In memoriam
Tzvetan Todorov (1939-2017)

1In the 30th edition of Questions de communication, the narratologist, Raphaël Baroni, teacher and researcher at the University of Lausanne, explains that, since its heyday in the period between 1965-1975, narratology is today “more or less stagnant” (Baroni, 2016: 219). This evaluation is in stark contrast with the “narrative turning point” of the 80s, which was based on the idea that “our identities, our relationship with time, with our society or our history, whether collective or individual, [are] the product of a form of narrative construction or what Paul Ricœur called, perhaps inappropriately, the “emplotment” or creation of a plot, whose function would be to format our experiences or the events of the past (ibid.: 221). Retracing the repercussions of this approach on human and social sciences (HSS), but also on other areas of the social world, Raphaël Baroni evokes an arrival en masse of narrative forms He talks about narratology's “increasing vigour"” (ibid.: 223) or as the title of the first part of his article describes it, a “narrative empire”, which could be explained “by recognising, on a pragmatic level, the impact that narratives have on reality” (ibid) whence his surprise as to the low esteem of academic institutions for narrative theory. The researcher thus turns to narratologists, suggesting that they have promoted the instrumentalization of their methods, providing the masses, as Paul Dawson has also noted (2016), with a “toolbox”, that can sometimes be found in the form of manuals. Yet, Raphaël Baroni insists that narratology has to go beyond being used in this way. In fact, understanding its history and its progress, as well as the results of efforts to theorize it, are essential to ensuring it maintains its own momentum.

2However, faced with this hypothesis, Raphaël Baroni (2016: 229) proposes another. Narratology may not “have been institutionalized in a lasting way in the academic landscape”, because academia is so used to creating simple identities that combine an institutional discipline and a research discipline. This thus creates a problem of identification, “We can associate narratology with many different institutional areas […], but it is more difficult to situate narrative theory precisely in a particular place, and consequently more difficult to follow debates and evolutions or to identify related key issues” (ibid.: 230). The Swiss researcher has therefore called for a revaluation of narratology, which he considers to be a “meta-discipline”. He suggests, for example, creating university chairs dedicated to this approach, or giving a significant place to narrative theoreticians in literature departments, or even stimulating research journals and networks. Considering narratology through the place it is given within the institutional system, he risks destabilising his colleagues or at least calling into question a specific concept of what research and its boundaries are.

3Whatever the case of the points raised by Raphaël Baroni may be, it is clear that most of those who have been invited to discuss his point of view consider the issue of narratology as a discipline to be essential. From researchers in literature such as Arnaud Schmitt (University of Bordeaux) or Marc Marti (Nice Sophia Antipolis University), to researchers in literature and cultural studies such as Jan Baetens (University of Leuven), and linguists like Alain Rabatel (Lumière Lyon 2 University) or even information and communication researchers (François Jost, University of the Sorbonne - Paris 3 ; Delphine Saurier and Odile Vallée, Audienca Business School, Nantes), all are looking into the advantage, or the difficulties, that would come from creating a discipline around narratology. By looking at history in its plurality, these contributors have attempted to understand the praxis of narrative studies and the way they intervene in the contemporary field of knowledge and social practices. So, it is not so much about the affiliation of the contributors to their respective disciplines that influences their opinions but rather the way they themselves relate to other disciplines, particularly through the research that they undertake or coordinate. Their retrospective reflections on narratology are also important, as this creates a more complex perspective of the position of Raphaël Baroni, whose concerns they nevertheless share.

What is the relevance of going back to narrative roots?

4For Marc Marti, Arnaud Schmitt and Jan Baetens, Raphaël Baroni's portrait of narrative studies is complete and useful. Nevertheless, while the three researchers share the opinion that this scientific field is in crisis, Schmitt confesses to “never having felt that narratology had experienced its own golden age”. What is more, in line with their own unique scientific experiences, they each have a different perspective on the evolution of narratology. For Marc Marti, who was director of an interdisciplinary research unit and who collaborated with researchers from other disciplines to discuss contemporary narratives (Pélissier, Marti, 2012), creating a discipline around narratology is totally impossible since its academic off-shoots have modified the field's contours and related academic approaches. For Arnaud Schmitt, who is well acquainted with research in the United States, being himself a researcher in American literature, it is only by comparing different approaches to narratology that we can identify its specificities and thus go beyond the existing academic limitations holding it back. While for Jan Baetens, a university academic but also a poet and critic, he insists on the fact that the supposed golden age of structuralism also corresponds to that of a rather clear rejection of narrative. He is in favor of a new effort to analyse the relationships between general narratology and applied narratology, as well as for an innovative revamping of the famous toolbox.

5One point that they all share is that none of them discuss Raphaël Baroni’s use of the word “discipline” to qualify narratology as if this term was already a given. Knowing that a discipline is defined in particular by the institutional framework in which it is placed (Boutier, Passeron, Revel, 2006) and that this framework is lacking for narratology, there is thus a gap. The gap is explained by the, more or less visible, identity blurring or identity reconstruction that this research field has undergone and which the three people mentioned above discuss in their own way.

6Until 2016, Marc Marti was director of the interdisciplinary laboratory for research on narratives, cultures and societies (Lirces), which is an interdisciplinary research unit whose primary focus is narratives. He explains to having seen the way that narratology has developed in ethnology, in psychoanalysis and in history. In a similar way to Raphaël Baroni, with whom he edited the journal “Cahiers de la narratologie. Analyse et théorie narratives” (Baroni, Marti, 2014), he notes the paradoxical situation in which narratology finds itself. Using a Mark Granovetter type expression (1983) on the force of weak links, he states how narratology gets “its scientific strength from its institutional weakness”. Additionally, in France, as in Switzerland where Raphaël Baroni works, the push towards interdisciplinarity has not been widely adopted and most scientific work is still structured around specific disciplines. Marc Marti then discusses Raphaël Baroni’s idea, which states that it would be useful to bring narratology back into literature departments. For him, this return is not an obvious one since narratology’s off-shoots into other disciplines have “led to different, specific narratologies”, that are not necessarily compatible with literature. Additionally, he points out that institutionalization within an existing discipline could present an obstacle to scientific openness.

7Marc Marti then takes a look at the premise of narratology’s literary origins to show their diversity and heterogeneity. “Vladimir Propp 1928) theorized by drawing on folklore tales. Umberto Eco (1966) was interested in his epoch about combinatorial narratives in the popular novels of Ian Fleming while Genette’s theory on time was primarily based on an analysis of Marcel Proust (Genette, 1972)”. Observing the contemporary landscape, he identifies similar diversity (involving plural, inter and trans mediality) as well as the creation of “new” disciplines. This led him to ask whether, ultimately, the future would not be found “in the concept of an interdisciplinary narratology, which is constantly in movement but which we might think of federating through a network approach”.

8For the Nice-based researcher, it is necessary to give up the idea of re-centring narratology on the grounds that its specificity is not due so much to its literary origin as to its branching out into the human and social sciences (HSS). In this field, the narrative is the place where the social and the individual are linked. From a literary starting point, the HSSs are “able to form their own specific narratology, adapted to their needs, which simultaneously makes a contribution to general narratology”. To support this assertion, the author compared narratology as it is envisaged in literary studies with how it is used in psychoanalysis or in ethnology. He then states that “the shift of narrative theories towards the HSSs helped them develop”.

9Finally he discusses narrative forms in scientific discourse, particularly those involving history where “historic narrative has been scrutinized from several perspectives”. This was the case for the Annales school which, in the words of Fernand Braudel (1946: 14), considered that “narrative history is not an objective method or the objective method par excellence”, which is similar to Marc Bloch's position, for whom the narrative mode is an archaic practice. As for Roger Chartier, while sealing off the discursive borders between fiction and historic narrative is not possible, it is, however, possible to achieve the objectives of both. For example, when handling narration in history, Marc Marti explains why he disagrees with his colleague. He shows that analysing the narrative technique came before “the invention of narratology” and did not come from a belief in the primordial importance of narration, which would have led to confusion as to the epistemological foundation. Beyond this, he suggests that those disciplines that use the narrative concept do not promote “a belief in the overwhelming significance of the narrative but merely narration as a way of achieving their objectives”. This led him to conclude: “Avoiding disciplinary institutionalization could […] be more of an advantage than a disadvantage, making it possible not only to keep the combative momentum specific to limes (area of confrontation), but also the wealth of exchange which comes from it, once the barbarians, which we all are since the empire no longer has a centre, are able (or almost) to speak the same language”.

10As for a diagnostic of the situation and the risks faced, the position of Arnaud Schmitt who often looks beyond mainland France, is closer to Raphaël Baroni than he is to Marc Marti. Additionally, to justify why he bases his arguments on three points from Marti’s presentation (historic dimension, changing narratological borders, institutional identity), he says that ignoring them could sound the death knell of this area of research. However, as far as the history of narratology is concerned, Arnaud Schmitt explains how in the United States the situation differs a little from that described by his colleague. While the temporality of this scientific approach might prove relatively similar from one country to another, the references and models are different. For example he explains how structuralism does not have the same importance nor has it undergone the same evolution on the other side of the Atlantic as in France.

11From Arnaud Schmitt’s point of view, there is therefore not one narratology but many. Just as there is not only one method or approach to tackle it. Nevertheless, he states that it is not "geographical" differences in logic which separate the aforementioned approaches, but rather the bipolar logic underlying their development with structuralist or formalist narratology on the one side, and reader-oriented narratology on the other. Behind the effects of this bipolarization, we find traces of a scientific paradigm as defined by Thomas Kuhn (1962), even though Arnaud Schmitt does not quote him. Schmitt explains, “these two poles are not opposed. Rather, on the contrary, they define, based on dialectical logic, what a community of researchers understands by narratology, enabling a diversity of approaches while preserving paradigmatic coherence”.

12As for the borders of narratology, the researcher does not clearly state whether the fact of being given the status of discipline instead of “toolbox” would be a problem or not. According to him, the problem lies more in the risk involved in the 'narrative turning point' that he considers, in a similar way to Jonathan Kramnick (2011), not to be based on a solid scientific foundation. In this inflationist movement,he focuses more on cognitive narratology, a research field about which Marie-Laure Ryan (2015) wrote a very well documented critical article Arnaud Schmitt shares Ryan’s opinion of how, “importing cognitive sciences into literary theory is a kind of ‘interdisciplinary hodgepodge that takes ideas from all over". By distancing himself, the author concludes that it is necessary to differentiate between narratology and narrative theory, which Raphaël Baroni does not do, to appreciate “the irreducible core” of the first that comes from an attentive reading of a text. It is thus a praxis, but one which must orient theory…

13While the examples that Arnaud Schmitt gives differ from those of Raphaël Baroni, he still comes to the same conclusion, namely that it is urgent to institutionalize narratology to try and preserve it. To prove this, the author refers to his own experience, showing that the breakdown into disciplines as adopted in France imposes geographic divisions within scientific fields, with little regard for the theoretical foundations affected.

“I am a researcher in contemporary American literature; the first level specificity being American literature, the second being contemporary American literature. This classification suggests that there is bound to be a stronger link between two American authors, even if one comes from the West Coast and the other from the East Coast, or if there are several decades separating their age, than between a British author and an American author belonging to the same generation and being part of the same literary movement”.

14For this researcher, these concerns are so relevant that the question of narratology is secondary. What is more, defining oneself as a narratologist, in his opinion, is really just a luxury or “anecdotal in the progression of a career in the humanities”. This is why he is concerned about the future of what appears to him to be “a (university) practice […] that seems to be running out of steam”.

15From this perspective, Jan Baetens makes clear his point of view on the solutions proposed by Raphaël Baroni. “After all, I am not first and foremost a narratologist”. Yet, he undoubtedly is a narratologist as well! As for the solutions, there is no doubt that he has some ideas. They come from his premise or his diagnostic of the discipline. On the one hand, and this is the most original proposal, he suggests that “the subject of narratology is less about the narrative in itself than about the narrative in action”. On the other hand he makes a more classic proposal that the new narratology is a tool contributing to an actual business. It is therefore necessary to take a step back to best evaluate these changes. Going back to the 60s and with real international openness, Jan Baetens highlights the significant tension between the tendency to theorize narrative and a warning against narration. The place where this crystallization occurs? The novel. Why? Because the hierarchical order of the genre had been shaken, with the novel replacing poetry. And, because it was a key moment for structuralism which extends significantly beyond the literary field, the latter being a victim of “the age of suspicion”, if we wanted to give a nod to the pre-eminent essay by Nathalie Sarraute (1956). Critics of the novel, the neo-novelists, who used it to simultaneously create theoretical works, were the zealous proponents of formalist narratology that, after having dominated for awhile, seems to have lost steam in the eyes of some.

16Narratology has worn itself out even if, wanting to reinvent itself, it has looked into subjects that are more or less orthodox such as cinema, television series, therapy, video games etc. Its bulimic character, supported by its metamorphosis into the Swiss Army knife or multi-purpose pliers of narrative, has ended up creating a major risk, namely, the emergence of new disciplines that will replace it. The fashion of studies is a perfect example (see Maigret, 2013) in a similar way to the debates around games studies (see Aarseth, 2001; Bonenfant, Genvo, 2014; Genvo, 2018). Yet, is this not the destiny for all disciplines at one point or another as suggested by the philosopher Jean-Paul Resweber (2011)? He analysed the progression from a multidisciplinary approach to a trans-disciplinary approach by way of an interdisciplinary approach. Whence an emphatic recommendation by Jan Baetens, namely, that it is necessary to promote a narrative theory using a critical approach. In other words, this means taking the diversity of narratives seriously and not attempting to reduce their significance, which paradoxically, would only reinforce the obsolescence of an unpromising general theory. This approach involves indispensable changes in practices as a correlate (rethinking “what is going to happen or not in the narratives that we produce”), otherwise there would be, as the researcher-poet-critic summed up in a well-put aphorism, “for slack narrative, slack narratology”.

Is there a crisis in narratology or is it a cultural crisis?

18The perspective and arguments of linguist Alain Rabatel are strikingly different to many of the elements from preceding contributions, even if, like Jan Baetens, the researcher feels it important to point out he is not a narratologist. Basically, he prefers to broaden the evaluation of a contemporary crisis to address it rather as a cultural and political problem. He criticizes the breakdown of left-wing and right-wing political models that have led, among other notable consequences, to “distrust for theoretical intelligence”. Flipping the coin we discover it is a counterfeit. Right from the start, Alain Rabatel poses and continues to insist on a rather provocative question: “The narrative turning point is tangible but has not been well theorized […] yet should it be seen as proof of its explanatory potential or, on the contrary, as a concept so encompassing that its use in the sciences has become fashionable, or even an easy option [?] ”. He replies by pointing out certain “easy options” into which the predominant role of the narrative has fallen. He mentions the concept of 'storytelling' in the political sphere which suffers from a lack of “theoretical concern, rigour and a critical approach ” as well as from the lack of an interdisciplinary approach. Yet, he admits freely that there have been genuine successes. As an example, he highlights works on jihadist attacks written by political scientist Gilles Kepel (2016). These works pertinently used the concept, which can often be criticized, of the great narrative that is one of the incarnations of storytelling. Alain Rabatel shows the advantages of integrating explanations of narrative plots by incorporating them within different temporalities and by relating language and action.

19For the linguist, the situation described by Raphaël Baroni does not only affect the discipline of French language and literature (according to the nomenclature currently used by the French National Board of Universities, the CNU) and naratologists are not the only ones to face this crisis. “In reality, this might be said of most paradigms that have, at a given time, played a major role and which we might think should be represented in departments of language and literature”. By way of an example, he mentions genetic criticism, hermeneutics and the sociology of literature, which, without having disappeared, are no longer very visible in university programs.

20Following on from this, Alain Rabatel comes to some further conclusions in line with his own research. Several times, he explains how it led Raphaël Baroni to wonder why the linguist did not claim to be a follower of this paradigm. During these “Exchanges” Rabatel had the opportunity to explain himself clearly and firmly by starting each of his ideas with personal expressions such as “I regret…”; “I refuse…”; “I disagree…”; “I criticize…”. He went back over one specific regret of Raphaël Baroni (2016: 228) who, citing his own name among those of other researchers, questioned why these authors who have“stimulated development of theoretical frameworks for narratology do not claim to be narratologists”. Alain Rabatel's reply is decisive. “For my part, I would happily inverse the roles, regretting that these works are not perceived by narratologists (with some exceptions) as being crucial for enriching narratological theoretic frameworks. I feel that the failure to recognize these connections is one additional reason for not acknowledging such a paradigm”. But Alain Rabatel does not stop there. He goes over his scientific career in one section entitled “a pragmatic-enunciative transliguistic framework”. Here he shows the evolution of themes on which he has conducted research and details the issues that came up all the while showing the central position that they have in his point of view (PDV). At the end of this presentation, he writes: “To put it in other words, I would happily say that I am not a narratologist but that I consider my works of interest for narratology (in particular)”.

21Determining whether or not narratology should fall under literature departments is not therefore the problem of this researcher for whom the crisis in certain research fields is greater and more serious than that which affects one particular sector. In a critical way and in retracing his own academic career, he identifies the points at which research can stimulate neighboring disciplines. A way of proving that redefining disciplines is not necessarily the right response to the problems faced.

Can narratology fit into the field of information and communication sciences?

22By taking the French title of the Michel Houellebecq 1994 novel Whatever, we might say that François Jost roots his analysis in the idea of an “Extension of the domain of struggle”: “Narrative is everywhere and it is in its empire and under its domination that we live”. As a symptom of the extensive reach of narrative there is the success of the book by Christian Salmon, Storytelling. Bewitching the modern mind (2007). Nevertheless, this essay, which denounces the apparent problems caused by narrative in public life, neglects the numerous works conducted in the just as numerous areas of narratology. All the more reason to review what some believe to be a veritable discipline. Even if there is a lack of institutional recognition from researchers’ Alma Mater. Even if it means paying an intellectual debt. Even if it means contesting, epistemologically, the hold of certain areas of the discipline over others.

23To put it bluntly, literary studies hold, or more precisely held sway over the academic landscape at the end of the 60s and 70s. Under the sway of structuralist trends! Roland Barthes and Gérard Genette, like some others, were both the shining standard bearers as much as protesters against positivist, stunted approaches to texts. Yet, without throwing the baby out with the bath water, François Jost sets the record straight. He does so all the more freely and confidently in that, as a young researcher, he shared the same scientific expectations of his peers at the time. In reality, it was his every-growing interest for audio-visual production (cinema and television) which led to a progressive questioning of the dogma attached to fictional material, including haplè diègèsis or simple narration. This is an opportunity to show how, even when researchers share the same disagreement on a doxa, such as the absence of a narrator in a film, they propose different solutions. Additional proof, if one was needed, that the discipline is not one in its own right. Furthermore, in a similar way to a proposal by Pierre Bourdieu, who significantly distanced himself from this type of scientific field, François Jost felt that it is a field of strength and a field of struggle. The conclusion is that while narratologists working on audio-visual productions may use resources from their colleagues working in the literary field, there is actually no reciprocity. And, if a set of powerful restrictions are integrated, these same audio-visual narratologists may have difficulty in breaking away from the initial mould.

24This is where a third possibility emerges, one that François Jost calls for, which is to say nothing less than “comparative” narratology. This is not the one that Marc Marti looked for with comparisons between geographically rooted traditions. Nor is it one that aims to compare literature and cinema, an idea which has had its short heyday and whose limits are well known. Rather, it is one that aims “to make heuristic back-and-forths”. Therefore, this comparative narratology is not just “a one way trip” or something to enrich the “tool box” for those analysts lacking inspiration or one that boils down to a heritage of structuralism! Here is a significant point of agreement with Raphaël Baroni or Jan Baetens, even if it is just that Jost’s position is qualified with precautions and recommendations for the greater good. Yet, does it actually lead to a change of paradigm?

25Rather shrewdly, François Jost insists on the weight of the subjects being studied to produce the theory. The reader is here encouraged to imagine what the work of Genette would have been if its author had not spent so much time with Marcel Proust… And what might one say about the impact of the New Novel scrutinized by participants during the memorable symposiums at Cerisy-la-Salle? While the former may still have a lot of readers and readers for the later may prove rarer, it is still relevant to say that structural aspects remain meaningful. All you have to do is think about the “formatted” construction methods, even on a semantic level, of certain television series that play, in particular, with temporality. The same is true for certain ways of consuming TV series, for example speed watching, which comes from a desire to discover how the plot is resolved. That said, other series require new ways of thinking in order to understand them. Why? An episode can be focused on one character or, on the contrary, the narrative can be split. It is at this stage that inventiveness is obviously important. Tackling the paradox, the researcher calls for a “non-narrative narratology”, which would highlight the “echos, reflections, rhymes” between episodes. Viewers enjoy the televised narrative, just as they do a text (Plaisir du texte - Barthes, 1973). And for the analyst, the need to adopt a “pragmatic” narratologist stance is also required when the topic being studied is the transmedia type. This is an interest shared not only by Raphaël Baroni, but also by Marc Marti and Jan Baetens.

27In its own way, the recognised audio-visual media specialist in the information and communication sciences poses a highly relevant question. If the title of the aforementioned academic department is plural, namely the sciences, is it not useful to know what scientific disciplines it includes? Narratology? But also semiotics? Or even sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, etc. Unlike the first two, these final categories are also complemented by “information and/or communication”. Similarly, it is clear that the institutionalization of these disciplines or sub-disciplines is at stake, depending on the case (Boure, 2006, 2007, 2008 ; Fleury, Walter, 2007). Yet it is also important to consider the conditions needed for interdisciplinary work to be effective and productive through “focalizing” efforts (Charaudeau, 2010, 2012 ; Fleury, Walter, 2010, 2011). Which is to say that there is always a disciplinary or conceptual backbone in the approach and not just a simple juxtaposition of theories or methods.

28In their own way, this is what Delphine Saurier and Odile Vallée, teachers and researchers in information and communication sciences, call for. Is it a question of generations? Perhaps. Is it about refusing the institutionalization of narratology and taking “short cuts”? Definitely. Clearly, they do not feel like narratologists, but rather like members of the family of “simple users” mentioned by Raphaël Baroni, or even of that of the do-it-yourselfers taking whatever they need from the “toolbox”. Is this a self-deprecating assertion? Certainly not. With Claude Lévi-Strauss, particularly since The Savage Mind (1962), this kind of DIY approach has gained recognition in the HSS.

29It is thus somewhere between a DIY approach and iconoclasm and quite frankly in any case, that Delphine Saurier and Odile Vallée, have been inspired like Raphaël Baroni, by certain proposals about the dynamic link between “institutional discipline”, “research discipline” and “discipline field” (see for example Maingueneau, 2010). They do not hesitate to state that the definitions of narrative, of narration and other associated terms are not obvious. If it were possible to stabilize the definitions and propose them for manuals in higher education (see, collection “128”, Analysis of narrative by Yves Reuter, 2005), it would no doubt lead to the subject running dry for anthropologists, historians and communication academics. Whence the attention of both authors to “contextually situated practices”, including their own. Thus, there is also a more marked commitment to the idea of a research discipline option, supported by evocative views on the failure to institutionalize criminology in France (in the proposed explanations, it is important not to neglect the fact that the personality, the social position and politics of its promoter, Alain Bauer, had a non-negligible effect).

Conclusion

31In conclusion it is vital to refer again to an important author, Tzvetan Todorov, who died recently, and his seminal work Grammar of the Decameron (1969). The extract cited by Raphaël Baroni (2016: 231) contains a good portion of all the ingredients from each contributor to the current “Exchanges” used in his presentation

“Narration is a phenomenon that we encounter not only in literature but also in other fields that for the moment belong each to a different discipline (such as popular tales, myths, films, dreams, etc.). Our work here will be to finalize a narration theory, so that it can be applied to each of these fields. Instead of literary studies, this work belongs to a science that does not exist yet, let us call it narratology, the science of narration. The results of this science will still be of interest for understanding literature since the narrative is often the key part”.

32Yes, the inventor of the word narratology has left a legacy. In line with a legal maxim already widespread at the moment of the writing of the Decameron by Boccaccio, to a certain extent, “the dead seize the living” (Krynen, 1984).

34The reader can easily imagine how the process will involve debates on theory and method and comparisons between them. This is all the more necessary since the tenured researchers in the unit are distributed (to varying degrees it is true) across several departments of the CNU and each of these departments has different scientific traditions. Finally, as shown in the contributions to the “Exchanges”, it is a question of territory, and thus of borders, considering that this can work as an heuristic metaphor or an heuristic concept (Walter, 1997). Similarly, continuing on from the teachings of Paul Geouffre de La Pradelle (1927), we conclude on the distinction between the area of confrontation (limes) and the border area (finis). De facto, a border, even when referring to a particular discipline or to the border between disciplines, cannot avoid having a dual function of separating and bringing together. Narratology without borders? A pipe dream. Narratology closed within its borders? A programmed death. Narratology with border passages? Assured rebirth.