Analyzing Stories
Analyzing Stories
Analyzing Stories
Within these major distinctions we find other sub-categories that are also
called genres. The essay and the slave narrative are both forms of non-fiction prose,
but you may seem them referred to as separate genres. Authors may choose to break
some of the conventions of a particular genre intentionally; it's as useful to
understand genre conventions when analyzing those texts as when analyzing texts that
conform to genre conventions.
Although the task of the literary critic is usually the same regardless of genre, because
a good literary analysis focuses on the relationship between form and theme, the
specific tasks vary with genre. For example, texts in all the genres might use
figurative language, such as simile or personification, but non-fiction prose won't
involve rhyme scheme, and poetry doesn't have lighting cues.
The Narrator
or WHO ARE YOU? AND WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS?
What types of narrators are there? The first major distinction critics make about
narrators is by person:
When you read, think about what clues you're given about the identity of the narrator.
You may be able to pin down specific aspects of the narrator's identity (age, region,
religion, race, gender, etc.) even if they are NOT explicitly stated in the text. For
example, if the narrator says "Ethel put the pop in a sack and handed it to the
customer," that narrator is not from the same region of the country as a person or
character who would say "Ethel put the soda in a bag and handed it to the customer."
If the narrator addresses older characters as Mr. or Mrs. and younger characters by
first name, you may be able to gauge how old the narrator is — who are her/his elders,
contemporaries, etc.? Sometimes you can detect prejudices on the part of the narrator
that will affect how reliable you think that narrator is. If a narrator says, "They passed
a greasy kike on their way out," it's fair to assume the narrator is an anti-Semite, and
that may well shape your reading.
Here is a rather lame way to think about it. After you read a story, try to write a
personal ad for the narrator. What personal characteristics, likes, and dislikes of the
narrator can you glean from the story?
Moving beyond the personal characteristics of the narrator, think about how to gauge
her/his role as the teller of the tale. Is the narrator reliable or unreliable? Is the
narrator telling you everything s/he knows? What limits does the narrator have, in
terms of what s/he can perceive? We'll read some stories with crazy narrators, or
stupid narrators, or narrators who just don't seem to know what they're talking about.
Think about how much AUTHORITY your narrator has to relate the events of the
story, and what it means if that authority seems limited.
Once you've figured out who is telling the story, think about why s/he is telling it. Is
this a confession? An act of bragging? A moralistic lesson? Remember, you're not
focusing here on why the author wrote the story, but why this fictional narrator is
choosing to tell it. It may help to consider the narratee as well.