Tilmann Köppe

Against pan-narrator theories

Abstract Most narratologists today maintain that all fictional narratives have a fictional narrator that is to be distinguished from its author. Call this a “pan-narrator theory” (PN). In this essay, we argue that there are good reasons against this position, while important arguments that seem to speak in favor of it can be shown to be ultimately untenable. We start by offering a brief sketch of a theory of fiction that serves as the basis of our considerations and then defend the view that there is no need, theoretical or pragmatic, to postulate a fictional narrator for every fictional narrative.

Anthropologie der Literatur

›Anthropologie‹ bedeutet Lehre vom Menschen. In den Geisteswissenschaften wird diese oft mit der philosophischen Anthropologie identifiziert, zu deren bedeutendsten Vertretern Helmuth Plessner, Max Scheler und Arnold Gehlen gehoren. Neben der Philosophie gibt es jedoch noch eine Vielzahl weiterer Disziplinen, in denen eine systematische Lehre vom Menschen entwickelt wird; entsprechend gibt es etwa auch eine biologische, theologische, ethnologische oder padagogische Anthropologie, in denen jeweils bestimmte Aspekte des Menschseins in den Vordergrund rucken.

Author and narrator : transdisciplinary contributions to a narratological debate

The distinction between author and narrator is one of the cornerstones of narrative theory. In the past two decades, however, scope, implications and consequences of this distinction have become the subjects of debate. This volume offers contributions to these debates from different vantage points: literary studies, linguistics, philosophy, and media studies. It thus manifests the status of narrative theory as a transdisciplinary project.

More on narrative closure

Abstract In this article, we shall contribute to the theory of narrative closure. In pre-theoretical terms, a narrative features closure if it has an ending. We start by giving a general introduction into the closure phenomenon. Next, we offer a reconstruction of Noël Carroll’s (2007. Narrative closure. Philosophical Studies 135. 1–15) erotetic account of narrative closure, according to which a narrative exhibits closure (roughly) if readers have a “feeling of finality” which in turn is based on the judgment that the presiding macro questions posed by the plot of the narrative get answered. We then discuss a number of questions raised by Carroll’s account, namely whether a definition of “narrative closure” based on his account is either too inclusive or too exclusive; whether narrative closure is a property of narratives or of plots; whether narrative closure comes in grades; whether “narrative closure” is a restrictive notion; and whether “narrative closure” should be ascribed online (incrementally) or on the basis of all-things-considered ex post interpretations. Our answers to these questions are couched in terms of refined definitions, for this allows us to keep track of the progress and facilitates comparisons between the different proposals developed. Finally, we offer a definition of “narrative closure” that summarizes our amendments to Carroll’s theory.

On the very idea of the telling vs. showing distinction

Abstract Current theoretical accounts of the telling vs. showing distinction suffer from the incompatibility of several very plausible intuitions. This leads to accounts which seem not even to be addressing the same phenomena. Going back to Lubbock and Genette, we uncover the intuitions in question, show that they are incompatible and propose a unificatory account, which takes a particular type of imagining on the part of reader to lie at the heart of the telling vs. showing distinction.

Literatur und Möglichkeiten

Ever since Aristotle’s remarks in his Poetics, fictional literature has been connected to ›the possible‹. Moreover, it is often alleged that the connection with possibility is a central and characteristic feature of literature. However, the concrete ideas which are expressed by stating this connection differ greatly. We distinguish two main groups of ideas: Members of the first group try to point out specific functions of literature: it can be a source of modal knowledge or rather modal suggestions. Issues currently under debate include the question of what exactly we can learn from literature as well as the question if we can gain (modal) knowledge from literature at all. Members of the second group are interested in the constitution of fictional literature. They ask if the fictional worlds of literature can be characterized by, or simply are, possible worlds. We clarify and criticize the most promising candidates from both groups of theories. It can be shown that the alleged connection of literature and possibility is either nonexistent, points to mere trivialities, or is just a façon de parler. As we attempt to show, many of the interesting aspects of literature people have tried to analyze in terms of the connection of literature and possibility can be described more clearly without using the word ›possible‹.

Zur Struktur und Rolle ästhetischer Erfahrung in Emil Staigers »Die Kunst der Interpretation« (1951)

Abstract Current accounts of the aims and methods of criticism as developed in Emil Staiger’s seminal essay »Die Kunst der Interpretation« typically do not concentrate on the role of aesthetic experience. We clarify the notion of aesthetic experience employed in Staiger’s essay and point out the centrality of aesthetic experience for his view of criticism. According to Staiger, aesthetic experiences are central to the aesthetic merit of an artwork, they guide the critic’s appreciation of aesthetic properties, and literary criticism should be concerned with the elucidation of how aesthetic properties are based on other manifest properties of a work. We also review some recent alternative reconstructions of Staiger’s view, and offer some routes to a critique of his view that is based on his central assumptions concerning the aims and methods of criticism, rather than on a rejection of them.

Two approaches to defining internal, external, and zero-focalization

Abstract The paper discusses two approaches to defining internal, external, and zero-focalization. According to the first approach, the three types of focalization are defined in terms of a relation of a character’s knowledge to the narrator’s report. We argue that the definitions based on this approach are seriously flawed. According to the second approach, whether a narrative is internally, externally or zero-focalized depends on how the information that the reader gets about the fictional world is constrained. We discuss some ways of rendering these definitions more precise, and we point to a remaining problem of the definitions.

Theorien und Methoden der Literaturwissenschaft

Im literaturwissenschaftlichen Umgang mit Literatur sind mindestens sechs Ziele institutionell etabliert: 1. Sichern der Textgrundlage, Herstellen verlasslicher Texte: Theorie und Methoden der Edition und Textkritik (vgl. II.1.1) 2. Analysieren und Deuten der Texte: Methoden der Textanalyse und Interpretationstheorien 3. Rekonstruktion der geschichtlichen Entwicklung von Literatur: Theorien und Methoden der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung (vgl. II.4) 4. Analyse von Handlungen im Umgang mit Literatur: soziologische und psychologische Theorien und Methoden 5. Erklarungen fur das Phanomen ›Literatur‹: Evolutionsbiologische und anthropologische Theorien 6. Wertung von Literatur (vgl. II.3)

Einleitung: Von der Unmöglichkeit, theoriefrei Literatur zu lesen, und der Notwendigkeit, sich literaturtheoretisch zu bilden

Die Beschaftigung mit Literaturtheorie gilt als schwierig, und die Vielzahl der vertretenen Ansatze scheint kaum uberschaubar zu sein, nicht allein fur die Studierenden der ersten Semester. Wahrend die Bezeichnungen ›Sozialgeschichte‹ und ›Gender Studies‹ zumindest nahelegen, welche Fragestellungen im Rahmen der Ansatze verfolgt werden, ist das fur andere Richtungen nicht der Fall. Was ist unter ›New Historicism‹ zu verstehen, was unter ›Dekonstruktion‹? Ist Literaturwissenschaft eine Medien- oder eine Kulturwissenschaft oder beides? Wie verhalten sich die offenbar ahnlich gebrauchten Begriffe ›Interpretation‹ und ›Lekture‹ zueinander, wenn mit letzterem offenbar mehr als ›Lesen‹ gemeint ist? Was heist ›soziale Energie‹, was ›Textbegehren‹, was ›Unbestimmtheitsstelle‹ — Begriffe, die ab und zu in Interpretationen literarischer Texte zu finden sind? Lassen sich eine diskursanalytische und eine psychoanalytische Verfahrensweise im Umgang mit Literatur vereinbaren? Angesichts dieser unubersichtlichen Situation ist der Impuls verstandlich, sich mit dem terminologischen Wirrwarr gar nicht erst zu befassen, sondern sich einfach auf die literarischen Texte zu konzentrieren und sie ohne theoretisches Instrumentarium aus sich selbst bzw. aus ihrer historischen Situation herauszulesen oder zu deuten.