Much of the reputation of semiotics in its early years rested upon the major gains of Greimassian narrative theory and its methodical approach to both artefacts and the revolutionizing disregard for the division of high and low culture. Indeed, semiotics arguably became synonymous with the narrative method for a number of years. Similarly, the shortcomings of this narrative theory were criticized as a proxy for semiotics by, inter alia, Paul Ricoeur (in the three volumes of Time and Narrative, 1984-86). Taking note of this, the present paper will lay out the parallel trajectory by which specialists in narrative have posited a ‘narratology’ (Greimassian) and a ‘post-classical narratology’ (putatively superseding Greimas and partly focused on narrative cognition). However, the new knowledge in this paper will consist of reconfiguring the relations between ‘narratology’ and ‘post-classical narratology’ - the latter, itself, avowing some continuity with the original narratology - by considering the marginal practice of ‘Peircean narrative theory’ (Lee and Cobley 2020). Of particular concern will be the original narratology’s engagement with affective states, disregarded in assessments of its assumed synchronic bearing. The paper will show that, as is customary with triadic juxtapositions, the third component not only contains the other components, nested within it, but also recapitulates the first.