worth promoting, these days. But is this what early christians were doing back then? In less than 25 pages, I counted eighteen times RB talks about what was or wasn't "familiar". Again, it's obvious RB wasn't actually suggesting they were sitting down at desks using modern methods to test the compatibility of chronological references in the Gospels. But then, what exactly did he think they were doing?
Familiarity is about what someone knows well from experience. It's about what someone, or what some group of people, collectively, remembers from personal experience. But memory isn't quite so photographic. And even if they had memorized Mark's narrative sequence verbatim, that still isn't quite the same thing as equating it to "the past" (neither the remembered past nor the actual past). The challenge for me very quickly surpassed figuring out what Bauckham really thought they'd been doing. The important question, in the light of both memory and narrative theory of recent years, was to ask for myself: what did *I* think that John's readers had actually been doing.
Bauckahm's salient point is to look at John 3:24 and inquire. "For John had not yet been thrown into prison". What is that clarification doing here?
Later on, Bauckham correlates the accounts of Jesus' feeding the 5,000 and points out that the fourth gospel next features Jesus speaking of John the Baptist in past tense, while Mark's Gospel places the beheading of John just before that miraculous feeding. It's at this point Bauckham lost me, and convinced me for certain that another hypothesis is required, when he said, "readers/hearers are likely to have been very familiar indeed with the narrative sequence of the only written Gospel they had previously known." (emphasis mine).
Oh, good grief! Chronology and historical reference do not simply equate to a narrative sequence. I've blogged about this many times in years past and a few times more recently. I'm according this topic new vigor, of late, but it's hardly a new opinion of mine. At any rate, while the "narrative sequence" of John's death and feeding the 5,000 isn't a valid reason to conclude anything about history, the contingency of John's death, as a necessary precursor for subsequent developments, absolutely is a valid reason.
It's not about one particular picnic, although if we grant the picnic historicity then it's popularity wouldn't hurt. But that's just to be fair. No, what is far more important is that there are clues in the background of that story and the subsequent narrativizations which follow that story in all four of the Gospels. There are aspects of historical context which befit a time after John had been killed. If Antipas started looking for Jesus because John was dead; If Jesus crossed over to Bethsaida because Philip's region was safe; If the advancing plot - Jesus skirting around Galilee for a while and then finally heading into Judea - reflects all of these details in a historical progression of developing circumstance; If all that has merit, then - and only then - can we begin to work with the idea that John's narrative at this point may align in some ways with Mark's narrative at this point.
But again, the realistic push from all this, for Bauckham, seems to remain focused on what we can do with our historical study of these texts, today. And I'm for that. But these days I'm more interested in considering what the Gospels' original readers may have remembered.
If John's original readers were able to make use of the reference at 3:24 - and it's existence alone seems like a good enough reason to suppose that (the writer expected, at least) that they could - then perhaps my illustration of contingency, above, might also illustrate how we ought to expect readers to mentally join together such particular "plot points" of two narratives.
We do not become photo-mnemonically "familiar" with the "narrative sequence" of two texts.
Rather, we remember the basic contingencies of a story. Then, hearing a new version of that story, we can compare only the logical consequence of events, using one previously remembered rendition to judge the contents of a current oral performance presenting a second version of the same basic story.
It's obvious Bauckham wanted to work from the text, and for various reasons. But at one step he said readers "knew" that Jesus' rise to popularity in Galilee had corresponded with John's imprisonment, saying this reader knowledge was not from oral tradition but from familiarity with Mark. And then we find Bauckham's hypothetical audience has remembered an entire "narrative sequence" verbatim, from simply hearing a text (however repeatedly) but somehow this same remembering audience cannot hold in mind a simple one-to-one correspondence between major contingencies, simply because those stories were renditions from non-text-based oral tradition?
On that day, I felt I'd determined something for sure that I'd been leaning toward for a while. A story's audience doesn't remember verbatim any narrative sequence. We don't remember full narratives. We remember contingency.
That one thought has governed virtually all of my thinking in daily research, since then.
And now we come to the part of this post where most who are still reading will jump off.
For the five people who may come along someday in the near or far future, and actually care strongly about such things... Or on the random chance that something happens to me and none of this comes to a culminating fruition... In other words, so that someone else can pick up where I leave off if they care to... And since this is far shorter than sharing the dozens and dozens of pages I've journaled since then...
Here is a timeline of my tweets since that day. Most of them are directly relevant here.
No, seriously. I've been using twitter since then as a "poor man's copyright" and as a personal trail of breadcrumbs for the development of my thinking. Like a blog, it's also a challenge to post tentative thoughts that were clear and succinct and worth sharing. By that measure, of course, perhaps not quite all the below tweets should be here. But here they are. Soon, hopefully, I'll get back to making progress on the substantive arguments I've been tentatively building and sharing here, recently. From March 18 to August 3, many of the blog posts (also tweeted below) are related, as well.
This probably ought to be a book, or three. But someone else may have to write it.
This probably ought to be a book, or three. But someone else may have to write it.
I admit, this feels slightly ridiculous, but that's what time capsules are like.
Without further ado... Here's the relevant tweet archive:
Jesus and John's Dungeon Days: Did oral tradition align Jesus' chronology with John's… http://goo.gl/fb/fPFI7
A "narrative sequence" is linear and selective, distinctly unlike real time event sequence. But technically, the term is redundant.
To narrate is to sequence. Even "nonlinear" n's are linear to the reader, a literary time-traveler whose wristwatch is the page count.
Contingency is what links story with history. Fate vs Agency. Some see winners & losers, some see *how* the cards were played.
Misapprehending contingency leads to the 'Great Man' theory. Cause of change? Alexander. Napoleon. Reagan. Perception > Bias.
Perception bends storytelling like gravity bends light. Was Jesus THE cause of his movement or were conditions 'just ripe for it'? Yes.
"the [ancient] author cited texts from memory.. often introducing a slight change to show that he had done so" Grafton, via Whittaker
Constructive Misquotation in Antiquity: This is not a paraphrase, not a mistake, not an… http://goo.gl/fb/oMbVA
Narrating the past engages reader memory to gain credibility. No audience is wholly ignorant of attention worthy non-fiction.
A story of the past must challenge and affirm audience memory. The more it aims to challenge, the more it needs to affirm.
It should therefore be axiomatic that history writers always bear in mind some accounting for non-ignorant readers.
*Assuming the story in question proved relevant or worth preserving or was at least recognizably about the past. #tautology #axiom
The Future of Historiology: Where is the study of "doing History" headed? Three books I've… http://goo.gl/fb/M8sLv
The narcissist sees past and present in his own image. Mature historical thinking teaches us to do the opposite. - S.Wineburg
A Liturgy of Literality… Uniformity in Language… & Protestant Positivism: The more Christians… http://goo.gl/fb/AjzHU
for a historian of memory, the "truth" of a given memory lies not so much in its "factuality" as in its "actuality". - Jan Assmann, 1997
Why is Nazareth not Amazed?: Luke 4 *doesn't* say the Nazarenes were amazed at Jesus… http://goo.gl/fb/bC4x3
To explain is to redress the surprising until it seems unsurprising. Shallow history is therapy for the traumatically perplexed. (1/2)
(2/2) To research is to review the familiar until it becomes unfamiliar. Mature history tests our ability to fathom differentiation.
Chronology in the Fourth Gospel: As Narrative isn't quite History, so narrative Sequence is… http://goo.gl/fb/heVJ8
Time is an aspect of narrative, not nature. We debate this bc Physicists struggle to accept that much of what they do is Poetic.
"Light is both wave and particle" is science and poetry. To understand and describe the indescribable, a Physicist must be a Poet.
Memorialized causality typically refracts genuine temporal contingencies. Narrative propter hoc, ergo historical post hoc.
T/F? For a historical narrative to be competitively plausible, it must frame itself within a recognizable chronology. T/F?
Present Needs that drive Antiquarianism: History "for its own sake" isn't popular until it… http://goo.gl/fb/Cs6eD
Inasmuch as theologians have undertaken to account for implications found in the Gospels, it seems fitting for historians also...
Impressionist horses beat realist unicorns.
Narrator: "propter hoc". Ergo, post hoc.
The claim 'A caused B' fails immediately if an audience knows B preceded A. Credibility depends on aligning with recognized timelines.
"Writing something is almost as hard as making a table. With both you are working with reality, a material just as hard as wood." GGM
to transform something fantastic into something credible, tell it straight, like reporters and country folk - GGM
"A genuine historical approach should allow for change and innovation as well as indebtedness and derivation..." Larry Hurtado
A world of constant change. A deep psychological need for stability. Well played, God. #HoldMeJesus
Time is a Story. Position is Relative. Relationship is Activity. Movement is Change. So if God is and does, then Everlasting is Dynamic.
Chronology (chronography) is contrary to real temporality. - Ricoeur
If we think in pictures, do they move or are they GIFs?
Are non-static visual memories more like a motion picture or a graphic novel?
Ancient reckoning by regnal years was most concise accounting of major continuities AND contingencies. Stability, Turnover, Stability, ...
A.U.C. (Roman Chronology) was a radical shift in timekeeping, asserting state continuity as supreme despite leadership turnover.
In History & Memory, major contingencies sequence themselves, leaving Emplotment to characterize and embellish, or else entirely fabricate.
D.K.Goodwin may/must Emplot Lincoln's journey from Emancipation to Ammendment, but she cannot alter that sequence. "Inherent Contingency"
For a contingent sequencing to be false, the contingency must be fabricated, but if the contingency is historical, then so is the sequence.
The "contrived connections" of Emplotment sometimes create sequence but sometimes merely build upon inherent contingency.
Any Social Memory aims at continuity, so its acknowledged discontinuities must reveal key historical contingencies, too big to ignore.
If any point I just tweeted has already been argued, then please, someone please tell me where...
Basic Chronology is not troubled by narrative selectivity. We build upon the inherent contingency of reliable claims.
Pulpit & Cathedral were once High Technology, the cutting edge device for mass communications in late antiquity.
A congregation being an audience is like a dinner party sucked into their phones. Disengage from the stage. Gather together.
five Impressionist Horses vs one Realist Pegasus: Which painting best represents what horses… http://goo.gl/fb/B3ziQ
A non-fiction artist must alter genre & style to fit substantive essentials. Otherwise, just write fiction. - Pyne, Voice & Vision
"Falsifications to make a text 'read better' are the result not of too much literary imagination but of too little." Pyne, Voice & Vision
Willful ignorance is intellectually invincible. And so is determined belief.
Be deeply skeptical and keep a positive attitude. Doubt, but hope. Build. Don't destroy.
On some level, History is just Literature plus Logistics. #oversimplified #butonlyslightly #whengrantingtextualreliability
*if there are such things as social and emotional and ideological "logistics". #sotospeak
If God's name is not hallowed, then whose kingdom is it you expect is coming?
Contesting History's Banishment of Characterization: In once sentence: Biography is valid, so… http://goo.gl/fb/vcgCG
Our concept of Time is an illusion created by stories. Linear sequence is a restriction natural only to word flow.
Four Ways the Gospels Chronologize: OR: How Historical Fiction and Non-fiction Narratives… http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
The Gospels and Forrest Gump: Storytelling within the boundaries of Historical Background http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
The Gospels and Forrest Gump: Setting Stories against History's Backdrop http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
Gump saw Elvis, JFK, Nixon; Jesus met JtB, Antipas, Pilate. This is how historical narratives chronologize http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
What if most chronology is informal, non-numerical, and literary? http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
4 ways the Gospels Chronologize Story: Numbers, Names, Death & Irreversibility http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
Historical narratives and how they informally chronologize http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
on Sculpting Motion, or Narrating the Past: Quoting Jean-Paul Sartre in his conclusion of… http://goo.gl/fb/E3L4p
1776, in London. The Americans declared Independence. Also, Gibbon published The Decline and Fall of the ***** Empire, Vol.1
Understanding Time: Time is a central aspect of Narrative, and Narrative is the primary… http://goo.gl/fb/lkamn
Carr observed that historians "must work through simplification, as well as through the multiplication of causes". And often, they do. (1/2)
So if simplifying causation is what historians do (or did) then we "must" un-simplify, but not discard, such kinds of explanations. (2/2)
"Professor Popper uses "historicism" as a catch-all for any opinion about history which he dislikes" (Carr, 1961) Rawr. Fshhht. #lovethis
Determinism: "If that had been different, this would be different." Realism: "If that had different, this MIGHT be different."
Carr disclaimed determinism by discussing "might-have-beens", but said different results *would* have required different causes. Um. Dude?
Carr, contra "Cleopatra's Nose", rightly sees accidents as causality, yet misses the point. We cannot account for all causes. Or free will.
Carr's advice, balanced, is good. Past developments had causes which we may observe but not fully prioritize. (Necessary. Never Sufficient.)
Carr is absolutely correct that "accident" causality prevails among history's "losers". And Marx (optimistically?) minimized "chance".
Carr brilliantly compares his critics' objections to causality (vs free will) to religious objections (vs divine will). #FalseDichotomies
"when somebody tells me that history is a chapter of accidents, I tend to suspect him of intellectual laziness or low intellectual vitality"
Carr: prioritizing causes is historical interpretation (yes) and accidents are causes (good) but accidents make poor interpretation (Whaa?)
Carr was not defending the possibility of historical knowledge but the right of historical authority, caring less for History than Story.
Carr rightly decried overemphasis on accidents but trivialized them categorically - not defending causality but his own storying preference.
Carr's open insistence that History should teach lessons shocks me, but I suppose promoting 'relevance' was fairly conservative in '61. (?)
Final thought - it's fun to see the holes in this debate anticipating both chaos theory and talk of emplotment. A History of Historiography!
Just finished Live Tweeting my reading of E.H. Carr's famous fifth chapter (on Causation) in What is History? (1961) #nowthistooishistory
One more fun quote: "The nightmare quality of Kafka's novels lies in the fact that nothing... has any apparent cause" #trueenough #OOHscary
Narrative is linear. The past is continuous. Chronology is #piecewise.
How to further Historical Thinking?: If "logistics" can be applied to social change… http://goo.gl/fb/QfWOX
"Fabula" - a memorial trace of a story that remains with the reader Mieke Bal, Narratology (3rd Ed.)
"Only through stories and histories do we gain a catalogue of the humanly possible." - Vanhoozer, on Ricoeur http://bit.ly/RRk5s1
"Ricoeur answers Kant's query: What is Man? by reading stories and histories which display the whole gamut of human possibilities." (2/2)
"The Gospels and Acts... theological documents, their accuracy cannot be taken for granted" As opposed to non-theological ancient docs?
Correlation/Causation, Post hoc/Propter hoc, subsequent/consequent. A claim of the latter *DOES* at least evidence the former.
Purported causation is at least evidence of correlation. Blame or credit depends at *minimum* on position and timing.
Purported Causation, as Evidence of Correlation: Bad history often builds on good chronology… http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
Spin doctors muck less with chronology. They usually depend on it. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
"Propter hoc", ergo post hoc. Historical fallacies as evidence of #RememberedChronology http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
Is Yoko to blame? No. But that bad history sells well because it's built upon good chronology. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
Eisenhower campaigned on TV in '56, but JFK got 70 mil. views. Who did you think was first? #RememberedChronology. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
Narrators inflate causality. Necessary becomes Sufficient. Thus, purported causation may imply actual correlation. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
Rock 'n Roll predates Elvis Presley, but not as far as most people knew. #RememberedChronology http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
Past narratives are most vulnerable on event sequence. Good & bad histories all build on #RememberedChronology http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
Before Reagan, Cold War. After Reagan, No Cold War. That's BAD HISTORY... but a recognizable chronology. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
"One needs to show, on any hypothesis... how we ended up with all the ancient portraits that we have." - Steve Mason (2008)
Scholars cherry picked Josephus bc he "was not viewed as an intelligent craftsmen" but we must explain how J came to his views - Mason (2/2)
Historical narratives set stories against the known past. http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls #RememberedChronology
Narrative vs Chronology in the Fourth Gospel http://goo.gl/fb/heVJ8
Storytelling within the boundaries of Historical Background http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls #RememberedChronology
Chronology in the Fourth Gospel is NOT the same as Narrative Sequence http://goo.gl/fb/heVJ8
Forrest Gump saw Elvis, JFK, Nixon; Jesus met JtB, Antipas, Pilate. http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls #RememberedChronology
I don't always get by @TCULibrary but whenever I do they are always fantastic!!!
"Propter hoc" ergo, post hoc. Purported causality implies actual correlation. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI #RememberedChronology
Necessary though not sufficient - Inflated Causality builds on reliable chronology http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI
The writer has rhetoric and the reader has memory. Their interplay *IS* the tension between narrative and irony.
...because a writer attempts to be definite and precise, but a reader's knowledge is always fuzzy and personalized. (2/2)
Spin doctors engage reader memory to gain credibility. Bad history builds on good timelines. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI #RememberedChronology
Consequent or Subsequent, a proffered causality expects audience agreement on timeline. http://goo.gl/fb/VYTAI #RememberedChronology
Narrative agendas have to contend against audience memory. Most obvious pitfall? Sequence. http://goo.gl/fb/FYTAI #RememberedChronology
One psycho-social advantage of causality is efficiency. With reasons for things, there's less to explain, less to remember, less to re-tell.
If it walks (&tc) like a duck, it might not be a duck, but it should be impossible to conclude that nobody *thought* it was a duck.
Ricoeur: "Knowing that people of the past formulated expectations, predictions, desires, fears, and projects..." (1/2)
"...is to fracture historical determinism by retrospectively reintroducing contingency into history,” - Ricoeur (2/2)
If the first hearers of Gospel texts had been oral tradents, how much of the plot line ('fabula') had been spoilered?
Did the first hearers of Gospel texts have any prior knowledge about Jesus or his basic life story?
What narratives are neither rhetorical nor historical?: Narrative criticism seems designed to… http://goo.gl/fb/dnDw9
Don't most historical narratives deliberately engage reader knowledge about the past? http://goo.gl/fb/dnDw9
"Not being what it is a picture of is not a defect in pictures" - Arthur Danto, Narration and Knowledge (ch.7)
"an artist who thinks of painting as actually duplicating his subjects... does not want to do art, he wants to be God" - Danto, N&K ch.7
How can Irony oppose Narrative when we've had ironic narrators? True authority can be interrupted & contradicted, yet maintain perspective.
What if Irony only opposes Narrative when we insist on a single story, a single voice, a single author?
Found online: "I went to a talk about [X] which was very interesting, but of course I mention it here only to nitpick."
It is what it is, if you know what I mean, but don't take my word for it.
"The relevance of dramatic irony for historical narratives is obvious... the gap between intentions and outcomes." - Martin Jay
Political statements of police states are polyvalent statutes against the polyform status of hoi polloi statures. But people aren't stable.
Language is for (1) representing reality and (2) achieving social objectives. Our management of this tension defines our position in life.
"to understand unintended consequences makes sense only if we can identify what the original intentions were" - M.Jay, translating W.Booth
No irony w/o authorial intention - Booth, on any Text :: No irony w/o action having intention - Jay, on the Past
"Skinner’s stress on the matrix of necessary conventions in which acts take place allows us to get beyond... (1/2)
...the idea, as he puts it, that 'every agent has a privileged access to his own intentions'" - M.Jay
Exercise: write a story without time-words (hour, day, time, a while, etc) in which a precise amount of time, having passed, matters.
Fiction is History's "compliment and ally in the universal human effort to reflect on the mystery of temporality." P. Ricoeur, via H. White
Early Jesus FAQs: How did Jesus engage thousands? Consider the twelve. When asked about Jesus… http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
"There is no relation which... makes one idea more readily recall another than the relation between cause and effect." Hume
The earliest stories about Jesus are whatever Galileans told one another about Jesus while he was still alive. http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
Which FAQs did Jesus' disciples hear most? The Gospels might know. http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
"our physical experience of motion in space is the source of our conceptualization of a temporal sequence." M.Horsdal, Telling Lives
"Community FAQs" asked of Jesus' disciples, as loosely preserved by the Gospels http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
Jesus' Disciples must have fielded FAQs. The Gospels likely preserve some of those Questions. http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
Do questions for Jesus in the Gospels *represent* FAQs actually fielded by Jesus' Disciples? http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
The *kinds* of Frequently Asked Questions actually fielded by Jesus... AND his Galilean entourage. http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
Suppose the Twelve fielded FAQs with varying answers. The FAQ patterns may be preserved in the Gospels. http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
in a certain way, Homer's Odyssey is only a rhetorical amplification of the statement, "Ulysses comes home to Ithaca" - G.Genette
Dramatic Irony is frequently temporal. Not merely what did characters know, but *when* did they know it?
When the crowd had to ask Jesus' disciples about Jesus, what were their FAQs? http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
What questions did people ask Jesus' disciples? Gospel traces of Jesus Community FAQs http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
Archelaus' brief reign and the district of Galilee - an exercise in rhetoric, irony and… http://goo.gl/fb/VnRtG
Causality and Story-shaped Memories: We observe subsequence, perceive it as consequence, and… http://goo.gl/fb/5Rp9c
Story - a coping strategy to deal with the fact that we'd like to remember the past but there's too much of it.
Narrative as Sequential Art, always "linear" to the audience http://goo.gl/fb/hnoCY
Narrative - story Narration - storytelling Narrativity - story-likeness Narratology - soup to effing nuts
Two NF Rules - Don't make stuff up & don't omit relevant stuff. Otherwise, DO craft your presentation artfully. Capture whatever you can.
A Jesus made in our image will die with our movement. The Jesus who Resurrects is not ours but God's. The Gospels' otherness reveals him.
Ankersmit's philosophy of history began from "the fact that historians were quite successful at what they did" http://bit.ly/1nvLKHL
"Ankersmit tries to assimilate the useful aspects of the linguistic turn to the current body of historical theory" http://bit.ly/1m2v0Xl
"the real revolution over the past 40 years or so in historical theory has not been postmodernism [but] memory studies" (2/3)
"we are now in the post-postmodernist period of historical theory – hadn’t someone better tell the postmodernists?" (3/3)
If someone is twisting the past to suit a present agenda, their methodology isn't the problem. http://bit.ly/1uV1Uyt
Purporting causation *is* evidence of correlation. Bad history often relies on good chronology. http://bit.ly/1qDm2rf
Memory & Narrative, 1: A story is a coping strategy to deal with the fact that we'd like to… http://goo.gl/fb/5HxPo
The author can choose his disguises, but never to disappear - Wayne Booth, 1961
"We're bound to learn from the past... we might as well try to do so systematically." J. L. Gaddis
"maps have in common [w/] the works of historians, a packaging of vicarious experience" John Lewis Gaddis
"The philosophy of history has had far more attention than its philology." http://goo.gl/fb/M8sLv
Gaddis: "historical sciences" include geology, astronomy, paleontology, evol.biology – deriving processes from structures (& vice versa)
Recognizably "historical" narratives *must* conform in *some* ways with reader knowledge. #RememberedChronology
If you know the basic outline of a character's personal history, then story-location can indicate historical-time. (1/2)
Alexander at Pella. Napoleon on Elba. Washington at Valley Forge. JFK in Dallas. Story location --> #RememberedChronology (2/2)
Archelaus, in Judea, had not yet sailed to Rome. Story location --> Chronological Moment (3/2!)
And thus, Galilee was still a 'merh' (district, subregion) of the kingdom. So God, in Mt.2:22, *foreknew* Galilean independence. (4/2!!)
A rhetoric of historical narrative plays on reader knowledge. I re-emplot your mnemonic outline of history, your fabula of prior chronicles.
The historical background in Mt.2 is not merely scenery or symbol. It engages reader memory of a watershed year for dramatic-ironic effect.
Questons posed to Jesus in the Gospels... as written up FAQs the twelve had to answer when Jesus wasn't available. http://goo.gl/fb/WqCJ5
Memory & Narrative, 2: Intentional remembering requires efficiency. That's my primary… http://goo.gl/fb/CUj0o
Is it possible that the nature of Memory is responsible for the invention of Story? http://goo.gl/fb/CUj0o
20th century: social science sought Newtonian predictability while actual sciences embraced storying. Meanwhile, history became literature.
Chaos theory scuttles forecasting in soc.sci. & history, except in *retrospect*, so Narrative can be a "sophisticated research tool" -Gaddis
Gaddis - re: learning no lessons from 'accidental causation', Carr "managed to confuse not only his readers but himself."
The Gospels and Forrest Gump: How writers chronologize historical narrative http://goo.gl/fb/X7wls
Gaddis: "I would go so far as to define the word 'context' as the dependency of sufficient causes upon necessary causes." Wow.
Who would bother explaining "how we got from A to B" unless their audience already knew *something* about points A and B?
A sequence is a story but a plot makes it memorable. #intention #projection #causation Connectedness makes remembering more efficient.
"The king died and the queen died" makes 4 points to remember: King died, queen died, this is connected, which thing happened first. (1/3)
Introduce causality - "The queen died of grief when the king died". Now story-memory requires only two points: what happened & why. (2/3)
Since causality implies both connectedness and order, it facilitates efficient remembering of multiple details as one single story. (3/3)
To chronologize any historical narrative is to interact (knowingly or otherwise) with an audience's memory of pivotal transitions.
Memory & Narrative can rescue "Reader Knowledge" from Positivism. Historical characters/events invoke story-shaped memories, not "facts".
Historical writing is constrained by what writers believe readers think they recall. Surviving texts have often picked 'low hanging fruit'.
Historical narrative (Def'n): a foregrounded emplotment, fiction or non, set [w/in or vs] a mnemo-chronicle (fabula) of a recognizable past.
Historical fiction and non-fiction narratives can be analyzed similarly in terms of the relationship between foreground and background.
Memory & Narrative can rescue "Reader Knowledge" from Positivism. Historical characters/events invoke story-shaped memories, not "facts". 2
Memory & Narrative, 3: We design stories to accommodate mnemonic limitations. We pass on… http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Causality, Narratology & Memory - Why do we construct "Why" stories? Maybe bc they're more memorable. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Story aids Memory. What if Memory defines Story? http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
To me, the phrase "women in the pulpit" is a bit like "slaves running the plantation". #slowdown #thinkaboutit #radical #notradical
What if Narrative strengthens Memory because we designed it to do so in the first place? http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Causality implies sequence, creates cohesion. Narratives are built for enabling Memory. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Consequence implies sequence, which makes remembering easier. Perceiving causality makes a story remember-able. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Forster, Chatman, Hume & Heroman - Narrative highlights causality to accommodate our mnemonic limitations. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Narrative is the servant of Memory. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Storytelling distorts memory, sometimes on purpose, to gain memorability. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Memory & Narrative, 4: Stories, like maps, always bear some distortion. A key difference… http://goo.gl/fb/5MDMti
Plot, Causality, Narrative, Memory. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Story condenses the Past to facilitate Memory, and Story does this most efficiently via Plot, via Causality. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Stories self-distort to gain memorability. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Remembering is driven by present needs, and the primary need of Remembering, itself, is efficiency.
Mnemonic Time is divided by contingencies of widest impact. Before we had kids. Since 9/11. Back in high school. While John was imprisoned.
Post #4, Memory & Narrative Plot as the stability within variations. http://goo.gl/fb/5MDMti
Memory & Narrative, Post #4 CLEANED AND UPDATED Historical emplotment works against Mnemonic chronicles. http://goo.gl/fb/5MDMti
In historical narratives, foreground and background may correspond roughly to sufficient and necessary causes, a plot and its context.
In historical narratives, ideally, the foreground contains the authorial emplotment and the background evokes or confronts reader memory.
What if "fiction vs non-fiction" is the wrong dichotomy for analysis of narratives set in the past?
I have constantly rewritten my autobiography. Occasionally I even put some bits into prose.
Narrative Chronology is memory based & specifically relative. Formal accounting, in non-official discourse, is comparatively rare.
Time is a literary convention. Time only exists in the stories we tell and the physics equations we write.
Mt.2's Plot Device is not that Herod's death gets Jesus back from Egypt, but that Egypt freezes #StoryTime until Archelaus' infamous debut.
Summarizing or Rewriting the Gospels is unconscious, personal, inevitable. A commonplace, it happens mostly without proper guidance.
The child must be told, sometimes, where to look. The adult matures, gradually, by learning how to see.
All narration is chronological as performance, and sequential as art. http://goo.gl/fb/hnoCY
Memory & Narrative, 5: Causality tends to be a central feature of memorable stories. To have… http://goo.gl/fb/0QoVJ4
Memory & Narrative, 5 Oversimplified plots are rememberable. http://goo.gl/fb/0QoVJ4
Historians' narratives feature complex causality. Mnemonic narratives prefer to oversimplify. http://goo.gl/fb/0QoVJ4
John was a preacher, imprisoned & executed. These 3 contingencies make 1 historical outline, anchoring the Gospels' #RememberedChronology.
The synoptic plot line simplifies Jesus' timeline to fit audience memory of his geographical identity: from Galilee, crucified in Judea.
Stories self-distort to increase memorability. http://goo.gl/fb/vJVwg0
Marianne Horsdal - "continuity and change are indissoluble" (e.g. children growing); People are always "in a state of becoming."
Velocity and acceleration make sense, but the third removed function, a curve measuring m/s/s/s is meaningless. (1/2)
And that's how I feel when reading a commentary on a commentary on a commentary of a (dubious to begin with) textual phenomenon. (2/2)
"All of our understandings of time are relative to other concepts such as motion, space, and events." Lakoff & Johnson, P. in the Flesh
Time: "that which is measured by regular iterated events" Also: "time is conceptualized through the comparison of events" Lakoff & Johnson
L&J - the Cartesian coordinate plane "allows us to use the metaphor that times are locations in space" Yes!! Graphs & equations = Literature
L&J: Time is a metaphor. Taken literally, it leads to silliness. General relativity puts past & future 'all at once' & rules out Big Bang.
L&J: Much truth is expressed through the metaphor of Time. We cannot think about time without metaphor.
L&J: "Does time exist..? We reject [this] loaded question. The word time names a human concept... yet it structures our real experience"
Time to make the doughnuts. Lakoff & Johnson are spot on for Time. Philosophy in the Flesh So many books, so little....
Relativity is the *objective* standard of *all* measurement. Comparison is king.
"Story" is Subjective, Temporality is not: I've been enjoying David Herman's work on the… http://goo.gl/fb/23tPoe
Loving John Pier's "After this..." in Theorizing Narrativity. Must read more Meir Sternberg and begin Brian Richardson, Emma Kafalenos.
Posit standard forgetting as a fractal, inverted. Temporal re-orientation reduces *sets* of changes to 'transition points'. Ad infinitum.
Memory as temporal re-orientation: minor contingencies as short-term 'landmarks' in time, subsuming gradually into definitive transitions.
Thus, Memory as the machine that transforms chaos into "plot", an outline for autobiog. narrativizing. *Tweet 3 of 3, in hindsight
An obituary synopsis, Directions given succinctly, Recounting the day at bedtime, Strongest memories of a given vacation; All 4 show...(1/2)
...how Memory/Story reduces life experience to broadest consistencies and most drastic transitions, w/ or w/o special bonus features. (2/2)
The 'story' of memory can be somewhat predictable. Mnemonic 'discourse' is not. Basic distortion, kinda. Cultivated re-narrativization, not.
Memory & Narrative can rescue "Reader Knowledge" from Positivism. Historical characters/events invoke story-shaped memories, not "facts". 3
As Matthew uses Herod's death to move the story's location, Egypt is a filler that moves the story up to Archelaus' time.
"The value of information does not survive the moment... A story is different. It does not expend itself" - Walter Benjamin, 1936
"how a society chooses to remember her origins betrays a great deal about her current stage of development" Anthony Le Donne
PLOT has ruled histories because causality embeds sequence, and thus progressive development. Only change leaves a record of TIME.
"Periods, like centuries, are arbitrary divisions for convenience" - Barzun & Graff (1970) Yes indeed, but I say... (1/2)
Contingencies of wide impact are convenient for arbitrating divisions, as mnemonic end points between relative continuities. (2/2)
Periodization is bad storying because it begins and ends with contingencies, each of which is more like a climax. (1/2)
Better histories can center on a transition, beginning from a prior equilibrium & ending 'in media res' of the next major 'period'. (2/2)
9/11 did not begin an historical period, but gave climax to previous developments which, altogether, set conditions of subsequent dynamics.
Periodization seeks to historicize equilibria. In full contrast, proper Narratives center on meaningful transitions, carrying readers (1/2)
from the status quo ante towards a transformed situation. History is best as meta-dynamic. What altered the *conditions* of change? (2/2)
Memory focuses on equilibria while History must address punctuation. Yet, memory bounds each continuity between 2 sequenced contingencies.
Memory focuses on continuity, as defined by the presence or absence of contingent effects. Periodization is good for nostalgia.
History as Memory should avoid relying on narrative. Periodization is a collage, an assortment, a category of experiences. But... (1/2)
History as Narrative *should* emphasize memorable transitions, the widespread contingencies by which one period gave way to another. (2/2)