One of the main questions that we need to ask when analyzing a narrative is whose perspective we're getting. Stanzel calls this the \"narrative situation\" and summarizes three different types of narrative situation that are available.
The first-person narrative situation is when you've got a narrator who is part of the world presented within the text (the \"narrating I\"). The authorial narrative situation is when you've got a narrator who is outside the story world. The figural narrative situation, finally, is when you don't have a narrator but rather a \"reflector\": a character who doesn't talk to you directly but whose perpective filters everything (you know how that specific character thinks and feels).
As Stanzel mentions at the end of this passage, mediacy is made up of three elements: person, perspective, and mode. Person refers to who is narrating: is the narrator first or third person Perspective is all about whether the narration comes from within or outside the world of the text. Finally, mode refers to the question of whether the narrative uses a narrator (\"teller mode\") or a reflector (\"reflector mode\").
Using these three elements, then, you can think about where the emphasis lies in whatever narrative you're analyzing. In other words, you can pinpoint the type and level of mediacy in a text and then figure out which of the narrative situations you've got on your hands.
This chapter introduces the basic elements of narrative situation, the combination of narrator, perspective (point of view), and narrative level involved in first-person and third-person fictional narration.1 A separate final section treats second-person narration and points readers to the growing bibliography on this unusual kind of narrative situation. This chapter deals exclusively with prose fiction, since the extent to which films have narrative situations, implied by the gaze of the camera, operates by rough analogies to the possibilities in prose fiction. Most films adopt the equivalent of third-person omniscience.2
In the excerpt reprinted below, Stanzel proposes a typology ofall narrative situations conceivable, based on three constitutiveelements - person, perspective and mode - and their corresponding binary oppositions. Stanzel's sixfold typological axis (p.167),arranged circularly, is intended to account for all possible inbetween varieties, concrete examples of which are given in thetitles of individual novels in the outer ring of the more complexfigure (above). Analysis of a particular novel according to Stanzel'stypology should reveal its narrative profile, that is, the dynamicsof its narrative process as well as the rhythm derived from thealternation or predominance of particular situations. If carried out
transhistorically, Stanzel claims, this analysis should be capable ofaccounting for the evolution of all narrative forms through historyand even of predicting the genre's possible developments in thefuture.
Schmid (1982) puts forth an alternative model of narrative mediation by breaking down the story vs. discourse dichotomy into four terms: Geschehen (events); Geschichte (fabula or story); Erzählung (plot); Präsentation der Erzählung (narrative discourse). He goes on to posit three processes of transformation between these levels, all of which are accomplished by the narrator. According to Schmid, the mediating narrator first selects particular situations, characters, events, and qualities from the invented story material and transforms them into a story. The narrator then transforms the story into a narrative plot, going through a process that correlates with the linearization of simultaneous event sequences and the permutation of chronological story segments. And finally, the narrator presents the narrative by verbalizing it in a particular style. However, as Cohn argues, fictional narratives do not typically transform something pre-existent into a narrative, and they are thus plotted rather than emplotted (1990: 781). It is therefore worth noting that Schmid assumes an ideal-genetic perspective: the invented story material logically precedes the presentation of the narrative.
The nature of the principal is one important factor determining the nature of diplomatic representation. Specifically, it matters whether the diplomatic agent has a single principal or receives instructions from a collective body. Principal-agent theory heeds the problems of collective or multiple principals, peculiarly to the increased autonomy agents may enjoy as a result of competing preferences among principals. The unequivocal instructions from a single sovereign in earlier times left less leeway for diplomats than the frequently vague instructions resulting from negotiations among different actors and agencies in modern democracies. And whereas democratic states place diplomats at the end of multiple chains of principals and agents, diplomats representing contemporary authoritarian states, with one clearly identifiable principal, have more restrictive mandates.
If one looks closely at the political discourse of personal politics, people are not just sharing information. They are sharing stories. While the Arab Spring was initially heralded as a social media revolution, researchers now credit the story-driven nature of the phenomenon.140 These stories are not carefully crafted strategic narratives but emotionally resonant narratives of affinity and identity.
This short article suggests a revision of the hierarchical levels of focalization and narration. It argues that greater precision in distinguishing degrees of both narrators' and characters' involvement in these distinct processes will result in a more flexible and more adequate typology. To achieve this purpose, the well-known systems of narrative situations in Bal 1981, 1985  and of focalization in Genette 1980  are reconciled with those of homodiegetic narration in Lanser 1981 and Füger 1993. A revised and comprehensive version of possible identity relations among narrators and focalizers is suggested and briefly exemplified through a number of well-known Anglo-American novels.
It should therefore not be surprising that, given the range of artifacts and media falling under its purview, the many disciplines it involves, and the multiplicity of projects relevant for if not directly associated with it, research at the intersection of narrative theory and the sciences of mind at present constitutes more a set of loosely confederated heuristic schemes than a global framework for inquiry. Nonetheless, a number of key concerns cut across the various approaches to the mind-narrative nexus; these concerns can be linked to the two broad lines of inquiry mentioned above, i.e. (1) research on narrative as a target of interpretation and (2) scholarship on stories as a resource for sense making. On the one hand, what mental states and processes support narrative understanding, allowing readers, viewers, or listeners to navigate storyworlds to the extent required for their purposes in engaging with a given narrative (Herman 2013a: chaps. 1, 3) How do they use medium-specific cues to build on the basis of the discourse an interpretation of what happened when, or in what order; a broader temporal and spatial environment for those events, as well as an inventory of the characters involved; and a working model of what it was like for these characters to experience the more or less disruptive or non-canonical events that constitute a core feature of narrative representations (Herman 2009: chap. 5) On the other hand, insofar as narrative constitutes a way of structuring and understanding situations and events, still other questions suggest themselves for researchers working in this area. To what domains are stories especially suited as instruments of mind (Herman 2013a: chaps. 2, 6) Is it the case that, unlike other such instruments (stress equations, deductive arguments, graphs and scatterplots, etc.), narrative is tailor-made for gauging the felt quality of lived experiences (Fludernik 1996; Herman 2009: chap. 6; 2013a: chaps. 2, 7)
Arguably, questions such as these could not have been formulated, let alone addressed, within classical frameworks for narrative study (but cf. Barthes  1977 and Culler 1975 for early anticipations). The mind-narrative nexus can thus be thought of as a problem space that opened up when earlier, structuralist models were brought into dialogue with disciplines falling under the umbrella field of the cognitive sciences.
Approaches to narrative and mind continue to emerge, evolve, and cross-pollinate, and it is difficult to predict which of these approaches will be the most generative going forward, let alone what impact they will ultimately have on the broader field of narratology. Spanning research on narrative viewed as a target of interpretation as well as scholarship on stories taken as an instrument of mind, relevant studies include:
Since important contributions and refinements continue to be made to the focal areas for research listed in section 3.2, all of these areas also constitute, in effect, topics for further investigation. In addition, several other, overarching issues warrant further consideration when it comes to study of the mind-narrative nexus.
To date, criticism of Patrick O'Brian's fiction, never extending beyond the \"Aubrey-Maturin\" novels that form the bulk of his oeuvre, has emphasized the first part of their classification as \"historical function,\" the mimetic accuracy of his depictions of life and writing, ashore and asea, in the early nineteenth century. Legitimate, but wholly insufficient comparisons of his subject matter and style to those of Jane Austen (Simmons), studies of the historical learning that reifies his narratives (West), and explorations of the idea that \"his real interest is in the ships and the crews, in naval custom, habit, and routine, the daily ritual of shipboard life\" (Bayley 36) constitute most of what has been written. Once pigeonholed in this way, O'Brian dwindles into a marvelous researcher and imitator whose noteworthy qualities in those contexts render him of necessarily limited interest in other terms, one appropriately appreciated by encyclopedic reference works detailing every ship commanded (Lavery), every injury suffered (Schuyler), every port of call visited (King with Hattendorf). (1) He becomes--the damnation of faint praise--a much better spinner of sea-yarns than C. S. Forester, a curiosity whose twenty-novel series can be appreciated, apparently adequately, as \"a five thousand-plus page homage to Austen's novels\" (Simmons, \"Did Willoughby\" 171). 153554b96e