Open-Ended Narratives in a Diachronic Perspective

Abstract

This article traces the evolution of open-ended narratives in Russian literature from Karamzin to Bitov. It proposes a typology of narrative figures that generate incompleteness. Building on Genette’s theory, the article distinguishes two main figures: analipsis (retrospective omission) and prolipsis (anticipatory omission), which have subtypes: referential versus modal, linear versus variable, and focalised versus non-focalised. Two advanced forms are highlighted: the eliminated ending (Chekhov’s “Fear”), where omission is irreparable and undermines narrativity, and metanarrative prolipsis (Nabokov, Bitov), where openness points to the infinite regress of storytelling. Together, these figures mark a historical transition from plot-based uncertainty (“What happens next?”) to narrative self-reflection (“What does it mean to end?”). The article also outlines hypothetical types, such as metanarrative analipsis, and notes contemporary uses, such as in Vodolazkin’s The Aviator. Ultimately, the open ending proves to be a persistent literary device that highlights the fundamental incompleteness of narrative discourse.