Aspects of the Novel¶
Forster, E. M. (1927). Aspects of the Novel.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Narrative
- A list, a timeline, a log file, or a chronicle is a sequence, but it is not yet a narrative: it lacks the causal-temporal binding and the closure that confer significance.
This sourceEdward Arnold. Source of the story/plot distinction ("the king died and then the queen died" versus "...died of grief"): a bare sequence or chronicle is not yet a narrative until causal binding is added, and that organizing form is orthogonal to truth value.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Forster supplies the causal-binding half: 'the king died' then 'the queen died of grief' is a plot. He does not discuss lists, logs or closure, and he calls a bare story a narrative.
“The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it.”
- A list, a timeline, a log file, or a chronicle is a sequence, but it is not yet a narrative: it lacks the causal-temporal binding and the closure that confer significance.
Domain-specific¶
- Plot
- E. M. Forster's canonical formulation makes the distinction crisp: "The king died, and then the queen died" is a story; "The king died, and then the queen died of grief" is a plot — the move from and then to because of is exactly what plot adds
This sourceForster's own statement of the story/plot distinction: 'The king died and then the queen died' is a story, 'The king died, and then the queen died of grief' is a plot, the emphasis falling on causality.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality.”
- E. M. Forster's canonical formulation makes the distinction crisp: "The king died, and then the queen died" is a story; "The king died, and then the queen died of grief" is a plot — the move from and then to because of is exactly what plot adds
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:a9329719f167 · see in the full table