Reconnaissance certainly does seem to involve knowing the truth. Perhaps Propp doesn't think that plot and character are the same, but many do and we can certainly use the functions themselves to support this view. Or do you prefer the intentional fallacy? Thanks for taking a moment to comment. Look forward to your next contribution! :)
No, it does not. Reconnaissance is the fourth function! It's normally carried out by the Villain on the Heroine. For example, in The Robber Bridegroom by the Brothers Grimm, Reconnaissance is carried out by the Robber Bridegroom when he says to the Heroine, "We have known each other for a while now, but you have not yet visited my home in the dark woods." And she replies, "I do not know the way". Perhaps you might make a case for the 27th function being "Knowing the Truth" -- but that function is more properly called Recognition. For example, in Oedipus Rex, Recognition occurs when Oedipus realises that he has killed his father and slept with his mother.
I am glad, however, that you now accept that Propp doesn't think that plot and character are the same. You are certainly free to think that other people think this. By the way, if you think characters and functions are the same, what you are really saying is that THERE IS ONLY ONE PLOT. For a complete refutation of this position, you should read Terence Patrick Murphy, The Fairytale and Plot Structure (Basingstoke: Palsgrave Macmillan, 2015).
Thanks for the notes, Tony. Murphy's book is good and given that he opens and closes on the point of genetics and genotyping, it is possible that there really is only one plot and the lenses of analysis creates the illusion of multiples. He quotes Ryan on this: "The formal representation of plots lies at the crossroads of several disciplines: literary theory, discourse analysis, cognitive psychology, and its favored instrument of research, artificial intelligence.” He seems to conclude the book by saying that if there is a hidden principle behind plot, it lurks beyond this crossroads and could potentially be atomic, if ever we discover it, for understanding ourselves better. Orthodox advaita vedanta practitioners would probably chuckle at this since, of course there is only one plot: the plot(s) perceived by that within you that does the perceiving through your eyes. (Or my eyes, from within this unit) In any case, I don't particularly care to play intellectual chess over one or two videos in the full course I am releasing here on UA-cam. I'm making a much larger point about how genre is used and generally educating people about these topics. Your contribution is valuable, so by all means keep it coming. I only caution about tone. Getting to the point of "glad" that you think I accept this or that position you seem to be claiming you hold the final word on doesn't do much for the discussion, nor does exclamation marks or all caps. Unless Propp shows up to speak for himself (and even then I imagine him open for discussion without undue rhetoric and typographical positioning for authority), I'll simply be glad if more people find their way to knowledge that these texts exist and use them to open discourse. Please don't close doors with permission-granting to be free to think. Let's make the Internet better please.
amazing, I'm actually reading the book for my class!
Great!
"Knowing the Truth" is NOT one of Propp's functions! Read the Morphology! And Propp does NOT think plot and character are the same!
Reconnaissance certainly does seem to involve knowing the truth. Perhaps Propp doesn't think that plot and character are the same, but many do and we can certainly use the functions themselves to support this view.
Or do you prefer the intentional fallacy?
Thanks for taking a moment to comment. Look forward to your next contribution! :)
No, it does not. Reconnaissance is the fourth function! It's normally carried out by the Villain on the Heroine. For example, in The Robber Bridegroom by the Brothers Grimm, Reconnaissance is carried out by the Robber Bridegroom when he says to the Heroine, "We have known each other for a while now, but you have not yet visited my home in the dark woods." And she replies, "I do not know the way". Perhaps you might make a case for the 27th function being "Knowing the Truth" -- but that function is more properly called Recognition. For example, in Oedipus Rex, Recognition occurs when Oedipus realises that he has killed his father and slept with his mother.
I am glad, however, that you now accept that Propp doesn't think that plot and character are the same. You are certainly free to think that other people think this. By the way, if you think characters and functions are the same, what you are really saying is that THERE IS ONLY ONE PLOT. For a complete refutation of this position, you should read Terence Patrick Murphy, The Fairytale and Plot Structure (Basingstoke: Palsgrave Macmillan, 2015).
Thanks for the notes, Tony. Murphy's book is good and given that he opens and closes on the point of genetics and genotyping, it is possible that there really is only one plot and the lenses of analysis creates the illusion of multiples. He quotes Ryan on this:
"The formal representation of plots lies at the crossroads of several disciplines: literary theory, discourse analysis, cognitive psychology, and its favored instrument of research, artificial intelligence.”
He seems to conclude the book by saying that if there is a hidden principle behind plot, it lurks beyond this crossroads and could potentially be atomic, if ever we discover it, for understanding ourselves better. Orthodox advaita vedanta practitioners would probably chuckle at this since, of course there is only one plot: the plot(s) perceived by that within you that does the perceiving through your eyes. (Or my eyes, from within this unit)
In any case, I don't particularly care to play intellectual chess over one or two videos in the full course I am releasing here on UA-cam. I'm making a much larger point about how genre is used and generally educating people about these topics. Your contribution is valuable, so by all means keep it coming.
I only caution about tone. Getting to the point of "glad" that you think I accept this or that position you seem to be claiming you hold the final word on doesn't do much for the discussion, nor does exclamation marks or all caps.
Unless Propp shows up to speak for himself (and even then I imagine him open for discussion without undue rhetoric and typographical positioning for authority), I'll simply be glad if more people find their way to knowledge that these texts exist and use them to open discourse. Please don't close doors with permission-granting to be free to think. Let's make the Internet better please.