Perspective in Stories
The word ‘story’ has many different connotations and definitions. When translated to Latin, it can be read as ‘fabula,’ ‘historia,’ and ‘narratio,’ to name a few. These each can also mean fable, history, and narrative, respectively. Thus, ‘story’ does not have one strict meaning; it is a loose term to describe an individual’s account.
To me, a story is a telling of an event (or multiple events). A story does not need an incident nor a plot. For example, if I were to explain in great detail a flower I had seen in my backyard, I would count that as a story, for it has an object and a purpose. It is hard to set limits on my definition, for the word does not have just one. If I were to say the flower was yellow, would that also be a story? Would it only be a story if something happened, such as me picking the flower? In my opinion, there is a fine distinction between facts and stories, one that is important. A story has a perspective; it is from an individual, and should be comprised of their personal experiences or feelings. Although the flower is sentient, it does not have feelings, so therefore a story from the flower’s point of view would not be a story at all.
The way in which we each tell stories is unique and paramount. There are many things that influence this: culture, time period, mental wellness, education, age, and much more. Culture & time period are very eminent in the Canterbury Tales prologue. It’s evident not just in the language/grammar, but in the structure and importance. In old literature, drawn-out explanations were common, for depth and full understanding was valued. In modern literature, it would be abnormal for a story to have such a long introduction as the Canterbury Tales.
“At Alisaundre he was whan it was wonne.
Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord bigonne
Aboven alle nacions in Pruce;
In Lettow hadde he reysed and in Ruce,
No Cristen man so ofte of his degree.
In Gernade at the seege eek hadde he be
Of Algezir, and riden in Belmarye.
At Lyeys was he and at Satalye (51–58)”
These lines would be considered superfluous by modern standards, because knowing all of the character’s battle history isn’t pertinent to the story, but it was expected at the time of writing. It’s a difference in values: comprehension vs relevance. How stories are told changes along with society’s standards. Such as Shakespeare; the people who enjoy Shakespeare’s works are usually either from his time, or English majors, for the majority of the population does not hold the same literature standards as 16th century Britain. My classmates in high school English, for example, mostly perceived Romeo and Juliet as boring and futile, because the story seemed too long and didn’t have a point. In a few centuries, maybe literature will have evolved enough so that our favorite books, like Harry Potter and Twilight, will be frowned upon.
