In Afanen’s Unreal Narrative

49

Since ancient times, storytelling has been for man as one of his necessary needs and means of amusement and comfort, and he gathers his family members and justifies what he sees as strange and calls things by their names, or borrows another name for them verbally and with an imaginative effect that emerges spontaneously, in which there is a lot of magic and a lot of reality.
Because of this connection between man and storytelling, the methods of narration varied, and did not settle on certain formulas, unlike poetry, which laid its rules before the era of writing, and then its traditions were further strengthened with man’s knowledge of them. And the like of that, which remained the memory as a means of preserving and passing it on from generation to generation.
There are no traditions of storytelling, but their foundations were established as specific races at a stage far from the stage of establishing poetry traditions, and for this reason it became believed that narration follows poetry, or that the genres of narration are recent in relation to the genres of poetry. The best evidence for this is that the epics of the Sumerians and the Greeks were built on what reached them of legendary stories and fairy tales dating back to oral eras that preceded them, in which writing was not yet known. As for the Arabs, they possessed a rich repository of fairy tales about the ghouls, the Sa’alas, and the jinn, some of which were included in the pendants, and the Qur’anic story reinforced others. , which remained orally, except for a few stories.
In the Middle Ages, Europe knew romance, which are short tales marred by adventures and imagination such as stories of witches, lovers, shepherds, and shepherds. Then, they developed in the Renaissance and what followed, so the long story, then the Gothic novel and the Victorian novel, were known, and with it, the imaginative dimension was reduced and the realistic dimension developed and strengthened more.
During these long stages of artistic narrative development, the character was the basis in the story and the destination in two images: a human image, which is often a man whom it called heroism and daring, and an inhuman image that is often superstitious with unreasonable, supernatural and magical abilities that are beyond imagination and do not match any other. something in the real world. And if the first image of a stubborn superhero is not fully realized on the ground, but it has a basis that allows building against the background of what already exists, then the second image of a mythical being is not realistically achieved, that is, there is no basis on which to build its myth; Where, then, did the primitive narrator come from? How did he imitate in his consciousness what he had neither seen nor heard about, or told some of his secrets?
Gilles Deleuze, in his differentiation between nature and nature, goes to the fact that intuition is the simplest type of thinking, and is based on automatic foresight, where the basis is without exponent, meaning that it is nihilistic and hypothetical, issued in a confused form of the meaningless, and counted (the virtual is the basis of the actual… This is what Deleuze calls The logic of the dual cycle) and it is not a condition in living belonging to a possible reality, and this (possible) is one of the Platonic categories that assume that any particular thing has a previous universe, a real being, and a subsequent universe. This is what makes the imagination move in a vastness among the three universes that it simulates; The first is the real universe, the second is the imagined universe, and the third is the unrealized universe.

Despite the multiplicity and diversity of unrealistic narrative methods, the result is the same: to make the impossible possible, and to make the absurd logically acceptable.

The unrealistic narration takes place in the second and third universes. Gilgamesh is in fact a king, but the imagination has given his reality superstitious features, so that the unparalleled superhero will overcome him. As long as imagination moves on the ground of reality, it is not possible for it to be impossible, but it is possible for the impossible and the unreasonable to be possible and reasonable. This is what man knew in pre-writing times, so he imagined creatures that have no realistic basis, such as gods, demons and giants, or that have a realistic basis such as animals and birds, so he endowed them with bodily organs that do not have a real basis or endowed them with unnatural energies.
As for the creatures of the first type, man was inspired by his subconsciousness to confuse nature, and what is in it of birds, animals, mountains, seas and forests. As for creatures of the second type, man was inspired by his awareness of his reality, so he imitated what he saw and heard. In this broadening of imagination, the Aristotelian law of possibility became inclusive of the realistic and unreal narrations, for man imitates what will be, what is, or what was.. But does this comprehensiveness mean that the imaginative energy needed by the narrator in making a future picture of what should be is greater How much energy does the narrator need to imagine what really exists, or what was there before?

There is no doubt that the imaginative energy is identical – whether or not it is different – it is one and varies according to the abilities of the mind and its capabilities to re-simulate what it wants to portray. And the more the narrator unleashes his subconscious and gets rid of the mind’s domination over him, the more his imaginative energy becomes more expansive and expansive, unlike the one who talks while appealing to his mind and proceeds according to his intuitions and requirements. The conviction of the fictional character in the unrealistic narration does not require a judgment of the mind, as much as it requires an imagination based on a logical system and a causal arrangement, which achieves the organic unity that is a condition for any narration and there is no importance after that for the character to be real or unreal. This imaginary equation that the law of possibility and organic unity, post-classical narrative science theorists such as David Hermann, James Phelan, Peter Rabinowitz and Robin Warhol – are trying to refute or dismantle it by appealing to reason, which is used by demonstration and thinking in narrative activity, without relying on the logic that its means. Persuasion and inference in the search for the mechanisms of linking the mind to the narrative, and examining the anecdotal events, according to rational assumptions in order to realize the false, deceptive and impossible irrational from scenes and scenarios, relying on examination and scrutiny certain methods, which reject the effectiveness of imagination as an involuntary esoteric product that simulates realistic painful or strange experiences. possible is possible. This problem in the realism of the narrative, nor its realism, is not new. In the eighteenth century, philosophy fascinated writers of literature and critics theorizing about it, in terms of their interest in realism and its claim that things have a real existence outside the perceived mind, and the critical realists continued to refer to an external material existence independent of the mind, as if the world Separated from consciousness, the body separated from the soul, form from content.

This is what the Phenomenologists rejected, focusing on the act of language and the dialectic of the relationship between the self and the world. Criticisms were directed at the critical realists, naturalists, and socialists, due to their excessive and negligent understanding of the meaning of realism. Is it Real or is it Truth?
The well-known translator Abdul Wahed Lulua went on to say that the word realism means truth when it appears in a philosophical context, and it means reality when it appears in others. In fact, it is the logicality of her performance of the roles of the championship, and the extent to which she does what she should do.
Based on this hypothesis, a group of researchers – followers of the American Criticism School, specifically cognitive criticism – was interested in imaginative narration and called it unnatural narration, focusing on the ways in which the narrator and the character adopt views that have different functions, illogical or anti-simulation of classical realism, and they also analyzed stories that follow Exotic realism, absurdity, or fantasy, especially the stories of Franz Kafka, searching for what is unnatural in its narratives, and whether its roles are real or imaginary? Is it correct for the narrator to be realistic and the narrator unreal? Which desire is present: the desire of the narrator who wishes or the desire of the narrator who does not wish? And they reached issues that intersect in two matters: one of them is cognitive in linking narration and the human mind, and the other is realistic or natural in explaining the meaning of literary realism. Despite the multiplicity and diversity of unrealistic narrative methods, the result is the same: to make the impossible possible, and to make the absurd logically acceptable.

Iraqi writer

Leave a Reply