I am surprised \u2026 by how I haven\u2019t addressed chronotope in my essays, like at all. So, what is chronotope? Well, it\u2019s one of concepts used by Mikhail Bakhtin in the context of novels. If you\u2019ve ever studied literature, like seriously, not just a couple of beginner or intermediate level courses, you know what it is. If you don\u2019t, well, what can I say, except that the people who\u2019ve ran your courses don\u2019t know much about literary theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Like if there is one name you should known in literary studies, it\u2019s Bakhtin. If you somehow managed to get a degree in literature without ever reading his works, do yourself a favor and do just that. Don\u2019t waste your time reading anyone else. Just go with Bakhtin. Once you\u2019ve read him, you can just take everyone else\u2019s books about literature and throw them in the trash. Like, honestly, he\u2019s just that good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My studies did include literature, albeit I didn\u2019t go that route. It just wasn\u2019t my thing, but once I read Bakhtin, on my own, for other reasons, literature made so, so much more sense to me. I don\u2019t think he was ever even mentioned on the courses that I took, which is pretty bizarre, considering he is that good that you can throw rest of the stuff in the trash and just run with him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anyway, to get to the point, what is a chronotope<\/em> anyway? Well, luckily there\u2019s an easy answer to that. I think he (42) gives the best and most concise definition to it in \u2018The Bildungsroman <\/em>and Its Significance in the History of Realism (Toward a Historical Typology of the Novel)\u2019:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[A] time-space<\/em>, a true chronotope<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n To give you context for that, he (42) first refers to something as being chronotopic<\/em>, i.e., having that \u201cchronotopic nature\u201d to it, only to point out that it was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who best exemplifies chronotopic literature, to the point that Goethe\u2019s literature is like stepping into a world like that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEverything in this world is a time-space<\/em>, a true chronotope<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Bakhtin (42) specifies this noting that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[E]verything is intensive in Goethe\u2019s world; it contains no inanimate, immobile, petrified place, no immutable background that does not participate in action and emergence \u2026, no decorations or sets.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s also worth noting that it is in this context, what I\u2019ve \u2026 here in that quote that emergence<\/em> is what he calls event or events, i.e., whatever it is that is happening. This is a seemingly minor point, yes, but it is crucial to what he (42) goes on to add:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]his time, in all its essential aspects, is localized in concrete space, imprinted on it. In Goethe\u2019s world there are no events, plots, or temporal motifs that are not related in an essential way to the particular spatial place of their occurrence, that could occur anywhere or nowhere (\u2018eternal\u2019 plots or motifs).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n So, in other words, you cannot separate time from space. Neither makes sense on their own. The way this or that place is, or this or that space is, or just space is in general, makes no sense unless it is the way it has become. That\u2019s why he (42) points out here that events are temporal and spatial. You cannot have timeless events, nor spaceless events. That means that they are singular<\/em>. This is why nothing can ever happen again, why nothing is ever the same. They can be similar, highly alike, sure, but not the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If Bakhtin\u2019s take on chronotope<\/em> and what it is based on, Goethe\u2019s works, seems familiar to you, like how everything is connected, how there can be nothing that isn\u2019t connected, it\u2019s probably because you\u2019ve read Baruch Spinoza\u2019s works, namely his \u2018Ethics\u2019. This is something that Bakhtin (42) acknowledges, considering that he does credit to Spinoza in this context, mentioning him as Goethe\u2019s teacher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, what\u2019s so special about Goethe for Bakhtin and what\u2019s then missing from Spinoza? Well, in Bakhtin\u2019s view, Spinoza was too concerned with eternity, or, as I\u2019d put it, the whole God business of his time that he had to deal with, and thus ended up missing the here and now:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[Goethe] saw everything not sub specie aeternitatis<\/em> (from the point of view of eternity), as his teacher, Spinoza, did, but in time and in the power of time<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n To be clear, Bakhtin (42) is not dissing on Spinoza, or that\u2019s how I take it anyway. I think it is fair to say that Spinoza did look at the world in that way, from the point of view of eternity. He did use various here and now examples, but he wasn\u2019t that interested in the specifics. He wanted to make sense of how it all works, which is why reading his \u2018Ethics\u2019 can be a bit of a challenge, at least initially. I mean, he isn\u2019t flashy. It\u2019s pretty dry reading, for the most part, but that\u2019s results in a stark contrast with his quips in his notes. It\u2019s like meeting a person who is very professional in their behavior, meticulous, to the point, only to give the best rants after two beers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anyway, what Bakhtin (42) is saying, in my view anyway, is that Goethe manages to showcase Spinoza\u2019s monist view of the world in an exciting way. Goethe isn\u2019t writing about what reality is, nor how it works. Instead, he writes in a way that is aligned with it, but isn\u2019t explaining it to the reader. That only makes sense, considering that Spinoza wasn\u2019t writing novels, whereas Goethe was, in fact, writing novels. If you wrote a novel, like Spinoza wrote his \u2018Ethics\u2019, yeah, that\u2019d be a terrible novel. It wouldn\u2019t even count as a novel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Right, so, why does Bakhtin think that Goethe is such a good writer? Well, because, in Bakhtin\u2019s (42) view, you need the power of time to make sense of space:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c[T]he power of this time is a productive and creative power.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Plus, it\u2019s about everything. Yes, everything, from the tiniest thing to the largest thing. Nothing is left out. It\u2019s all about time and<\/em> space. Everything is temporal and spatial at the same time. I need him (42) to explain that, because there\u2019s a risk that you just don\u2019t get what he means by everything:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEverything\u2014from an abstract idea to a piece of rock on the bank of a stream\u2014bears the stamp of time, is saturated with time, and assumes its form and meaning in time.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This is monism 101 here. This is Spinoza, but just written way, way more eloquently and captivatingly than he ever did and made more concrete. He would definitely agree that everything includes all the physical things and even abstract ideas that have little to do with the physical things. He would also agree that everything is the way it is, because that\u2019s how it came to be and not because it is inherently this or that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The notion of intensity<\/em> is also important to all this. If you don\u2019t get why it matters, you are going to miss the point. If you think of everything as extensive<\/em>, having these or those physical dimensions, you are bound to miss the point. Take something simple as that rock, or that bank, or that stream. Time is \u2026 I don\u2019t know how to explain it. I don\u2019t think anyone knows how to explain it, except that things don\u2019t remain the same. Intensities are what you end up finding when you deal with anything extensive. For example, there\u2019s heat, there\u2019s pressure. That\u2019s how everything is in flux. This is not to say that things don\u2019t appear to be fixed, as opposed to being in flux, but that\u2019s because it is the flux that keeps them that way, until it doesn\u2019t. You have those forces that force them, until those or some other forces force things to be different, and so on, and so forth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why is chronotope<\/em> a useful concept then? Well, because it is way, way easier to understand, intuitive really, than, let\u2019s say, how Spinoza would explain that, how Michel Foucault would explain that or how Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari would explain that. Why is it easier to understand? What makes it so intuitive? Well, it\u2019s because Bakhtin is explaining it through literature. Literature is merely a prop here. Chronotope explains how the world works. It explains reality, in monist terms, \u00e0 la Spinoza, without you ever having to read Spinoza.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not to say that chronotope<\/em> isn\u2019t useful in literature. It really is. Nothing beats it. It\u2019s rather that once you understand how you can create a world just by writing something and have someone read it, like how it is like entering a world and getting lost in it, you\u2019ve actually also understood how the world works. The world of the book is a virtual world<\/em> that functions like the actual world<\/em>. It is as if<\/em> it was that world, but without being that world, as Charles Sanders Peirce (763), points in his dictionary definition of \u2018Virtual\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bakhtin\u2019s thing is to use the concept to explain how there are different kinds of novel, some of which are better than others in this way, Goethe being one of the best there is. For Bakhtin, nothing is more impressive in a novel than if it is about the world. The world still has all there is to it, namely the characters, the story, etc., but they do not simple exist and take place in that world. Instead, it\u2019s all connected and makes sense there and then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Bakhtin, most novels fail as chronotopes<\/em>, rather miserably, really, for the simple reason that the characters are static and\/or the world is static. It\u2019s all about the story, that plot, which the writer came up with or, well, copied from someone else and, perhaps, gave it a twist, for example by relocating it to different place or setting it in a different historical era. That\u2019s a grave error, as he (42) points out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Okay, I guess you could say that all novels are chronotopic<\/em>, to this or that extent, fair enough, but that’s not what he is after. What matters is that he is praising some writers for being able to create virtual worlds that function as if they were the actual world. Most of the writers don’t do that, nor are they capable of doing that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why most novels and novelists fail like that then? It\u2019s because people have been taught to think in a way that sees the subject<\/em>, here the writer, but that could be anyone, really, as autonomous, free to do as they will in the world. That sees them as separate from the world, merely acting in it, as if there weren\u2019t all those intensities, all those forces, and everything else there is at any given moment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bakhtin elaborates how this works in novels, but it also applies to other art forms, namely films and TV-series, as well as video games. They are usually straight forward. You have some protagonist. The focus is on that one person. The world doesn\u2019t matter, nor do the other characters. That protagonist is often a hero, by which I mean already a hero. This means that the person doesn\u2019t change. In some cases the hero must overcome some obstacle, like maybe they have had setback, lost their powers, or so to speak, or the hero must come to realize that they are a hero. The problem with this is that it is highly predictable. No matter what happens, the hero will remain a hero or is destined to become one. Others are there only for that hero, just as the world is only there for that hero.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, of course, I\u2019m summarizing Bakhtin\u2019s take here, simplifying it considerably, but that\u2019s the gist of it. The problem for him with such novels is that there are not realistic, hence the realism bit in \u2018The Bildungsroman <\/em>and Its Significance in the History of Realism (Toward a Historical Typology of the Novel)\u2019. This does not mean that Bakhtin thinks that the writer must make sure that everything in the virtual world of the novel must be exactly as it is in the actual world of its reader. Absolutely not. He\u2019s very clear about this. He (46-47) even credits Goethe for his fairy tales and states that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHere it is not a matter of how artistically realistic the image may be in and of itself (which, of course, in no way requires a precise geographical deter\u00admination, a \u2018nonfictitious\u2019 place of action).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Note how Bakhtin (47) goes as far as to state that you don\u2019t even have to base the place of the virtual world in some actual world place. Why would you? After all, there\u2019s no necessity for that. That\u2019s totally up to the writer. This is not to say that basing the virtual world in the actual world doesn\u2019t have its merits, as he (47) goes on to add:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cT]he image typically conveys a direct geographical reality<\/em>, and it strives not so much for internal verisimilitude as for an idea of it as an event that actually occurred, that is, in real time<\/em>[.]\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n So, the writer can take a specific place in the actual world and depict it very, very accurately, only to make it work for the writer\u2019s purposes. What really matters is that the virtual world is a chronotope<\/em>, a time-space arrangement, in which everything comes together in a way makes sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The virtual world does not have to be like the actual world, just as the virtual people, i.e., the characters, do not have to be like actual people, and just as the virtual events, i.e., what happens, does not have to be like actual events, i.e., what has happened in the actual world. It is totally up to the writer to decide how all that is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem for Bakhtin is that most novels do not make sense, because their worlds do not make sense. Simply put, the problem for him is that they fail to be living worlds. Somethings is just off. This is also the problem for the vast majority of films, TV-series and video games, as I pointed out already. Their worlds just fail to make sense. It\u2019s often manifested in the urge to say something like \u2018well this isn\u2019t realistic\u2019 and not because of the dragons, or the hobgoblins, but because you simply do not believe in what happens in that virtual world. There\u2019s something incoherent going on. It\u2019s often the case that things happen because they must happen, because otherwise the plot does not progress. The writer has failed to account for something and is then hastily writing things to happen in a certain way. The problem is that you notice this. It\u2019s like an actual world situation where your friend suddenly starts acting strange, for example doing or saying something strange, something that they\u2019d never do or say. That\u2019s the writer. The situation doesn\u2019t make sense. It\u2019s like it\u2019s scripted to go that way, no matter the circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, of course, it is way, way more difficult to write a novel, shoot a film or a TV-episode, or develop a video game that works this way. Firstly, like I pointed out already, people aren\u2019t thought to think like this, in monist terms. People don\u2019t read Bakhtin or Spinoza, or anyone else who think in such ways. People barely read at all, at least if we are to believe the school teachers. Secondly, that requires attention to detail and, well, that is expensive or, to be more accurate, time consuming, which is what makes it expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It can be done. It has been done, in novels, in films, in TV-series and in video games and there are different ways of doing it, with or without dragons. To give you a couple of examples that aren\u2019t about novels, think of a TV-show like ‘The Wire’. I think the first few seasons of ‘Game of Thrones’ would also be good examples of how it\u2019s about the virtual world and not just having some characters in it and some plot that takes place in it. You do notice how the show changes, how you went from this show that was expansive and took its sweet time to make sure that its world feels emergent, like a coherent whole where all the pieces fit together, to a show where everything was narrowed down and rushed to get somewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In my view, what matters is that the virtual world is immersive<\/em>, so that you feel like you\u2019re there, and emergent<\/em>, so that everything in that world makes sense, there and then, like it comes together in a way in which nothing seems out of place, like as if someone had put it there for some specific reason, as opposed to having emerged as part of that world, like everything else that is part of that world. I\u2019d also say that this works the best in video games, because they don\u2019t have to go anywhere. The player character or characters, whatever it is that you are doing as the player, can just basically do nothing and that\u2019s that then, whereas when you read a novel, listen to an audio play or watch a film or an episode of a TV-show, it always unfolds the same way. You go from one sentence to another or progress second by second once you press play. You can\u2019t just stop it and then do whatever, which is basically what you can do in a video game. This is what makes video games way more interesting than the other aforementioned art forms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That said, I think that video games are also the toughest to pull off. It may seem like there\u2019s a lot of upside to that, how you can just roam in that virtual world, kind of aimlessly, like not at all progressing some plot that may well be scripted to be there for you to progress, but there\u2019s also a downside to this. If a video game pushes you to go forward, like make your way in a tunnel, all it has to do is to make you not think that you are made to go forward, like to avoid you noticing the tunnel. If you can go sideways, like in an open world, just to see what\u2019s there, in that forest or beyond that hill, all that\u2019s in between must function as you\u2019d think it would in that world. If there\u2019s little or nothing to do in that virtual world, it doesn\u2019t feel like the actual world. You\u2019ll have little interest to be in that world, because it\u2019s simply boring. It\u2019s not immersive, nor emergent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is needed is attention to detail. The problem with this is that it takes time and effort to do it, by which I mean that it is expensive to develop a video game world that is truly a chronotope<\/em>, the way Bakhtin (42) defines it. That\u2019s because it\u2019s about everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Firstly, the discursive and social aspects of that video game world need to be taken into account, so that the characters in it don\u2019t appear to be written as this or that character by the writer or writers, but so that they come across as someone who has become the way they happen to be, as part of that world and in interaction with that world, when you encounter them. Their actions and the views they express to others must seem like something that makes sense for them, in that world, as part of that world. What makes this difficult is that the player is expected to be able to interact with them, to do thing to them, and\/or with them, and engage in dialogue with them. Their responses should be in response to what the player and\/or other characters do or say in relation to them. So, here the difficulty arises from the fact that the characters, the player included, should be virtual people who do and say things that are as if they were actual people. This is very difficult for the writers, and other developers. On one hand, you can and I think you have to limit the interaction, in this and\/or that way, but the player should not notice these limitations. On the other hand, you can and, again, I think you should taken many options and circumstances into consideration as otherwise the player will feel like they are playing a role, basically just doing whatever it is that it says on the script that the writer or writers came up with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Secondly, there are the physical of the video game world that also need to be taken into account. Oh, and yes, they are virtually physical, not actually physical. Don\u2019t go thinking that I think that the virtual world has actual physical matter in it. Anyway, what I mean is that everything in that virtual world of the video game should make sense as if it was the actual world that we are accustomed to. If the character moves its hand and it encounters a cup on a table, the cup should move, inasmuch there aren\u2019t some forces that prevent it from moving. If it doesn\u2019t move because its movement wasn\u2019t taken into consideration, the player will notice this and start wondering why that is. Maybe it\u2019s been glued to the table or it\u2019s a magic glass that\u2019s bound to the table. Maybe. Maybe it is and then that\u2019s okay. The problem is that if there\u2019s a lot of this in the world, it\u2019s like is everything in this virtual world glued down or magically held in place. Okay, what if you can move them? Well, that\u2019s great, but then you have to consider many other things. How easily they move? Will they tip over? Do they hold liquid that then splashes all over or should splash all over instead of being stuck to the glass like jelly? Do they break if they fall from the table to the floor? Why? Why not? Do they always shatter exactly the same way?<\/p>\n\n\n\n To reiterate an earlier point, one made by Bakhtin (42), the virtual world does not have to be like the actual world. This is good because you don\u2019t have to make everything in the virtual world like it is in the actual world. The physics of a video game do not have to be perfect. Why? Well, for the simple reason that it doesn\u2019t matter as long as the player doesn\u2019t pay attention to such. It\u2019s a matter of how you design the virtual world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To give you an example, there was the virtual reality hardware and software trial at the university last semester. You were in a virtual house in a virtual world. Now, you do not have to pay any attention to what\u2019s beyond the house, only what\u2019s in the house. Of course, if you see out from the house, like from a window, it should look like there\u2019s something out there. If you have doors, they should be locked or jammed or something like that, so that you don\u2019t end up outside the house for the simple reason that there\u2019s nothing there. Also, it\u2019s not enough that the door is just closed. Add a door knob or a handle. Make it work and make the door frame rattle a bit so that the player realizes that it\u2019s locked or jammed. It\u2019s like, okay, right, fair enough. This was not taken into account and as impressive as virtual reality is, something as small as that is enough to ruin the immersion and emergence of virtual reality. There was also a light switch on the wall or, rather, it was part of the texture of that wall. Now, me being me, of course I had to go over there and try to see if it works, like flipping my finger up and down on it. It didn\u2019t work. The switch didn\u2019t go up, nor down, because it was part of a texture. It looked like there was this light switch, but it lacked the necessary physics. Simply put, it didn\u2019t function. What they should have done is to make it function, go up and down, because that\u2019s how actual light switches work. It wouldn\u2019t have needed to change the lighting. That\u2019s not the point. I\u2019d totally accept that the power is cut off or something like that. No problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there\u2019s movement. I have no idea why some virtual reality software insists on teleportation. It\u2019s like this is exactly how no one has ever moved, anywhere, anywhere, except in science fiction. Also, moving the upper body, as opposed to the head, who thought it makes sense that it works in like clicks, so that it\u2019s always this many degrees when you turn using that little joystick on the hand controller? This is something so basic that it\u2019s silly. Just think of it for one moment. The whole point of virtual reality is that it is as if were actual reality, even though it isn\u2019t. Since when did you move like that or turn like that? I know, I know, moving with a hand controller is hardly ideal, but that\u2019s not what\u2019s bothering me. Somehow my brain doesn\u2019t mind at all that I am not actually moving my legs to move virtually or actually turning my upper body to turn virtually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oh, I know, that clunk is there because, apparently, some people\u2019s brains can\u2019t handle it like mine can. I\u2019m not blaming them for that. I\u2019m just saying that the whole point of virtual reality is that it is as if it were actual reality, that it is functionally the same, equivalent to it, without being it. If it isn\u2019t, then it fails to do what it sets out to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anyway, long story short, chronotope <\/em>is a very useful concept, not only in literary studies, but also in many other kinds of studies, like film studies or game studies. It has utility in everyday life, because once you understand its relevance in virtual worlds, as explained by Bakhtin, you should better understand the actual world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am surprised \u2026 by how I haven\u2019t addressed chronotope in my essays, like at all. So, what is chronotope? Well, it\u2019s one of concepts used by Mikhail Bakhtin in the context of novels. If you\u2019ve ever studied literature, like seriously, not just a couple of beginner or intermediate level courses, you know what it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3554,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[35,147,171],"class_list":["post-5711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essays","tag-bakhtin","tag-goethe","tag-spinoza"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5711","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3554"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5711"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5711\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5785,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5711\/revisions\/5785"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/landd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
What is a rock? What is a bank? What is stream? None of them are eternal. None of them manifest an eternal idea, like rockness, bankness or streamness. They\u2019ve all become that, whatever they are, and it is we who call them a rock, a bank and a stream, and understand them in a certain way. We\u2019ve abstracted them, i.e., made them abstract, instead of them representing some pre-existing abstract idea according to which there are rocks, banks and streams. But how have ended up here? Through time and intensity. That\u2019s what Bakhtin (42) is saying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n