Abstract: Mimetic storytelling, including drama, has historically been excluded from the category of narrative in mainstream Western theories. A brief analysis of the history and reasons for this exclusion reveals that the narrator, the narrator's language and literal expressiveness have long served as the foundational criteria for Western theorists in evaluating narration. Behind this criterion lies a limitation in the conceptualization of narrative, as it confines itself primarily to language, specifically logocentrism. Logocentrism can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle's distinction between drama (mimesis) and diegesis. The necessity of selecting literal text as the medium to discuss this distinction was, however, at odds with the conceptualization of storytelling in their time. In other words, there were no restrictions on storytelling concerning the medium of expression, and the concepts of story and narrative were largely synonymous. Both fiction and drama are narrative forms employing symbols to convey narrative information. In early human history, stories were predominantly conveyed through oral narration, ritual performances, and other such forms. Furthermore, a deeper analysis uncovers an underlying rationale for the limitation of narrative to textual or oral forms. This rationale is rooted in the oversimplified dualism of art and life, which aligns with the “theory of imitation.”

Key words: evaluation of narrative, linguocentrism and logocentrism, story, dualism of art and life