The Paradox of Fiction – A Brief Introduction into Recent Developments, Open Questions, and Current Areas of Research, including a Comprehensive Bibliography from 1975 to 2018

IF 0.6 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Journal of Literary Theory Pub Date : 2018-09-03 DOI:10.1515/jlt-2018-0011
Eva Konrad, Thomas Petraschka, Christiana Werner
{"title":"The Paradox of Fiction – A Brief Introduction into Recent Developments, Open Questions, and Current Areas of Research, including a Comprehensive Bibliography from 1975 to 2018","authors":"Eva Konrad, Thomas Petraschka, Christiana Werner","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2018-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Exactly forty years ago, readers of the Journal of Philosophy first heard about a certain guy called Charles who was sitting in his chair watching a movie. At some point during the film, a green slime started approaching the camera. Charles’ pulse quickened, his palms started to sweat, and he clutched the arms of his chair. After the movie, he reported that he was really afraid of the slime. Apart from the observation that both monsters and moviegoers have come a long way since the seventies, nothing about this case seems to be particularly interesting. Charles, however, has become famous – at least among philosophers, aestheticians and literary critics. The reason is, of course, Kendall L. Walton’s seminal paper »Fearing Fictions« in which he both doubts that Charles’ judgement about his affective state is correct and raises the general question of whether affective responses which are directed towards fictional entities (we will call them »fictional emotions« from now on) are structurally identical to emotions directed towards real entities (cf. Walton 1978). Together with Colin Radford’s article »How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?« Walton’s paper led to a debate about fictional emotions that still goes on today, and in particular about a problem which is often referred to by the term »paradox of fiction«. The paradox is constituted by three apparently plausible premises that cannot be conjointly true at the same time:","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2018-0011","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literary Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2018-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Exactly forty years ago, readers of the Journal of Philosophy first heard about a certain guy called Charles who was sitting in his chair watching a movie. At some point during the film, a green slime started approaching the camera. Charles’ pulse quickened, his palms started to sweat, and he clutched the arms of his chair. After the movie, he reported that he was really afraid of the slime. Apart from the observation that both monsters and moviegoers have come a long way since the seventies, nothing about this case seems to be particularly interesting. Charles, however, has become famous – at least among philosophers, aestheticians and literary critics. The reason is, of course, Kendall L. Walton’s seminal paper »Fearing Fictions« in which he both doubts that Charles’ judgement about his affective state is correct and raises the general question of whether affective responses which are directed towards fictional entities (we will call them »fictional emotions« from now on) are structurally identical to emotions directed towards real entities (cf. Walton 1978). Together with Colin Radford’s article »How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?« Walton’s paper led to a debate about fictional emotions that still goes on today, and in particular about a problem which is often referred to by the term »paradox of fiction«. The paradox is constituted by three apparently plausible premises that cannot be conjointly true at the same time:
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小说的悖论——对近期发展、开放问题和当前研究领域的简要介绍,包括1975年至2018年的综合参考书目
整整40年前,《哲学杂志》的读者第一次听说有一个叫查尔斯的人坐在椅子上看电影。在影片的某个时刻,一个绿色的黏液开始靠近摄像机。查尔斯的脉搏加快了,手心开始冒汗,他紧紧抓住椅子的扶手。看完电影后,他说他真的很害怕黏液。除了观察到怪物和电影观众自70年代以来已经走了很长一段路之外,这个案子似乎没有什么特别有趣的。然而,查尔斯已经出名了——至少在哲学家、美学家和文学评论家中是如此。当然,原因是Kendall L. Walton的开创性论文《害怕虚构》,在这篇论文中,他既怀疑查尔斯对自己情感状态的判断是正确的,又提出了一个普遍的问题,即针对虚构实体的情感反应(从现在起我们将其称为“虚构情感”)在结构上是否与针对真实实体的情感相同(参见Walton 1978)。连同科林·雷德福的文章»我们如何被安娜·卡列尼娜的命运所感动?沃尔顿的论文引发了一场关于虚构情感的辩论,直到今天仍在继续,特别是关于一个经常被称为“虚构悖论”的问题。悖论是由三个貌似合理的前提构成的,它们不能同时为真:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Literary Theory
Journal of Literary Theory LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Die Autonomie der Literatur auf dem Prüfstand. Bourdieus feldtheoretischer Ansatz als Alternative zu soziologistischen Kurzschlüssen Experiencing Literary Audiobooks: A Framework for Theoretical and Empirical Investigations of the Auditory Reception of Literature Autor und Subjekt im lyrischen Gedicht: Rezension und Neukonzeption einer Theorie der lyrischen Persona Die Literaturautonomie im deutschen Rechtssystem. Grenzen, Widersprüche und literaturtheoretische Potenziale Ästhetische Autonomie zwischen Ethik und Ästhetik
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1