The Narrative Paradigm - Good Will Hunting

This clip is from the movie “Good Will Hunting.”

Here Matt Damon’s character, Will Hunting, is at an interview for a job at the National Security Agency (NSA). Will Hunting is literally a genius, but at this point in the movie lacks any motivation to do anything substantial with his gift. When the interviewer asks Will why he should work for the NSA, Will uses Narrative Rationality in the Narrative Paradigm to tell the interviewer why he in fact should not work for the NSA.

Narrative Rationality has two parts, coherence and fidelity. Three types of coherence are structural, material and characterological. Structural coherence deals with the way the story’s plot unfolds. While it is apparent that Will’s story is based purely in hypotheticals, his thought process of how his work at the NSA could theoretically affect a neighbor or friend from his hometown is believable. He believed that taking part in codebreaking overseas would inevitably affect lives, oil, and fish.

Material coherence has to do with the facts in one story as compared to the facts in another story concerning similar people and events. Codebreaking is known to be used in breaking foregin transmissions. The military would use the information garnered from this code to attack the enemy there and it certainly would result in death. This new ally of a country would potentially be a site for outsourcing and could indeed cost a returning soldier a job. Human beings are sleazy creatures and would in fact manipulate war, death, and the oil market to line their own pockets.

Characterological coherence refers to the believability of the characters in a story. Will uses stereotypes to prove his point. Politicians who would rather send Marines to their death instead of their own children, scheming oil companies that would manipulate war to make a profit, and a down-on-his-luck veteran to accentuate that repercussions of his potential job at the NSA. Though, yes, the story is not based on actual events the point gets through as to why taking the job would be detrimental.

The other part of narrative rationality is fidelity, the credibility of a story. As stated above, the movie watcher is aware of the fact that Will's story is not based in actual events. While the events in the story are vague, they are plausible even if they are a little far-fetched.

The Narrative Paradigm: It's The Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown

In the movie It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown, Linus uses storytelling to attempt to persuade his friends to believe in the great pumpkin. He uses elements of Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm in order to make the others wait for the great pumpkin in the pumpkin patch, instead of trick or treating. Linus believes in the great pumpkin, even though his friends are skeptical of his existence. Linus’ sister Lucy is embarrassed that her brother believes in the great pumpkin. Eventually sally, Charlie Brown’s little sister, waits with Linus in the pumpkin patch, but the great pumpkin never visits.

Linus’ story lacks good reasons, or the value of accepting a story as true and worthy of acceptance, according to Fisher. Linus’ story lacks any historical, biographical, or cultural substance. His story only contains character. Unlike Santa Clause who has a rich history, and cultural background, the great pumpkin appears to be Linus’ fabrication, and his friends, especially Charlie Brown who believes in Santa Clause, does not believe the story.

Linus’ attempts to persuade his friends ultimately fails because he lacks narrative rationality and the principles of coherence: structural, material, and characterological.

Linus’ story does not flow smoothly, so it suffers from a lack of structural coherence. According to Fisher, structural coherence is the ability of a narrative to flow smoothly. Linus’ story about the great pumpkin is juvenile and fragmented, so Linus’ friends are not able to fully believe it. He gives a fractured account of a being that resembles Santa Clause, except it is a pumpkin that rises from the pumpkin patch. Linus’ story also lacks material coherence, of the degree of congruence between stories. Linus’ is the only account of the great pumpkin. Because he is the only one who believe in it, the story lacks material coherence; there are no other accounts of the great pumpkin to back up Linus’ story. Linus uses characterological coherence, or the believability of a character in a story, to support his claims about the great pumpkin. He confronts Charlie Brown about his believe in Santa Clause, and says that it is no different than believing in the great pumpkin.

A good persuasive story has fidelity, or truthfulness and reliability. Although Linus believes in the great pumpkin, he can not convince the others that he truly exists. Although Linus builds a good argument by comparing the great pumpkin to Santa Clause, the others remain unconvinced. Sally is the only one who waits with Linus in the pumpkin patch, but only because she is in love with Linus. She eventually becomes frustrated when the great pumpkin does not show up, and laments having missed Halloween while waiting in the pumpkin patch.

The Narrative Paradigm: A Time to Kill

This segment from the 1996 feature film A Time to Kill provides a good example of Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm. Set in Canton, Mississippi, the premise of the film is as follows: after Carl Lee Hailey’s (Samuel Jackson) daughter has been brutally raped by two white men he seeks the counsel of Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey); afraid that the two men may be acquitted due to a deep-seated racism in the area. Hailey acquires an M-16 assault rifle and kills the two men and he is immediately arrested without protest. Brigance plans to plead not guilty on the behalf of Hailey citing temporary insanity.

In the beginning of the clip, Brigance says that he had “a great summation all worked out”, but he abandons it for a story instead. He explains how all the “legal maneuvering” was getting in the way of the truth, that very truth which he is only able to reveal by recounting the story to the jury members. His story is told so well, that you can see the audience hanging on to each word, as he invokes feelings of sympathy among audience members for Carl Lee Hailey’s plea. Many of the jurors, even those who are white and had previously expressed racist beliefs in the film, are persuaded by Brigance’s powerful story.

Without coherence and fidelity, two integral components of narrative rationality, Brigance’s story may have not won the support of the jury. Brigance’s rendition of the gruesome story (with particular emphasis on the progression of heinous deeds performed by the two white men) has definite structural coherence. The story moves from beginning to end with no holes in-between. Material coherence is imminent as a result of testimony provided by other witnesses, as well as the evidence that has been found at the scene of the crime. Characterological coherence is especially important in this particular example. The fact that Brigance is white and a respected member of the community definitely gives him more credibility in the eyes of the jury.

The second important component of narrative rationally is fidelity. To finish his story, he asks the audience to imagine that the girl is white which allows the jury to better relate to Hailey, as well as better understand why he acted as he did. They understand what their children mean to them and the story suddenly becomes more true and tangible to them.

All of these elements combined provide good reasons why Hailey was innocent. The value of family and children is universal, and allows the white members to better relate to the plea of Hailey, who they otherwise would view as unequal because of his ethnicity. Brigance skillfully incorporates the audience’s history, biography, culture, and character into his closing argument in a way that invites the jury to see passed their prejudice.

“What is it in us that seeks the truth, is it our minds? Or is it our hearts?” This question alone addresses humans’ innate tendency to often evaluate truth through narrative rationality, not through a collection of facts and statistics.

The Narrative Paradigm Presented Through the Bangladesh Genocide

A few decades ago in Bangladesh, genocide occurred by Pakistan which left many killed, as well as many women distraught and emotionally scrambled due to the horrific crime of rape. NBC tells the story of a victim, Sieba, a sixteen year old who was one of the many who were victimized by Bangladesh’s oppressors.

Her story is an example of the Narrative Paradigm, an idea proposed by Walter Fisher. The Narrative Paradigm is the belief that humans are storytellers and their values, emotions, and aesthetic considerations ground our beliefs and behaviors. The assumption that humans are naturally storytellers is shown when we view the video about the dilemma in Sieba’s life. When we hear her story, not by anyone else’s account but hers, we feel for her because her emotions rattle ours, causing us to understand the horrors she has faced and how what has occurred is horrible and intolerable.

It is true that we are more persuaded by a good story rather than a good argument. NBC created a solid image of how life has been for the women living in Bangladesh and the sacrifices they have to make. After the genocides, life changed greatly for the women in the area. They were raped, impregnated with children they did not want, and were looked down upon by their own people, living a life of solitude and despair, all against their will.

After viewing the video, I was persuaded by the story presented and realized that much needs to be done to prevent this from happening in the future. My values were the same as that of those telling the story.

Other assumptions that Fisher presented were that a story’s worth is based on “good reasons,” including history, biography, culture and character. The Bangladesh genocide shows the history of the area, how it impacted the culture, and how the main character, Sieba, presents her character, a tortured soul. Also, the story has truth behind it, testimonies and consistencies throughout, explaining why the genocide happened and what has changed in the lifestyle of those affected by it.

This clip is an example of one of the three types of coherence: characterological coherence. Judging by Sieba’s testimony, the viewer can believe what she is experiencing due to her facial gestures, a solemn and quiet attitude. That and the narrator’s explanation of what she has gone through make her believable. When we hear that Sieba’s parents look after her, but realize that no one will ever marry her, makes us understand that rape has ruined her life, and it was completely against her control.

Lastly, the Narrative Paradigm looks at the key concept of fidelity with the story, or its credibility. Fisher explained that there are sets of values that appeal to the audience, which is the primary method for assessing narrative fidelity. When a viewer sees the video, he is met with a set of values that appeals to him or her, realizing that they feel the same way that these victims do and therefore believe the story and what these people have experienced.

Narrative Paradigm Theory in Monty Python

This clip is from the British television show, Monty Python’s Flying Circus. In the “Dead Parrot Sketch,” John Cleese goes to the pet store to complain to Michael Palin that the parrot he has purchased is dead. Palin uses story telling to try and convince Cleese that the parrot is perfectly alright. Cleese uses Narrative Rationality of the Narrative Paradigm Theory to decide whether or not to believe Palin’s story.

The two aspects of narrative rationality are coherence and fidelity. Coherence refers to the consistency of a story. One type of coherence, or lack there of, displayed in the Dead Parrot Sketch is structural coherence, or the way a story flows. Palin’s story is choppy and inconsistent, giving Cleese reason not to believe him. Palin jumps back and forth between subjects, often bringing in irrelevant information, like the “lovely plumage” of the parrot. His explanation of the immobile parrot changes as time goes by. First he says that it’s resting, but later he claims it is stunned. He moves one to say it’s pining for the fields. Cleese chooses not to believe him because of the lack of structural coherence in Palin’s obviously improvised and constantly changing story.

Material coherence has to do with information learned in other stories about the same subject. Cleese reminds Palin that when he bought the parrot, Palin assured him that is was not moving because it was "tired and shagged out." Cleese has been told multiple stories involving the parrot, none of which check out with each other. This leads Cleese to believe Palin even less.

Fidelity is the truthfulness and reliability of a story. Palin is severely lacking in fidelity, mostly because his story is that the parrot is alive, while it is dead in Cleese’s hands. There is physical evidence that contradicts his facts. Palin claims that the parrot is sleeping, but Cleese proves him wrong by unsuccessfully trying to wake it up, destroying any fidelity Palin has in his argument.

The Narrative Paradigm in Nicki's Story of Racial Profiling

Racial profiling is a very serious issue in today’s society. Day in and day out, stories are told of how certain people in certain situations were discriminated against, or treated differently because of their race. As seen here, Nicki Sok tells a story of how he and his brother were enjoying a great day while traveling to a movie, and came across an act of racial profiling. Throughout this narrative, various examples and assumptions of the Narrative Paradigm are present.

The first of the Narrative Paradigm’s assumptions, humans are naturally storytellers, is shown from Nicki choosing to describe his unfortunate experience in the form of a story. This event being told in story form allows for a deeper impact within the minds of audience members in the process of Nicki conveying his emotions at the time. In terms of the Narrative Paradigm’s second and third assumptions, Nicki’s story holds up in the minds of his listeners because it is both believable and easy to relate to. Because of the knowledge his listeners had of previous racial profiling occurrences in the past, Nicki’s listeners were able to view his story as one that is both logical and credible, illustrating the second assumption of the Narrative Paradigm. The third assumption involves a narrative’s rationality being affected through its listener’s history, biography, culture, and character. Both history and biography allow for the persuasion of Nicki’s listeners through their recollection of historical events in which racial profiling existed, and their relation to a time when they too were bullied and humiliated. The material ultimately persuading Nicki’s listeners is that which is relevant to them personally, not that which works according to a set code of logic or persuasion.

When considering the fourth assumption of the Narrative Paradigm, the narrative’s rationality is dependent on the internal consistency and truth within it. Because Nicki’s story most likely strikes home with how listeners would’ve felt if put in that same situation, there is no question regarding the internal consistency and degree of truth present in his narrative. The paradigm’s fifth assumption involves the experiences of individuals within society as a set of selected stories, ultimately resulting in society living life in a continual process of re-creation. Nicki’s narrative follows this assumption through the idea of his listeners changing the way they think about racial profiling as a whole. From viewing how personally affected Nicki was by the events on that particular day, it would come as no surprise to me if his narrative’s impact on particular listeners was significant. As a whole, the story Nicki told about being racially profiled was one which demonstrated the various assumptions of the Narrative Paradigm successfully.

No Country for Old Men, the Coens' Masterpiece of Narrative Storytelling

The Coen brothers have been defining and redefining storytelling throughout their entire careers. As writers, they utilize narrative storytelling techniques to the fullest. Although they create fiction, they still seem to follow the guideline set popularized and accepted by Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm. Although the Coen brothers usually write their own original screenplays, the one that will be discussed here is the new film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men. This is only the second time the Coens have used outside material in their films. The Coens use many of the assumptions of this theory in researching, writing, and/or adapting their screenplays. They heavily research the era, settings, locations, and overall times of their material. For instance, the Coens used an old picture of a 1970s man at a bar with a unique haircut that was relatively popular at the time for Anton Chigurh’s, Javier Bardem’s character, haircut and clothing style. They also shot on location for the most part depending on budgets. As for the characterization, these characters are very believable. Josh Brolin plays Llewellyn Moss, a hunter who stumbles across a drug deal gone bad while out for the day in one of the Texas desert fields. From the minute he touches this money, Brolin’s character shows the signs of what almost anyone would do in the situation. He begins to think about what to do with all of it, but is overcome by human instinct to aid one of the barely alive drug dealers who was left for dead by bringing him some water. He is discovered by the drug dealer clean-up squad and immediately was on the run. Two parties are now searching for the lost money. The aging Sherriff Tom Bell played by Tommy Lee Jones and the psychopathic hitman Anton Chigurh played by Bardem. Sherriff Bell is struggling with a rationality paradigm as well as a good reason paradigm. His upbringing and experiences are being challenged by the new world in which he lives as an aging Sherriff, making it increasingly difficult for him to cope with the transition of his laid back ways of old and the take-action times in which he lives now. Chigurh has left a bloodbath across Bell’s county and outlying areas, which Bell does not fully understand. Bell just knows that he must find Moss before it is too late. Anton Chigurh is a bit more complicated of a character. His paradigm as a character is based on a twisted reality view and a morbid set of rules that he is bound to. He kills at will, sometimes for no reason, others part of a sadistic game of chance by offering his potential victims a coin flip to decide their fates. His brutality, unleashed with a silenced shotgun and an air gun used to kill cattle, is part of a paradigm that many people do understand and accept as something that can happen. Media in these times spares no detail to the audience, depicted grisly acts in their entirety. All of these characters are connected through their actions and reactions in the story.
As for the storytelling, the Coens tell the tale through use of unconventional narrative in the way that there is no defined middle or end. Everything begins, but it is up to the watcher and listener to piece together the events, as it is in real life. It has a great sense of coherence, as everything that goes on relates to each other, acting like glue between the characters, even if they do not meet on screen. No Country has all of the coherence aspects covered. Structural is covered with the smooth running editing, material with the storylines of the three main characters constantly linking back to each other, and characterlogical in the ways explained before about the believability of the characters in the movie. For good reasons, the Coens continue to wow audiences with their stories, adapted or original, creating unforgettable settings, characters, and a style not seen by many filmmakers anymore. They truly are some of the best storytellers of this era.