This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz, Series Editors
Approaches and Analyses
Jan Alb er a n d Mon i k a Flud e rni k
T h e O h i o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e ss
C o l u m b us
Copyright © 2010 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Postclassical narratology : approaches and analyses / edited by Jan Alber and Monika Fludernik. p. cm. — (Theory and interpretation of narrative) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8142-5175-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8142-5175-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-0-8142-1142-7 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8142-1142-9 (cloth : alk. paper) [etc.] 1. Narration (Rhetoric) I. Alber, Jan, 1973– II. Fludernik, Monika. III. Series: Theory and interpretation of narrative series. PN212.P67 2010 808—dc22 2010009305 This book is available in the following editions: Cloth (ISBN 978-0-8142-1142-7) Paper (ISBN 978-0-8142-5175-1) CD-ROM (ISBN 978-0-8142-9241-9) Cover design by Laurence J. Nozik Type set in Adobe Sabon Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1992. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Mediation. Media. and the Mind David Herman 137 . Voice: A Rhetorical Reconsideration Richard Walsh 35 2 Mise en Cadre—A Neglected Counterpart to Mise en Abyme: A Frame-Theoretical and Intermedial Complement to Classical Narratology Werner Wolf 58 3 Large Intermental Units in Middlemarch Alan Palmer 83 4 Mediacy.Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Jan Alber and Monika Fludernik vii 1 Part I. Level. Transdisciplinarities 5 Directions in Cognitive Narratology: Triangulating Stories. and Focalization: The Squaring of Terminological Circles Monika Fludernik 105 Part II. Extensions and Reconfigurations of Classical Narratology 1 Person.
vi Contents 6 Hypothetical Intentionalism: Cinematic Narration Reconsidered Jan Alber 163 7 Sapphic Dialogics: Historical Narratology and the Sexuality of Form Susan S. Lanser 186 8 Narrators. and Mimetic Desire Amit Marcus 206 9 Narratology and the Social Sciences Jarmila Mildorf 234 10 Postclassical Narratology and the Theory of Autobiography Martin Löschnigg 255 11 Natural Authors. Unnatural Narration Henrik Skov Nielsen 275 Contributors Author Index Subject Index 303 307 315 . Narratees.
Our gratitude extends also to Jim Phelan. we would like to thank Ramona Früh. Luise Lohmann. but any remaining infelicities are of course our own responsibility. Peter Rabinowitz. and Rebecca Reichl. We have tried to incorporate their insights into the final version of the volume.Acknowledgments This book has benefited greatly from the advice and support by a number of people. Carolin Krauße. we would like to thank Sandy Crooms from The Ohio State University Press for guiding this volume so expertly to its finishing line. Moritz Gansen. and the anonymous external reader for their hard work on the manuscript as well as their extensive and perceptive comments on it. First of all. Lanser’s contribution appeared as “Novel (Lesbian) Subjects: The Sexual History of Form.” in Novel: A Forum on Fiction 42. An earlier version of Susan S. Finally. vii .3 (2009): 497–503. Theresa Hamilton. for editorial assistance and help with the proofreading.
Further. and Stories: Elements of a Postclassical Narratology” (1997). (1999a: 2–3) As Herman here indicates. in which he introduced the term postclassical narratology1 and defined it as follows: Postclassical narratology (which should not be conflated with poststructuralist theories of narrative) contains classical narratology as one of its “moments” but is marked by a profusion of new methodologies and research hypotheses: the result is a host of new perspectives on the forms and functions of narrative itself. postclassical physics does not simply discard classical Newtonian models. in its postclassical phase. Sequences. openly alludes to David Herman’s seminal bimillennial volume Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis (1999b). 1 . Introduction Jan Alber and Monika Fludern ik The title of this collection of recent narratological work. What is subsumed under classical narratology primarily embraces the work of the French structural 1. research on narrative does not just expose the limits but also exploits the possibilities of the older. David Herman originally coined the term “postclassical narratology” in an essay called “Scripts. Postclassical Narratology: Approaches and Analyses. structuralist models. but rather rethinks their conceptual underpinnings and reassesses their scope of applicability. recent postclassical narratology has to be contrasted with what he calls classical narratology. In much the same way.
Herman uses the term narratology “quite broadly. 3. 1988. Such work is exemplified by the essays in the first section of the volume. if ever so slightly and imperceptibly. Other influential spokespersons at first seen to fit the same groove were Meir Sternberg (1978). it is therefore useful to contrast it with its postclassical progeny. thematic. Claude Bremond. Thomas Pavel (1986). These reorientations reflect the impact of literary theory on academia in the 1980s and 1990s. in a way that makes it more or less interchangeable with narrative studies” (1999a: 27. original emphasis). and Susan Lanser (1981). Herman. refers back to Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan’s classic study Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (1983) (Herman 1999a: 1). Lanser began to incorporate questions of gender and ideology (see her debate with Diengott—Lanser 1986. but also the German tradition in narrative theory (Eberhard Lämmert and Franz Karl Stanzel).3 In order to understand how Herman conceives of the originary quality of classical narratology. in turn.2 Introduction ists (Roland Barthes. Greimas. la science du récit” (1969: 10). one could argue that these representatives of classical narratology already started to drift away from the structuralist model. 1987)—most clearly shaped the image of what narratology is for a wide readership of students and academics.2 Yet. where he writes: “Cet ouvrage relève d’une science qui n’existe pas encore. For a critique of this broad usage see Nünning (2003: 257–62) and Meister’s more radical suggestions concerning a narratological fundamentalism (2003). Sternberg went beyond mere chronology to focus on the dynamics of narrative design. J. which—together with Seymour Chatman’s Story and Discourse (1978) and Gerald Prince’s work (e. postclassical narratology proposes extensions of the classical model that open the fairly focused and restricted realm of narratology to methodological. The term narratology was coined by Todorov in Grammaire du Décameron (1969). 1982. In fact. Moreover..” which provides an outlook for “narrative analysis at the threshold of the millennium” (27). and Gérard Genette). it is more or less synonymous with the phrase “narrative analysis” in his subtitle and in the final sentence of the “Introduction. Where Rimmon-Kenan felt she had to cling to the “geometric imaginary” of narratology (Gibson 1996) in order to ward off deconstruction (Herman 1999a: 1). Diengott 1988). n1. A. As Herman sketches the distinction in the passage cited above. Herman in this second area notes three major lines of 2.g. and Seymour Chatman started to analyze film narrative. postclassical narratology introduces elaborations of classical narratology that both consolidate and diversify the basic theoretical core of narratology. Tzvetan Todorov. Thomas Pavel founded possible-worlds theory. . All of these scholars have groundings in Russian Formalism and linguistics-based narrative semiotics. and contextual influences from outside. disons la NARRATOLOGIE.
For extensive surveys see Fludernik (2000). The third orientation integrates thematic and therefore variable emphases into the classical model. 1991). others attempt to instantiate a more or less radical break with the tradition by transcending the assumptions and categorical axioms of the classical paradigm. ethnic or minority-related. Nünning (2000). i. extend narratological analysis to literature outside the novel. narratological speech act theory (Pratt 1977). whose core had consisted of invariable. psychoanalytic approaches to narrative (Brooks 1984. 5. for instance. Currie 1998).Introduction 3 development which reflect sections two to four of the collection: the rise of “new technologies and emergent methodologies”. sps. See also. the performative arts as well as non-literary narratives. secondly.”) With some historical hindsight one could now perhaps regroup these developments slightly differently and focus on four types of interactions.” (Compare the table of contents and 1999a: 14–26 in the “Introduction. the narrative turn (Kreiswirth 2005. the ESRC seminar “The Narrative Turn: Revisioning Theory” at the Centre for Narrative and Auto/Biographical Studies at the University of Edinburgh (2007–2008). Contextual versions of postclassical narratology. from autobiography and history to psychology. Examples are feminist.htm. It includes work that extends the classical paradigm intradisciplinarily by focusing on theoretical blind spots. and postcolonial approaches to narrative (see Nünning’s diagram listing the many new versions of narratology [2003: 249–51]).ed.uk/NABS/AbstractsSem1. Narratology now includes a consideration of various media (films. absorb theoretical and/or methodological insights and import them. for current relevance. banking or even sports (Nash 1990). Put differently. etc. or deconstructive narratology (O’Neill 1994. cartoons. the move “beyond literary narrative”. universal. constituting the fourth trend. and the extension of narratology into new media and “narrative logics. producing. The first category is roughly equivalent to Herman’s revisions of classical problems. it is because narrative theory can now service 4. Methodological extensions of the classical model. Chambers 1984.. and Phelan/Rabinowitz (2005). The motives for such a reconceptualization of the theoretical models and even the discipline of narratology often relate to the consequences of the narrative turn. gaps. queer. the natural sciences. Ryan (2004). or indeterminacies within the standard paradigm. Conversely. .). while some scholars continue to work within the classical paradigm by adding analytical categories to the original base of structuralist concepts. www. Gibson 1996. Nünning/Nünning (2002).e.5 Thus. categories. Phelan 2008b)4 in the (social) sciences and humanities has resulted in an awareness of the centrality of narrative in many areas of culture.
the queer.. and which are therefore not ideally suited to their new contexts of application. focuses on narrative analyses that move beyond the classical framework by extending their focus to a variety of medial and thematic contexts. . the autobiographical mode and psychoanalysis with issues of gender and sexual orientation. The first part of this book deals with extensions of classical narratology that take the achievements of structuralism as a starting point for close scrutiny and then suggest revisions of the traditional paradigm. autobiography). this collection presents new perspectives on the question of what narratives are and of how they function in their different media. . . We also wish to suggest that. or the rhetorical approach with the unnatural. from the visual realm to the generic (e. More generally. [ . Here the emphasis is on adding new distinctions. This [ . For instance. redesigning the conceptual underpinnings of structuralist approaches.g. formal concerns with sociological analysis.g.. . David Herman’s volume Narratologies could be argued to represent the first adult phase in a Bildungsroman-like story of narratology. In this reading. and the non-literary (e. The second part. ] Out of the diversity of approaches and their exogamous unions with critical theory have now emerged several budding narratologies which beto- . Some contributions also arrive at radical revisions of the classical model because the intermedial or thematic applications they have in hand require such trimming or redesigning. they link ethnic concerns with those of gender. In this way new light tends to be shed on hitherto unquestioned axioms which had been developed in relation to literary narrative. most often the novel. The essays in this volume moreover address potential overlaps between the various postclassical approaches. as the first decade of the third millennium draws to a close. ] adolescence of narratology was followed by a reorientation and diversification of narrative theories. we are now perhaps beginning to see a second phase of postclassical narratology.4 Introduction many different sciences (or serve quite diverse masters) that an adaptation of its theoretical bases becomes necessary. questioning unacknowledged presuppositions. visual narration with reader response. producing a series of subdisciplines that arose in reaction to post-structuralism and the paradigm shift to cultural studies. The present volume abides by Herman’s dual focus on what one could call a critical but frame-abiding and a more radical frame-transcending or frameshattering handling of the classical paradigm. Shklovsky and the Russian Formalists figure as narratology’s infancy and the structuralist models of the 1960s and 1970s as its adolescence. and on radically revising the standard concepts and typologies. medical interviews). on the other hand.
Introduction 5 ken that the discipline is in the process of a major revival. Interdisciplinarities. In what follows. In postclassical narratology’s second phase. [ . postclassical narratology prefers to consider the circumstances that make every act of reading different. . postclassical narratology will moreover subject its structuralist core to severe critical scrutiny. No one overarching model is envisaged here. or redesigning the foundations of the discipline. ] From cognition to ethics to ideology: all aspects related to reading assume pride of place in the research on narrative” (2005: 450). one now has to address the question of how these various narratologies overlap and interrelate (see also Herman/Biwu. it will now have to determine how these thematic and contextual inflections of narratology can be linked to the structuralist core in methodologically sound ways. will now have to align with one another the numerous centrifugal models that arose in the first phase of postclassicism. Narratology. Ansgar Nünning has captured the extent and variety of new approaches in a useful diagram (2003: 243–44) that provides a visual map for what he considers to be the most important distinctions between classical and post- . modifying. Newer developments also focus on the no doubt fuzzy boundary line between a general literary study of narratives and more specifically narratological analysis of the same texts. (Fludernik 2005: 37) Herman’s narratologies would therefore correspond to a phase of diversification. but in our opinion considerable consolidation despite continuing diversity is called for at this moment. Postclassical NarratologY: PHase One Multiplicities. revising. we will first discuss the diversity of current narratological research and then turn to developments that suggest a more centripetal tendency in the process of establishment. By taking phase-one developments seriously. lopping. to continue our metaphor. which is one of both consolidation and continued diversification. in settling down. the differences between the classical structuralist paradigm and the new postclassical research program can be characterized as follows: “Whereas structuralism was intent on coming up with a general theory of narrative. . This is not a call for a prescriptive unity of methods and models but an attempt to align the many disparate ways of doing postclassical narratology (phase one) and to check out their moments of overlap as well as the extent of their incompatibilities. Transmedialities As Luc Herman and Bart Vervaeck put it. 2009).
non-taxonomic postclassical narratologies actually involves the dualism of a before and after and therefore relies on a structural binarism of the very kind that it is trying to transcend. particularism (which is equivalent to contextualism). postclassical consists in the contrasts of (12) universalism vs. 7.6 Introduction classical narratologies. states. . As a consequence. Generally speaking. pragmatic and reader-oriented effort. Such integration and synthesis allows researchers to recontextualize the classical paradigm and to enrich narrative theory with ideas developed after its structuralist phase. and transformed to yield specific narrative texts” (D. postclassical narratologies along the lines sketched by Nünning seem to move toward a grand contextual. “an interdisciplinary project consisting of heterogeneous approaches” (all 243–4).6 He contrasts (1) classical text-centeredness with postclassical context orientation and (2) the treatment of narrative as a langue with the pragmatic focus on the parole of individual (use of) narratives in postclassical approaches. Thus.) are combined. Herman 2005: 19–20). etc. and (13) the opposition between a relatively unified discipline vs.” Nünning also sees the rise of diachronic or historical narratology as a postclassical phenomenon (11). Nünning also (3) sees classical narratology as a closed system and postclassical narratologies as emphasizing the dynamics of narration. Nünning’s rhetorical strategy of establishing open. analogously causing (10) a shift from descriptive to interpretative and evaluative paradigms. Paradoxically. 6. permuted. His summary in the diagram of the dichotomy classical vs. then. the chief concern of structuralist narratologists was “with transtextual semiotic principles according to which basic structural units (characters. He moreover (4) subsumes the shift from the functional analysis of features to a readeroriented focus on strategies and applications in the dichotomy and (5) contrasts classical bottom-up analysis with postclassical top-down inferencing. pragmatics dichotomy. postclassical narratologies are part of a large transdisciplinary project that consists of various heterogeneous approaches (see also Herman 2007). historical. To put this slightly differently. events. (9) classical narratology’s aim to provide a “poetics of fiction” (in alignment with the semiological thrust of narratology) is superseded by “putting the analytical toolbox to interpretative use. (8) where classical narratology remained shy of moral grounding. While classical narratology was a relatively unified discipline or field. Nünning’s table next opposes (6) “(reductive) binarism” with a “preference for holistic cultural interpretation” and (7) structuralist taxonomy with thematically and ideologically directed analysis. postclassical narratologies open themselves to moral issues.7 As in the syntax vs. The numbering in what follows corresponds to Nünning’s order in the diagram.
Under the heading of “the engaging narrator. Roof pleads for a “constitution of narrative that includes both heterosexuality and homosexuality as categories necessary to its dynamic” (xxvii). and characters into consideration. 1999. and text” (Lanser 1992: 5).. Kathy Mezei (1996) and Ruth Page (2003).” Robyn Warhol has postulated the existence of different types of narratorial discourse in texts by nineteenth-century male and female authors (1989). Feminst narratologists such as Robyn Warhol or Susan Lanser have highlighted the fact that narratives are always determined “by complex and changing conventions that are themselves produced in and by the relations of power that implicate writer. For example. this volume) have extended feminist narratology into queer studies. It is also worth noting that Judith Roof (1996) and Lanser (1995. adding a consideration of popular literature to this field of inquiry (2003). Queer narratology should disclose the traces of heterosexuality in narratives. 1988) and Ruth Page (2006) have proposed that one take the gender of authors. reader.g. The question of a narrator’s properties needs to incorporate their sex and gender.” At the same time. Thus. several climaxes or no climax at all).Introduction 7 Feminist narratology can serve as a good example of the types of strategies and extensions of the classical model that are being practiced in postclassical narratologies. their external appearances. some feminist narratologists like Susan Lanser (1986. and actions often yield information on the basis of implied genderization by means of dress codes. Feminist narratologists moreover supplement classical theories about actants by sociocultural roles. behavioral patterns. narrative analysis should uncover “the preservation of literal and metaphorical heterosexuality as (re) productive (and hence valuable). authorial audiences. on the other hand. This raises the following narratological problem: In what way do feminist and queer approaches go beyond the thematic highlighting of male (patriarchal and heteronormative) dominance in literature and beyond an analysis of counterhegemonic and subversive discourse in general? One way of answering this question is to . in Come As You Are. narratees. Such a deployment of narratological models places narratives in their historical and cultural contexts. Judith Roof looks at the reciprocal relation between narrative and sexuality. thus initiating a rewriting of classical models. pointing out “the production of sexual categories whose existence and constitution depend upon a specific reproductive narrative heteroideology” (1996: xxvii). one climax vs. highlighting the central significance of gender stereotypes. Much feminist narratology studies elements of story and/or discourse against the foil of gender differences. As a consequence. actual readers. narrators. look at “male” and “female” plot structures (e. and cultural presuppositions. the explicit naming of narrator figures.
reflecting the anti-individual conception of traditional cultures. ethnicity. An interesting issue in this context is the question of how narrative practices are shaped by the capacities of the medium in which the story is presented. gender. . or sexual orientation. Analogously. has suggested that we-narration occurs strategically in postcolonial fiction. Such a technique of “double-voicing” can be fruitfully compared with Henry Louis Gates’s category of “signifying” (Gates 1988) and of course with Mikhail Bakhtin’s characterizations of heteroglossia (Bakhtin 1981). sexist. which only later emerges as homosexual (cp. other narratologists have tried to argue that the categories of narratology need to be modified or extended in order to accommodate the concerns of race. Hale proposed that narratology could not adequately deal with postcolonial writing since its categories were imbued with colonial logocentrism (Hale 2008). Another important feature of postclassical narratologies already noted in Herman (1999a) is their emphasis on new media. Aldama 2003). or racist literature often uses narrative devices and strategies that through their use in these ideologically loaded texts may seem to acquire phallogocentric and discriminatory overtones. power. we do agree that colonial.” Dorothy M. Fludernik 1994b: 471). Thus. 2007b). 2006. Yet postcolonial.8 Introduction describe feminist/queer (or postcolonial) strategies by resorting to narratological categories. the use of second-person fiction in Edmund White’s Nocturnes for the King of Naples (1978) allows the author to inveigle the heteronormative reader into sympathizing with a love relationship. Doyle 1994. Though we do not share this viewpoint. postcolonial narratologists centrally address the question of how the narrative text is imbued with colonial or neocolonial discourse that correlates with the oppression of native populations and how the discourse simultaneously manages to undermine this very ideology (Pratt 1992. In a recent MLA panel on “Race and Narrative Theory. often they are neutral modes of focusing attention that only acquire normative or critical meanings in their various contexts of use. queer or antihegemonic narratives may be using the same writing strategies for quite subversive ends. In their attempts to determine the different lan 8. Spurr 1993. Narrative devices by themselves do not carry any ideological freight. While traditional narratologists such as Stanzel and Genette primarily focused on the eighteenth-century to early twentieth-century novel. For work in the area of cultural narratology see also Nünning (1997 and 2000). Brian Richardson (2001a.8 While these two examples focused on the use of a prominent experimental form of narrative for the purposes of conveying non-normative or counterhegemonic messages. transmedial approaches seek to rebuild narratology so that it can handle new genres and storytelling practices across a wide spectrum of media. for instance.
video clips. Rhetorical theorists such as Wayne C. narrative representations in medical or legal contexts. much attention has recently been paid to the analysis of drama (Richardson 1987. narrative poems. 2003). The concept of a dramatic narrator as the instance that tells the story of the play similarly echoes discussions about the existence of a “cinematic narrator” in film. news stories. For instance. Manfred Jahn argues that “all narrative genres are structurally mediated by a firstdegree narrative agency which. poetry. and Werner Wolf have studied the potential narrativity of hyperfictions (Ryan 1999. Besides the theoretical and medial extensions just outlined. cartoons. advertisements. conversational storytelling. ballets. They also focus on possible narratives in paintings. and even musical pieces (Wolf 1999. For a detailed discussion of the concept of the cinematic narrator see Jan Alber’s essay in this volume. and Peter Rabinowitz are particularly interested in the contexts of narra 9. 2003. in progress). 11. while Martin Löschnigg looks at autobiographies from the perspective of cognitive narratology. and conversational storytelling (see also Nünning and Nünning 2002). both resort to the narrator category from novels or short stories (Chatman 1990: 127). 2001b. statues. Nünning/Sommer 2008) as a narrative genre. and focalization” (2001: 674). Transgeneric extensions of narratology (see especially Ryan 2008). in a performance. Thus. Analogously. hyperfictions. Rhetorical narratology moreover integrates findings from readerresponse theory. James Phelan. Ryan 2004).9 For instance. historiography. may either take the totally unmetaphorical shape of a vocally and bodily present narrator figure (a scenario that is unavailable in written epic narrative).Introduction 9 guages of storytelling. Work on drama as narrative has highlighted the numerous narrator figures in plays (Richardson 1988. . Nünning/Sommer 2008). Kozloff 1988. arrangement. in addition to the analysis of drama and poetry (Müller-Zettelmann 2002. the question of whether it makes sense to posit a dramatic narrator (Jahn 2001)10 or whether one will need to introduce a level of performance into narratology (Fludernik 2008) has been raised. or be a disembodied ‘voice’ in a printed text. 10. Jarmila Mildorf’s essay in this collection addresses the potential usefulness of narratology in the social sciences.11 Other transmediality narratologists such as Marie-Laure Ryan. Helbig 2001. Fludernik 2008. 2001. rhetoric served as a mastertrope for their textual analyses. or remain an anonymous and impersonal narrative function in charge of selection. films. historiography. documentaries. some forms of postclassical narratology ground themselves in a rhetorical framework. target autobiography. and so forth. film studies have underlined narrator-like elements in film such as voice-over narration (Bordwell 1985. Jörg Helbig. 2007a. 2001b. Branigan 1992). 2002. legal narrative. 1988. For both Genette and Booth. proponents of transmedial narratology look at plays. Booth. paintings.
According to Phelan. 12. rhetorical theorists argue that narrative texts permanently invite us to make ethical judgments—about characters. More specifically. More specifically. Furthermore..10 Introduction tive production and reception.e. Phelan thus discriminates between four ethical positions. to know where the author wants him to stand” (1983: 73). The fourth ethical position relates to (4) the flesh-and-blood audience’s responses to the first three positions (Phelan 2005. the second and third concern the ethics of the telling. The first involves (1) the ethics of the told (character-character relations). 2007a: 11). ‘impersonal’ and ‘authorial’ narrators). he suggests eradicating extra. the task of narrating. he stands. Richard Walsh reintroduces the actual author. James Phelan defines the implied author as “a streamlined version of the real author. In short. are in no way distinguishable from authors. In The Rhetoric of Fictionality. Phelan 1996: 135–53). For discussions of the implied author see Kindt and Müller (2006) and the contributions by Jan Alber and Henrik Skov Nielsen in this collection. becoming able to remake it. and (3) the implied author’s relation to these things. but also between the implied author and the authorial audience (or implied reader). introduced the term implied author as a heuristic tool. . finally. they see narrative as an act of communication between the real author and the flesh-and-blood reader. Booth. who cannot be represented without thereby being rendered homodiegetic or intradiegetic. employing the author’s ‘reason-of-art’” (1982: 21). in the world of values. 216). namely (2) the narrator’s relation to the characters. Similarly. that is.” and as such satisfies “the reader’s need to know where.12 The ultimate goal of narrative criticism is to asymptotically approximate the condition of “the authorial audience.and heterodiegetic narrators in narrative fiction: “Extradiegetic heterodiegetic narrators (that is. 78). narrators. in the context of the neo-Aristotelianism of the Chicago School. Thus. and implied authors (Phelan 2007a: 6).” i. “the rhetorical model assumes that the flesh and blood reader seeks to enter the authorial audience in order to understand the invitations for engagement that the narrative offers” (Phelan 2007b: 210).” He therefore concludes that “the narrator is always either a character who narrates. and the audience. see also Rabinowitz 1998.” and this version is “responsible for the choices that create the narrative text as ‘these words in this order’ and that imbue the text with his or her values” (2005: 45. The “implied author” denotes the real author’s “second self. between the narrator and the narrative audience (or narratee). the rhetorical approach attempts to ascertain the purpose of stories and storytelling. the ideal audience for whom the author constructs the text and who understands it perfectly (Rabinowitz 1977: 121–41. or the author” (2007: 84. Booth argues that analyses along the lines of the implied author enable us “to come as close as possible to sitting in the author’s chair and making this text. Wayne C. and.
Finally, it is worth noting that a narrative’s development from beginning to end is governed by a textual and a readerly dynamics (along the pattern of instability—complication—resolution) (Phelan 2007a: 15–22), and understanding their interaction provides a good means for recognizing the purpose of the narrative. Recent rhetorical narratology can therefore be seen as a continuation and deepening of the rhetorical framework of Boothian theory and as an underlining of discourse narratology’s rhetorical foundations. At the same time, it can be regarded as an important contextualizing venture that opens the text to the real-world interaction of author and reader, and hence provides a perfect model for discussing the ethics of reading and the treatment of ethical problems in narrative fiction. So far, we have listed several extensions of narratology that tried to take into account theoretical developments in academia since the 1970s—reader response theory, feminism, gender and queer studies, postcolonialism, the ethical turn. We would now like to turn to developments in narratology that are not linked to external stimuli but have arisen from inside the discipline and in reaction to extensive analysis of the theoretical models, their gaps, inconsistencies, even contradictions. However, it should be noted that this distinction is not a watertight binary opposition but rather a convenient way of highlighting intrinsic and extrinsic developments that are both affecting postclassical narratologies, sometimes in combination with each other. Generally speaking, we feel that this contest between different positions is healthy for narratology because it generates different kinds of valuable knowledge about narratives. Besides accommodating many diverse intellectual currents, postclassical narratology also seeks to address and potentially remedy some of the shortcomings of traditional narratology. For example, structuralist narratology did not pay much attention to the referential or world-creating dimension of narratives (perhaps because structuralism’s precursor, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, excluded the referent from his theory of the sign and instead favored the dichotomy signifier vs. signified) (see also Herman/ Biwu, forthcoming). Cognitive narratologists, like Monika Fludernik (1996, 2003b), David Herman (2002, 2003), Manfred Jahn (1997, 1999b, 2003), and Ralf Schneider (2000), on the other hand, show that the recipient uses his or her world knowledge to project fictional worlds, and this knowledge is stored in cognitive schemata called frames and scripts.13 The basic assumption of cognitive narratology is that readers evoke fictional worlds (or story 13. “Frames basically deal with situations such as seeing a room or making a promise while scripts cover standard action sequences such as playing a game of football, going to a birthday party, or eating in a restaurant” (Jahn 2005: 69).
worlds) on the basis of their real-world knowledge; cognitive narratology seeks to describe the range of cognitive processes that are involved. Alan Palmer (2004) and Lisa Zunshine (2006), for instance, argue that the way in which we attempt to make sense of fictional narratives is similar to the way in which we try to make sense of other people. They argue that we understand narratives by understanding the minds of the characters and narrators, that is, their intentions and motivations. Most importantly, cognitive approaches are based on a constructivist theory of reading, arguing that what we read into texts is not necessarily “there” as a pre-given fact. This emphasis ties in with non-essentialist, pluralist, and generally pragmatic concerns and preoccupations, thereby establishing connections with recent developments in linguistics, where the direction of research has also moved from syntax to pragmatics and on to cognitive approaches. Cognitive narratology can thus be argued to affect the status of categories of narratological analysis; it shifts the emphasis from an essentialist, universal, and static understanding of narratological concepts to seeing them as fluid, context-determined, prototypical, and recipient-constituted. Possible-worlds theory is an area of narratological study which links with postclassical narratology in interesting ways. The basic assumption of possible-worlds theory is that reality is a universe composed of a plurality of distinct elements. The actual world (AW) is the central element, and it is surrounded by various alternative possible worlds (APWs), such as dreams, fantasies, hallucinations, and the worlds of literary fiction. For a world to be possible it must be linked to the center by “accessibility relations.” Important possible-worlds theorists are Lubomír Doležel (1998), Marie-Laure Ryan (1991, 1999, 2001, 2005, and 2006), and Ruth Ronen (1994). It could be argued that Marie-Laure Ryan’s more recent research (1999, 2001, and 2004) constitutes an interesting postclassical development over Doležel’s and her own earlier work (Ryan 1991). Her forays into media studies highlight the way in which the underlying cognitivist and transmedial aspects of her 1991 model have been extended and explicated in the last fifteen years. Furthermore, Ryan has recently shown that postmodern narratives have found in the concepts of possible-worlds theory “a productive plaything for [their] games of subversion and self-reflexivity” (2005: 449). She also looks at potential analogies between parallel universes in physics on the one hand and possible worlds in narrative fiction on the other (esp. Ryan 2006). Ryan’s concept of immersion (Ryan 2001), moreover, builds a bridge to cognitive studies of narration. We just referred to the pragmatic revolution in linguistics with the development of context-oriented models in text linguistics, speech act theory,
sociolinguistics, and conversation analysis. For narratology, the analyses of conversational narrative by William Labov (1972), Deborah Tannen (1984), and Wallace Chafe (1994) have been seminal. Discourse analysis has had a major impact on the postclassical narratological work of David Herman (1997, 1999c, 2002) and Monika Fludernik (1991, 1993, 1996). In the wake of linguistic pragmatics, narrative analysis has started to include nonfictional narrative in its analyses. Conversation analysis in narratology has largely fed into cognitive strands of narratology. In Fludernik’s work (1996, 2003a) it has moreover impacted diachronic narratology. This trend is complemented by extensive interest in narratology on the part of conversation analysts. Linguists and psychologists like Michael Bamberg (2007; Bamberg et al. 2007), Brigitte Boothe (2004), Anna de Fina (2003), Mark Freeman (1999), Alexandra Georgakopoulou (1997) and others are doing research on narrative identity, performance and empathy. A true interdisciplinary field has here been emerging. A fourth development that rewrites the classic design of narratology concerns the discovery of narrative’s evolution over time. This comes in two forms, as a study of how narrative changes through the centuries and, in conjunction with this descriptive focus, a revision of narratological categories as a response to the different aspects and textual features that one finds in earlier texts. Thus, Fludernik’s diachronic study of narrative structure (1996, 2003a) provides a functional re-analysis of patterns from earlier narrative at later stages of literary storytelling besides discussing the move from oral to written forms of narrative. Another diachronically focused study is Werner Wolf’s analysis of anti-illusionism (1993). Nünning’s volume Unreliable Narration (1998) not only produces a new extensively outlined model of the signals of unreliability in the introduction but also includes a series of essays illustrating the historical development of this narrative strategy (see also Zerweck 2001). David Herman’s volume The Emergence of Mind (2011) is probably the most perfect example of the diachronic approach. It includes essays on the representation of consciousness which systematically cover all periods of English literature from the Middle Ages to the present time. In recent years, a number of radical critiques and suggestions for rewriting the classical model have been proposed. Besides suggesting specific extensions or supplements to the classical paradigm, this type of research has additionally aimed at restructuring the basic setup of Genettean typology. The categories that have so far come in for most critical attention include focalization, voice, person, the status of the narrator and the implied author, and the story-discourse distinction. Thus, focalization figures in the already classical rewrite of Genette by Mieke Bal (1983, 1985/1997), but has been the focus
2006) is the most important representative of this type of postclassical narratology that looks at anti-mimeticism. A final postclassical area of research is the study of unnatural narratives. time. 15.14 The list could be extended to include many more issues and critics and a large variety of supplementary proposals and critical restructurings. and 2008) as well as Phelan/ Martin (1999). See also the essays by Jan Alber and Henrik Skov Nielsen in this volume.15 Brian Richardson (1987. Unnatural narratology. 2009b. but recently a number of younger scholars such as Jan Alber (2002. It could also be argued to constitute an answer to poststructuralist critiques of narratology as guilty 14. McHale lists a substantial number of metafictional strategies. Walsh (2007) moreover queries the story-discourse distinction (see also Fludernik 1994b. and space by representing scenarios and events that would be impossible in the actual world. see also Tammi 2008: 43–47 and Alber/Iversen/Nielsen/Richardson 2010). Fludernik (2001).” Brian McHale (1987. on unreliability see also Yacobi (1981). 16. Phelan (2008a). and Kindt/Müller (2006). is a combination of postmodernist narratology and cognitive narratology. Massive attention has recently been given to the implied author and the issue of unreliability. see also Fludernik 1993). and in Walsh (2007. 2001). in progress). 2002. and even a return of the author into narrative studies is being promoted in clear violation of what has almost become a taboo in literary studies. 2009a. 1992) and Werner Wolf (1993) devoted themselves to the range of specific techniques employed in postmodern or anti-illusionist narrative texts.16 Even before the invention of the term “unnatural. not just the specific kind of anti-illusionism practiced in postmodernist texts. Voice has been targeted in Aczel (1998. Wolf’s study attempts an exhaustive description of anti-illusionistic techniques which are meant to cover all antiillusionistic writing. anti-mimetic narratives that challenge and move beyond real-world understandings of identity. that is. in progress. this volume) and the existence of a heterodiegetic extradiegetic narrator (see also this volume). in continuation of Ann Banfield’s theses in Unspeakable Sentences (1982. and Rüdiger Heinze (2008) have also begun to look at the ways in which some (primarily postmodernist) narratives challenge our real-world parameters. Edmiston (1991) and Jahn (1996. Alber argues that unnatural narratives confront us with physically or logically impossible scenarios or events (2009a. Alber’s Habilitation (in progress) also contains a historical analysis of the development of unnaturalness in English literary history.14 Introduction of further revision by. Chatman (1990). Alber/Heinze in progress. this volume). 2009b. 2005. . Henrik Skov Nielsen (2004). On the implied author debate see Nünning (1998. in a sense. 1999a). 1997. among others. 2000. all of which are designed to foreground the inventedness of the narrative discourse.
which proved to be of continuing relevance even during the heyday of structuralist narratology. see also Currie 1998). It includes creative additions to the standard model by Werner Wolf and Alan Palmer and a radical critique of the category of voice (as well as other cherished staples of narratology) by Richard Walsh. M. called “Transdisciplinarities. unnatural narratology (as a development from Fludernik’s “natural” narratology and cognitive narratology in general) tries to set up a narratological model for experimental texts that complements classical narratology and also connects with it by means of a cognitive framework. A shorter first part deals with a number of extensions and criticisms of classical narratology.” documents a number of innovative blendings of narratological issues with generic. and an analytical essay on mediacy versus mediation by Monika Fludernik. gender-related. the assumption that every text must have a narrator figure. Walsh here proceeds to link his questioning of the category voice with his reservations about the communicative model of narratology. They also reach back to concerns and theories already current in the heyday of classical narratology. In our summary of the essays. In our view. Richard Walsh opens the volume by radically questioning key axioms of narratology. His point de repère is the question of voice. We owe this point to James Phelan (personal communication).” like the work of Girard. medial. The volume divides into two parts. and David Lodge. Part II.17 All Anglo-American work on narrative moreover takes its reference point in the seminal thought of Henry James and E. i. rather than deconstructing narratology’s constitutive binaries. Forster. In development of his 2007 book The Rhetoric of Fictionality.e. Phase two: Consolidation and Continued Diversification Essays in this Volume The essays collected here typically combine the resources of various disciplinary traditions of postclassical narratology. we will foreground their potential as indices of where narratology may be heading at the moment. Bakhtin. psycho-analytic. He conceptualizes narrative representation as rhetorical in 17. the research that follows seems to suggest that we have reached a new stage at which one has to ponder the overlaps and potential areas of cross-fertilization between the numerous flourishing narratologies. though not usually discussed as “narratological.Introduction 15 of logocentrism and displaying a “geometrical imaginary” (Gibson 1996. . and nonfictional contexts. However.
Wolf outlines how the addition of this concept can help to describe a number of textual features and how it can also be applied to medial contexts. Palmer therefore crucially contributes to closing this gap in the traditional narratological paradigm. Werner Wolf’s is the first of two essays that attempt to close gaps in the traditional narratological model. individual. Following on from earlier work on drama as narrative. Monika Fludernik in her contribution returns to a both historical and critical analysis of the relationship between the terms mediacy. friends. The semiotic nature of narrative representation is asserted through the metaphorical nature of the concept of voice. Intermental thought is a crucially important component of fictional narrative because much of the mental functioning depicted in novels occurs in large organizations. he proposes the concept of mise en cadre for this lacuna. or extended cognition. and through Walsh’s efforts to take the full measure of that fact with respect to other narrative media (principally film. and discriminates between its legitimate scope as a model of agency and the rather different issue of rhetorical effect. It could plausibly be argued that a large amount of the subject matter of novels is the formation. So far this aspect of narrative has been neglected by traditional theoretical approaches and fails to be considered in discussions of focalization. couples and other intermental units. shared. or private thought. the status of the narrator as mediator. as opposed to intramental. characterization. He suggests that the concepts devised by classical narratology have not lost their relevance. work colleagues. they are open to a fruitful development and supplementation and can be adapted to recent approaches. It can also be described as socially distributed.16 Introduction mode. The rhetorical orientation of his argument appropriates Plato’s emphasis upon the act of narrative representation as diegesis or mimesis. small groups. and as semiotic (rather than narrowly linguistic) in scope. Fludernik considers the status of mediality for narrativity and contrasts Stanzel’s and Genette’s complex negotiations with the story-discourse dichotomy. Walsh draws out the recursiveness implicit in that formulation. but also the cognitive medium of mental representation). development and breakdown of these intermental systems. or as intersubjectivity. Such thinking is joint. mediation. Noting that the concept of mise en abyme has no conceptual counterpart relating to its frame. or collective and community-based. situated. families. and focalization. Wolf’s contribution aims at bridging the gulf between classical and postclassical narratology by proposing a “neoclassical” variant. story analysis. Alan Palmer contributes to the extension of narratological categories by proposing a theory of intermental thought. On the contrary. and the representation of speech and thought. and with the placing of focalization .
Like Walsh’s paper in this volume. (2) the multiple semiotic systems in which those practices take shape. or trying to seek out.” According to Herman. The essay revisits the exchange between Chatman and Barbara Hernstein Smith on the notion of narrative transmission.. Replacing the filmic narrator and the implied filmmaker (analogous to the “implied author” [Booth 1982: 21. given the context of creation. the author’s subjective intentions” (Gibbs 2005: 248). and unnatural narratology. he sees his essay as a first step toward an investigation of the potential overlaps between different postclassical approaches. Phelan 2005: 45]) with the . and those of the implied filmmaker. including but not limited to verbal language. thus linking to the paper of Amit Marcus. and (3) mindrelevant dimensions of the practices themselves—as they play out in a given medium for storytelling. a text which operates across various communicative media.Introduction 17 or perspective in relation to the story-discourse binary. that is. His contribution also has an openly ethical slant. rather than relying on. David Herman opens Part II of the volume by looking at William Blake’s poem “A Poison Tree” (1794). according to Herman. the sense of “what it is like” for someone or something to have a particular experience. It also engages extensively with Richard Walsh’s no-mediation thesis (Walsh 2007) and places the mediacy and (re)mediation debate within the framework of her own narratological model. And. “the organizational and sending agency” (Chatman 1990: 127) behind the film. and hence narrative is uniquely suited to capturing what the world is like from the situated perspective of an experiencing mind. In a second step. Herman inquires into “(1) the structure and dynamics of storytelling practices. a cognitive approach in which “a narrative’s meaning is established by hypothesizing intentions authors might have had. the rhetorical approach to narrative. He reconsiders the process of cinematic narration from the perspective of hypothetical intentionalism. i. Blake’s poem articulates and enacts a model according to which a more effective engagement with the world is premised on the ability to take up the perspectives of others. this essay queries some long-held beliefs or basic axioms of narratology.e. we always speculate about the potential intentions and motivations behind the movie. without ever knowing whether our speculations are correct. Alber shows that there is a convergence between the functions of the cinematic narrator. Alber argues that when we make sense of a film. who mediates the film as a whole and guides us through it (Gaut 2004: 248). this is one of the most important features of narrative in general: narrative is centrally concerned with qualia. Herman’s contribution merges cognitive and transmedial narratology. Jan Alber’s essay can be situated at the crossroads of transmedial narratology.
The paper combines a gender approach with a framework of reader response and the concerns (if not the model) of rhetorical narratology. He shows that the narratives he analyzes present several ways in which narration can be linked with mimetic desire. without there existing a story on that level. Lanser explores what she calls the “sapphic dialogic. in Camus’s The Fall the story at the level of narration is woven into the .” a form of narrative intersubjectivity in which erotic content is filtered through the relationship between a (typically intradiegetic) female pairing of narrator and narratee. Linking these analyses to the rise of the novel. He thus combines the views on intentionality provided in Herman (2008) with a cognitive and reader-response oriented model.” Alber integrates the viewers’ speculations about the conscious or unconscious motivations of the professionals responsible for the making of the film into the analysis. Reaching back to the sixteenth century. Lanser uncovers the history of a typical scenario in which female narrators tell other women about heterosexual congress in a context in which the telling becomes yet another erotic experience. While in two of the narratives he analyzes (Grass’s Cat and Mouse and Genet’s The Thief’s Journal) mimetic desire only motivates the narration and the narrator’s appeal to a narratee. thus combining feminist/queer narratology with a diachronic outlook on narrative. but further. the desire is mediated through another subject. the novel preserves within its heterosexual frame the secret of domesticity’s dependence on the structural deployment of lesbian desire. the subject does not desire the object in and for itself. Alber applies this new theoretical framework to an experimental narrative. Lanser’s contribution therefore uses the communicative scenario of text-internal dialogue and storytelling to figure an underlying sexual subtext. Rather. More specifically. who possesses or pursues the object. Hence. This third figure (the mediator or rival) is admired by the subject but also despised as an obstacle in achieving the object. namely David Lynch’s film Lost Highway (1996).18 Introduction “hypothetical filmmaker. merges narratology with psychoanalysis by looking at René Girard’s notion of mimetic (or triangular) desire (Girard 1965) and setting this in correlation with the story-discourse distinction. In his contribution. Lanser is able to demonstrate that the eighteenth-century novel female protagonist is not only swept up in the consolidation of the heterosexual subject. Our next contributor. Susan Lanser sketches the ways in which a particular topos. may be linked with historically variable narrative parameters. Marcus looks at narratives in which the narrator is both one of the main characters in the story and the desiring subject. Lanser identifies sapphic form as an underpinning of the eighteenth-century novel’s domestic agenda. namely lesbian desire. Amit Marcus. For Girard.
Martin Löschnigg discusses models and categories of cognitive narratology that may be relevant for a narratologically grounded analysis of autobiographical discourse. The essay illustrates how the narrator-narratee relationship interacts with the story-discourse level of narrative in ways which. He focuses on the role of narrative in the formation of identity. Her contribution is therefore a test case for narratology’s ability to connect with work on storytelling outside the humanities. More specifically. it provides a useful model for cooperation between narratologists and sociologists or psychologists who have so far been using different models and terminology.” the “narrating I. By showing that these models may be compatible with the narratological paradigms. In sum. deals with the discursive representation of experientiality in autobiography. are also notable in second-person narratives (Fludernik 1993. Löschnigg argues that the new frameoriented models of cognitive narratology provide criteria for describing one’s life as (re)lived. In her contribution. incidentally. Marcus argues that if mimetic desire is the basis of the relation between the narrator and the narratee. In particular. “narrativized” understandings of identity .Introduction 19 story of the past life of the narrator. 1994a). Mil dorf uses narratological terms such as the “experiencing I. she analyzes two oral narratives from the database of personal experience of health and illness (DIPEx) with a view to identifying possible points of convergence between narratology and the social sciences. the role of frames and scripts in the textual representation of memory. More specifically. if suitably adapted to social science requirements. can add further insights into the particularly “narrative” features of oral stories.” “filter.” and the marking of “in-group” and “outgroup” relations can be further illuminated if reconsidered through a narratological lens.” “focalization. Mildorf sketches an optimistic horizon for narratology’s involvement with its neighbor disciplines in the social sciences. on the question of the fictionality of autobiography. This puts the binary narrator-experiencer model of classical narratology on a different and more flexible basis.” “slant. then narratorial authority seems to be motivated by the anxiety that the loss of the narratee will cause unbearable pain to the narrator. whose mediator and rival will no longer provide him with the (fragile) existential security that he needs.” “identity. he merges cognitive and transmedial narratology and.” and “double deixis” in you-narratives and illustrates that frequently-evoked concepts in the social science literature such as “social positioning. allowing one to emphasize the continuity of narration and experience. Jarmila Mildorf follows David Herman’s suggestions concerning the development of a “socionarratology” (1999b) and shows that narratology. and finally. He suggests that narrativity is a determinant of autobiography. using Fludernik’s model of “natural” narratology.
As this summary illustrates. one can observe many synergetic effects between the diverse essays collected in this volume. i. which can now be approached in a more differentiated manner. He also proposes some radical revisions of the classical paradigm of narratology. Nielsen notes that. More specifically. he analyzes “overdetermined texts. Ellis’s was published as fiction but is in many (though definitely not all) respects a factually accurate rendering of Bret Easton Ellis’s life. Finally. according to Löschnigg. that present themselves as both fiction and non-fiction. Henrik Skov Nielsen discusses hybrid narrative texts which cannot easily be categorized as either fiction or non-fiction. The essay closes with a consideration of the question of fictionality in autobiography. he looks at two types of texts. On the one hand. interestingly. Some of these connections arise from a common focus on a specific genre (autobiography in the essays by Löschnigg and Nielsen). the history of narratology (Walsh. he considers what he calls “underdetermined texts. Frey’s book was published as non-fiction but turned out to represent the experiences of James Frey in an exaggerated and partly inaccurate way. scripts. Löschnigg also demonstrates that the frames. ques- . provide the theoretical basis for describing the fictional as an integral element of life-writing. thereby linking back to Part I of the volume.e.. and schemata of cognitive narratology can help us grasp autobiography’s temporal complexity by identifying processes of segmentation and of creating coherence. He moves beyond the fiction/non-fiction boundary by arguing that invention is a resource of fictionality available as a rhetorical strategy in the real-world discourse of the author. Nielsen therefore combines a rhetorical slant on narrative with a reconsideration of the fiction/non-fiction divide and with a focus on the curious status of autobiography. both kinds of texts use techniques of fictionalization. provided such a distinction is possible at all.” such as James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces (2003). which are especially important in memory-based narratives. Löschnigg’s paper is therefore located at the borderline of fictionality and in this way reaches out from classical literary narratology to the wider area of real-life storytelling practices. it can at least. If narratology cannot provide criteria to distinguish between “fact” and “fiction” in autobiographical writing. texts that present themselves as neither fiction nor non-fiction.20 Introduction are based on lived experience and on the capacity of narrative to impose order and coherence on what is otherwise a jumble of disconnected fragments of experiences and memories. Fludernik). On the other hand.” such as Bret Easton Ellis’s Lunar Park (2005).
Rewriting the traditional paradigm in its various typological manifestations instead takes the form of querying one particular element (voice. and transmedial undertaking. transdisciplinary. and Alber). sexuality and queerness in Lanser and Marcus. Some contributors also try to extend narratology theoretically by adopting research questions. what is even more interesting is the fact that these very different approaches document that the field of narratology has now reached a phase which is dominated by partial consolidation without any undue reaching after singularity. responsibility or authority (in Walsh. and the general theoretical “promiscuity” typical of postmodernity. The debate on extending narratology to other genres has resulted in a general consensus of crediting film as a narrative genre and a wide acceptance of drama. has a much wider conception of what counts as narrative than just the traditional novel (Genette. questions of authorship. Stanzel. the central role of cognition in narrative (in Palmer. Alber). One could summarize these tendencies by saying that there is a consensus on narratology as a transgeneric. Theoretically speaking. Marcus). as well as the issues of gender and queering (Lanser. film) or linking it with new thematic foci (collectivities in Palmer. cartoons. and science. The borderline is now located in the gray area made up of poetry. Alber. mediacy. one could therefore argue. Herman. to echo Nünning and Nünning’s 2002 title. Löschnigg). but not one of them wants to eliminate the classic model as a whole. the extension of narrative into a variety of different media has been accompanied by a shift from text-internal close analysis to context-relative . Chatman. all contributors on the whole agree that narratology should cover more than the classical genre of the novel. Girard’s psychoanalysis (Marcus). the narrator) or of adding one more distinction to the paradigm (Wolf. the trends towards commonality are offset by the diversity of approaches. concepts. At the same time.” This change requires a reworking of narratological concepts since the traditional model was based on a very restrictive corpus of (generically) rather uniform verbal narratives.Introduction 21 tions of fictionality (in Walsh and Löschnigg). and Nielsen). Third. Secondly. Palmer. Alber. All of the contributors to the volume are critical of traditional theories. and media studies (Walsh. under the description of narrative genres. and much performance art. as well as some painting. music. Wolf. RimmonKenan). ethics in Marcus and Nielsen). painting (Wolf). Postclassical narratology. or frameworks from outside structuralism: cognitive studies (Fludernik. a multiplicity of cooperations with partner disciplines. extending the model to cover new generic applications (poetry. Lanser). One can therefore claim that narratology’s object of analysis has shifted since the 1980s—narrative now includes a much wider spectrum of “texts. Herman.
Deconstructive treatments of the binary oppositions of classical narratology have helped to popularize a more relaxed attitude towards classification. It has also introduced to narrative studies some new terminology and concepts which are perhaps apt to replace more traditional elements in the paradigm. which is one of the many ongoing projects in the field. Richard Walsh (2007). for instance in recent work by Ansgar Nünning (1998).22 Introduction cultural studies. . particularly foregrounding the question of narrative’s function in social. the current emphasis lies on what these narratives achieve in communication. Manfred Jahn. ideological. and Jochen Petzold (2008). argue that all narratology nowadays is context-sensitive.g. So-called cognitive narratology is usually associated with Monika Fludernik. and forthcoming) and Aldama (2003). what ‘cultural work’ (Tompkins 1986.19 This emphasis on cognitive issues is linked to the medial extension of narratology since the classical model was unable to deal with many of the newer types of narrative. Fourth. One could. 19. and Lisa Zunshine. One could also count experientiality. originally proposed by Fludernik in 1991 (see also 1996). and what possible effects they may engender in the real world. 2009b. historical. What we are arguing here is that. Among such new concepts one can point first and foremost to the notion of the frame. 2009a.18 is slowly establishing itself as a new basis for ever-increasing areas of narratological research. The cognitive model provides a useful explanatory framework which offers a potentially empirical grounding for dealing with textual features. which has now been generally absorbed into narratology much in the same way that linguistic terminology (e. and the cognitive approach offers a model which can accommodate linguistic storytelling besides a host of other forms of narrative. See also Fludernik (2001) as well as Alber (2002. of deixis and temporal modes) was in classical narratology.. A reliance on cognitivist and constructivist principles is now common in postclassical narratology. although there is no unified new methodology in sight for postclassical narratology (nor do we plead for such a 18. A second major adoption from cognitive science is prototype theory. or psychological contexts. therefore. Beck 2003) they perform. we would like to propose that the cognitive model. Alan Palmer (2004). Ralf Schneider (2000). as a cognitively based concept that has meanwhile been adopted by a number of researchers such as Wolf (2002) and Löschnigg (2006). and which of their elements are responsible for which meaning or design effects. Rather than merely analyzing how texts work. which is becoming more widely accepted in narrative studies and is beginning to replace the former insistence on clear distinctions between narratological categories. which ideological or identity-related messages they convey. David Herman.
cognitive or otherwise. one does not necessarily have to foreground the existing diversity in a plural label—postclassical narratologies. and to this extent only. Almost none of the essays printed in this book abides by any one single approach. compatibility. Our reason for emphasizing an incipient move toward congruence. there is sufficient justification for referring to current narratological work in the singular as postclassical narratology. do we see postclassical narratology not as continuing to proliferate into numerous new directions.Introduction 23 development). to achieve a synthesis that looks different in every individual essay but is a synthesis nevertheless. The papers all combine and creatively blend different approaches. We are not saying that all future narratology will be based on cognitive theory. To this extent. that they resort to very different methods in combination when approaching a problem. . and consolidation is our perception of recurrent strategies of patchwork and blending as illustrated in the essays in this volume. or that all research in narrative will necessarily be transmedial and functionoriented. What we are noting is a confluence of the various approaches that David Herman so magisterially outlined in his 1999 volume. We do not maintain that there is a unified postclassical model on the horizon—nor would we want to invent one—but we are arguing that narratologists nowadays see the object of their research as more variegated than was the case twenty years ago. and that they will tend to ground their analyses in a rich contextual framework. but as beginning to sediment and crystallize into a new modus vivendi.
Anne (1982) Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. ——— (2007) Narrating the Prison: Role and Representation in Charles Dickens’ Novels. ——— (2009b) “Unnatural Narratives. Hanif Kureishi. Robert Clyde (1987) “Reader-Oriented Criticism and Television. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag. Michael (2007) Ed. Stefan Iversen. Ana Castillo. Allen.com. Reprinted in Short Story Criticism 74 (2004): 113–24.” New Literary History 32: 597–617. Youngstown. Michael. . and Deborah Schiffrin (2007) Eds. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Alber. Germany. Banfield.24 Introduction References Aczel.” The Journal of Popular Culture. ——— (1983) The Rhetoric of Fiction . Bamberg. Richard (1998) “Hearing Voices in Narrative Texts.” Habilitation. (1982) “Between Two Generations: The Heritage of the Chicago School. Booth. Bal. ——— (in progress) “Unnatural Narrative: Impossible Worlds in Fiction and Drama. Cultural Work: Understanding the Cultural Industries.” Style 17.1: 79–96. and Brian Richardson (2010) “Unnatural Narratives. Mieke (1983) “The Narrating and the Focalizing: A Theory of the Agents in Narrative. Boothe.2: 113–36. Bamberg. Unnatural Narratology: Beyond Mimetic Models. University of Freiburg. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alber. Julie Dash. Boston: Routledge.” The Literary Encyclopedia. 74–112. Jan.” New Literary History 29: 467–500. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.” Style 36. Michael Holquist. ——— (forthcoming) “Cinematic Carcerality: Prison Metaphors in Film. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jan (2002) “The ‘Moreness’ or ‘Lessness’ of ‘Natural’ Narratology: Samuel Beckett’s “Lessness” Reconsidered.” Profession 82: 19–26. ON: University of Toronto Press. and Film. ——— (2001) “Understanding as Over-Hearing: Towards a Dialogics of Voice. Bakhtin. ——— (2009a) “Impossible Storyworlds—and What to Do with Them. Selves and Identities in Narrative Discourse. Aldama. Ed. Frederick Luis (2003) Postethnic Narrative Criticism: Magicorealism in Oscar “Zeta” Acosta. Jan. Beck. Toronto. Wayne C.2: 234–269. London: Methuen. TX: University of Texas Press. Allen. Anna de Fina. Austin. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative . Robert C. and Rüdiger Heinze (forthcoming) Eds.” Narrative 18. Brigitte (2004) Der Patient als Erzähler in der Psychotherapie .” Channels of Discourse: Television and Contemporary Criticism. Austin: The University of Texas Press. Mikhail (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Henrik Skov Nielsen. NY: Cambria Press. Andrew (2003) Ed. State of the Art. Unnatural Narratology.litencyc. Twentieth-Century Fiction. Ed. www. and Salman Rushdie. London: Routledge.” Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 1. ——— (1997) Narratology. Alber. Narrative.1: 54–75.
” Narrative 11.3: 331–48. Chafe. 243–67. and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing.Introduction 25 Bordwell.1: 83–96. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.” A . Ithaca. Peter (1984) Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative. Fludernik. Wallace L. W. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. London: Picador. London and New York: Routledge. David (1985) Narration in the Fiction Film. ——— (1994a) “Introduction: Second-Person Narrative and Related Issues. Consciousness. Branigan. ——— (1994b) “Second-Person Narrative As a Test Case for Narratology: The Limits of Realism. ——— (1996) Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. Doyle. (1991) Hindsight and Insight: Focalization in Four Eighteenth-Century French Novels. ——— (2005) “Histories of Narrative Theory (II): From Structuralism to the Present. The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. de Fina.” Style 22. London: Routledge. Umberto (1979) The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Currie. Edmiston. Brooks. Martin’s Press. Ithaca. Eco. Stanford. Lubomír (1998) Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds.” Style 28. New York: Vintage. Focalization and New Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ross (1984) Story and Situation: Narrative Seduction and the Power of Fiction.” Style 28. (1994) Discourse. CA: CSLI.1: 44–50. Laura (1994) Bordering on the Body: The Racial Matrix of Modern Fiction and Culture. Doležel.” Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. NY: Cornell University Press. Edward (1992) Narrative Comprehension and Film. Bret Easton (2005) Lunar Park. Anna (2003) Identity in Narrative: A Study of Immigrant Discourse. David Herman. F. ——— (2003b) “Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. Monika (1991) “The Historical Present Tense Yet Again: Tense Switching and Narrative Dynamics in Oral and Quasi-Oral Storytelling.” Text 11. Ed. London: Routledge. ——— (1990) Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film.3: 619–38. Diengott. London and New York: Routledge.3: 445–79.3: 281–311. Chatman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mark (1998) Postmodern Narrative Theory. ——— (2001) “New Wine in Old Bottles? Voice. ——— (2000) “Beyond Structuralism in Narratology: Recent Developments and New Horizons in Narrative Theory. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ——— (2003a) “The Diachronization of Narratology.” Anglistik 11. Chambers. NY and London: Cornell University Press. ——— (1993) The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. Seymour (1978) Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.3: 365–97. New York: Oxford University Press. ——— (1991) Room for Maneuver: Reading (the) Oppositional (in) Narrative.” New Literary History 32. Nilli (1988) “Narratology and Feminism. New York: St. Ellis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
” Language and Literature 15.” Theorizing Narrativity. Ed. Rüdiger (2008) “Violations of Mimetic Epistemology in First-Person Narrative Fiction. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Malden. Heinze.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7: 141–64.” A Companion to Narrative Theory. Peter Kivy. Georgakopoulou. James Phelan and Peter J. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.” MLA Conference 2008. Ed.” Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis.” The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics. Berys (2004) “The Philosophy of the Movies: Cinematic Narration. Malden. (2005) “Intentionality. Rabinowitz. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. ——— (2006) “Genette Meets Vygotsky: Narrative Embedding and Distributed Intelligence.” Journal of Constructivist Psychology 12: 99–116. London: Routledge. Herman. Ed. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. ——— (2003) Ed. New York: Random House. Malden. ——— (2008) “Narrative and Drama. Ed. Henry Louis (1988) The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary Criticism. Ed. Raymond W. Hale. Frey.4: 357–80. and the Poetic Construction of Selfhood. 355–83. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Girard. Stanford. David Herman. and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure. Jörg (2001) Intermedialität: Eine Einführung. and Marie-Laure Ryan. Desire. 247–49. Ed. David Herman. Jan Alber and Monika Fludernik. Sequences. René (1965) Deceit. Helbig. Trans. Gibson. ——— (2002) Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Andrew (1996) Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative. James Phelan and Peter J. Ed. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Alexandra (1997) “Self-Presentation and Interactional Alliances in E-mail Discourse: The Style. 1–30. ——— (2005) “Histories of Narrative Theory (I): A Genealogy of Early Developments. Ed.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. ——— (1999a) “Introduction. 19–35.3: 279–97.” PMLA 12.5: 1046–59. MA: Blackwell. James (2003) A Million Little Pieces. ——— (1999c) “Toward a Socionarratology: New Ways of Analyzing Natural-Language Narratives.” Paper given at the panel on “Race and Narrative Theory. CA: CSLI.” Moderne/Postmoderne. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. David (1997) “Scripts. 230–53. Mark (1999) “Culture. MA: Blackwell. 36–59. Narratologia. Dorothy (2008) “Narrative Theory/Narrative in Critical Theory. . Gibbs. and Stories: Elements of a Postclassical Narratology. Yvonne Freccero. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 218–46. MA: Blackwell. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.26 Introduction Companion to Narrative Theory. ——— (1999b) Ed. ——— (2003) “Wie postmodern ist Hyperfiction? Formen der Rezeptionslenkung in fiktionalen Hypertexten. Gaut. 12. Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Narrative.” Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis.” Narrative 16. New York: Oxford University Press. David Herman. John Pier and José Ángel Garcia Landa. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. 299–313. Rabinowitz. Freeman. Gates.and Code-Switches of Greek Messages. Manfred Jahn.
” Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. 167–94. Kreiswirth.2: 233– 60. ——— (2001) “Narrative Voice and Agency in Drama: Aspects of a Narratology of Drama.” Translated into Chinese by Shang Biwu. Berkeley: University of California Press.” Narrative 3. David Herman. ——— (1992) Fictions of Authority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice.” The Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Lämmert. Kozloff. and Bart Vervaeck (2005) “Postclassical Narratology. CA: CSLI. and Hans-Harald Müller (2006) Ed. London: Routledge. Ed. David Herman. John Pier.” New Literary History 32: 659–79. Manfred (1996) “Windows of Focalization: Deconstructing and Reconstructing a Narratological Concept. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. London/New York: Routledge. and Marie-Laure Ryan.Introduction 27 ——— (2007) Ed. Foreign Literature 5: 97–105. The Emergence of Mind.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ed.” Poetics Today 18.” Style 30. ——— (2003) “‘Awake! Open Your Eyes!’ The Cognitive Logic of External and Internal Stories. David Herman. Manfred Jahn. Tours: Publications des Groupes de Recherches Anglo-Américaines de l’Université François Rabelais de Tours. ——— (2011) Ed. NY: Cornell University Press. and Enter’: Garden Paths. Preferences. ——— (1986) “Toward a Feminist Narratology. 450–51. ——— (1999b) “‘Speak. Eberhard (1993) Bauformen des Erzählens .1: 85–94. Kindt. 85–110. Friend. and Shang Biwu (2009) “New Developments in the Study of Narrative: An Interview with David Herman. and the Engendering of Narratology.” Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. ——— (1999a) “More Aspects of Focalization: Refinements and Applications. ——— (1997) “Frames. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Herman. William (1972) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular.4: 441–68.” Style 22: 52–60.2: 241–67. Stuttgart: Metzler. and Marie-Laure Ryan. . and MarieLaure Ryan. Tom. Manfred Jahn. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Martin (2005) “Narrative Turn in the Humanities. Stanford. David Herman. Jahn. September 1997. Ed. ——— (1988) “Shifting the Paradigm: Feminism and Narratology. The Implied Author: Concept and Controversy. Ed. 195–213. Labov. Debrecen. GRAAT 21: ESSE 4. Princeton. and Cognitive Narratology.3: 341–63.” Recent Trends in Narratological Research: Papers from the Narratology Round Table. Herman. and the Reading of Third-Person Narratives: Towards a Cognitive Narratology. David. ——— (2005) “Cognitive Narratology. 67–71. Artificial Intelligence. Sarah (1988) Invisible Storytellers: Voice-Over Narration in American Fiction Film. London: Routledge.” The Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.” Partial Answers 6. 377–82. The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Desire. Susan (1981) The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction. Lanser. NJ: Princeton University Press. ——— (2008) “Narrative Theory and the Intentional Stance. ——— (1995) “Sexing the Narrative: Propriety. Manfred Jahn. Ithaca. Luc.” Style 20.
” Narrative 12. Berlin: de Gruyter. 167–84.” Poetics Today 21. 21. History. Uri (2000a) “Telling in the Plural: From Grammar to Ideology.” A Companion to Narrative Theory. McHale. Studies in English Literary and Cultural History. Walter Grünzweig and Andreas Solbach. London and New York: Routledge. Eva (2002) “Lyrik und Narratologie.” Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext/Transcending Boundaries: Narratology in Context. Critique and Modest Proposals for Future Usages of the Term. 345–73. Trier: WVT. and Literature. interdisziplinär. Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller. Philosophy. Rabinowitz. ——— (1997) “But Why Will You Say That I Am Mad? On the Theory.” What is Narratology? Ed. Ed. Malden. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 129–53. Ambiguous Discourse: Feminist Narratology and British Women Writers. Berlin: de Gruyter.3: 591–618. Ansgar Nünning and Vera Nünning. Ed. ——— (2005) “Reconceptualizing Unreliable Narration: Synthesizing Cognitive and Rhetorical Approaches. MA: Blackwell. Nash. Erzähltheoretische Grundlagen und historische Prägnanzformen von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des 19. Henrik Skov (2004) “The Impersonal Voice in First-Person Narrative Fiction.” What is Narratology? Ed. Müller-Zettelmann. Narrative in Culture: The Use of Storytelling in the Sciences. Mezei.” Anglistentag 1999 Mainz: Proceedings. Brian (1987) Postmodernist Fiction.” Erzähltheorie transgenerisch. Löschnigg. Jan Christoph (2003) “Narratology as Discipline: A Case for Conceptual Fundamentalism. Martin (2006) Die englische fiktionale Autobiographie.1: 83–105.” Current Trends in Narratology. ——— (2003) “Narratology or Narratologies? Taking Stock of Recent Developments. 239–75. ——— (1998) Ed. New York and London: Methuen & Co. London: Routledge. Trier: WVT. Nielsen.2: 133–50. and Research Projects. 2 vols. Concept. ‘Unreliable Narration’: Studien zur Theorie und Praxis unglaubwürdigen Erzählens in der englischsprachigen Erzählliteratur. Bernhard Reitz and Sigrid Rieuwerts. Ed. Greta Olson. Ed. and Signals of Unreliable Narration in British Fiction.” Language and Literature 5: 115–33.28 Introduction ——— (1999) “Sexing Narratology: Toward a Gendered Poetics of Narrative Voice. ——— (2008) “Reconcepualizing the Theory. Ansgar (1995) Von historischer Fiktion zu historiographischer Metafiktion. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. History and Generic Scope of Unreliable . ——— (2000b) “Telling Our Story: On ‘We’ Literary Narratives. Tübingen: Narr. Trier: WVT. Trier: WVT. ——— (in progress) “Poetry and Narratology. Ltd. Jahrhunderts. James Phelan and Peter J. Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller. intermedial. ——— (1992) Constructing Postmodernism. 55–71. ——— (2000) “Towards a Cultural and Historical Narratology: A Survey of Diachronic Approaches. Nünning.” Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 22. Christopher (1990) Ed. Kathy (1996) Ed. Margolin. Meister. 89–107. Ed.
David Herman. . Ethics. Berlin: de Gruyter. O’Neill. David Herman. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Introduction 29 Narration: Towards a Synthesis of Cognitive and Rhetorical Approaches.” Theorizing Narrativity. James. Elke D’hoker and Gunther Martens. Berlin: de Gruyter. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Nünning. and José Ángel García Landa (2008) Eds. Erzähltheorie transgenerisch. Another Twist in the Narrative Turn. Unreliability. ——— (2008a) “Estranging Unreliability. ——— (2007b) “Rhetoric/Ethics. intermedial. Theorizing Narrativity. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. and Mary Patricia Martin (1999) “The Lessons of ‘Weymouth’: Homodiegesis. Ed. Ruth (2003) “Feminist Narratology? Literary and Linguistic Perspectives on Gender and Narrativity. John Pier and José Ángel Garcia Landa. Rabinowitz (2005) Eds. Progressions. Mary Louise (1977) Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Ed. NY: Cornell University Press. Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. or. 331–53. Germany. interdisziplinär. 29–76. Alan (2004) Fictional Minds. Prince. Phelan. and the Ethics of Lolita. Ansgar. Jochen (2008) “Sprechsituationen lyrischer Dichtung: Ein schematheoretischer Beitrag zur Gattungstypologie. James. 7–28.” Narrative Unreliability in the Twentieth-Century First-Person Novel. ——— (2007a) Experiencing Fiction: Judgments. Pratt. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Ithaca. Phelan. 14. John. and Roy Sommer (2008) “Diegetic and Mimetic Narrativity: Some Further Steps Towards a Transgeneric Narratology of Drama. ——— (2005) Living to Tell about It: A Rhetoric and Ethics of Character Narration. Ansgar. 203–16. Malden.” PMLA 123: 166–75. Patrick (1994) Fictions of Discourse: Reading Narrative Theory. Petzold. 12. London: Routledge. MA: Blackwell. Ed. Narratologia. Thomas (1986) Fictional Worlds. Gerald (1982) Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative. Ed. ——— (2006) Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Feminist Narratology. Bonding Unreliability.” Narrative Unreliability in the Twentieth-Century First-Person Novel. and The Remains of the Day. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Palmer. Page. ——— (2008b) “Narratives in Contest. Pier. Pavel. and Vera Nünning (2002) Eds. James (1996) Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique. Ideology. and the Rhetorical Theory of Narrative. MA: Harvard University Press. Berlin: de Gruyter. Phelan.” Language and Literature 12: 43–56. University of Freiburg. Nünning. Elke D’hoker and Gunther Martens. and Peter J. Trier: WVT. Narratologia. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Cambridge. Berlin: Mouton. 88–109. A Companion to Narrative Theory. Audiences. Narratologia. 12. ——— (1992) Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation.” The Cambridge Companion to Narrative.” Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis.” Habilitation. Ed.
——— (1998) Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation .” The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.” Studies in the Novel 33. David Herman.2: 299–310. Ronen. Judith (1996) Come As You Are: Sexuality and Narrative. Voice. ——— (2005) “Possible-Worlds Theory.” Critical Inquiry 4: 121–41. 47–63. 385–417. the Personae of Modern Drama. Rimmon-Kenan. Subaltern Reception. Roof. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Rabinowitz. Brian Richardson. Shlomith (1983) Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics.” Narrative 8. ——— (2001b) “Voice and Narration in Postmodern Drama. David Herman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.” Theorizing Narrativity.” Poetics Today 8. Plot. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.30 Introduction ——— (1987) A Dictionary of Narratology. London: Methuen.” New Literary History 32: 681–94. Brian (1987) “‘Time is Out of Joint’: Narrative Models and the Temporality of Drama. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.3: 306–21. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. London/New York: Routledge. Ruth (1994) Possible Worlds in Literary Theory. Closure. ——— (2006) “From Parallel Universes to Possible Worlds: Ontological Pluralism in Physics. Cyberspace Textuality: Computer Technology and Literary Theory. ——— (2007b) “Singular Text.1: 23–42. ——— (1988) “Point of View in Drama: Diegetic Monologue. Multiple Implied Readers. ——— (2006) Unnatural Voices: Extreme Narration in Modern and Contemporary Fiction. Ed. ——— (2007a) “Drama and Narrative. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. and Frames.” Modern Drama 40: 86–99. ——— (2002) “Beyond Story and Discourse: Narrative Time in Postmodern and Nonmimetic Fiction. ——— (2001a) “Construing Conrad’s The Secret Sharer: Suppressed Narratives. Manfred Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan. . ——— (2000) “Narrative Poetics and Postmodern Transgression: Theorizing the Collapse of Time. Marie-Laure (1991) Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Artificial Intelligence. and Narrative Theory.” Narrative Dynamics: Essays on Time. ——— (1997) “Beyond Poststructuralism: Theory of Character. Baltimore. Ed. New York: Columbia University Press.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. and the Antinomies of Critical Theory. and the Author’s Voice on Stage. Unreliable Narrators. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.4: 633–74. and Frame. and the Act of Interpretation. (1977) “Truth in Fiction: A Re-examination of Audiences. ——— (2004) Ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Peter J.” Comparative Drama 22. Ryan. Ed. Narratology.3: 193–214. Richardson.” Poetics Today 27.” Style 41: 259–74. 446–50. and Narrative. Ed. John Pier and José Ángel García Landa. ——— (2008) “Transfictionality across Media. ——— (2001) Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and the Electronic Media. ——— (1999) Ed. Narrative Across Media: The Language of Storytelling. 142–55.
Fictionality. Martin’s Press. Theorie und Geschichte mit Schwerpunkt auf englischem illusionsstörenden Erzählen. (1986) Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction 1790–1860 . Tzvetan (1969) Grammaire du Décameron. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2003) Having a Good Cry: Effeminate Feelings and Pop-Culture Forms. Baltimore. 37–55. Tompkins. Richard (2007) The Rhetoric of Fictionality: Narrative Theory and the Idea of Fiction. Todorov. Ansgar Nünning and Vera Nünning. Tannen. interdisziplinär. Meir (1978) Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Norwood. and Literariness: The Narrative Turn and the Study of Literary Fiction. Bruno (2001) “Historicizing Unreliable Narration: Unreliability and Cultural Discourse in Narrative Fiction. ——— (1999) The Musicalization of Fiction: A Study in the Theory and History of Intermediality. 23–104. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Stanzel. New York: Oxford University Press. Werner (1993) Ästhetische Illusion und Illusionsdurchbrechung in der Erzählkunst. Tamar (1981) “Fictional Reliability as a Communicative Problem. Spurr. Edmund (1978) Nocturnes for the King of Naples. Lisa (2006) Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Zunshine. NJ: Ablex. Stonewall Inn Editions. Wolf.” Poetics Today 2. Sternberg. Tammi. New Brunswick. NJ: Rutgers University Press.2: 113–26. Zerweck. Ed. intermedial. The Hague: Mouton. ——— (2002) “Das Problem der Narrativität in Literatur. Ed. Jane P. Travel Writing. Yacobi. Deborah (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Ralf (2000) Grundriß zur kognitiven Theorie der Figurenrezeption am Beispiel des viktorianischen Romans. White. Durham: Duke University Press.” Narrativity. Franz Karl (1984) A Theory of Narrative  Transl.3: 180–97. ——— (2003) “Narrative and Narrativity: A Narratological Reconceptualization and its Applicability to the Visual Arts. Warhol. Trier: WVT. Robyn (1989) Gendered Interventions: Narrative Discourse in the Victorian Novel. David (1993) The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism.” Word & Image 19.” Erzähltheorie transgenerisch. New York: St. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. with a Preface by Paul Hernadi. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Charlotte Goedsche. Walsh.Introduction 31 Schneider. bildender Kunst und Musik: Ein Beitrag zu einer intermedialen Erzähltheorie. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. and Imperial Administration. Lars-Åke Skalin.” Style 35. Pekka (2008) “Against ‘Against’ Narrative. . Örebro: Örebro University Press. Amsterdam: Rodopi.1: 151–78.
Hybridity and Postcolonialism: Twentieth-Century Indian Literature. Further publications include collections of essays (e. In 2007. 2009). and on German narratology (with Uri Margolin.2. Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology (Routledge. Unnatural Narratology (de Gruyter. Narrative. Alber has also authored and co-authored articles that were published or are forthcoming in such international journals as Dickens Studies Annual. Bricks of Shame: Narrating Imprisonment in the Victorian Age (University of Toronto Press. on “Language and Literature” (EJES 2. and Film (Cambria Press. 2009). forthcoming). where he teaches English literature and film. 2004). Short Story Criticism. 2007) and the editor/co-editor of collections such as Stones of Law. 1999). 1998).. Echoes and Mirrorings: Gabriel Josipovici’s Creative Oeuvre (Lang. He is the author of a critical monograph entitled Narrating the Prison: Role and Representation in Charles Dickens’ Novels. Contributors Jan Alber is assistant professor in the English Department at the University of Frei burg (Germany). 2000). on “Metaphor and Beyond: New Cognitive Developments” (with Donald and Margaret Freeman. She has edited special issues on second-person fiction (Style 28. 1993). 303 . Germany.e.2–3. Poetics Today 20. and Style. he received a scholarship from the German Research Foundation (DFG) which allowed him to spend a year at The Ohio State University doing research under the auspices of Project Narrative. Style 48. 1994).3. 1996). She is the author of The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction (Routledge. which was awarded the Perkins Prize by the Society for the Study of Narrative Literature (SSNL). Monika Fludernik is professor of English literature at the University of Freiburg. The Journal of Popular Culture.g. Twentieth-Century Fiction. and An Introduction to Narratology (Routledge. His new research project focuses on unnatural (i. forthcoming).3. and Why Study Literature? (Aarhus University Press.. Storyworlds. physically or logically impossible) scenarios and events in fiction and drama.
the English novel. the novel. Blackwell Companion to Narrative Theory. Lanser has published numerous articles in journals such as Style. Work in progress concerns prison settings and prison metaphors in English literature and the development of narrative structure in English literature between 1250 and 1750. on fictional autobiographies (Die englische fiktionale Autobiographie: Erzähltheoretische Grundlagen und historische Prägnanzformen von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts ). the history of gender and sexuality. he has published a number of studies on interdisciplinary narrative theory. British aesthetics in the eighteenth century. Susan S. with Greta Olson. the Journal of American Folklore. David Herman teaches in the English Department at The Ohio State University. and Women’s and Gender Studies at Brandeis University. and the French Revolution. Löschnigg was a visiting scholar at the Free University of Berlin and at Harvard University in 1995 and 1996. eighteenth-century cultural studies. Comparative Literature. and the co-editor of Women Critics 1660–1820: An Anthology (1995) and Letters Written in France (2001). storytelling across media. Reconsidering the Bluestockings. Stanzel ). and deputy director of the Centre for Canadian Studies at Graz University. Martin Löschnigg studied English and German literature and linguistics at the Universities of Graz (Austria) and Aberdeen (UK). She is the author of The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction (1981) and Fictions of Authority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice (1992). Eighteenth-Century Life. Her research interests include narrative theory. and on Canadian literature with Maria Löschnigg (Kurze Geschichte der kanadischen Literatur  and Migration and Fiction: Narratives of Migration in Contemporary Canadian Literature ). autobiography. Her articles include papers on expatriate Indian literature in English. The editor of the Frontiers of Narrative book series and the journal Storyworlds. and a visiting associate professor of English at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis in autumn 2005. the Journal of Homosexuality. Lanser is currently completing a book entitled The Sexuality of History: Sapphic Subjects and the Making of Modernity. the literature of war. and Singlewomen in the European Past. and other topics. His main research interests are narrative theory. 2003. and Canadian literature. Diaspora and Multiculturalism: Common Traditions and New Developments. modern and postmodern fiction. Feminist Studies. Amit Marcus studied comparative literature and philosophy at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Lanser is professor of English. He is the author of Self-Deception in Literature and Philosophy (Wis- . He is currently associate professor of English. and Novel and in books including The Faces of Anonymity. edited with Franz K. Semeia. and In the Grip of the Law: Trials. Eighteenth-Century Studies.304 Contributors 1998. 2004). chair of the Section on the New Literatures in English. Textual Practice. narrative and mind. Löschnigg has published on the literature of the First World War (Der Erste Weltkrieg in deutscher und englischer Dichtung  and Intimate Enemies—English and German Literary Reactions to the Great War 1914–1918. Prisons and the Space Between. and narratological questions.
modernism. His book Fictional Minds (University of Nebraska Press. the cognitive sciences and the study of consciousness. He has contributed essays to the journals Narrative. His publications in English include articles on Bret Easton Ellis. Partial Answers. Mosaic. will be published by The Ohio State University Press. “Colonised Thinking” on the US influence on the humanities in Europe was published in the Oxford Literary Review (2008). Living. Narrative Inquiry. Mildorf has also published articles in collections and journals such as The Sociology of Health and Illness. including his dissertation on digression and first-person narrative fiction. Technology. psychoanalysis. He is the author of articles and books in Danish on narratology and literary theory. Her research interests are narrative. 700 to the Present (ed. Lisa Zunshine). Marina Lambrou and Peter Stockwell). and recently received another scholarship from the Humboldt foundation for the years 2010–2012 at the University of Freiburg. Style and Semiotica. the nineteenth-century novel. 2007) and of several articles which were published in international journals such as the Journal of Literary Semantics. . His new book. Tertium datur—On Literature or on What Is Not. gender studies. David Herman). language and literature. including an article on first-person narrative fiction in Narrative 12. A recent article. and The Emergence of Mind: Representations of Consciousness in Narrative Discourse in English. and medical humanities. and is currently working on a narratological research project on the relation between authors and narrators. Henrik Skov Nielsen is professor in the Scandinavian Institute at the University of Aarhus (Denmark). Telling (2008). Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies (ed. Narrative. He was granted a scholarship from the Minerva Foundation for the years 2006–2008 at the universities of Freiburg and Giessen.Contributors 305 senschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Contemporary Stylistics (eds. Edgar Allan Poe.2 (2004). Science. Narratology beyond Literary Criticism (ed. Jan Christoph Meister). He is the editor of a series of anthologies on literary theory. and Style. Jarmila Mildorf completed her PhD in sociolinguistics at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) and now teaches English literature and language at the University of Paderborn (Germany). 2004) was a co-winner of the MLA Prize for Independent Scholars and also a co-winner of the Perkins Prize (awarded by the Society for the Study of Narrative Literature). and COLLeGIUM. Alan Palmer is an independent scholar living in London and an honorary research fel- low in the Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University. The Journal of Gender Studies. and Literature (2006) as well as a special issue of the journal Partial Answers on Narrative: Knowing. cognitive poetics and cognitive approaches to literature. 2007) and she has co-edited a volume on Magic. She is the author of Storying Domestic Violence: Constructions and Stereotypes of Abuse in the Discourse of General Practitioners (University of Nebraska Press. and the history of country and western music. His chief areas of interest are narratology. The main focus in his research so far has been on unreliable narration and fictional “we” narratives. Social Minds in the Novel. as well as chapters to Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (ed. David Herman). and extreme narration.
” which hosted several conferences. His current research is concerned with narrative in its broadest interdisciplinary contexts. . and American literature. and metafiction in particular). where he teaches primarily narrative theory. He is the leader of the Fictionality Research Group. eighteenth. early film. His first book. and 11 (forthcoming) in the book series “Word and Music Studies” (published by Rodopi). Novel Arguments: Reading Innovative American Fiction (Cambridge University Press. and has coedited Framing Borders in Literature and Other Media (2006) and Description in Literature and Other Media (2007). 2007). as well as intermediality studies. Functions.306 Contributors Richard Walsh is senior lecturer in English and Related Literature at the Univer- sity of York. and in doing so challenges many of the core assumptions of narrative theory. using the concept of emergence as a way to negotiate between its ubiquity and its limitations.to twenty-first-century English fiction. Ästhetische Illusion und Illusionsdurchbrechung in der Erzählkunst (Aesthetic Illusion and the Breaking of Illusion in Narrative. Attempts at Explanation (forthcoming). besides numerous essays. Werner Wolf is professor and chair of English and General Literature at the Uni- versity of Graz (Austria). 5. Beginning with “Who Is the Narrator?” (Poetics Today. and director of Narrative Research in York’s Centre for Modern Studies. 1997) and culminating in The Rhetoric of Fictionality: Narrative Theory and the Idea of Fiction (The Ohio State University Press. metareference in various arts. Walsh proposes a fundamental reconceptualization of the role of fictionality in narrative. 3. His publications include. and opened up a line of inquiry that defined his subsequent research in the field of narrative theory. His main areas of research are literary theory (concerning aesthetic illusion. eighteenth. 1993) and The Musicalization of Fiction: A Study in the Theory and History of Intermediality (1999). functions of literature. both in the “Studies in Intermediality” series at Rodopi.and twentieth-century drama. argued for the positive rhetorical force of nonrealist narrative modes. Two proceeding volumes (also in the series “Studies in Intermidiality”) were also edited by Wolf: Metareference across Media: Theory and Case Studies (2009) and The Metareferential Turn in Contemporary Arts and Media: Forms. Wolf is currently directing a project funded by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF) on “Metareference in the Media. He is also co-editor of volumes 1. narratology. 1995).
166n9. 189−90. 277 Bartlett. 191. 122. 105. 108 Booth. 170 Absalom. Ralph. 264 Beaujour. 17. Jane. 105n1. 188 Auerbach. Ann. 46 Blake. 14. 41 Bamberg.. 186 Austen. 177. 14n15. Absalom! (Faulkner). 8. 202 American Psycho (Ellis). 94. Author Index 2001: A Space Odyssee (Kubrick). 107 L’académie des dames ou la philosophie dans le boudoir du Grand Siècle (Chorier). 17−18. 44. 56. 17. 38. 138−58 “The Bloody Chamber” (Carter). Michel. 152 Aelred. Michael. 193 . Mieke. Aphra. 15. 119−22 Balzac.. 117. 215n18 Billy Liar (Schlesinger). 261n3 A Beautiful Mind (Howard). 282 Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Jenseits des Lustprinzips) (Freud). 54n14 Adolphs. 169n13. Erich. 166−67. Émile. 189−92 Arabian Nights. 51 Black. 187. 9−11. Richard. 276n4. 122n13 Belinda (Edgeworth). 115. 292 Aretino. Michaela. 52−54. 173. 264−65 Bal. Roland. 13. 276. 42−43 Aristotle. 181 307 Bach. Nancy. 122 Barthes. Wayne C. William. 200 The Autobiographical Subject (Nussbaum). 202 The Belle of Belfast City (Reid). Jean. 197 Aczel. 13. Pietro. 173n19 Behn. 116. 2. 275n3 L’Alcibiade fanciullo a scola (Rocco). 202 Alber. 199 Benveniste. 193. 100. Jan. 282 Barrin. 168 The Blair Witch Project (Myrick and Sánchez). 164 Bakhtin. Sebastian. 123. 263 Banfield. Mikhail. 14. Frederick. Honoré de. 195 Armstrong. 189n4 Autobiography (Mill). 21. David A. 191 Barry. 114.
223. 13 Bordwell. 18. 108. 191. 257−58 The Cabinet of Dr. 164 Dällenbach. Lubomír. 163 The Bourne Identity (Liman). 181 Dialogues of the Courtesans (Lucian). Paul John. 59 Dangerous Intimacies: Toward a Sapphic History of the British Novel (Moore). 225. Daniel. 126. Nicolas. 61−62 Chatman. Brigitte. 191 Cicero. 13 Chambers. 187 Daphnis and Chloe (Longus). 291. 280. Angela. 49 Clarissa (Richardson). 226−30 Cervantes. 105. John. Wallace. 116. 7. 174 Diderot. Peter. Ross. 210. 78 The Coquette (Foster). 110 Carter. 21. 174 Bremond. 269 L’école des filles. 211−19. J. 113−16. 146 Bruner. 202 The Distinction of Fiction (Cohn). 255. 18.. 262 Bruder. 187 Come As You Are: Sexuality and Narrative (Roof). Charles. 267n7 Conrad. 277 Camus. 169. 66 “The Dead” (Joyce). 225 The Canterbury Tales (Chaucer). and the Novel (Girard). Edward. 2. Elizabeth. Judith F. 164n3. 208. 146 Eakin. 47n9. 290−91 Coincidence and Counterfactuality: Plotting Time and Space in Narrative Fiction (Dannenberg). 187 Coming to Terms (Chatman). John. 255. 290 Cohn.. 171 Branigan. 163. 168−69. 244. 46. 124 Currie. 109−11.. 123 Cité des dames (Pisan). 2 Bridget Jones Diary (Fielding). 206. Jerome. ou la philosophie des dames [The School of Venus] (Millot). 77n28. 118−20. 246 Chomsky. 189 Citizen Kane (Welles). M. 261−62. Mark. 290 Doležel. 129 Chorier. 128−30. 291n28 Duchan. 201 Brooks. Hilary. 171−72. 196 Cat and Mouse (Katz und Maus) (Grass). 108.308 Author Index Boothe. 109. Noam. 12 Dostoevsky. 196 The Countryman and the Cinematograph (Paul). 265 Bruss. 188n3 Dannenberg. 123 . 107. 61−62 Carter. Desire. 166−67. 158n14 Death of a Salesman (Miller). 199. Lucien. 193. 266−67. 70. David. 120n11. 262. 170−71 Coetzee. 268n9 Bunyan. 208n6. Miguel de. 230 “Camus’ Stranger Retried” (Girard). Geoffrey. 209. 261−63. 199n9 A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick). 47n9. 54. 118−19 Confessions (St. 189 Dickens. Dorrit. 201 Cinderella. 187. 197−200. Elizabeth. 230−31 Chaucer. 202 Cleland. Albert. 14. 171 The Cambridge Companion to Narrative (Herman). Serge. 229 Defoe. David. 192. Gail A. Daniel C. Denis.. 191n6 Edgar. 209 Doubrovsky. 109−10. 209 Chafe. 62 Dennett. 63. 224−27. 123 Deceit. 17. 209. Augustine). 276n5. Seymour. Joseph. Caligari (Wiene). Claude. 264n6 The Confessions (Rousseau).
P. 61n11 Goldmann. Ernest. Sigmund. 164.. 18. Berys. Dorothy M. Northrop. Henry Louis. 15. 234. Robert F. 61. 87.. 226. 276. 55. James. 107 Farwell. 39n3. 9. 293−98 Friedemann. 44. A. 70 Frankenstein (Shelley). 2. Rüdiger. 18. 13 Emmott. 117n7 Field. 78. 112 Frow. 268n9 Fury (Lang). 282. 251 Haywood. 151. Käte. 209−10. 5. 5 . Günter. Henry. Philip J. 209. 166. 259−60. 83. 70−71 Heinze. 174n20 Hemingway. 37−42. 107 Fenwick. Käte. Marylin. 278 Herman. 63−64. Mark L. 114. 6n7. 13 Gibson. 2. 13. 13. 187 Grice. 128−29. 13 The French Lieutenant’s Woman (Fowles). René. J. 228. 217n20 Gallagher. Lawrence. 23. 9. Bret Easton. 3. 45. 123 Frye. 143−44. 226. 227. 1−6. 106−7 Foster. 16. 193−94 Heart of Darkness (Conrad). 297. 269. 276n5. 239. 8 Hamburger. 219−24. 70−73. 61. 13−16. Lucien. Victor. 21. 264−65 Herman. 124 Gates. Erving. Alexandra. Helen. Joseph. 186. 187 Faulkner.. 59. 196 Ferenz. 215n18. 172−73 Fictional Minds (Palmer). 106 Eichenbaum. 18. 174n20 Fina. 277n6. 8 Gaut. E. 224−26. 297n32 Fonte. 211n10. Boris. 291n28 Georgakopoulou.. 209. 48. Johann Wolfgang von. 281. 22n18. 288 Frey. 202 Freeman. 211−13. 22. Eliza. 8. 107 Fludernik. 174 Erlich. 207. 189 Forster. 223. 275n1. 295. M. Andrew. 79. John. 206−31 Gleckner. Rom. 114−15. 142 Greimas. Jean. 77−78 Girard. 53n12 Frye. 117−23. 58. 17−19. 239. 111n4. 154. Christine. 18. Monika. 152 Hale. 142. 169n13 Genet. Paul E. 84. 46. 157n13. 283−84 Freud. 286. Volker. 2. 284−91. 142n4 Goethe. 201 Fielding. Todd. 152 Edzard. 250 Findley. 211n9. 196. 257 Grass. 187 Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners (Bunyan). Neil. 106 Eliot. 256. Hannah. 158n14 Fight Club (Fincher). 148 Gaiman. 191. 202 Goffman. Luc. 19. 291−92. 15. 191. 11. Gérard. William. 229−30 Genette. 21. Catherine. 298 The Emergence of Mind (Herman). H. 106−7. Anna de. 146. 169. 15. 219. 148−49 Entertaining Strangers (Edgar). 206n3. 51n10. 111n4. Jörg. 230 Greenberg. 199 Edwards. 196 Frank. 282 Harré. 230 Famous Last Words (Findley). 85 Fielding. David. 170 The Fall (La chute) (Camus). Derek. Eliza. Mark. 146. Moderata. 14 Helbig.Author Index 309 Edgeworth. 257. 44−46. 215−17. 175 Griffiths. George. 107.. 20. 275. Maria. 13.. 112... 246−47. 11. 166. 288. 101 Ellis. 8. 22n18. 276. Timothy.
291−93. 18. 187 Hewitt. 208. 121n12. 10n12. 64. Barbara. 158 Living to Tell about It (Phelan). 293. 187 Lunar Park (Ellis). 276n5. 169n13. Bernard. 121. Sharon. 108n3. Stanley. 292 Lettres de Milady Juliette Catesby à Milady Henriette Campley. 169n13 Levinson. 198−99 Keen. 237 The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (Defoe). Henry. 280. 172 Homer. 167 Korte. Georg. Pierre Choderlos de. Philippe. 202 Lieblich. Anne. 18. Suzanne. 165. 202 Lakoff. 276n5 Heterosexual Plots and Lesbian Narratives (Farwell). 213n16. 62−63 The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha (Cervantes). 138 Lämmert. 270. Amia. 107. 215n18. or. 62. 168 Langenhove. ou la nouvelle Héloïse (Rousseau). 151 Hitchcock. 217n20 “Hills like White Elephants” (Hemingway). 163n2. 164n4. 175−81 Love Letters between a Nobleman and His Sister (Behn). 188. Fatal Curiosity (Haywood). 295−96 Larroux. 173n19 Mandeville. 138 Joyce. Charlotte. 107 Kubrick. Jacques. 52. 11. Eva. Guy. Fritz. 191n6 Marcus. 211n9 Laclos. 186 Les liaisons dangereuses (Laclos). Alfred. Manfred. 213n16 Jameson. 165. 295 Less than Zero (Ellis). 265 Little Children (Field). 165. 108. Tom. James. 41 Hornby. 110 Huxley. Eberhard. 181 Lysis (Plato). 191. 175. Paul. 13. 201 The Masqueraders. 295. 202 Lucian. 2. 293. 66 Lost Highway (Lynch). 15 Longus. 165. 210. 2 Lang. Fredric. 223n25. 298 Lynch. 199−200 Levinson. 191. 20. Linda. 283 Jerslev. 180 Johnson. 163n2. 244 James. David. 278 Lodge. Kevin. 65n17. 158n14 Julie. 15. 67 Hutcheon. 53n13. 200−201. 11n13. 207. 18. 59. 157n13 Kellogg. 202 Lejeune. 115 Jakobson. 164. 146 Hilliard. 197 .310 Author Index Hernadi. 165 Labov. 193−95. 7. 9. 284.. 64n16 Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (Goethe). Aldous. 189 Lukács. 197. Mark. 154 Lanser. 169 Kindt. 235. 280 “The Killers” (Hemingway). 191. George. Lynne E. 22n18. 285−86. 167. Robert. 187 Jane Eyre (Brontë). Richard. 46n7. 189 Linde. 68. William. 39. son amie (Riccoboni). Susan. Luk van. Jerrold. 202 Laas. 65−66 The Importance of Being Earnest (Wilde). 240 Lacan. 268n9. 9n10. 187. 237. Marjorie. 195−97. 208n5 Jahn. David. 203. Roman.
166−67. 189n4 Odyssey (Homer). 51 Narrative Discourse (Genette). 277−82. 291n20 Pisan. 199 Memoirs of Miss Sidney Bidulph (Sheridan). Robert. 174 Page. 12. 261. 41 Perkins Gilman. 188n3 Morón Arroyo. 197. 195−97. 7 Pallavicino. 52 Paul. 269n11 Mitchell. Felicity. 220 Nobody’s Fault and Little Dorrit’s Story (Edzard). 142n4.. 276n3. Günther. 293−98 Mimesis (Auerbach). 188. 269n11 Olson. 37. 171. Hans-Harald. 276. 38 Olney. Michael. 173n18 Once upon a Time in the West (Leone). 119. Jonathan. 169. 22. 144n7 Moby-Dick (Melville). Greta. 168n11 The Nature of Narrative (Scholes and Kellogg).W. 99 Petsch. 189 Metropolis (Lang).. 296−98 Phillips. 113 Phelan. 239 . 39. 123 Pascal. 177. James. 1−2 Nathan. 118 Müller. 14. 45−47. Alan. Michel de. 187. 284−91. 109. 151. 165. 65−66 The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Jameson). 7 Middlemarch (Eliot). 186. 169. Louis O. Michael. 8 Notes from Underground (Dostoevsky). 268 A Million Little Pieces (Frey). 201 Mill. 22 Pfister. 219n21 Mrs. 15−16. 68−69 Nocturnes for the King of Naples (White). 40 Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (Rimmon-Kenan). 140 Philosophie dans le boudoir (Sade). 68 Point Counter Point (Huxley). 38−39.. 193 Pier. 41.Author Index 311 McHale. Wolfgang. 173n19 Müller. 38n2. 263 “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (Poe).. 191. 200 Mercadal. Sylvie. Daniel O. 124 Pavel. 269. 17. Thomas. 20 Nietzsche. 49−50 Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (Cleland). James. 280 Le neveu de Rameau (Diderot). 207 Narrative Discourse Revisited (Genette). 54 Nünning. Jochen. 191. 188. 268 Melmoth the Wanderer (Maturin). R. 187 Potter. John. Ruth. 202 Nielsen. Henrik Skov. 264−65. Kathy. 171n16 Mezei. 181. 2 Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis (Herman). 181 Pamela (Richardson). John Stuart. Christine de. Charlotte. Friedrich. Ansgar. 13. 201−2 Poe. 291n20 McKeon. Ferrante. 112 Petzold. 195 Moore. 2 Le Père Goriot (Balzac). 165. 9−11. Dennis. 187 Nussbaum. Manfred. Edgar Allan. Ciriaco. T. 167 Müller-Funk. 201 Persuasion (Austen). 144. 191n6 Palmer. 189. 189 Plato 16. W. J. Lisa. 15n17. 20. 186−87 Mink. 55. 84−104. Brian. 49 Montaigne. Roy. 5−6. 264n5 Il merito delle donne (Fonte). 175. 36. 22. Dalloway (Woolf). 14. 261−62. 193. 199 Patron.
280 Searle. 154n12 Ragionamenti (Aretino). 123. 212n14 Ryan. Marie-Laure. 262. 47n8. 121. 142. 126−30 Stearns. 113 Sir Charles Grandison (Richardson). Marcel. 191. 264 Rentz. 189 A Raw Youth (Dostoyevsky). 128−29 Smith. 177n24 Smith. 211 Segal. 2. 199 Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Bartlett). 172 Stanzel. Victor. 109. 202 The Rhetoric of Fictionality (Walsh). Barbara Herrnstein. 197−98. Frances. 209n6 Reed. 12. 147 Sense and Sensibility (Austen). 21. Erwin M. 122 Story and Discourse (Chatman). 44. 280n12 Richardson. 202 Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare). 22 Scholes. 215n18. 206n3. 108. 12 Roof. 197−99 Ricoeur. 146 Schaeffer. Donatien Alphonse François. 65. 255 Stage Fright (Hitchcock). 209−10. 107. Jean. 7. John. 221 Proust. 268n9 Riessman. Francis.312 Author Index Pratt. 67 Shaw. Shlomith. Dan. 2. 8. Brian. 118−19 . 152 Steen. Samuel. 212n13. 187 Rocco. 44. 236 Rimmon-Kenan. 199 Smith. 280. Friedrich. 10n12. 195 Sheringham. Michael. 191. 291n20 Schmid. 16. 196−97 The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (McLeod). 37. 40n5. Alan. Gerald. Murray.. 247 The Rise of the Novel (Watt). 17. 106−7. 234. 73 Pride and Prejudice (Austen). 294 Ricardou. Wolf. 65 Ronen. 261−62. Michael. Marie-Louise 175 “Preface” (Shelley). 112 Sperber. Ruth. 257. 207. 2. 227. 294 Sprinker. 119. 11. 15. 187 Rousseau. Peter. 292 Ryan. 142n4 Spielhagen. Jeremy. Percy Bysshe. 2. 191. Paul. Antonio. 4. Marquis de. 14. 9−10. 73 Sheridan. William. 77. Jean-Jacques 191. 42−43.. 200 Shakespeare. 267n7 The Rules of Attraction (Ellis). Meir. Ralf. Mary. Tom. 46. 223n23 À la recherche du temps perdu (Proust). 221n22. 137 Sternberg. 123. 111−19. 210 Reid. 202 Shelley. 51 Sedgwick. and Julia Watson. 201 Stoppard. Robert. 200 Prince. 139. 105−6. 114n5. 286−87. 251n3. 70. 282−85 Sade. Eve Kosofsky. 21. Franz Karl. 39n4. 152 Stearns. 156 Secresy. 275n3. 192. 195 Richardson. Judith. 294 Songs of Innocence and Experience (Blake). Jean-Marie. 266−67. 124 Saussure. Peter. 59−60 Riccoboni. Ferdinand de. 270 Shklovsky. Sidonie. 193 Sandman (Gaiman). 128 Shelley. Judith. 111n4 Schneider. 191. 211n10. 2 Sternlieb. 9. 175. Kathryn C. 122 La religieuse (Diderot). Christina. 238 La retorica delle puttane (Pallavicino). 268n9 The Smoking Gun. 8. 125. George Bernard. 109−10. 281. Catherine Kohler. 46n7. 191n6 Le rêve d’Alembert (Diderot). Carol. Marie-Jeanne. or The Ruin on the Rock (Fenwick). 11. Lisa. 81. 226 Rabinowitz. 137 Richardson.
239. 5 Veyne. 201−2 Swift. 177n25. Deborah. 107 A Theory of Narrative (Theorie des Erzählens) (Stanzel). 146 Tuval-Mashiach. Richard. 137−39. 138 The Taming of the Shrew (Shakespeare). 42. 9. 280−81. George. 289 Wolf. Linda Ruth. 229−30 Thomson-Jones. 123−25. 127. 123 To the Lighthouse (Woolf). 191n6 Wiebe. 45 The Thief’s Journal (Journal du voleur) (Genet). 165 . 22. 296. 237 Ulysses (Joyce). 164 Winfrey. 22. 246 Talese. 7 Waterland (Swift). 116. Bart. 289 Talmy. 201 You Only Live Once (Lang). 264 Williams. Oscar. Tzvetan. Oprah. 122 Tristram Shandy (Sterne). 280n12 Unspeakable Sentences (Banfield). Robyn. 113 Turner. Katherine. ou. Werner. 294 Wilson. Robert. 109−10. 107 Unnatural Voices (Richardson). 40. Rudy. 169n14. 67 Tannen. 219−24. 14. 282 The Usual Suspects (Singer). 251n3. Graham. Tennessee. 259. Rivka. 164 Todorov. 235. Paul. 237 Zunshine. 22n18. Virginia. 290 Walsh. Henri. 13. 123 Violence and the Sacred (La violence et le sacré) (Girard). 242−43 The Temptations of Big Bear (Wiebe). Deirdre. Tamar. 197 Vertigo (Hitchcock). Tamar.Author Index 313 Story and Situation (Chambers). 126. 280 The Whores Rhetorick: Calculated to the Meridian of London (Pallavicino). 297n32 Travesties (Stoppard). 2n2. 151 Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology (Fludernik). 39. 14−17. 123 Wilson. 108 Vieux Carré (Williams). 116 Woolf. 269n11. 271 Vervaeck. 10n12. 52n11 Zilber. 275n3. Edmund. 230−31 The Stranger (L’étranger) (Camus). 130. La religieuse en chemise: entretiens curieux (Barrin). 13−16. 277. 226−27. 18. 299n25 Warhol. 122n13 Sturges. Female Dialogues Betwixt an Elderly Maiden Lady and her Niece (Mandeville). Lisa. 191−92. 286. 122. Leonard. 107 Wilde. 83n1. 294. Paul. 213n15 The Virgin Unmask’d: or. 191n6 Tajfel. 187 Werth. Nan. 209. 146 White. 12. 173n19 Yacobi. 271 Watt. Hayden. 277 Tom Jones (Fielding). 107. 8 White. 151. 225 The Steward of Christendom (Barry). 216n19 “The Yellow Wallpaper” (Perkins Gilman). 169. 2. 168 Vénus dans le cloître. 285n17. Ian. 172 Waiting for the Barbarians (Coetzee). 109. 235. 62−63 Williams. Mark. 114n5.
49. 159. 233. 11. 189. 171 canon. 14−15 attribution theory. 166. 106−7. 235. of fictive representation. real. 36. 267n5. 116. 73. 42−43. of narrative representation. 97−99. 299 autobiographical pact/contract (Lejeune). 192. 172n17. 265. 19−20. 128. 292. 227−31. postmodern. 108n3. communicative. 153. 10. 55. 108n3. 226. 119. 242−43. See also flashback anti-illusionism (Wolf). 230. 50−53. 55 anachrony (Genette). 87. 130. 97. character-narrator. 10. 292n30 beginning/ending. 242−43. 174n19. 108. 13−14. 55 action(s). 154. 38. 261. 199 categorical vs. 41. 7. 225. character perspective. 293 autobiography. 299. 223n35. 156. 292. 16. 266−70. 46−47. 128. 171. 9. 158n14. 294−95. 292−94. 115−16. 13−14 anti-mimeticism. 223. 44−45. 168. 35. 155. 115. 41. 291n28. fictionality of. 3−4. 220. 150. 10. 209 analepsis. 237 character(s). 279. 35. 62. 276. 270. 192. 291n28. 51. 222−23. fictive. 245. 150. 140. 40. 208n4. 118−26. See also event and Geschehen action movie. 47n9. 107 anagnorisis. Subject Index act: cognitive. 16. 166−67. narrating char315 . 247. 267 autofiction. implied. of narration. 10. 91. 177. 181. 12. 39n4. nineteenth-century. 276. 119. 41. of imitation. 38. discursive. 169n13. 174 agency. 46. 17. 113. 39. 237 captions. 41. 189n4. 199. narrational. 250. 7. 10n12. linguistic. 73. 230. 148. 174. 108. 170. 236. 206−7. 277. 165n7 adaptation. 291. 292n30. 188. 292n30. 298 author: death of (Barthes). 181. 36. 179. 14n14. narrative. 168. 175. 36−37. 216. 220. 42−44. 48. holistic. 46. 140. 123. 255−71. 175. 286. 154. 167. 113−14. 149−51. 108. 95. 171−72. 46. 114. 18. 219. 48. 99−100 audience: authorial. 210−11.
67. 198. 56. 186−88. 220. 46. 218. 191. 299. 248−49. 208−11. See also diégèse and storyworld direct thought. 50. 13 credits: opening credits. 18. 101. 223. 248. 242. 49. 48−50 discourse analysis. 35 discursive subject. 55. oral. 123. 130. direct (Cohn). 145. character. 39−41. 207. 12. 235 discourse environment. 211. 67. 16. 74−75 cognitive: approach. 207. 9. 198. 215 decoding. 214−16. 68. 178n26 closure. 157 discursive event. 115−16. 218. 218. 21. 36. 198−99. 146. 78 cut. 219. 85. 18. 154. 105. poetic. 219n21. 16. 150. 65. 39. 48−49. gay. 55 discursive rhythm. 245. 200−202. 234. 47. 38−47. real-world. 208n4. 83. 53−54. lack of. 244. center of consciousness (James). 19. 186−205 dialogue. 220. 53. 55. functioning. 227−31. 206n1. 212. 190. 226−28. 146−47 deictic transfer. 237. 235. 121−24. town as character. lesbian. 158. 97−98. face-to-face. 282. 216. 20. 85. 126. 202 diégèse (Genette). 146 consciousness. form). 60 desire. 192. 211n9. 166−67. 52. 137. 93. 213−18. 94. See also protagonist characterization. 37. 39. 295. 207. 84−85. 181. 251 drama. 191n6. 58. 54. 213n16 communicative model. 85. 213. autobiographical. 256. terms. 49−51. 79. double-voiced (Bakhtin). 40. 22. 206−10. 89. 222−24. 97. 36−37. 54. 202−3. 170 culturalist approach. 53. 126. 216. 247. sapphic. 210. 249 descriptivity. 89. 53. 108 conflict. 297n32. 120−22. 206. continuing-consciousness frame (Palmer). practices. 246. theory of (Lacan). 189−93. 47. 8. 247. desiring subject. mimesis) (Plato). 55. 61−63. 259−60. 13. 91 double deixis (Herman). 13. 210 dialogic. 85 communicative functions (Jakobson). 201. 193. 269. 251. 209. 261. pederastic. 18. 263−64. malemale. 126. 226. phatic. filmic. 138. desired object/object of desire. 177. 74. 83. 179. 46. 214. 193 conversation analysis. 228. 155−56. 263. 56. 84. 216n19 coding. 139. revolution. 19. 140. 52n11. 195. 241. 176. 48. 113−15. 169. screen universe) (Souriau). constructed dialogue (Tannen). 188. 202. representational. 178n26 death principle (Freud). 269−70. 40−41. mimetic/ triangular/metaphysical (Girard). 265. 116. conative. 83 chronotope (Bahktin). See also interior monologue direct speech. 175. 299. 94. 152. 206. 170. 166. 220−26. See also diegetic universe and storyworld diegesis (vs. 101−3. 202. 206n1. 126−28 . 290. final credits. 242−43 discourse (Foucault). narrative. 263. 207. 146n8 deictic shift theory. 44−45. 155−57 content (vs. 52. neo-colonial. 39n3. 170. 192 close-up. 47n9 configuration (Ricoeur). 211n10. 65. See also telling diegetic universe (vs. 129. 35. 212n14. 74 deictic center. 116. 49. manifest. 144n6. 16. 17. 195. narrative and consciousness. 46.316 Subject Index acter. 235. 65. 168. 228. 226. 208. 219n21. in film. 95. 15.
250 fiktionales Erzählen (Hamburger). 157 fiction: as a form of communication. 129. 120−21. 118n7. 127−30. See also Geschichte. 6n7. 147−48. 210. 120−22 focalization (Genette). 121. 235. 93−94. 299 fabula (vs. 121. 267. 244. 118n9 emplotment (White). 121. 40−46. 93−94. 166−67. 200. 242 event. 167−77. vs. 284. syuzhet). 269−70. 260−64. 124. 275. 222. 296. 166−67. 177n25. 299 filter (Chatman) (vs. 227. weak (Jahn). internal (Genette). 106. 173. 121n12. 114−15. strict (Jahn). 200. 143. 122. internal in film. 291n28. 282. 19. 38n2. 207. 290. proto-feminism. 125. 63. 243. intramental (Palmer). 297n32. 20. 174n19. 9n10. 241. 70. 299n33. 249. 158. 59. 174. 210. 251. 128−29 focalizer. 138n1. 189. 236−37. 174n20 folk psychology. 294 fictivity.Subject Index 317 duration (Genette). 248−49. 111. 119. 292. 113. 116. 173−74. 129. 197. 298 (see also presenttense narration and simultaneous narration) fictionality. hypothetical (Herman). 188. 174n20. 51. implied. 175. 210. 279. 53. 296−99. 105n1. 130. 169n13 filmmaker: hypothetical (Alber). 51−53. 210. 169. 47n9. 241. 194. 108. 257. 107−9. 169. 192 erzählte Zeit (Müller) (narrated or story time). 122. 294−95. 164. 121n12. 83−84. 276. 118n9. 155−57. nonfiction. 93. See also experiencing I experientiality (Fludernik). 179. 19. 181. 181 folk theory of discourse. 38−41. intermental (Palmer). 244. 199. 128−29. 110. 16. 84. 93. 275n1. 105−9. 36−37. 169. 179. 192. 121n12. 243. 276−77. 93. 46. 192 ethical judgments. 287. 172. 151 foreshadowing. 164n6. 180−81. 174n19. 37. 118. 118. 117 Erzählzeit (Müller) (narrating or discourse time). See also action(s) and Geschehen experiencing I (vs. 72. 65−66. 164. 294. 158n14. 13. real. 256. 124. 117n7. 129. 44. histoire. 246 feminism. 249. See also analepsis focalization (Bal). 244. 120. 264. 282 filmic composition device (FCD) (Jahn). 244−46. 256−57. 120−21. 97. 217. homogeneous. external in film. 257. 107. signposts of (Cohn). 69. heterogeneous. 105n1. . 294−96. 259−60. 119. 208n4. 117n7. 105. 269n11 empty center (Banfield). 239. slant). heterosexual. 114. in film. 125. 290. etymological root of. 177. 175. 128. 130. 49. 93−94. 55. 51n10. 47n9. 175 flashback. 19−21. 237. 19. 155. 120n11. 225. and story family storytelling. 144n6. 93−94. 87. 146−52. 269. 17. 201 fictive. 299. 122. 111n4. 19. 53n13. narrating I). 246. 93. 44. 217n20. 235. 44. 280 fictionalization: techniques of. 117n7. 41−42. 290−91. 155. 298. multiple. narrating self). 188. 56. 227. 279−80. 276. 192. ambient (Jahn). fictional present (Cohn). 115. See also experiencing self experiencing self (vs. 89. 280. 155. external (Genette). 164. 48. 265. 119−20. 45−47. 120. 117. 87. 35. 14. 118n9. 22. 117−22. single. 59n2. 13. zero (Genette). 10 evaluation.
256−57. 168. See also sapphic life history research. 148. 21. 270 immediacy. 46n7. 188−89. 39−40. 139. 125−30. 37−39. 100−101. 231. 45. 109−10. 51−52. 276n3. 65−67. 36−37. 103. 75. 235. 35. See also prolepsis form (vs. 168 indirect speech. 206−9. 22. 148. 116−17. 187. contextual (Emmot). 124−28. 46−47. 190 heterosexual masterplot/heteronormativity. 114. 59−69. 20−21. 55. content). 171n16 health and illness. 169. 280. 55. 241. 175. 11. 153. 11. 166n9 interior monologue. 246. 277 identity. 156. 19. and story historical present tense. 186. 282 free indirect thought. 15−17. 53−55. 124−26. 84. 116. 120−22. 251. 164. 21. 9n10. 75n27. 166−67. 181. 186−88. 176n22 mediacy (Stanzel). 74. . 265. 169−70. 18. 246. 48. 200. 298 intertitles. and story Gricean Cooperative Principle. 2. 107. 13−14. 147. 219−20. 44. 60. 158n14. 239. 11n13. 119−20. 168n11. 22. 128. See also fabula. 17. 259−60. 59−60. 277 genre. 164−66. 270−71. 149. 7−8. 255−60. discours). See also direct thought intermediality. 245. 97. 115. 15. 42. 89 ideology. 46. 235. 49. 8−9. 166−67. 5. See also historiography labeling. 74. 265. 155−56. 263. 290. 119. 85. parole) (Saussure). 115. 74−75. 71−72. 111−18. 66. 108. 239−41. in autobiography. 16. 260 genre conventions. 236−37 low-angle shot. 264n5. 191. 106−7. 61n10. 40. 170−71. 105−6. 257−59. 172. 199. 8. 267−68. 242−43 langue (vs. 290 historical writing. 203 historiography. 178. 59n2. See also schemata frame narrative. histoire. 246. 262−63. 236. 146. 237. 122 genre distinction (Goethe). 78 frame theory. 181 gender. 168. 6 lesbianism. 122. 36 intentional stance. 212n13 high-angle shot. 60. 8. 168. 175 group minds (Palmer). 246−49 heteroglossia (Bahktin). 284. 107. 203. 40n5 in-group/out-group relations. 19. 237 frame (cognitive). 37. rhetorical model of. 16−17. 250 instance: narrating. 179. 120 low-key illumination. See also event Geschichte (Schmid). 121 histoire (Benveniste) (vs. 143. narrative. 127−28. 97 historicism. 237. 77−78. 187. 61−73. 120−22. See also historical writing hypothetical intentionalism. See also fabula. 109. 53. 105. 110. 251. See also rival medium. 114 Geschehen (Schmid). 118n8. 110−13. 147. 223−28. 4. 36−37. 56. 269n11. Geschichte. 46.318 Subject Index 71n22. 200−202. 77. 116. 53n12. 159. 61−62. 50. 270−71. 120. See also Mittelbarkeit mediator (Girard). 179. 19. 175. 2. 249. 62. 65n17. 9. 241. 192. 181 intentional fallacy. 189. 46−52. 207. 227. 73−75. 176. 213−17. 8. 192. 249−50. 18−19. 255. 282. 284. 78 interpretation. 116. 263 free indirect discourse. 70. 7−8.
59−60. 41. 221. 225−31. 42−43. 51. 211n10. 275. covert (Chatman) (vs. 130. 286−90 memory. 39n3. 223n24. 217. embedded. 178n26. 48. 290 memory play. 297−99. 55. 106. 235. 283 metaphor. 235. 179n27 meta-referentiality. 211. extra-subjective. 48. 277−78. 194. overt (Chatman) (vs. 84. 115−16. 68−69. 66. 78. autodiegetic (Genette). 219. 10. 257. 228 mise en abyme. 16. 38. 78n29 mise en cadre. 63−75. 193. 155. 155. diegesis) (Plato). 170−71. 237. 156. motivation for. first- . 227. 201. conversational. 55. 77. 44. 123. 207. as mimetic desire. 192. personalized. 269. 169. 77−79. 206. 251. 49. 227−29. 249−50. 260. covert). 40n5. 217. 53. 199. 247 mind-narrative nexus. 122n13 mental model. 189. 163−81. 48. 221−23. 36. 168. 119. 129−30. teller mode. 39−41. 217. See also narrating self narrating self (vs. 123. extradiegetic. 46. 51. 218. thirdperson. 19. 234. 210−11. 49. 155. 222. heterodiegetic). See also narrating I narration. 206. 60 metonymy. 282. 244. 16. 128. 229−31. 257. 73. 249. 246. 78. 216−17. 114. 257. 55−56. 223n25. 46. 227−29. etymological root of. intradiegetic (Genette). 293 narrating I (vs. 14. 77−78 Mittelbarkeit (Stanzel). 220. 72. 140. as sensemaking device. 116. 78n29 mise en reflet/mise en série. 128. 212n14. experiencing I). 128. 94n2 narratee. intra-subjective. 260. 117n7. See also mediacy mode (Stanzel). 148n10. 7. 122. 118n8. 47n8. 292n30 memoir. 226−27 mimicry. 168. 158n14. 55. 75 mimesis (vs. 13. 111−12. 63−69. 38−39. 168−69. 270−71. 147 metalepsis. 171n15. overt). 218. 237 montage. 41. 243−44. 128. 46. 115. 145. 213. 197. 55. 128. 117. 102. 258. 87. 146n8. first−person (Stanzel). 121. 158−59 mirroring. 171−74 narration (Genette). 37 multiperspectivism. dynamic of. 158. 44−49. 262−66. 59−60. 203. homodiegetic (Genette) (vs. 230. 279. unreliable. reflector mode. 294 (see also fictional present and present-tense narration). 68. 48. of historical fiction. 115−16. 202. 188. 216. 202. 38−41. 38. 75. 291n1 metafiction. 216. 19−20. 147−48. 269n11. act of. 210. extradiegetic (Genette). 48. 199n9. 206−7. 123 mood (Genette). 16. 64n15. 218−19. 55. 220−26. 46. 40. See also showing mimetic rivalry (Girard). 194−95. 211−13. 114−16. 106. 239. 114−19. 260 modes of reading narrative. 174. 38. 210 narrating character. 207. 53. 115−16. 75. 228. 66. 230. 167. cinematic. 108. unreliable in film. 217−18. 18−19. 169 Modernism. 206n3 narrative: as report. 255. 126. 107. 45−46. 78. 291. 120. 230. 202. 206. homodiegetic). experiencing self). 36−37. simultaneous (Cohn). heterodiegetic (Genette) (vs. 10n12. 5. 256. 197. authorial (Stanzel). 218. 44−45. 118n8. 84. 50−51. cinematic. 126. 200−202. 16. 240.Subject Index 319 139. 142n4. 223. 45. 157n13. 38. 48. 188. 197.
covert vs. history of. 128. 17. 78. 14−15. 124 narrative situation (Stanzel). 297n32. 44−45. 158−59. 158−59. 158. 241. . 270. 269. 248. 249. 38−41. different definitions of. 214−16. 168−69. omniscient. homodiegetic personalized. feminist. 44. 9−11. 111n4. 122. 105−11. 227. 269 narratologies: postclassical. 279−80. 58. reflecting (Fludernik). external/internal. 172n17. 186 (see also diachronic). cognitive. 38. 55. 291. 71−73. 225−26 (see also typological circle). action (Fludernik). 126−29. 118n8. 200. 114. 239n1. 209−10. 19. 209. See also syuzhet/sujet narrative interviewing. socionarratology. homodiegetic). second-person. 115−17. heterodiegetic (Genette) (vs. 105 narrativization (Fludernik). 79. 35−37. transmedial. 21−23. 263. 6. 118. intradiegetic/diegetic level (Genette). 151−53. viewing (Fludernik). 19. first-person (Stanzel). 158. 105. 256. 8−9. 121. 294. reflector-mode. 17. 128. neoclassical (Wolf). 4−5. 35−41. 260. 16. 173n19. 84. 3. 64. 146. 168. 237. second phase of. 244−50. 112−16. 207. rhetorical. 277. 263. 15−16. unnatural. 14. 277 narratology. historical. 14. 59. 236. 17. 126 narrative report. 169. 110−11. 128. womanto-woman. heterodiegetic). 112−13. 85. different definitions of. 13−14. 164. figural. 71. 51. 156−57. 17. 126. 17. 16. 106. 189. diachronic. deconstructive. 14n15. 128. 67−68. 271. 238. 230−31. 7. 114−19. 128. 7. 117n7. 126. 71. 139−40. 275n3. 128. 5−6. 38. 169.’ 58. 143−44. 225. 88. experiencing (Fludernik). postclassical. 260. 113−14. 259−60. 117n7. 211n10. 139. 107. external (extraheterodiegetic). third-person. 291. 192. 297−99 narrative clauses (Labov and Waletzky). overt (Chatman). 108. unnatural. 122−30. 279. 11−12. 111. 116. 236 narrative levels. 276. 1−4. 163−65. 78 narrative mediation. 105 narrative representation. 113. 118n8. 168. 153−54. 263. 279. 66−68. 60. metadiegetic level (Genette). 36−40. 239. 1−6. 35−56. 58. 202. 117n7. 117n7. 118n8 narrative structure: same-sex. extradiegetic level (Genette). 46. 194. 117n7. 207. 11−12. 107. 294. 44. 190 narrative transmission. 210. 276−77. ‘natural’ (oral). 294. postmodernist. 278−82. 208−9. 48. 210. 113. 256. 9. 148. 168. ‘natural. 13 (see also historical). 275n3. 11. 128. 124−26. 115. 3 narrativity. 125−26. cinematic. 44. 39. 10n12. 47−49. 9. 124. 267. postcolonial. 108. 276. autodiegetic. 85. 114. 249. 150. 114–16. 37−39. 41. 46. 128 narrative turn. homodiegetic (Genette) (vs. 58. 23. syntax. dramatic (Jahn). 122−23. 14. 126. authorial. 2n2. 19. 7. story). rhetorical definition of. 53. 190. 296. 15−23. 275. 219. 227−31. 260. queer. 8. 262. first-person. classical (structuralist). 77−78. 105−7. 39. 115. 258. 169n13. 175. 7. 120. hypodiegetic level (Bal). 9n9. 10n12. 55. 38−39. 68. 14−15. 234−35. 240 narrative discourse (vs. 6n7. 55. 169n14. telling (Fludernik). 278. 18. 146. 105−6. 44−45. 6−8. 126. 105−7. 271.320 Subject Index person. 151. 9. personalized (Stanzel). 118. 35. 181. 280 narrator. 117n7. 115−18. 22n19. 48. 126. 9. engaging (Warhol). 41−46. 116. 169n14. 211n10. 11. 257−58. 157−58. 119. 16−19. 298−99.
212. 37−41. See also character psychoanalysis. See also foreshadowing protagonist. 66−67. 170. 55 relevance theory. 73. 282 oral narratives. See also no-narrator theory non-diegetic inserts. 2. 171. real. 165n7 pornography. social. 44−45 perspective (Stanzel). 200 painting. 244. 284−85. 230 . 111n4. 260 récit (Genette). 122−27. 106−8. 276n3. 144. 191. 296 parole (vs. 106. 115. 129. 290. 218. 296−97. See also non-communication non-communication. in written texts. 194−201. 276. 275 no-mediation thesis (Walsh). 126−27. 280 postmodernity. 250 possible-worlds theory. dynamic of. 44. 12−13. 17. 268. 230. 18. 158n14. 188. 241. 115. realist. 109 rapport. 59. 21. 201 omniscience. 291−92. langue) (Saussure). 126. 168n12. 61 novel. 19. 114. 188. 19. 229. 287−88. 251n3 present-tense narration (Cohn). 21. 44n6. 65. courtship. 281−82. 187−88. 145 panfictionalism. 3−4. 123. 106. 61−62. 62. 170 non-diegetic music and sound. 7. 121. 261. 6 person (Stanzel). 158n14 remedialization. 259. 257. 251n3. 156. 187. 192. 105n1. 291. 126. 119. 45. 199. 200 positioning. epistolary. 123.Subject Index 321 210. 67. 154−55. 75. 203. 73−75. 251 reader: implied. in film. 100. Modernist. 284 paratexts. 9. 85. 35. 75 plot. 121. 114 naturalization (Culler/Fludernik). 286 reader-response theory. 116. 259. 190−93. 38. 78−79. 188. 195. 191−92. Victorian. 36. 61−62. 237. 168. 7−8. See also thought report qualia. 197. 294. 51. 188. 45 phoneme/phone dichotomy. 11. 104. 206n3 recursiveness. postmodernist. 18. 174n20 narratorial persona. 107. 276n3. 243. 235. 12. 14. 171. 18. 180. 299. See also fictional present and simultaneous narration prolepsis. 9. 21 pragmatics. 40. domestic 193. 282. 17. 118−19. 239. 284. dialogue. See also oral storytelling oral storytelling (see also oral narratives). 78−79 postmodernism. 279. See also what it’s like queer. 84. 168. 279 overdetermined texts (Nielsen). 113. 235−37. 79. 110−11. 148 polyphony. 45. 122. 51. history of. 203. 176 non-natural. 106. 63. 59 postcolonialism. 168. 247−48. 201. Gothic. 209−10. 200. 130 no-narrator theory (Banfield). voice-over. 295−96 picture frame. 121. 111. 78 realism. 250−51. 10. limited. 49. 296 remediation. 11. 117n7. 292. 42. 174 polychrony. 244. 211n9 psychonarration. 199n9. 245−46. 249. 21. 168n12. 125−28 repetition compulsion (Freud). 197 point of view. 3−4. 123−24. external. 54 porn film. 6. 128. 18. 170. 129 point-of-view (POV) shot. 110−11. 193.
299. 158. 108. 209−13. 119. 244−46. 9. 199. 151 rhetorical model. historical development of. 91−97. 189−92. 107. 197−98. filter) (Chatman). 193. 89. See also diégèse and diegetic universe syuzhet/sujet (vs. narrative discourse). See also psychonarration temporality 123. plot) (Forster). 107. 202. 191−92. 268 setting. 234−35. 154. 97−99 thought. 16. overreading). 121. See also lesbianism schemata (cognitive). 188. 163. 189. 83−86. 62. 146n8. 213−19. indirect. 191 transmediality. 109. 148. 98. 69. 66. 40n5. 146 theory of mind. 237 soliloquy. 284−91. 16. 16−19. 148n10. 206−7. 83. 286. 173n18. 85. 155. 124. 192. histoire. 173n19. intermental (Palmer). 122 showing (vs. fabula). 12. 19. 175. 177n25 underreading (vs. 75. 65. 196. 276n3. 121−22 speech act. 197. narration/narrative. 85. 8 slant (vs. intramental (Palmer). 18. 87. dialogic. See also mediator Russian formalism. 119. 295−96 unnatural. 42−43 story/discourse dichotomy. 65. 201. 123−25. 118−19. 159. 188. 13−14. 2n2. 223−29. 115 text world theory. 11. 14−15. 83−84. 67. 292 uncanny (Todorov). 169. 208. 127−29. 20. 14n15 unnatural narration. 278−79. 171−72. 63. 264n5 self vs. 69. 106. 10. 120. 264. 203 shot-reverse shot. 113. 61. 295. 296−99 unreliability. 181 . 46 rival (Girard). 216. 13−14. 248. See also fabula. form. See also mimesis signifying (Gates). 18. cinematic. 35−36. 98. 196. 39−41. 143. 265−66. 116. 163. 151. 87. 264n5. 146−47.322 Subject Index ressentiment. 74−75. 235. See also narrative situations uncanny (das Unheimliche) (Freud). 297. 139. 110. telling). 123 sexuality: history of. quantitative. 39 script (cognitive). 200. 120. underdetermined texts (Nielsen). See also diegesis tense (Genette). 45. 70. dialogue. 36−37. See also frame screen universe (Souriau). literary history. 250. 110. 65. 158n14. 106−7 storyworld (Herman). See also narrative discourse telling (vs. 4. 7−9. 241. 213. 223−31. 49. 250 sociolinguistic narrative analysis. 149. 244−46. 235 social sciences. 88−102. 250 social science research methods: qualitative. other. 130. 200. 189. 83. 263−64. 106 sapphic. 104. 171−74. 3. 85. 62−63. 69−73. 154. 262. 194. 62−64. 40n5. 43. 163. 187−91. 36−38. 256. 60. 200−201. theory. 215−17. 190. 195. 146−47. 130. 190. 102. 109 stack. 99−103 thought report. 20. 138n1. 90. 235. 127 story (vs. 196−97. showing). 206. 191. 202. and Geschichte story (vs. 238−39. 206n3. 155−57. 187. 235. (narrative) structure. narrative layer. 219. 105−15. 242. 158n14. 126−28. 150−51. 115−118. 75 typological circle (Stanzel). 11. 11n13. 291. 106−7.
120. 189. 235. 41. 226 . 115.Subject Index 323 vocalization. 168 you-narrative. 128−30. 36. as interpellation. 52n11. 192−93. 122 we-narration. 44. 107. as idiom. 213. 37 voice (Genette). 47−56. 197. 140. 36−37. as instance. 52−56 what it’s like. See also qualia wipe. 156−57. 36. 248−49 zoom. 44. 199. 8. 48−49. 13−16. 44n6. 52−56. 118−19. 48−56. 35−37. 257. 21.
Genre Edited by Jakob Lothe. Lyric Ends: Temporality in the Nineteenth-Century British Long Poem Monique R. West Narrative Means. Rabinowitz. Towards the Ethics of Form in Fiction: Narratives of Cultural Remission Leona Toker Techniques for Living: Fiction and Theory in the Work of Christine Brooke-Rose Karen R. Progressions. The series does not privilege one critical perspective but is open to work from any strong theoretical position. and Identity Patrick Colm Hogan Joseph Conrad: Voice. Penelope Pelizzon and Nancy M. Inc. Jeremy Hawthorn. James Phelan The Rhetoric of Fictionality: Narrative Theory and the Idea of Fiction Richard Walsh Experiencing Fiction: Judgments. History. Cognitive Science. studies in the series typically offer interpretations of individual narratives and address significant theoretical issues underlying those interpretations. Morgan Understanding Nationalism: On Narrative. Sequence. and the Rhetorical Theory of Narrative James Phelan Unnatural Voices: Extreme Narration in Modern and Contemporary Fiction Brian Richardson Narrative Causalities Emma Kafalenos Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel Lisa Zunshine I Know That You Know That I Know: Narrating Subjects from Moll Flanders to Marnie George Butte .: Crimes. T h e o r y a n d I n t e r p r e t a ti o n o f N a r r a ti v e James Phelan and Peter J. Lawrence Tabloid. Narratives V. Newspapers. Series Editors Because the series editors believe that the most significant work in narrative studies today contributes both to our knowledge of specific narratives and to our understanding of narrative in general.
Persuasion. and Frames Edited by Brian Richardson Breaking the Frame: Metalepsis and the Construction of the Subject Debra Malina Invisible Author: Last Essays Christine Brooke-Rose Ordinary Pleasures: Couples. Warhol Politics. Plot. Conversation. Audiences. Lehman The Progress of Romance: Literary Historiography and the Gothic Novel David H. Subjectivity Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique. Ideology James Phelan Misreading Jane Eyre: A Postformalist Paradigm Jerome Beaty Psychological Politics of the American Dream: The Commodification of Subjectivity in Twentieth-Century American Literature Lois Tyson Understanding Narrative Edited by James Phelan and Peter J. Martinsen Having a Good Cry: Effeminate Feelings and Pop-Culture Forms Robyn R. Rabinowitz . Ethics. Richter A Glance Beyond Doubt: Narration. Representation. Closure. Rabinowitz Matters of Fact: Reading Nonfiction over the Edge Daniel W. and Pragmatism: A Rhetoric of Feminist Utopian Fiction Ellen Peel Telling Tales: Gender and Narrative Form in Victorian Literature and Culture Elizabeth Langland Narrative Dynamics: Essays on Time.Bloodscripts: Writing the Violent Subject Elana Gomel Surprised by Shame: Dostoevsky’s Liars and Narrative Exposure Deborah A. and Comedy Kay Young Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis Edited by David Herman Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation Peter J.
Progression. and the Victorian Novel Amy Mandelker Gendered Interventions: Narrative Discourse in the Victorian Novel Robyn R. the Woman Question. Reading Plots: Character.Framing Anna Karenina: Tolstoy. Warhol Reading People. and the Interpretation of Narrative James Phelan .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.