The Order I'm Telling You This In

Intergrateo Press presents an insightful essay by A. J. Wiadrowski titled "The Order I'm Telling You This In." This piece serves as Fieldnote 02, an accompaniment to a broader modular course on storytelling. It delves into the foundational distinction between story and discourse, exploring how events are structured versus how they are presented. The essay begins with a compelling narrative example, immediately demonstrating the practical application of these theoretical concepts. Readers will find a clear articulation of narrative technique.

Fieldnote 02:Moduel 0 - Story vs Discourse

I’ve been building and following an in-depth modular course on the history and structure of storytelling. Check it out at my author site (ajwiadrowski.com). These Fieldnotes are the long-form supplements, one essay per section, written to stand on their own. This is Section 2 of the orientation module, and it makes the one distinction the whole field is built on:

What’s the difference between what happened in a story and how it’s told?

Subscribe now

──────── ◇ ────────

To show you rather than just tell you, I am going to start in the wrong place on purpose.

The letter was already in her hand when she understood she had been wrong about everything.

She did not read it, not yet. She stood in the kitchen of the house she had not entered in thirty years and watched the afternoon light move along the floor she used to be small enough to lie on. Her name was on the front in his handwriting, gone shaky at the end in a way she had heard about but never seen.

Three days earlier she had not known the house was hers. The solicitor’s call came on the Tuesday, brisk and sorry at once. She drove up the coast on the Thursday and did not cry, which surprised her, until the sea came into view at the last bend and she had to pull over.

The kitchen drawer had always stuck. It stuck still. Inside, under takeaway menus and a dead torch, was the letter, her name on it, never sent.

The last time she stood in this room she was twenty-two and certain, and she said a thing to her father that you cannot unsay, and she walked out and let the door do the rest. They never spoke again. He died in March. She heard from a cousin.

Now stop.

──────── ◇ ────────

What I just did to you

Notice the order in which things happened, against the order I handed them to you.

In that little story, the events run like this. A young woman quarrels with her father and leaves, certain she is right. Thirty years of silence follow. The father dies in March. A solicitor calls; the house is hers. She drives up, stops at the sight of the sea, opens a stuck drawer, and finds an unsent letter with her name on it. She holds it, and something turns over in her before she has read a word.

That is the order of the events. It is not the order of my telling. I began near the end, with the letter in her hand and the line about being wrong. I jumped back three days, then back thirty years to the slammed door. I gave you the father’s death late, in a flat half-sentence, once you already felt its weight. And I still have not told you what the letter says. The withholding is doing work on you right now.

Two different sequences, then: what happened, and how it is told. They are almost never the same, and the distance between them is not a flaw in the telling. The distance is the telling.

──────── ◇ ────────

The master distinction

This is the cut. It wears different names in different traditions, but it is one idea, and you should learn to spot it in any coat.

Seymour Chatman calls the two layers story and discourse. The story is the what: the events in the order and shape they would have in their own world, stripped of any particular telling. The discourse is the how: the order and pace through which that story reaches us. Chatman’s lasting point was that the distinction holds across media. A woman finding her dead father’s letter can be told in prose, on film, on a stage, in six comic panels. The story survives the jump because it is not identical to any one telling. What changes is the discourse.

The Russian Formalists got there first and put it more bluntly: fabula and syuzhet. The fabula is the raw chronological material, the events in the order a clock would record. The syuzhet is the arrangement, the events as the work deploys them, reordered, delayed, repeated, withheld. When I opened with the letter and doubled back to the door, I built a syuzhet out of a fabula. Fabula is what happened. Syuzhet is the order I am telling you this in.

The title of this Fieldnote is a definition.

──────── ◇ ────────

Every narrative runs on two clocks

A narrative is the only kind of text that holds two time-lines at once, which is stranger than it sounds.

There is the time of the events, the years inside the story: the quarrel thirty years before the drive, the death in March. And there is the time of the telling, the minutes you spend reading, the order the page releases its information. A description has one clock or none; an argument floats outside time. A narrative always carries both, and the art lives between them. When the two run in step, we call it chronological order and it feels like a clear window. When they fall out of step, we get everything we prize. Flashback is the telling-clock running behind. Foreshadowing is it reaching ahead. Suspense is the gap between the two, stretched. A reveal is the moment the telling finally delivers an event the story settled long ago.

You cannot describe any of those without the two layers to set against each other. That is why this is not one tool among many. It is the workbench every other tool sits on. The next module, on the mechanics of discourse, is a long anatomy of the ways a syuzhet can depart from its fabula.

──────── ◇ ────────

One story, many tellings, and a hard question

If story and discourse come apart, then one story can carry endless discourses. This is the engine of all literary reuse. The fabula of Oedipus, a man who flees a prophecy and runs straight into it, has been told as Greek tragedy and in a hundred thrillers that never heard the name. Writers rarely invent stories. They invent discourses for stories already lying around.

Which raises a question sharper than it looks. If two tellings share a fabula but differ wildly in syuzhet, are they the same story or different ones?

Test it on the vignette. Told in plain order, it runs: woman leaves, years pass, father dies, daughter inherits, drives up, finds letter, is changed. Same events, every one. But it is not the same experience, and not quite the same work. By opening on the letter and the line about being wrong, I made the piece about a wound closing rather than opening. The chronological version is a story about an estrangement that ends in grief. Mine is a story about grief that ends in an estrangement explained. Identical fabula, different meaning, produced entirely by the order of telling.

So story and discourse are separable enough to analyse apart, and bound tightly enough that you cannot move one far without changing the other. Reveal the murderer in the first line instead of the last and you have kept every event and written a different book. The distinction is real, and it is also a relationship. The relationship is the work.

──────── ◇ ────────

Where the writer lives

In the previous section I left a shopping list with a single black candle in it, and you could not stop building a story in the gap. This is the same lesson from the other side. The events of a story are often fixed, because that is what happened, or what you have decided happened. The craft, the reason one teller is worth reading and another is not, is almost never in the events. It is in the arrangement, in deciding what the reader learns and, above all, when.

Meaning is manufactured in that gap. I told you the father died in a flat half-sentence, late, and it landed harder than an opening announcement would have, because by then you were in his kitchen holding his unsent apology. The death had not changed; its position had. Move an event earlier and you make dramatic irony, the ache of knowing what a character does not. Move it later and you make suspense, or the slow-closing trap. Cut between two timelines and the reader assembles the causality themselves, which binds them tighter than any plain telling could. Each is a choice about discourse laid over a settled story.

This is why the first real analysis the curriculum asks of you is to take a story you love, write its events in pure chronological order, then describe how the telling departs: where it starts in the wrong place, where it withholds. Do that and you are looking at the syuzhet laid over the fabula. You will not read innocently again. You will see the two clocks, and the hand on the dial.

In the next section we make a second, older cut, between showing and telling, the mimesis and diegesis the Greeks were already arguing about, and I will again try to make the essay behave like the thing it describes. For now, carry the cut itself.

She read the letter, in the end. But that belongs to the story, not to the order I chose to tell it in. That gap is the subject of everything that comes next.

──────── ◇ ────────

This Fieldnote offers a robust exploration of the fabula and syuzhet, essential concepts in narrative analysis. Wiadrowski's work clarifies how the manipulation of discourse profoundly influences a story's impact, inviting a deeper appreciation for the craft of storytelling. The essay reinforces the idea that the manner of telling is as crucial as the events themselves, providing valuable insights for both aspiring writers and critical readers.