Talk:Fabula and syuzhet

Active discussions

Title linkEdit

"Fabula" on the Russian Formalism page links to a Danish electronica trio named Skyphone because "fabula" is the name of one of their albums. It would be more helpful, if fabula does not have its own article, if it linked here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rismckee (talkcontribs) 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

References to textsEdit

fabula and sjuzet are terms of the russian formalists -- but we need references to the texts where they are introduced and discussed, before we would move on to the critiques. Shklovski's "art as technique" does NOT do that, that article is about something else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the words 'fabula' or 'syuzhet' in the 2nd chapter of Boje 2008. The words do not appear in the Index at the end of the book either. The reference to Boje was made by Dboje when he created the article. I will ask him about this, but would also like to hear others' opinions. (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't 'plot' the exact translation of Russian 'сюжет'? (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The intro paragraph does a good job of getting across the very useful distinction between fabula and syuzhet. But then the "critical reviews" section is completely opaque to me. For example what does it mean for narrative to "self-deconstruct its initial duality"? I think it must require some background to understand what sentences like this are getting at. Can someone who understands this stuff take a crack at rewording that section for a more general audience? Cbogart2 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Veracity of Derrida quotationEdit

I can't verify this quotation from Derrida: "What if there are story ways of telling as well as narrative ways of telling? And if so, how is it that narrative in the American-European tradition has become privileged over story?" There's no page number and a search for key words on the Google books version of the source essay for the next two quotations came up empty. Can anyone source this quotation? If it can't be footnoted, can we remove it? Although it is the most reader-friendly thing in the Poststructuralist section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Critical responsesEdit

There are serious problems with the critical responses. I had to look up the Culler page cited, because it didn't seem to square with my understanding of Culler on this point--what's there is not at all what the article suggests. (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

note in response to this: I have gone ahead and edited the Culler section to make it correct. Is that any more comprehensible? I don't know the Derrida texts in question and can't really comment on them, but honestly, I think all of the stuff after Culler should really just be wiped until someone who knows what they're talking about can fix this. (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Native American writers on storyEdit

Does this section even belong here? If it does, I'd love to know how European suppression of First Nations cultures, including music, spirituality, storytelling, etc, has anything to do with the distinction between Syuzhet and Fabula. If the question is whether Native American stories actually distinguish between Story and Plot, I'd say that's impossible, because there are things that are told (Plot / Fabula) and things that aren't (Story / Syuzhet) and however the story is told, how often, to what purpose etc in First Nations cultures doesn't really change that.

The phrase " a more vibrant role of story, beyond fabula, " makes no sense to me - if anyone understands this and can explain it better, it should stand; otherwise, it should come out. Fabula isn't a role, it's a technical part of the poetic transfer. If you open your mouth and words come out, that's the fabula. If there are things between the lines, unsaid, but that need to happen offstage, that's syuzhet.

For instance, I read here: that "First Nations storytelling involves expert use of the voice, vocal and body expression, intonation, the use of verbal imagery, facial animation, context, plot and character development, natural pacing of the telling, and careful authentic recall of the story."

I would argue that all those ways of conveying the story are fabula. And I would also argue that none of that is unique to First Nations. --Flickharrison (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly at the very least in its current implementation this section seems very disjointed from the main point of the article. Perhaps it needs its own article with some expansion on the point or can find a home in some articles about Native American Studies. It just seems to be a very different point about European suppression of First Nation cultures loosely tied to fabula and syuzhet in an attempt to give it a reason to be located here instead of elsewhere where it might belong. (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It makes no sense here. And the Parr-Davies link is gone 404. I'm going to be bold and do some surgery. Huw Powell (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


'Subject' (however this term may be transcribed) may be the employment of narrative but, more importantly, also how narrative is employed (Pamour (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)).

Have you confused subject and plot here? Flickharrison (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Return to "Fabula and syuzhet" page.