the terms embedded and doubly embedded narratives in Palmer’s sense in order to be consistent with other terminology I am adopting from his approach. In Chapter Two I will explain in more detail the different uses of this term.
Following Palmer, this study argues that readers are engaging in a continuing consciousness frame as they are constantly constructing, revising and configuring the consciousness of a certain character throughout the narrative, even at moments when it is not present. Palmer uses only novels for his analyses, but he mentions that his preferred type of novels, or narratives in general, are behaviourist narratives (2004: 206–7), that is narratives where there is the least amount of the author’s (as narrator) interference and where we see the characters as they talk and act.4 In drama, more than in the novel, we see the characters as ←17 | 18→they talk and act and the interference of the playwright (as narrator) is minimal. Thus, I believe that the genre of drama is perfectly suited to a Palmerian type of approach based on a thought-action continuum to analyse the characters’ mentalities and interactions. Palmer uses the concept of the thought-action continuum to elaborate on the fictional mind in novels, but the usefulness of this concept is even greater in drama. Since almost everything that goes on in the storyworld of drama is presented in dialogue, or in the form of speech acts, and these speech acts indicate and incorporate the action of the plays, almost all of the thoughts of the characters are represented on a (if one may say so) thought-speech-action continuum.5
Palmer argues that individuals in the storyworld are based on the thought-action continuum and regards this type of characterisation as the construction of fictional minds on an intramental level. On this level, one can find out about the action, as well as disposition, dreams, wishes and expectations of the characters. However, this level does not cover the whole fictional mind or consciousness. Since characters in a storyworld almost always function in a social setting, inevitably they have to interact. It is in this interaction that a fictional mind is constructed in its entirety. This interaction in a Palmerian approach is called intermentality. Intermentality and group-formation focus on the social dimension of characters and their interactions.
Intermental thought is one of Palmer’s concepts that is central to this work. In an externalist approach, once the mind is put out there for everyone to observe, it becomes accessible to others and it starts to interact with other minds in action. It is this interaction and intersubjectivity that brings about the dynamics of the narrative. It is important to mention that, for Palmer, intermentality does not necessarily mean cooperation or only joint decision-making. He uses it in a much broader sense that not only includes joint states of mind, but also conflicts between individual minds or groups, or even competitive behaviour.6
←18 | 19→
Therefore, after an analysis of the mentalities of individual characters in the narrative, Palmer discusses how these characters interact in agential constellations and how they form groups. Not all interaction automatically will lead to intermentality or shared thinking. The term “shared” in the phrase “shared thinking”, equated with the term intermentality, often proves to be misleading. For example, if two characters are listening to a third character’s tale/sermon/narrative, although they are doing the same thing and are in the same situation (listening to the same narrative), whatever is going on in their minds is only an intramental act; there is no intersubjectivity. Only when there is some information and indicating that some elements in the third character’s story affected the two listening characters are these two put in an intermental context, because they are undergoing a shared mental experience. There needs to be a shared experience or a shared intention or, more strongly, a mutual decision making and taking of action upon some occurrence.7
Another example of the misconception of the term “shared” in “shared thinking” is the false assumption regarding intermentality, especially in discussions about grouping and agential constellations, that the interaction between the characters has to be symmetric (Doležel 1998: 98). This is not necessarily true; it is possible for two characters to “share” a thought, but to have completely opposite intentions and/or motivations and thus act differently upon or make different decisions about it.
Groups in a play always form a unity in themselves. It is true that two or more characters interact within a group and that, especially, if we are considering more than one interaction, these interactions might have different motivations. Nevertheless, the goal and motivation of a single group are one and the same. No matter how diverse the dynamics of simple interactions between the members of a group, the group’s overall movements are invariably coherent, otherwise it will turn into a dysfunctional group and eventually dissolve. The analysis of groups is made more complex by the fact that once a group is formed it will not necessarily remain the same from the beginning to the end of a play. In fact, as the action of the play develops and the characters become more nuanced, and more interaction within a group or between members of two different groups occurs, it becomes more likely that the composition of a group changes. Members drop out of a group or are cast off by the other members. Similarly, new members join a group or are recruited by the members of that group. In this way, each group in a play is an ever-changing unit consisting of more than one interaction.
←19 | 20→
Different types of group formation are possible. In a novel, where typically more characters are present in the storyworld and where the spatial and temporal parameters of the narrative are not limited, groups usually include more members than in drama. That does not mean that in a Palmerian approach we cannot talk about group formation, and trace intermentality when fewer characters are involved. According to Palmer, there are three different possible combinations of interaction and intermentality:8
Individual vs. Individual: Intermentality between two individuals. These two characters can belong to the same group, or to a different group each. They can have opposing or confirming intermental ideas. This means that for this category, we could have four scenarios of intermentality. We could be dealing with two individuals belonging to the same group who either agree or disagree. Conversely, these two might belong to two different groups and agree or disagree.
Individual vs. Group: On the one hand, there is the possibility that the interaction takes place within a single group. That is either an initiating intramental thought meets agreement inside the group to which an individual belongs and is acted upon accordingly, or the intramental thought can be met with the opposition of the other group members. This is a crucial point, since at this very moment of the story the individual drops out of that group and eventually joins another group – thus contributing to a higher level of dynamics in the play. On the other hand, we might be presented with situations in which the intramental thought of one character is confirmed or opposed by the collective of a different group than the other one to which he initially belongs. Each of these scenarios will provide the play with different dynamics. Confirmation might spark an attempt by the other group to recruit the character to join them. In case of opposition we might, in turn, encounter two possible outcomes. First, more and stronger enmity between the groups could evolve, or, second (should they not have had any problems prior to the interaction), the start of enmity or a potential struggle could begin (if they were not on good terms before the interaction). Either way, it is apparent that an initial intramental thought and its development into and engagement in an intermental one has the potential to cause a completely different storyline, which makes the progression of the play much more interesting.
←20 | 21→
Group
