As humans we are bathed in narrative, which statement means to regard narrative as a kind of solution or better as a soup in which we are all afloat. Like a culture medium we absorb parts to make our own vehicle, and we also emit parts for others to use. All kinds of things drift and swirl around in this broth, more or less digestible, more or less already digested, consisting mostly of articulated fragments. We are nourished by it, feel at home in it, are glad to enrich it when we can, but there are also suspect regions which we enter at our peril, rancid or gamey or toxic. There is however a general flavour and texture to the whole thing and this is what changes or evolves with the times. It is doubtful that we spend a larger proportion of our lives today than in the past attending to stories of other lives, but it does seem as if the variety of those available to us is greater. This is a quantitative change which brings with it a qualitative change, evident but hard to describe. Saturation of narrativity does not contribute to psychology in the sense of giving us more understanding of ourselves and others, but it does contribute to interpretation, to the many different ways we can interpret the behaviours of others and ourselves, an enrichment that may well lead away from understanding. We would be better to study narrative theory to gain insight into the constraints on our moral intuition. What makes a character? There is a certain minimum of elements and if these are not found they must be filled in from our imagination, a shockingly easy task. And what is the status of complexity? Is a simple narrative, mythological in character, a lazy reduction, of a truer complex one, or is every complex narrative a mask and a diversion from the simple one that it harbours? Is truth in the reduction or in the complexification?